Official Cronulla Sharks Board + Management
- Thread starter Google News
- Start date
Ummmmm... the "technicality" is the Club's Constitution... you know, that document that, amongst others, the Directors are sworn to uphold.
But hey, let's not let mere legalities like the Club's Constitution get in the way of running the De La ticket!
Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from the Sharkies Election Notice of 2 March 2013:
A.Snowden
Jaws
Yeah I found that funny fitz..wait for the bitching and moaning about this technicality. Its not a technicality at all. Its one of the fundamental rules of eligibility. If you arent eligible then you aren't eligibl. Pretty simple.
Also that last paragraph. The quote about revenue being the oxygen of the club and saying we currently have none. What a crock. We are where we are (surviving) because of the current board and previous chairman. We are also doing better financially than many other clubs in the comp
Also that last paragraph. The quote about revenue being the oxygen of the club and saying we currently have none. What a crock. We are where we are (surviving) because of the current board and previous chairman. We are also doing better financially than many other clubs in the comp
I'm not sure.
That'd be a question for the Returning Officer, Jeff Morris the GM of Sharkies Leagues Club.
I'll be seeing him at some stage of today. Will follow up and get back to you.
And iam also pretty sure we still have the lowest revenue of all the NRL clubs. We may be asset rich but we are cash poor so i think he has a point.
I dont want the De la inolvement on the board but there's also some good candidates amongst these guys that can be added to a couple of the existing board members. I want to see the board end up with a mix of both.
Shark
Grey Nurse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 9
I'm leading towards Coleman (chair), Douglas, Kerr, Irvine, Tiernan, Dunphy, Sorenson, Keogh and one other.
Good, balanced board with some new faces, incumbents and everything from ex-players, corporate heavyweights, legal minds, shire identities and supporter base representation. Can't ask for more than that.
Good, balanced board with some new faces, incumbents and everything from ex-players, corporate heavyweights, legal minds, shire identities and supporter base representation. Can't ask for more than that.
josh11223344
Jaws
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 12,087
- Reaction score
- 61
I am really starting to dislike these cocky pricks on the unity ticket.
Close to the mark IMO but I'd lose Sorensen and Irvine from that list.
Fitzy2513
Oceanic Whitetip Shark
I have just been speaking with my friend and nominee for the board, Peter Cobb. He has just signed up and is awaiting authorization to come in here. He is a former Police prosecutor and currently pratices law. I have had numerous dealing with him both professionally as a Police officer and socially as a friend. He has signed up to LU to answer any questions over there in a open and honest manner. Expect him to do the same in here once given authorization.
Peter-Cobb
Mako Shark
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
My authorisation has come through and plenty of issues to talk about.
I open the discussion as to why "shark" and "samshark" and "gando2230" are so confident in many of the present board?;I would like this blog to remain as a genuine peaceful discussion which is what blogs are for. I posted on League Unlimited yesterday the following:
"The Daily Telegraph reported that current Board member Peter Kerr "strongly advised" Sharks players to accept incentives to plead guilty to allegations ASADA may have made. As reported "Player agents suspect that is why Sharks directors - who would be personally liable in the event of liquidation - are pushing hard for a deal to be finalised."
"Then the Sydney Morning Herald reports on the Sharks legal fees. The SMH asked Board member Craig Douglas whether the Sharks are paying Kavanagh $6000 per day, and Douglas refused to confirm how much remuneration was being paid. Don't forget the Board is also paying Allan Sullivan QC (? per day) and Richard Redman (? per day). Why can't Douglas tell us how much is being paid?
What are the Board hiding? If the Board decision is so good well let's see the transparency and open behaviour expected
of a Board of directors. Membership is $95 and there are alot of $95 getting handed out."
I cannot understand how Board members Kerr and Douglas would convince you that a vote for them is a vote for a better Sharks. You also mention "legal minds" in your list of people you would vote for. I ask where are they? Certainly there may be lawyers on the current board but do you consider that the "legal minds" have benefited the club? And if the "legal minds" are so good why hire help at reportedly pay out from a cash strapped club $6000 per day? Plus hiring other legal assistance. There is no value in voting in "legal minds" who have to brief everything out.
I also want to mention Keogh's comments reported this morning when he said "I mean, this isn't an under 10s soccer club we're talking about. We're trying to bring a group of high-profile businessmen in to run the club rather than, with respect, local people who are fans.". I don't know where Keogh was born, or what sport he followed as a boy. But what I can say is that I was born in the Shire and I would like to think that I ended up as a local who has done pretty well. After leaving school I started by washing "glasses and ashtrays" at Sharks Leagues Club and worked there for many years. I am now a solicitor in my own practice.I would support anyday of the week someone with the ability and passion up against someone just with the ability.Happy to hear your thoughts
I open the discussion as to why "shark" and "samshark" and "gando2230" are so confident in many of the present board?;I would like this blog to remain as a genuine peaceful discussion which is what blogs are for. I posted on League Unlimited yesterday the following:
"The Daily Telegraph reported that current Board member Peter Kerr "strongly advised" Sharks players to accept incentives to plead guilty to allegations ASADA may have made. As reported "Player agents suspect that is why Sharks directors - who would be personally liable in the event of liquidation - are pushing hard for a deal to be finalised."
"Then the Sydney Morning Herald reports on the Sharks legal fees. The SMH asked Board member Craig Douglas whether the Sharks are paying Kavanagh $6000 per day, and Douglas refused to confirm how much remuneration was being paid. Don't forget the Board is also paying Allan Sullivan QC (? per day) and Richard Redman (? per day). Why can't Douglas tell us how much is being paid?
What are the Board hiding? If the Board decision is so good well let's see the transparency and open behaviour expected
of a Board of directors. Membership is $95 and there are alot of $95 getting handed out."
I cannot understand how Board members Kerr and Douglas would convince you that a vote for them is a vote for a better Sharks. You also mention "legal minds" in your list of people you would vote for. I ask where are they? Certainly there may be lawyers on the current board but do you consider that the "legal minds" have benefited the club? And if the "legal minds" are so good why hire help at reportedly pay out from a cash strapped club $6000 per day? Plus hiring other legal assistance. There is no value in voting in "legal minds" who have to brief everything out.
I also want to mention Keogh's comments reported this morning when he said "I mean, this isn't an under 10s soccer club we're talking about. We're trying to bring a group of high-profile businessmen in to run the club rather than, with respect, local people who are fans.". I don't know where Keogh was born, or what sport he followed as a boy. But what I can say is that I was born in the Shire and I would like to think that I ended up as a local who has done pretty well. After leaving school I started by washing "glasses and ashtrays" at Sharks Leagues Club and worked there for many years. I am now a solicitor in my own practice.I would support anyday of the week someone with the ability and passion up against someone just with the ability.Happy to hear your thoughts
Shark
Grey Nurse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 9
Peter if you had any remote involvement with, or you followed to any degree, our journey over the past four years you'd understand why some of us have faith in members of the current board.
The property development is something remarkable, and you do those responsible for getting it approved a great disservice by being so dismissive of their efforts. That project is largely the work of Irvine & Douglas.
It's also a matter of record that St George bank were a breath away from foreclosing on our $14M debt for a period of about 18 months, from Christmas 2009 until about half way through 2011. Again, Irvine & Douglas are the two people who were predominantly responsible for keeping them happy.
As for the legal aspects, you're speculating, as we all are, but any fool has to admit that there's a problem somewhere, the making of which would appear to be due to the rouge actions of a small number of people. Until the whole truth comes out any use of the ASADA matter as an election issue is dangerous and irresponsible, for the sheer fact that no candidate outside the incumbent directors have seen the detail. You may well promise the world, but when presented with facts upon your election you may fold like a house of cards.
As for sponsorship - the recruitment of Patrick Woods was again the work of Irvine & Douglas, he has changed the way Cronulla value their sponsorship and a few long-term 'backers' have bailed out as a result. That, in my view, is a good thing. In one case I'm aware of, a company was 'sponsoring' us on the condition they were perpetually awarded a lucrative contract, worth far more than their 'cash' sponsorship. Irvine & co brought a halt to that. How is that poor governance?
Thanks for getting on here and allowing us to engage with you.
The property development is something remarkable, and you do those responsible for getting it approved a great disservice by being so dismissive of their efforts. That project is largely the work of Irvine & Douglas.
It's also a matter of record that St George bank were a breath away from foreclosing on our $14M debt for a period of about 18 months, from Christmas 2009 until about half way through 2011. Again, Irvine & Douglas are the two people who were predominantly responsible for keeping them happy.
As for the legal aspects, you're speculating, as we all are, but any fool has to admit that there's a problem somewhere, the making of which would appear to be due to the rouge actions of a small number of people. Until the whole truth comes out any use of the ASADA matter as an election issue is dangerous and irresponsible, for the sheer fact that no candidate outside the incumbent directors have seen the detail. You may well promise the world, but when presented with facts upon your election you may fold like a house of cards.
As for sponsorship - the recruitment of Patrick Woods was again the work of Irvine & Douglas, he has changed the way Cronulla value their sponsorship and a few long-term 'backers' have bailed out as a result. That, in my view, is a good thing. In one case I'm aware of, a company was 'sponsoring' us on the condition they were perpetually awarded a lucrative contract, worth far more than their 'cash' sponsorship. Irvine & co brought a halt to that. How is that poor governance?
Thanks for getting on here and allowing us to engage with you.
I wouldnt say Iam confident in many of the current board. I dont like the way they have handled the drug saga at all but they did get the development over the line whislt managing to keep the club afloat so Ill probably vote for about four of them. My personal opinion is that I think the club needs to go up a level in terms of the quality of personal on the board. I think there is a lack of business acumen and thats why I like the look of some of the people on Keogh's ticket. I will not however vote for McConnell and others directly linked to De la. At the end of the day Ill be voting for who think are best qualified to increase revenue for the club. Thats the most important issue here. Who is best qualified to increase club revenue and take the club forward.
So that brings me to you Peter. What skills will you bring to the table? I am currently a serving officer myself so Id like to think I am familiar with some of the qualities you may offer as a person but tell me how you will increase revenue and take the club a step closer to the big end of town.