Official Cronulla Sharks Board + Management

[Garbs]

I cannot understand how Board members Kerr and Douglas would convince you that a vote for them is a vote for a better Sharks.

Peter - I reckon you'd do well not to trash these blokes if you entertain any serious thoughts of convincing people around here to vote for you. People like Kerr and Douglas effectively saved the Sharks when they were on the brink of death.

Let's hear what you bring to the table other than trash talk.

 

[evertonshark]

My thoughts exactly Garbs.

 

[Shark]

Peter you really do need to so some homework mate.

Judge the likes of Douglas, Irvine, Kerr, Tiernan & co on their performance over the long term.

In the case of Irvine & Douglas, as previously stated, that 'long term' spans four long, hard, gruelling and unforgiving years full if personal sacrifice.

You seem to be focussing on four miserable weeks. While errors of judgement may have occurred in those four weeks, it's still grossly unfair to these very loyal club servants to be so critical of their overall tenure.

 

[Peter-Cobb]

To "shark" and "everton shark" and "garbs" I appreciate the feedback but still remain entirely unconvinced. Douglas, Irvine, Tiernan and Kerr are not being judged on "four miserable weeks". They are being judged on where we are now. You are all obviously keen sharks supporters and that puts us all in the same boat. However, according to all reports (SMH March 9) under the heading of "Is this the end for the Sharks?" comes the quote "Cronulla are facing the prospect of collapsing altogether". Then came reports of how the ASADA mess was handled, people suing the Club and so on.

You have to get real here. The Sharks are not in a great position. The names mentioned before have directed us these past four years and this is what we are left with. I don't think it is good enough. Not even close. They may have put in a lot of effort but that strengthens the argument that they just are not up to it.

I have witnessed Newtown, North Sydney, Illawarra, Balmain and so on go. I do not want to sit idly by and watch the Sharks follow suit.

The property Deal was started years ago. We were supposed to paid a trailer for each year. Has that arrived?

 

[Shark]

Thanks Peter. I've read enough to leave you off my ballot paper now. Congrats for nominating and thanks for fronting up in here.

 

[Garbs]

Peter - for a candidate for the board, I'm surprised that you're so uninformed. There's plenty of information available about the financial position of the Sharks in 2009 as compared to now.

You've correctly identified that the Sharks are not in a great position. We're not a powerhouse club like Canterbury or South Sydney. But we're a lot better off than we would have been without the people you're unjustifiably attacking, who steered the club from the brink of insolvency to the point where we now have minimal debt and the prospect of a future.

You've signed up here to promote your candidacy - so please, tell us all about your expertise and what you would have done differently had you been on the past four years. It's very easy to attack others and drag them down, but it's all very hollow if you can't promote alternatives yourself.

So, two direct questions that I'd like to see answered:

a) What expertise can you bring to the board of the Sharks?
b) What would you have done differently when the club was on the brink of insolvency in 2009?

 

[samshark]

To "shark" and "everton shark" and "garbs" I appreciate the feedback but still remain entirely unconvinced. Douglas, Irvine, Tiernan and Kerr are not being judged on "four miserable weeks". They are being judged on where we are now. You are all obviously keen sharks supporters and that puts us all in the same boat. However, according to all reports (SMH March 9) under the heading of "Is this the end for the Sharks?" comes the quote "Cronulla are facing the prospect of collapsing altogether". Then came reports of how the ASADA mess was handled, people suing the Club and so on.

You have to get real here. The Sharks are not in a great position. The names mentioned before have directed us these past four years and this is what we are left with. I don't think it is good enough. Not even close. They may have put in a lot of effort but that strengthens the argument that they just are not up to it.

I have witnessed Newtown, North Sydney, Illawarra, Balmain and so on go. I do not want to sit idly by and watch the Sharks follow suit.

The property Deal was started years ago. We were supposed to paid a trailer for each year. Has that arrived?

Peter, I wish you all the best in your nominations but some of the people your debating with are MORE than just supporters of the current board so they are not going to share your view regardless and they are also correct in that they should be judged on the last four years, not four weeks.

I do think it would help your cause greatly by not quoting media articles because you should know full well most are not accurate, and instead focus on how you can take the club forward. I asked the question last night, tell me the skills you have that can increase revenue for the club.

I want astute businessman on our board not just good blokes who live in the shire or the CSSC.

 

[fitz]

I asked the Returning Officer yesterday.

A valid vote must contain eight ticks on the approved ballot form.

Any more or less will deem that vote invalid.

 

[Shark]

I asked the Returning Officer yesterday.

A valid vote must contain eight ticks on the approved ballot form.

Any more or less will deem that vote invalid.

Thanks Fitz.

 

[Frenzy]

I asked the Returning Officer yesterday.

A valid vote must contain eight ticks on the approved ballot form.

Any more or less will deem that vote invalid.

So you can "split" the ticket and still have a valid vote?

For me the best looks like being something old and something new.

 

[Frenzy]

Peter, I wish you all the best in your nominations but some of the people your debating with are MORE than just supporters of the current board so they are not going to share your view regardless and they are also correct in that they should be judged on the last four years, not four weeks.

I do think it would help your cause greatly by not quoting media articles because you should know full well most are not accurate, and instead focus on how you can take the club forward. I asked the question last night, tell me the skills you have that can increase revenue for the club.

I want astute businessman on our board not just good blokes who live in the shire or the CSSC.

I agree with this. I haven't discounted you yet Peter but your use of the media to support your nomination is wearing thin. We've all read it so you aren't telling us anything new. I asked you at LU what ideas you had but you dodged that in a rather political way.

Need some substance please Peter.

 

[Fitzy2513]

I have declared my alliance. Putting that aside I think the question about remuneration is a fair one. Based on the fact that we have 4 legal people sitting on our board, why out source ? Remember during the last few elections words like open and transparent were being thrown around.

If those 4 legal minds cant conduct their OWN internal investigation, why the hell are they on the board ? Then to have Kavangah sit side by side with the deputy at the press conference just further highlights this suspicion.

 

[fitz]

So you can "split" the ticket and still have a valid vote?

For me the best looks like being something old and something new.

Yes!

In the best interest of the Club, I'd STRONGLY recommend that people assess the merits of EACH of the candidates and not follow blindly any particular ticket.

The De La Salle "Unity" ticket does have a few potentially good Directors. However, I believe personally it would be disastrous for that ticket to have control of the Club.

Also, I must reiterate a comment I made previously.

A functional Board is not about having people with skills in a small area of expertise. We're hearing lots about "business acumen" at the moment - that is only a part of what makes a Board great.

We need some continuity, balance, diversity and vision.

I am unimpressed with people who choose to run negative, bitchy campaigns.

 

[Shark]

If those 4 legal minds cant conduct their OWN internal investigation, why the hell are they on the board ? Then to have Kavangah sit side by side with the deputy at the press conference just further highlights this suspicion.

In all honesty I think the fact that the club chose to call in the likes of Kavanagh, Sullivan & Redman shows how seriously the board viewed the situation and they should be congratulated for recognising the need for highly specialised legal counsel for such a dangerous and critical case.

I have it on good authority from another club that several organisations (at least two other clubs AND the NRL) approached the three legal heavyweights named above soon after this scandal broke.

The reply "I'm sorry, but I've been retained by another party on this matter" was heard often in mid-February.

What does THAT tell you?

 

[Frenzy]

I have declared my alliance. Putting that aside I think the question about remuneration is a fair one. Based on the fact that we have 4 legal people sitting on our board, why out source ? Remember during the last few elections words like open and transparent were being thrown around.

If those 4 legal minds cant conduct their OWN internal investigation, why the hell are they on the board ? Then to have Kavangah sit side by side with the deputy at the press conference just further highlights this suspicion.

Because you don't go to a GP to get your hip replaced. You go to a specialist.

 

[Fitzy2513]

Because you don't go to a GP to get your hip replaced. You go to a specialist.

To investigate systematic failures into the management of the football department. Sounds specialist to me. Unless we are looking at from a liability angle or an arse covering exercise.

 

[Fitzy2513]

In all honesty I think the fact that the club chose to call in the likes of Kavanagh, Sullivan & Redman shows how seriously the board viewed the situation and they should be congratulated for recognising the need for highly specialised legal counsel for such a dangerous and critical case.

I have it on good authority from another club that several organisations (at least two other clubs AND the NRL) approached the three legal heavyweights named above soon after this scandal broke.

The reply "I'm sorry, but I've been retained by another party on this matter" was heard often in mid-February.

What does THAT tell you?

To be perfectly honest. I don't know what to think other then that everyone who has had any dealings with this issue, those who have touch it in some way from the government all the wall to our board have turned it into a cluster ****.

 

[ben]

About time a nominee got in here and discussed. i have heard enough and seen enough. You have my vote Peter. I am extremely impressed and have shown this thread to a number of people who also are impressed. Just a heads up though. People in here think all media are biased against the sharks. Its ridiculous. All media have an agenda against the sharks. With some inner sanctum club at somewhere where people meet to map out a plan to overtake the club. My god - X FILES. But i think you should keep engaging.

 

[samshark]

About time a nominee got in here and discussed. i have heard enough and seen enough. You have my vote Peter. I am extremely impressed and have shown this thread to a number of people who also are impressed. Just a heads up though. People in here think all media are biased against the sharks. Its ridiculous. All media have an agenda against the sharks. With some inner sanctum club at somewhere where people meet to map out a plan to overtake the club. My god - X FILES. But i think you should keep engaging.

What exactly did he discuss Ben?
So you're prepared to vote for a nominee purely because they jumped on a forum, declared their intention, quoted a few media articles and made a few criticisms. With votes like that Ben the club will definately end up in your neck of the woods.

 

[mtk]

I know its not the club's biggest problem right now, but why can't we have some female representation on the Board?
I am aware that two ladies were brought in post NZ sex scandal and post Zappia incident, but they have since departed and no prospects for more females.

I no longer live in the Shire, but I would have thought there must be some good candidates available that a ticket could have encouraged to join them.