Shark
Grey Nurse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 9
Well it's true, you've obviously read the election thread in that closed forum. Sure DI has plenty of support but there's notable opposition.
Agreed, I think it would be ideal to see either the election postponed for a couple of months, or a second election called by the newly-elected board (acting as caretakers), with all potential candidates given time to nominate and organise, and with more information on the table about the drugs issue. I don't know how it can be done within the constitution, but I think it would be the best outcome.
"tips" do you mind explaining why? I have no problem not receiving your vote, but up until today I don't see any other nominees on this site or others. They don't have to. I am simply pointing out where this "big picture" continually mentioned on here is headed. And if you can offer an explanation as to why we have a NRL appointed Cullen here when I keep getting told on this forum that the current Board have done such a great job, please explain that.
I have confirmed with the GM Jeff Morris and to vote one must attend the Club. No postal, not absentee, no proxy. I fail to see how that is representative of the members of the Sharks. A person can vote in the Federal or State elections by post, yet not for the Sharks. Unbelievable. At the conclusion of the election it will be interesting to see how many actual votes were cast. It must make the interstate and overseas members feel unimportant. For those who are sick, travelling or unable to get to the Club I find it an insult.
This has always been a rule, I'm guessing in the constitution. Perhaps one of those parts of the constitution that may have been being looked at for revision (I don't know that).Yes Peter.
I just noticed that, pretty poor effort.
And what about those members who don't live close by and who are still pasionate about the future of their club.
Even funnier that they will be sent one of these "who to vote for flyers",
Who's decision was that..................?
This has always been a rule, I'm guessing in the constitution. Perhaps one of those parts of the constitution that may have been being looked at for revision (I don't know that).
In the end there do need to be safeguards though to keep it a local club, e.g. if 5000 people from Perth decided they wanted a football club, and took over the board. Again I assume there are safeguards in the rules surrounding clubs that can safeguard against that.... but still there does need to be some checks and balances.
Thanks SF, I wasn't aware.
Still crazy that not 100% of members will get a say in their club.
I wonder how many members will bail on there membership, due to not being able to get there and vote. For a club the wants more members seems crazy.
But I don't make the rules.