Defend democracy at Tigerland

yes, Al they could end up with a series of presidents in the vein of Rudd, Gillard and Abbott

Im not a Hardwick fan (although I hope Im wrong) but at the time they extended they were already going into the season proper and without an extension the media would've been in a feeding frenzy which certainly wouldn't be helpful either way. So I can only assume they felt they had to do something but two years (effectively three seasons) was wrong. The one year extension would've allowed them some room to breathe without having to worry too much about a payout at the end of 2016 if need be. Instead they're now back into that same space come start of next season. One thing im certain of, they wont hesitate this time the board, if the team is performing as it did in 2016. The cost benefit justification alone will be more than sufficient to swing the axe.

Why extend Hardwicks contract at all ? Failed to win an elimination final in three attempts demonstrating that he was not the coach to take them to the next level. He did a fairly good job in his early years but this year was his seventh and should have been his last with no contract payout required.

I disagree some of your sentiments Martin and not just the 100 members amendment. That in itself makes perfect sense IMO for reasons already stated above and is common in both the sporting and corporate world. Yes the football department has a lot to answer for in the recruitment of Yarran. Most of the Richmond supporters I know were completely against recruiting someone who sooked so openly and obviously had issues - later to be termed 'mentally fragile'. Likely that this was a major reason Dan Richardson cost himself the top job that Neil Balme now has. Yes the board got it wrong by extending Hardwick's contract by two seasons rather than one. One was the right number in order to take the media heat off a coach who had just successfully coached RFC into three successive finals series, the first time since Tom Hafey's five over 1971-75. The operating loss of A$80k is not something to ignore, however on a materiality scale it is not significant. Put in another in FY 16/17 with a much larger loss and then we can get concerned. The main reason for the loss is a significant take on depreciation and amortization of A$1.2m. Otherwise the board would have recorded the 12th straight operating surplus in a row. The club is debt free, appears to have recruited well on and off field and has included some strong assistants to Hardwick. I personally agree with the theory of no excuses for Hardwick - either he can coach or he cant and 2017 will tell. As for election of directors, I don't know about the timing of release of personal prospectuses you refer to, but I certainly read all four before I voted. That Dunne and Ryan were elected does say something about the quality of the candidates themselves and the board's endorsement of them or are you saying Casey and Wallace were better placed? Surely not. Don't speak for me as apathetic or blindly following the board. If anything you should know the speed at which this club has historically turned on the 'authorities' you refer to - being coaches and boards. No I think most members are anything but apathetic and they ARE running out of patience for strong, consistent on field performance. While most changes over this offseason have certainly been smart IMO, it will be Hardwick's head on the line next season and without doubt there will be zero tolerance for mediocrity in 2017. After the many years of off-field stability and financial success, you can safely bet the board wont fail to act if inexcusable mediocrity continues into the 2017 season.

Hal: Of course big four sticks will be there as I wrote the article, but I don't know if the others that you always lump me with will be there.

Martin: Spot on. This why it is vital that our constitution is not tampered with.

I agree entirely with this article. All those who label people like the "Malvern Crew" and "Focus on Footy" as "recalcitrant" are spot on. At least those posters are astute in one regard, but that's where it ends. Recalcitrant people are those who have an "obstinate and uncooperative attitude towards authority". That's exactly what a lot of people have with this board and they are an authority. Only one member of this board was actually initially elected by the members. The recent two challengers were hardly given a few lines by the club as a means of introduction whilst Kerry Ryan got a glowing essay. Kerry's campaign pitch went out early in the piece, the two challengers late. Oh that's democratic! The club changed the jumper colour to remove a point of difference with Wallace: petty. Oh and 100 signatures is "easy" is it? Go get them then next time you finish 13th and make an operating loss, and your board unanimously signs on an ordinary coach, yet to deliver (in March), for another two years, and you sign Yarran on, and you are at the bottom of the ladder in sponsorship dollars with no ground sponsor in one of Melbourne's best 'opportunity to see', etc, etc. Yeah, RFC is doing fine. Make it even harder for people to try to force cultural change. Most members are apathetic or blindly follow the board. It's about time those that fit into these categories wake up and realise that this club is in trouble. Put club before board guys. This board has lost contact with grass root members, if it ever had it. So when you sign FOR all the constitutional changes, remember, you are doing it forever. For your generation and all those to come. It's no harm if you say no; there will be harm if you say yes.

No reason they can't meet in the middle. For example, if a petition gets 100 signatures, the club could be required to post the petition to its website. Then they could introduce a higher threshold for getting the issue to an EGM.

0.14% of membership forcing an EGM - how often does that happen? You can get 100 ningnongs on Facebook to sign anything.

It may seem on face value a low threshold, but the need (in most arrangements) to ensure they are real people and prepared to put their names to such an effort means it is not as easy as it seems. The recent kerfuffle at Richmond ended with a whimper. The 'Focus on Footy' withdraw their challenge. It prompted the Board to respond. They did some good things arguably, but this attempt to up the threshold stinks. Members have very little recourse as it is - they are increasingly treated like cash cows by club directors and expected to put up with what in most cases is a cohort of incestuous well connected Melbourne establishment types that face little accountability. I accept that directors of AFL clubs are volunteers, but there is a great deal of personal benefit for those in the business world especially. Club director positions should not be a platform for schmoozing and once in, a way of sandbagging against challenge. Any mechanism that ensures greater accountability and transparency is OK by me. Especially when so many members are irrational, meaning that they will buy a membership regardless of results and put up with some pretty bad practices and terrible performance. I am a Carlton member and have paid up every year. If I was rational I would have walked away years ago.

Agree, it should be a percentage rather than a raw number. Of course when the constitution was drawn up, this kind of arrangement was probably the norm, but it is not now. If there was a significant issue, there should be a significant number to force the EGM.

Sure, there’s nothing wrong with it, but democracy in action is also everyone else expressing their view that a policy that allows a board to be dragged in for an EGM because 100 cranks want to push a barrow is silly and should be changed.

I can see Mario from the petrol station, John from Croydon, Trout, and big four sticks there with their pitch forks out, but that being said I agree with the sentiments expressed. Governance in sport is an important issue. Yes the article is a sob story, but let's face it any article about the woes of Richmond is a sob story. Yes it is a call to arms, but there is nothing wrong with a passionate person rallying supporters to cause that is about challenging an elite executive that wants to entrench their power.

Democracy appears to be a failing model wordl wide, so I don't see why Richmond FC should get their knickers in a knot about sticking with it ! - it has hardly delivered them success !

100 is too low for a club with Richard's current membership size. You can find 100 ratbag members to support any silly thing, at any club. 100 members out of 70,000 wanting something and forcing the club to hold an EGM (with the cost, time etc involved) is not democratic. I've seen member groups on Facebook, catch them at the right time you could get 100 members to support sacking a premiership coach, tanking the rest of the season, you name it. Maybe 10% is slightly too high, but if there is real genuine majority support for something and it just can't wait until the AGM, surely you'd be able to get 10%? Modern social media makes it much, much easier to rally the members after all. Generally, the point of electing a board for a year is to let them get on with it and then change the board at the next AGM if you don't like them. Not to let every decision go to an EGM if a mere 100 members disagree with it.

yep 100 out of 70,000 seems a very low threshold for an EGM. the proof is in the eating of the pudding and 2 attempted but misguided coups in 3 months at RFC seems a decent reason for the Board to seek to reform the constitution.

The rules at Richmond are archaic and dangerous. The fact that 100 members could constantly hold the club to ransom is really frightening. If Richmond has a membership of 50,000 voting members then the 10% would be 5.000. for a block trying to make change this wouldn't be that hard to come up with if the feeling for change was strong. Mind you 10% is seen as the acceptable democratic norm in these situations. To say that 100 members is democratic is really naive. The truth is you could get 100 recalcitrant members who just hate the people on the board and want to be destructive and they can hold the club to ransom by constantly threatening an EGM. Oh! I forgot that has been happening for the last three years. Funny that. The 10% is democratic whereas 100 members is not, it is too few. If you had 1,000 members 100 would be democratic.

Leighton,I tend to totally agree with your post. Back in the 'old' days governance of sport was completely different. People used to pretty much be born into the club they followed and even the sports they watched,the rich stayed rich,the poor stayed poor. Now is completely different,there's more money involved,different sports for people to choose and people don't necessarily follow the club their families did. The structures of clubs are more important than ever and we are seeing it already. Clubs that are moving with the times are seeing success,those locked in the old ways or thinking success from past eras will naturally roll over are finding out this is no longer the case. The smarter clubs,with the smarter administration and the more innovative moving forward will now be the successful clubs. History is going to count for very little moving forward to where we are moving now. In some cases it could even be a hindrance.

Fair point - it is the off season and the AGM period though and the Essendon saga is pretty much done. I would congratulate the Roar on publishing this and hope for much more. The governance of sports in Australia gets very little attention, but given the money and public interest it should be subject to much more scrutiny. The different governance structures at play in the AFL, Aussie rules leagues and many other sports have a major impact upon their fortunes. A great many of the problems and successes of various codes are often due to the governance models in place.

Thanks for the reply. It probably is a bit cry to arms but it is an issue that will have two sides. I think that is what the sites for,I like the article and it could offer a bit of debate. I can see this a bit both ways and like I said in my earlier post I think the timing is pretty poor more than the issue. The board need to get the club winning games and running at a profit before they worry about this kind of stuff. Differing opinions are good as long as people play the ball and not the man,there is a tendency of late that people should only post what we agree with which is a bigger problem than some of the articles themselves. I could actually see myself changing or differing in my thoughts on this issue while reading some of the opinions of others.