Damian Irvine

[sharkafar]

Ok, so what we clearly have here is basic irrefutable doubt as to whether the office holders of the Board are actually reflective of the membership's desired representation.If that is the case... and under the recent circumstances that the Club has had to endure (with regards to a general public perception that the previous election processes has been both tarnished and flawed) surely the current Board should adhere to what is morally correct ... and not necessarily pedantically legally or logistically correct... and undertake a new election process to get a true representation of whom the Club's membership wishes to represent them.If the purpose of an election is to source an accurate and reflective plebiscite, then the only tenable thing would be for there to be another extraordinary Board election to be called.There can be no doubt then that the Board is a duly elected body which serve to represent the wishes of the membership.At this time in our Club's tortuous times, we must be more than crystal clear that we have complete and absolute executive and managerial transparency and accountability.As fans, we have drawn what appears to be a very defined line in the sand as to The Sharks of the past and The Sharks of the future. It is just a huge pity that there are people out there who seem reluctant to embrace this watershed moment and attempt to resist a complete clean out and rebuild.I'm not saying for a moment that the current Board may or may not be good in what they do and be good for the Club - what I am saying though is that The Sharks must go to the every possible degree to ensure that they are completly and entirely squeaky clean with their business practises.*Justice must not only be done - but be seen to be done, willed to be done.... and KNOWN to be done.

Well put sir.

 

[Shark]

Fitz and Sharkafar, you're both missing the point.

About 1000 members voted. This is the same number of members who have, on average, voted for the past 30 flippin' years.

So the so-called 'plebiscite' has actually already been held. Those 1000-odd members DID vote for change, electing every AVAILABLE new candidate to the board.

If you go to any recognised text on Corporate Governance, you will read that wholesale 'sackings' of boards or 'abandonment of leadership' situations rarely end well for any organisation. You are effectively asking the current board to jump overboard, and leave the ship with an unattended rudder. No corporate governance specialist - indeed, no government or corporate regulator - would endorse such action as being appropriate in this instance.

A regulating authority would ask for proof that change at some level had occurred. They would also direct the board to ensure they have a mixed set of skills, for example legal, accounting, marketing, licenced club management, sporting administration, etc etc.

Now, here's where it gets REALLY un-democratic - IF the regulator is of the belief that the skills of the board members are NOT broad or varied or detailed enough, they will strongly lean on the organisation to 'buy in' the skills that are lacking. Sometimes they will ORDER it to happen. So, the members duly vote in a board, under the constitution of the organisation in accordance with electoral commission rules. The members (ill-informed, dopey buggers that they often are) will elect unqualified or unsuitable (but highly popular) people to the board. Then, the regulator 'suggests' that a few directors should quit, to make room for the remaining board members to APPOINT new directors with the sought-after skills.

It's happening in boardrooms all over the country, folks. Usually in Credit Unions and other mutuals, but certainly in the licenced club sector and most definitely in the overall commercial financial services sector.

So, it comes down to the fact that the change that is widely regarded as being necessary IS already happening, it is progressing at a pace that is healthy for the organisation - By this I mean it's manageable, and not creating unmitigated chaos across the entire organisation. It's also fully constitutional, legal, and - most importantly for my money - it's totally in line with what the MEMBERS asked for in May 2009.

If you don't like it, don't make broad statements in here about what is morally right, yada yada yada...Go and read the legal document that governs our club, go and get your 100 signatures, and THEN go and find several hundred people who will support you when, in 8 weeks time, you seek to move at an EGM that you wish to remove each director (one by one) and replace each director (one by one) with a nominee you have ready to install as your chosen new director.

Just make sure those chosen nominees have some pretty bloody good corporate governance skills in all the right areas...or the likes of ASIC, OLGR and others might be tapping your people on the shoulder.

And before you say 'our club isn't being transparent, blah blah blah', bear in mind these 'model' rules for club constitutions are defining the way hundreds (maybe thousands) of boards across the country operate...and they are totally sanctioned and endorsed by governments that YOU elect.

Back the new Sharks board as it stands. We really do not need a NEW new Sharks board, believe me...

 

[fancyman]

Not quite right.

He watches home games from the corporate box he has paid for himself for the past 12 or so years...

will he remove paul daughty out of marketing?

 

[sharkafar]

Fitz and Sharkafar, you're both missing the point.

About 1000 members voted. This is the same number of members who have, on average, voted for the past 30 flippin' years.

So the so-called 'plebiscite' has actually already been held. Those 1000-odd members DID vote for change, electing every AVAILABLE new candidate to the board.

If you go to any recognised text on Corporate Governance, you will read that wholesale 'sackings' of boards or 'abandonment of leadership' situations rarely end well for any organisation. You are effectively asking the current board to jump overboard, and leave the ship with an unattended rudder. No corporate governance specialist - indeed, no government or corporate regulator - would endorse such action as being appropriate in this instance.

A regulating authority would ask for proof that change at some level had occurred. They would also direct the board to ensure they have a mixed set of skills, for example legal, accounting, marketing, licenced club management, sporting administration, etc etc.

Now, here's where it gets REALLY un-democratic - IF the regulator is of the belief that the skills of the board members are NOT broad or varied or detailed enough, they will strongly lean on the organisation to 'buy in' the skills that are lacking. Sometimes they will ORDER it to happen. So, the members duly vote in a board, under the constitution of the organisation in accordance with electoral commission rules. The members (ill-informed, dopey buggers that they often are) will elect unqualified or unsuitable (but highly popular) people to the board. Then, the regulator 'suggests' that a few directors should quit, to make room for the remaining board members to APPOINT new directors with the sought-after skills.

It's happening in boardrooms all over the country, folks. Usually in Credit Unions and other mutuals, but certainly in the licenced club sector and most definitely in the overall commercial financial services sector.

So, it comes down to the fact that the change that is widely regarded as being necessary IS already happening, it is progressing at a pace that is healthy for the organisation - By this I mean it's manageable, and not creating unmitigated chaos across the entire organisation. It's also fully constitutional, legal, and - most importantly for my money - it's totally in line with what the MEMBERS asked for in May 2009.

If you don't like it, don't make broad statements in here about what is morally right, yada yada yada...Go and read the legal document that governs our club, go and get your 100 signatures, and THEN go and find several hundred people who will support you when, in 8 weeks time, you seek to move at an EGM that you wish to remove each director (one by one) and replace each director (one by one) with a nominee you have ready to install as your chosen new director.

Just make sure those chosen nominees have some pretty bloody good corporate governance skills in all the right areas...or the likes of ASIC, OLGR and others might be tapping your people on the shoulder.

And before you say 'our club isn't being transparent, blah blah blah', bear in mind these 'model' rules for club constitutions are defining the way hundreds (maybe thousands) of boards across the country operate...and they are totally sanctioned and endorsed by governments that YOU elect.

Back the new Sharks board as it stands. We really do not need a NEW new Sharks board, believe me...

*Phew* I tell you one thing that has come out of the last 6 months at the Sharks. I (and I'm guessing quite a few others) have definitely learned a lot about the governance and running of professional sporting clubs. And that's not a bad thing either.....
Food for thought. Cheers Shark.

 

[Bundy]

I'm not sure I understand this. Perhaps I'm reading wrongly but there seems to be people on here asking our Club and new Board to willfully act AGAINST it's constitution and/or AGAINST the law to do something supposedly morally right?
Do you understand the ramifications of a Club acting against it's own constitution or willfully breaking the law?

 

[Google News]

NRL: New chairman looks to haul Sharks out of 1970s

NRL: New chairman looks to haul Sharks out of 1970sNew Zealand HeraldSYDNEY - His first day on the job was marked by another off-field drama, but new Cronulla chairman Damian Irvine has vowed to haul the Sharks out of the ...and more »

Source: http://news.google.com/news/url?fd=R&objectid=10582048&sa=T&url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&usg=AFQjCNErJgk2G1gXw8o5rWOf9E1IhmjsUg

Sharks appoint new chairman
July 1, 2009 - 11:33AM
© 2009 AAP

His first day on the job was marked by another off-field drama, but new Cronulla chairman Damian Irvine has vowed to haul the Sharks out of the 1970s.

As staff were finishing a press release confirming the sacking of half Brett Seymour after a spate of alcohol-related incidents, businessman Irvine was explaining why it was time to be more than an armchair critic.

"This (land) development (proposal's) been on the cards for eight to 10 years and we've failed to progress at all with soil turning," he told AAP on Wednesday.

"We've also financially, and from a marketing point of view, declined in the last decade from where we were.

"We've sacked two coaches with massive payouts in that period of time.

"I've sat back and I would get frustrated along with a lot of other people.

"I thought I can sit back and be that critic ... or I get can in and have a go."

The club has endured a series of off-field incidents, including the Matthew Johns sex scandal and a female employee's black eye which led to the resignation of former CEO Tony Zappia, as well as a reported $12 million debt.

Asked who was to blame, Irvine said: "I probably blame familiarity.

"There's certainly been no lack of intent and care and love of the joint but I think the club, as are a lot of clubs, is still running on a structure that was successful or built for whatever reason in the `70s.

"The type of people ... and their experience and the balance of the board was pretty uneven with very similar people with similar skill sets.

" ... We haven't modernised as well and as quickly as we should have."

Irvine, who replaced long-serving chairman Barry Pierce, said he would set about overhauling the club's culture in a similar way to the Bulldogs' resurrection in 2009.

He said he had approached several women, including prominent sponsor Madeline Tynan, about the possibility of replacing Pierce on the Sharks board.

"We accept that the club has made errors, that we have erred and we have let people down," he said.

And Irvine said he was not assuming the multi-million dollar proposal to develop land adjacent to Shark Park, seen by the previous regime as the club's potential saviour, would be approved by council in August.

"We're unique to have that development opportunity but that aside we need to ... increase revenue streams outside of just regular, old fashioned football club revenue streams," he said.

"Some very basic principles have probably been let slide there over the last two or three years.

"We have a hangover like a lot of league clubs of laziness where the big (leagues club) grant has always been there and that's not going to be there in the future."

Asked if he could guarantee the Sharks, who mooted a partial relocation to Gosford under Zappia, would play out of Cronulla long-term, he said: "After what we've been through the last eight weeks I would be very loathe to guarantee anything of what the lay of the land may be next week."

Irvine's first priority will be to "win back the trust in our brand".

Then, an elusive first premiership.

"We've got to build a platform first," he said.

"It could be a year, it could be five depending on the bounce of the ball."

 

[KELPIE]

Wow, after all these thought provoking posts mine is going to seem quite immature....

... Gillard needs to go.

There is a GM coming up so I guess we can all see what comes out there before we make our opinion of the board. However to be honest I would not be upset if whatever processes needed to take place in order for a new election took place.

I also wouldn't be upset if they didn't hold an election IF Gillard stood down and it was explained how and why Craig Douglas was chosen.

 

[Bundy]

Someone else needs to be chosen soon too. Douglas was a replacement for Don Anderson. Barry has now stood down, his role of Chairman has been filled by one of the current Board, but that still leaves only 8 people operating a 9 person Board. This spot would have been offered to Tynan a numerous occasions, obviously she hasn't accepted it. I wonder who is yet to join our illustrious new leadership group?

 

[fitz]

Shark,

Thank you for your passionate response – the subject of Board elections is clearly something that you feel very close to and have a close personal interest.

I would like to clarify something though…

I do not profess to be a studier of Corporate Governance and Corporate Law – to tell you the truth, there are few things in this world I can imagine more boring.

I do however, have a very good understanding of Public Relations, Marketing and Media Management. My comments in this thread, as well as other threads within this forum, are drawn from my experience in those areas.

The single greatest threat that the Sharks face is the tarnishing of their one and only true asset – their name.

Unfortunately, the terms “Sharks” and “Cronulla” have become so derided and pilloried within the NRL and in the wider community, that the Club is facing a herculean task in trying to turn the general public around to re-embrace the Sharks “brand”.

Without a positive brand image – there will be no community support, there will be no sponsorship, there will be no quality players, there will be no inclusion in the NRL… there will be no Sharks.

The point that I am trying to make is that the Club must now go to extraordinary methods to reinvigorate its public image.

Forgive the hyperbole, but that reinvention has to be no less “fantastic” as Jesus Christ rising from the dead… or the Phoenix rising from the ashes. No half measures will do.

One of the great things about democracy is that there is a basic understanding that freedom of speech and freedom of choice are implicitly protected. A true democracy is made up of many people with a wide scope of differing opinions. Threads such as these offer an opportunity to discuss, understand and clarify... and also to challenge.

You make some valid points, but surely you’re not so arrogant to believe that your opinion is the only one with validity?

You end your post with the advice “We really do not need a NEW new Sharks board, believe me...”

I don’t care whether people have belief in you or not – However, I do care if they have belief in The Sharks.

 

[slide rule]

This is the way that I remember thing unfolding (please correct me if I’m wrong):

The old board announced during the voting period that a fresh election would be undertaken in a couple of months (which basically meant that the first election would be meaningless). Many members did not vote at the elections because they were promised a new election.

My opinion:

This is not a true democratic process. Quite frankly it stinks.

I don’t have an axe to grind either way, but many members of the old board are still on the current board. They shouldn’t have made a promise that they could not legally keep. Surely they should have referred to the club constitution or obtained legal advice before making such a statement. I feel it’s completely misleading and deceptive. It’s astonishing, especially considering that there are board members with legal qualifications.

I realise that the upcoming EGM is probably the only legal way in which this can be dealt with, but the whole thing does leave a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[Bundy]

This is the way that I remember thing unfolding (please correct me if I’m wrong):

The old board announced during the voting period that a fresh election would be undertaken in a couple of months (which basically meant that the first election would be meaningless). Many members did not vote at the elections because they were promised a new election.

My opinion:

This is not a true democratic process. Quite frankly it stinks.

I don’t have an axe to grind either way, but many members of the old board are still on the current board. They shouldn’t have made a promise that they could not legally keep. Surely they should have referred to the club constitution or obtained legal advice before making such a statement. I feel it’s completely misleading and deceptive. It’s astonishing, especially considering that there are board members with legal qualifications.

I realise that the upcoming EGM is probably the only legal way in which this can be dealt with, but the whole thing does leave a sour taste in my mouth.

100% agree with your sentiments re leaving a sour taste in your mouth and being shocked that such an incorrect and impossible promise can be made publicly. That said, it was made by the old Chairman, who had until yesterday, run this Club into the position it was in.

The same Chairman that made the promise that led what you have described as 'not true democratic process'. They SHOULDN'T have made a promise they couldn't keep. They SHOULD have researched all avenues before making such a statement. All this was led by one man who is, as of yesterday, no longer on the Board and non longer driving such improper actions.

The new Chairman and Directors, of which there 4 new and 4 'old' with one new to be appointed, now have the task of attempting to offer a situation to the members which is, as close to what Barry promised, without breaking the law or contradicting the Club's consitution. Not something they have to do by any means, but in the interest of upholding a blundering promise so as not to appear 'a closed office'.

I tip my hat to them for finding a way to make this happen. It opens a whole new era of transparency and accountability that we have scarcely seen before in our Club and that is why I'll be endorsing the Board as it stands.

 

[WillyInBris]

Many members did not vote at the elections because they were promised a new election.

Slide Rule how do you no that?

PS Barry has left the Sour taste in all our mouths and it will be around for a long time to come.

 

[Macca]

I'm not sure I understand this. Perhaps I'm reading wrongly but there seems to be people on here asking our Club and new Board to willfully act AGAINST it's constitution and/or AGAINST the law to do something supposedly morally right?
Do you understand the ramifications of a Club acting against it's own constitution or willfully breaking the law?

Why has Tynan not accepted this position? Being on the board would be the first step in insuring she can provide the Sharks members with what she believes they deserve.

Seems dodgy that she keeps knocking them back.

 

[WillyInBris]

Why has Tynan not accepted this position? Being on the board would be the first step in insuring she can provide the Sharks members with what she believes they deserve.

Seems dodgy that she keeps knocking them back.

I have been thinking about this and the only conclusion I can come to is that Madeline wants total control with her yes men under her as far as I am concerned that could be really dangerous.

If she is such a big sharks supporter why is Tynan a minor sponsor of the Sharks and a Major sponsor of the Goons.

Its all a bit fishy to me as well.

 

[Murphy]

Why has Tynan not accepted this position? Being on the board would be the first step in insuring she can provide the Sharks members with what she believes they deserve.

Seems dodgy that she keeps knocking them back.

can someone help me here she was voted onto the board and she has knocked back what?

 

[Macca]

can someone help me here she was voted onto the board and she has knocked back what?

Tynan was asked prior to the election to nominate along with several others. Obviously she didn't nominate.

Since Don Anderson stood down she has reportedly been asked to take up that vacancy or the vacancy of Barry Pierce and has declined.

I don't understand why.

 

[Murphy]

ok i get it now thanks mate.

 

[pandapat]

I have been thinking about this and the only conclusion I can come to is that Madeline wants total control with her yes men under her as far as I am concerned that could be really dangerous.

If she is such a big sharks supporter why is Tynan a minor sponsor of the Sharks and a Major sponsor of the Goons.

Its all a bit fishy to me as well.

Ditto.

 

[slide rule]

Fitz and Sharkafar, you're both missing the point.

About 1000 members voted. This is the same number of members who have, on average, voted for the past 30 flippin' years.

So the so-called 'plebiscite' has actually already been held. Those 1000-odd members DID vote for change, electing every AVAILABLE new candidate to the board.

I don’t think it is a fair to comparison to make. There were a lot of angry members this time round, which I would assume, would result in greater voter numbers than your average run of the mill election. A lot of people become complacent and don’t vote unless they have something to say. I believe more people would have voted if they did not come out and make such a statement about holding a fresh election.

Slide Rule how do you no that?

PS Barry has left the Sour taste in all our mouths and it will be around for a long time to come.

Well, I did it myself and I did speak to a couple of other members at the Leagues Club that were doing the same thing. Although, I am assuming that ‘many’ others did it. Maybe it was only a few. I do think it was very misleading though.

Look, I’m not particularly worried about the outcome of the election myself. I don’t really care and to be honest, it probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference to the result (if any, considering that all the new candidates got elected). I’m personally not dissatisfied with the new board at this stage. I actually think it’s beneficial to have some old and some new members (as it is now), as the old members would have a greater understanding of the activities of the club over the last couple of years.

I just think that it was incredibly careless to make such a statement and the practical implications should have been properly investigated before they said anything of that nature.

 

[Garbs]

I just think that it was incredibly careless to make such a statement and the practical implications should have been properly investigated before they said anything of that nature.

Absolutely. It was a terrible thing to promise, when it is both unconstitutional and therefore illegal to back it up.

But the promise was made by Barry Pierce, as supported by the old board. Most of them are now gone, and more may yet fall on their swords. There's not a whole lot that can be done.

If you want to have your say, get down to the General Meeting in August and you can have your vote on whether or not to endorse the new board. If you don't want to endorse the new board, go forth and get the 100 signatures needed to force an EGM to vote out whichever sitting board members you don't agree with. The structure remains in place to make changes... so there's no point sitting online and having a whinge about it, go out and fix it.