Official Cronulla Sharks Board + Management

[fizman]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate your efforts. Peter, my general thoughts are that this is a far more difficult challenge than most people would be acutely aware of. My view is that if you were to be voted onto the Board, your eyes would be opened and it would be a case of "Ah, so this is how it all works" and I am not suggesting it would be limited to just yourself, but ALL new elected Board of Directors. I don't believe that some of the challenges are as easy as we may all believe.

With regards to free to air TV, why do the Panthers get so many TV games? It wouldn't happen to be because Phil Gould is the General Manager of the Panthers? When it comes to Rugby League, it most certainly is not a level playing field - that's for sure.

A few questions if I may -

1. The Tynan Motor Group offered a major sponsorship (front of jersey) to the Sharks which they declined. Currently, the main sponsorship opportunities have been reduced by 50%. Would you have taken that sponsorship opportunity?

2. I really like the fact that you are Independent and judging by what you have presented you would have no "conflict of interests" in terms of benefiting from the new Development. What action would you take if you were made aware a newly appointed Director was in a position to financially benefit from the new Development?

3. As you have correctly pointed out, we are at the lower end of the supporter base spectrum in terms of numbers. What are your thoughts on growing the supporter base, whilst still keeping the Sharks in the Shire?

4. On a lighter note, would you be willing to vote for the return of our old Shark emblem? I would love to see the Sharks go back to our old Sharks emblem, just like Parra have done with theirs.

I thank you for opening yourself to answer questions and I wish you all the very best in the upcoming elections.

 

[Fitzy2513]

Just on the whole "outsourcing" thing...

I see it as crucial that the investigation was done with a level of professional separation.

How could an investigation done by Board members ever be acted upon in terms of wrongful dismissal?

Personally, I see the engagement of an external professional with specialised and relevant expertise as a bit of a master-stroke of corporate governance and the Board at the time should be applauded for that decision - not derided.

It's called transparency, independence and an avoidance of conflict of interest at all times.

The NRL's integrity unit was set up for similar reasons. Professional distance and separation of authority and delegation is paramount for it to be effective.

You wouldn't get an in-house person to audit the books or go to a tyre fitter to get your transmission fixed.

I mean imagine if the Police were responsible for investigating the Police...

Oh wait...

I see mother hen has arrived. Where is that comment about Johnny Mannah you made. Might give the newbie/s some insite into your 'at all costs' views.

 

[fitz]

I see mother hen has arrived. Where is that comment about Johnny Mannah you made. Might give the newbie/s some insite into your 'at all costs' views.

For the record, I like many other thinking people who've bothered to do some research, remain deeply concerned and alarmed that ANY of our players, including Jonny, were exposed to ANY of the alleged experimental treatments or supplements that have been mentioned in media reports.

 

[Peter-Cobb]

G'day Fizman. I agree with you when you say it is a far more difficult challenge than people realise. It is a massive challenge. As opposed to saying "Ah, so this is how it all works" I would prefer to think I would say "Let's get to the bottom of exactly what is happening here."

The Tynan Motor Group: I obviously do not know the terms of the deal so won't talk about Tynan. However what I would say is that all offers should be considered in context. If someone is prepared to invest in us, we should be prepared to discuss options. Without ever selling ourselves short or cheapening the brand, consider options. Those options being allowing the naming rights for a flexible term (not restricted to the entire season), and increasing other value to the client with promotions and name awareness. To me it seems a waste to have a company willing and keen to hand over money to be shunned.

What action would you take if you were made aware a newly appointed Director was in a position to financially benefit from the new Development? You cannot permit it to occur. It is a clear conflict. This has been the demise of many a fine Club is directors benefiting from their inside knowledge. There is no room for it and they must be removed.

How do we grow the supporter base whilst still keeping the Sharks in the Shire? This is a tough question. As I said yesterday we have to make the licensed club the venue of choice for entertainment and we have to offer options to the standard membership choices. We also have to make the membership mean something, that it allows for privileges away from Shark Park.

As for the Sharks emblem that is no lighter note. I have on my wall a photo of the first Sharks team ever from the Sun newspaper. I don't recommend a return to the big "V" but I do support a return to the Sharks emblem. It is cleaner and more distinct.

I thank you for your thoughts. You seem to be a genuine Sharks supporter.

I have noticed that many people on here don't contribute ideas or thoughts. They are only too happy to inform you of how a hit is made on a blog yet contribute zero when it comes to improving the Sharks. It may not be me who is voted in, but let's hear some ideas for membership growth, financial improvement, visions for the future. I know there is at least one current board member who blogs here so he can take note of what you say. C'mon post something positive.

As for Fitz, I don't know what you said about Manna, but you should have the courage to stand by what you say so can you re-post it so we can all read it?

 

[fitz]

Peter,

I took the liberty of a slight reformatting to make your post comprehensible.

Tip: If you're going to use an external editor to compose your posts, please proof your post after you do a cut and paste to ensure that any legacy formatting doesn't come through.

You can preview your post by following the "Go Advanced " button in the bottom right hand of the reply screen.

Cheers.

...

I have noticed that many people on here don't contribute ideas or thoughts. They are only too happy to inform you of how a hit is made on a blog yet contribute zero when it comes to improving the Sharks. It may not be me who is voted in, but let's hear some ideas for membership growth, financial improvement, visions for the future. I know there is at least one current board member who blogs here (*) so he can take note of what you say. C'mon post something positive.

As for Fitz, I don't know what you said about Manna, but you should have the courage to stand by what you say so can you re-post it so we can all read it?

(*) Incorrect.

... and to what I said that caused so much indignant breast-beating and outrage:

I hope that Jonny Mannah wasn't exposed to any of these alleged experimental treatments or supplements.

I stand by that comment.

Does anyone here hope that he WAS exposed to any of these alleged experimental treatments or supplements?

 

[WillyInBris]

G'day Fizman. I agree with you when you say it is a far more difficult challenge than people realise. It is a massive challenge. As opposed to saying "Ah, so this is how it all works" I would prefer to think I would say "Let's get to the bottom of exactly what is happening here."

The Tynan Motor Group: I obviously do not know the terms of the deal so won't talk about Tynan. However what I would say is that all offers should be considered in context. If someone is prepared to invest in us, we should be prepared to discuss options. Without ever selling ourselves short or cheapening the brand, consider options. Those options being allowing the naming rights for a flexible term (not restricted to the entire season), and increasing other value to the client with promotions and name awareness. To me it seems a waste to have a company willing and keen to hand over money to be shunned.

What action would you take if you were made aware a newly appointed Director was in a position to financially benefit from the new Development? You cannot permit it to occur. It is a clear conflict. This has been the demise of many a fine Club is directors benefiting from their inside knowledge. There is no room for it and they must be removed.

How do we grow the supporter base whilst still keeping the Sharks in the Shire? This is a tough question. As I said yesterday we have to make the licensed club the venue of choice for entertainment and we have to offer options to the standard membership choices. We also have to make the membership mean something, that it allows for privileges away from Shark Park.

As for the Sharks emblem that is no lighter note. I have on my wall a photo of the first Sharks team ever from the Sun newspaper. I don't recommend a return to the big "V" but I do support a return to the Sharks emblem. It is cleaner and more distinct.

I thank you for your thoughts. You seem to be a genuine Sharks supporter.

I have noticed that many people on here don't contribute ideas or thoughts. They are only too happy to inform you of how a hit is made on a blog yet contribute zero when it comes to improving the Sharks. It may not be me who is voted in, but let's hear some ideas for membership growth, financial improvement, visions for the future. I know there is at least one current board member who blogs here so he can take note of what you say. C'mon post something positive.

As for Fitz, I don't know what you said about Manna, but you should have the courage to stand by what you say so can you re-post it so we can all read it?

Hmmm.

You really haven't done any homework at all have you......maybe have a look around this very forum and do some reading and see what the people on this very forum have done for the sharks before you start posting bull**** like that.


I had more questions but I don't think I will bother.

 

[WillyInBris]

(*) Incorrect.

... and to what I said that caused so much indignant breast-beating and outrage:

I didn't realise I you looked under my blouse ;-)

 

[Shark]

I'd be interested to know who Peter thinks is the board member who 'blogs' here.

In case you think it's me Pete, I can assure you I'm most definitely not a director the Sharks, not have I ever been.

 

[SHARKSTER]

Peter, we re not the ones beating our chest and talking down the existing Board. We are not the ones running as a Director of the Sharks. You are!

You put a challenge out there on a public form for our ideas. Seriously, if that is your version of being a director, I am disappointed.

As a Board, I have no issue with the Board seeking opinions and ideas, if they feel it is warranted, after all surveys etc is all part of best practice, however if you don't have an original ideas yourself, don't use others to come up with your campaign ideas.

I really don't like negative campaigns and you appear to be running one.

 

[PMQ_Tony]

For crying out loud (or for #%&%# sake). It's embarrasing as a Sharks supporter to read some of the garbage floating around in this thread and other social media.

1. Whilst the current board may have made a couple of errors of late, they have done a bloody great job over the past few years (for nothing). For this they rate bloody high in my book and many others. Any new candidate downplaying their contribution (current board) to our survival wont get very far.

2. The media campaign being run by Buzz is a disgrace. He should throw his hat in the ring himself or piss off. Stating that Flanno will leave if DI is voted back onto the board is a scare tactic and is personal between himself and DI. He makes Flanno out to be as petty and as weak as himself. If I was Flanno I'd be pissed off.

3. If people have the guts to pop on here and put themselves out there, show respect. You dont have to vote for them, but dont talk down to them etc its not a good look. NOTE: There are a lot of quiet candidates out there saying nothing. What do they stand for?

Excuse spelling etc. Putting this together outside Coles in Port.

 

[Shark]

Tony, did Buzz really state that Flanno would leave if DI is returned to the board?

What a joke.

They might have a few things to work out with each other but Flanno and Irvine have been through very tough times - together.

More importantly they're both far better men than Phil Rothfield can ever hope to be.

He's a germ that Rothfield.

 

[PMQ_Tony]

Tony, did Buzz really state that Flanno would leave if DI is returned to the board?

What a joke.

They might have a few things to work out with each other but Flanno and Irvine have been through very tough times - together.

More importantly they're both far better men than Phil Rothfield can ever hope to be.

He's a germ that Rothfield.

He sure did. He sent out a tweet regarding it. Sad thing is that others are now running with it also.

 

[Boundos]

then for mine its up to flanno and DI to come out and deny those rumours. Their silence at this time is only going to lend credence to the rumour

 

[Shark]

Just read his tweet. That'll do me, what an irresponsible thing to put out there.

Flanno could hate Irvine to the end of the earth, he's not that stupid to take his bat and ball and run away. That's a Ricky move. If he did then good riddance, but it wouldn't come to that.

 

[Fitzy2513]

For the record, I like many other thinking people who've bothered to do some research, remain deeply concerned and alarmed that ANY of our players, including Jonny, were exposed to ANY of the alleged experimental treatments or supplements that have been mentioned in media reports.

Fitz I hate to nit pick or break down things you say, I suppose some old habits are hard to break. You talk about media reports here. Else where you dismiss them. Now Gallen come out on MMM and stated DIs brain explosion about players injecting horse drugs "is wrong". So my question is do you base your views on media reports or from some other more direct means?

If you have some inside info then I can understand your frustration as you may have more of the answers that others are asking. Please remember that most of the punters only have what is reported and see a distinct break between board and footy club.

I suppose the man on the street is going to see the development approval as ages ago and will base a lot of their decisions on recent developments and media reports. I can't see how people, smart people can't see that. Not everyone who is going to vote are members of this pro board forum. The board of late haven't instilled a lot of faith into all those ill informed punters.

Peter Cobb comes in here and speaks for the punter on the street and gets shot down cause he is ill informed. Come on, he is exactly what we need. I non yes man who will stand up and fight for what's right.

Go with your allegiance to the current board and be steam rolled by the De La ticket. Or look at it objectively and realise there needs to be a few sacrifices from the current board to keep the ship balanced.

DI has obviously worked his guts out for the club but it is beyond me how he thinks he is getting back in. Maybe the CSSC do wield extreme power, that in itself is not a good thing either.

 

[Born&bred]

Fitz I hate to nit pick or break down things you say, I suppose some old habits are hard to break. You talk about media reports here. Else where you dismiss them. Now Gallen come out on MMM and stated DIs brain explosion about players injecting horse drugs "is wrong". So my question is do you base your views on media reports or from some other more direct means?

If you have some inside info then I can understand your frustration as you may have more of the answers that others are asking. Please remember that most of the punters only have what is reported and see a distinct break between board and footy club.

I suppose the man on the street is going to see the development approval as ages ago and will base a lot of their decisions on recent developments and media reports. I can't see how people, smart people can't see that. Not everyone who is going to vote are members of this pro board forum. The board of late haven't instilled a lot of faith into all those ill informed punters.

Peter Cobb comes in here and speaks for the punter on the street and gets shot down cause he is ill informed. Come on, he is exactly what we need. I non yes man who will stand up and fight for what's right.

Go with your allegiance to the current board and be steam rolled by the De La ticket. Or look at it objectively and realise there needs to be a few sacrifices from the current board to keep the ship balanced.

DI has obviously worked his guts out for the club but it is beyond me how he thinks he is getting back in. Maybe the CSSC do wield extreme power, that in itself is not a good thing either.

WTF is your problem? You don't have to agree with fitz. I often don't.

But you're making this a personal attack.

Why do you hate the CSSC?

 

[Fitzy2513]

WTF is your problem? You don't have to agree with fitz. I often don't.

But you're making this a personal attack.

Why do you hate the CSSC?

Coming from the king of personal attacks ! But I suppose that your far too entitled to see that anyway. This is far from a personal attack Born and Bred I'm just saying how I see it Geez you of all people must understand that.

 

[Born&bred]

Coming from the king of personal attacks ! But I suppose that your far too entitled to see that anyway. This is far from a personal attack Born and Bred I'm just saying how I see it Geez you of all people must understand that.

lol at the bold. You didn't answer why you hate the CSSC?

 

[fitz]

I will say that I am dismissive of MOST media reports that I have read.

I am NOT however dismissive of the articles written by Roy Masters, Brad Walter, James Hooper and Jess Halloran... Brent Read's initial reporting was poor but has come good recently.

As far as the performance / non performance of the current Board... I'll get back to you before the end of the week.

 

[Fitzy2513]

lol at the bold. You didn't answer why you hate the CSSC?

I don't hate the CSSC at all. I stated that extreme power isn't a good thing. I don't want De La to have total control either. I'm after a balanced board, 2 finance men, 2 legal men and the rest top end business men. If we had a former sharks player that fitted either of those categories, I would push for his inclusion, but we haven't.

I will add that, like someone said earlier, it is a shame that no women are candidates. That would make it truly balanced.