I get all that and difficult to argue your points which is, of course, fine. But it’s not so much about powering the fanbase but maybe it’s more about clarity, just having a clearer understanding of the processes and decision making. I’m not one of those supporters who cares all that much about what goes on as I have very little knowledge of it. And I’m not all that unhappy about it. But I can understand there are other supporters like Joel & Mike who do care so I try to see it from their point of view as well. But I think you’ve got a much better understanding than me and I’ve enjoyed reading your replies.I think you’ve made some excellent points but just a question, could the Board be extended to 8 members to include a representative of the members do it isn’t diluted? And could there be a way of selecting nominations for that position that would prevent the more fanatical type from the process? I’m not sure I put that how I wanted but I’m bloody tired.Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that fans should have zero involvement in the running of a professional sports team/club/franchise. Because we love the club does not make us any more qualified to have input or make decisions. A reminder that Balmain and Wests we both "members run" which ran both clubs into the ground to the point where they had to merge and sacrifice their identity to survive.
The argument that by some means "fans/members" should be able to remove board members by some mechanism is also IMO a poor one. A board needs security of tenure so that it has the authority and confidence to make tough, hard or unpopular opinions for the good of the club without worrying that by doing something unpopular (which might be the right thing to do) that a fan uprising will cull them and strike down the decision making role of the board. I have seen fan forums overrun but little populist uprisings let alone unleashing that level of unprofessionalism on the club. Parra & Bulldogs, although seemingly stable now had fan led turmoil for years with factions wrecking their boards.
Finally IMO a "token" position on a board representing fans, simply dilutes the board in that that postion has no power.
TLDR, I think fans should be kept as far as possible from running the club.
Mate Ive probably ranted about this too much but here we go.
By increasing the number of seats on the board you by definition dilute it and that one seat is even less important. It is entirely pointless and powerless because it is not backed by any power or money nor is it part of a voting block on the board. It is also depriving a position that could be held by someone seleceted for their particular skill be it business/marketing/finance.
If there is a way of "selecting nominations" for that position, then it isnt a popularly elected position and is really an even more token position, basically a plant virtue signalling to the fans.
I dont see how a "fan" seat on the board to express the fans POV could provide more information to the board than they could glean from just reading this forum and WTF. They would get more information from these two forums because it is a wider subset of fans opinions.
A "fan controlled" board appointed Alan Jones as coach of Balmain, a "fan controlled" board sacked Gary Freeman for Brian Smith, a "fan controlled" board drove Balmain and Wests into the ground to the point they had to sacrifice their identity. Just saying.
We all care because we love the club and I understand (I think) Joel and Mikes position, i just disagree. I think fans should be kept away from the running of a professional organisation.
With regards transparency for the fans....then what? If there was a process that provided complete transparency of what the board was doing, guaranteed some of the fans will hate it no matter what. It also makes it difficult for the board to do unpopular things which might be necessary for the good of the club.. The home ground issue is the first that springs to mind. It seems to me that as fans here and in WTF we cant solve that problem.
Anyway, I think Ive covered my POV, Ill spare the forum form here.
The current board could probably be described as a "fan board"...there's very, very little football experience and knowledge on there. The Chairman is a perfect example - he's there primarily because he's a financially resourced fan.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
Agree 100% with keeping fans away from running a professional sporting organisation.I get all that and difficult to argue your points which is, of course, fine. But it’s not so much about powering the fanbase but maybe it’s more about clarity, just having a clearer understanding of the processes and decision making. I’m not one of those supporters who cares all that much about what goes on as I have very little knowledge of it. And I’m not all that unhappy about it. But I can understand there are other supporters like Joel & Mike who do care so I try to see it from their point of view as well. But I think you’ve got a much better understanding than me and I’ve enjoyed reading your replies.I think you’ve made some excellent points but just a question, could the Board be extended to 8 members to include a representative of the members do it isn’t diluted? And could there be a way of selecting nominations for that position that would prevent the more fanatical type from the process? I’m not sure I put that how I wanted but I’m bloody tired.Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that fans should have zero involvement in the running of a professional sports team/club/franchise. Because we love the club does not make us any more qualified to have input or make decisions. A reminder that Balmain and Wests we both "members run" which ran both clubs into the ground to the point where they had to merge and sacrifice their identity to survive.
The argument that by some means "fans/members" should be able to remove board members by some mechanism is also IMO a poor one. A board needs security of tenure so that it has the authority and confidence to make tough, hard or unpopular opinions for the good of the club without worrying that by doing something unpopular (which might be the right thing to do) that a fan uprising will cull them and strike down the decision making role of the board. I have seen fan forums overrun but little populist uprisings let alone unleashing that level of unprofessionalism on the club. Parra & Bulldogs, although seemingly stable now had fan led turmoil for years with factions wrecking their boards.
Finally IMO a "token" position on a board representing fans, simply dilutes the board in that that postion has no power.
TLDR, I think fans should be kept as far as possible from running the club.
Mate Ive probably ranted about this too much but here we go.
By increasing the number of seats on the board you by definition dilute it and that one seat is even less important. It is entirely pointless and powerless because it is not backed by any power or money nor is it part of a voting block on the board. It is also depriving a position that could be held by someone seleceted for their particular skill be it business/marketing/finance.
If there is a way of "selecting nominations" for that position, then it isnt a popularly elected position and is really an even more token position, basically a plant virtue signalling to the fans.
I dont see how a "fan" seat on the board to express the fans POV could provide more information to the board than they could glean from just reading this forum and WTF. They would get more information from these two forums because it is a wider subset of fans opinions.
A "fan controlled" board appointed Alan Jones as coach of Balmain, a "fan controlled" board sacked Gary Freeman for Brian Smith, a "fan controlled" board drove Balmain and Wests into the ground to the point they had to sacrifice their identity. Just saying.
We all care because we love the club and I understand (I think) Joel and Mikes position, i just disagree. I think fans should be kept away from the running of a professional organisation.
With regards transparency for the fans....then what? If there was a process that provided complete transparency of what the board was doing, guaranteed some of the fans will hate it no matter what. It also makes it difficult for the board to do unpopular things which might be necessary for the good of the club.. The home ground issue is the first that springs to mind. It seems to me that as fans here and in WTF we cant solve that problem.
Anyway, I think Ive covered my POV, Ill spare the forum form here.
@helmesy what does this mean:
“Another issue that Mr. Kavanagh sought clarification around was the lodgement of ASIC documents, in particular, in relation to the appointment of one Wests Tigers board member, that same board member happens to also be the WSDRLFC representative on the Wests Tigers board.”
@helmesy what does this mean:
“Another issue that Mr. Kavanagh sought clarification around was the lodgement of ASIC documents, in particular, in relation to the appointment of one Wests Tigers board member, that same board member happens to also be the WSDRLFC representative on the Wests Tigers board.”
Cavanagh alleges that the board has submitted an inaccurate ASIC update ie telling ASIC the board member was appointed on a day when their wasn’t a board meeting.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
@helmesy what does this mean:
“Another issue that Mr. Kavanagh sought clarification around was the lodgement of ASIC documents, in particular, in relation to the appointment of one Wests Tigers board member, that same board member happens to also be the WSDRLFC representative on the Wests Tigers board.”
Cavanagh alleges that the board has submitted an inaccurate ASIC update ie telling ASIC the board member was appointed on a day when their wasn’t a board meeting.
Are we sure that this forum is the place to publicise such allegations that have not been published previously?
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
@helmesy what does this mean:
“Another issue that Mr. Kavanagh sought clarification around was the lodgement of ASIC documents, in particular, in relation to the appointment of one Wests Tigers board member, that same board member happens to also be the WSDRLFC representative on the Wests Tigers board.”
Cavanagh alleges that the board has submitted an inaccurate ASIC update ie telling ASIC the board member was appointed on a day when their wasn’t a board meeting.
Are we sure that this forum is the place to publicise such allegations that have not been published previously?
Absolutely. If what Mr. Cavanagh is saying is true it puts in jeapordy the legitimacy of the Wests Tigers board.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
@helmesy what does this mean:
“Another issue that Mr. Kavanagh sought clarification around was the lodgement of ASIC documents, in particular, in relation to the appointment of one Wests Tigers board member, that same board member happens to also be the WSDRLFC representative on the Wests Tigers board.”
Cavanagh alleges that the board has submitted an inaccurate ASIC update ie telling ASIC the board member was appointed on a day when their wasn’t a board meeting.
Are we sure that this forum is the place to publicise such allegations that have not been published previously?
Absolutely. If what Mr. Cavanagh is saying is true it puts in jeapordy the legitimacy of the Wests Tigers board.
And if not?
https://weststigerspodcast.com.au/magpies-chairman-has-membership-suspended/
So let me get this straight...... a bloke who behaved inappropriately at an important WT function, has had a hearing independent of WT and the WSMRLFC decide that his behaviour is so inappropriate that not only is his Chairmanship revoked but his actual membership revoked...........and we decide to publicise his grievances here on a WT fan forum? Grievances which are totally unproven and which may be defamatory, which may slander or tarnish the reputation of the WT board and will certainly feed the media to produce negative stories that harm the WT in attracting sponsors, fans, funding and player and ultimately success.
What exactly do you (we) stand to gain by publicising these unproven allegations?
https://weststigerspodcast.com.au/magpies-chairman-has-membership-suspended/
So let me get this straight...... a bloke who behaved inappropriately at an important WT function, has had a hearing independent of WT and the WSMRLFC decide that his behaviour is so inappropriate that not only is his Chairmanship revoked but his actual membership revoked...........and we decide to publicise his grievances here on a WT fan forum? Grievances which are totally unproven and which may be defamatory, which may slander or tarnish the reputation of the WT board and will certainly feed the media to produce negative stories that harm the WT in attracting sponsors, fans, funding and player and ultimately success.
What exactly do you (we) stand to gain by publicising these unproven allegations?
I don’t see a denial from them. If there are legitimate questions that need to be asked we, in my opinion at least, are duty bound to ask them.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
https://weststigerspodcast.com.au/magpies-chairman-has-membership-suspended/
So let me get this straight...... a bloke who behaved inappropriately at an important WT function, has had a hearing independent of WT and the WSMRLFC decide that his behaviour is so inappropriate that not only is his Chairmanship revoked but his actual membership revoked...........and we decide to publicise his grievances here on a WT fan forum? Grievances which are totally unproven and which may be defamatory, which may slander or tarnish the reputation of the WT board and will certainly feed the media to produce negative stories that harm the WT in attracting sponsors, fans, funding and player and ultimately success.
What exactly do you (we) stand to gain by publicising these unproven allegations?
I don’t see a denial from them. If there are legitimate questions that need to be asked we, in my opinion at least, are duty bound to ask them.
A denial from whom, and of what?
How do you know the questions are legitimate? What information do you have other from an aggrieved, now disgraced former member?
In what way are you or us "duty bound"? What duty?
In the article you say it has been reported to ASIC. If ASIC take no action against the club, what will you be duty bound to do? Delete the article? Ask the media to "unsee" the allegations? Notify any prospective sponsors/members that might be alarmed and decide not to support the club that it was baseless? Say sorry? In this case would the publicisation defame the club?
IF ASIC come back with a small fine, what is your duty then?
If ASIC come back with a more significant problem, what do you or this forum stand to gain from publicising these allegations?
Simple question, what do you stand to gain to publicise these unsubstantiated allegations.
https://weststigerspodcast.com.au/magpies-chairman-has-membership-suspended/
So let me get this straight...... a bloke who behaved inappropriately at an important WT function, has had a hearing independent of WT and the WSMRLFC decide that his behaviour is so inappropriate that not only is his Chairmanship revoked but his actual membership revoked...........and we decide to publicise his grievances here on a WT fan forum? Grievances which are totally unproven and which may be defamatory, which may slander or tarnish the reputation of the WT board and will certainly feed the media to produce negative stories that harm the WT in attracting sponsors, fans, funding and player and ultimately success.
What exactly do you (we) stand to gain by publicising these unproven allegations?
I don’t see a denial from them. If there are legitimate questions that need to be asked we, in my opinion at least, are duty bound to ask them.
A denial from whom, and of what?
How do you know the questions are legitimate? What information do you have other from an aggrieved, now disgraced former member?
In what way are you or us "duty bound"? What duty?
In the article you say it has been reported to ASIC. If ASIC take no action against the club, what will you be duty bound to do? Delete the article? Ask the media to "unsee" the allegations? Notify any prospective sponsors/members that might be alarmed and decide not to support the club that it was baseless? Say sorry? In this case would the publicisation defame the club?
IF ASIC come back with a small fine, what is your duty then?
If ASIC come back with a more significant problem, what do you or this forum stand to gain from publicising these allegations?
Simple question, what do you stand to gain to publicise these unsubstantiated allegations.
Not everything we do has to be about gaining something. I would hope that if you found yourself in a similar situation, where for some reason the powers that be decided to cancel your membership, you would have avenues like ours open to tell your side of the story. Shannon Cavanagh is not at idiot, he’s a chartered accountant that has raised (in my opinion at least) some very interesting questions that have a direct bearing on the management of the Wests Tigers. I stand by my decision to allow him to raise his concerns through us.
Further to this, the article presents his allegations and concerns, he is not saying they are fact. We have freedom of speech in these types of circumstances and we should all be vigilant about behaviour that might be at best careless, at worst deceptive.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
https://weststigerspodcast.com.au/magpies-chairman-has-membership-suspended/
So let me get this straight...... a bloke who behaved inappropriately at an important WT function, has had a hearing independent of WT and the WSMRLFC decide that his behaviour is so inappropriate that not only is his Chairmanship revoked but his actual membership revoked...........and we decide to publicise his grievances here on a WT fan forum? Grievances which are totally unproven and which may be defamatory, which may slander or tarnish the reputation of the WT board and will certainly feed the media to produce negative stories that harm the WT in attracting sponsors, fans, funding and player and ultimately success.
What exactly do you (we) stand to gain by publicising these unproven allegations?
I don’t see a denial from them. If there are legitimate questions that need to be asked we, in my opinion at least, are duty bound to ask them.
A denial from whom, and of what?
How do you know the questions are legitimate? What information do you have other from an aggrieved, now disgraced former member?
In what way are you or us "duty bound"? What duty?
In the article you say it has been reported to ASIC. If ASIC take no action against the club, what will you be duty bound to do? Delete the article? Ask the media to "unsee" the allegations? Notify any prospective sponsors/members that might be alarmed and decide not to support the club that it was baseless? Say sorry? In this case would the publicisation defame the club?
IF ASIC come back with a small fine, what is your duty then?
If ASIC come back with a more significant problem, what do you or this forum stand to gain from publicising these allegations?
Simple question, what do you stand to gain to publicise these unsubstantiated allegations.
Not everything we do has to be about gaining something. I would hope that if you found yourself in a similar situation, where for some reason the powers that be decided to cancel your membership, you would have avenues like ours open to tell your side of the story. Shannon Cavanagh is not at idiot, he’s a chartered accountant that has raised (in my opinion at least) some very interesting questions that have a direct bearing on the management of the Wests Tigers. I stand by my decision to allow him to raise his concerns through us.
Further to this, the article presents his allegations and concerns, he is not saying they are fact. We have freedom of speech in these types of circumstances and we should all be vigilant about behaviour that might be at best careless, at worst deceptive.
They are pretty serious allegations I would hope that if you publicise them that he at least said that they were facts.
I would hope that if I was in a similar situation at Shannon Cavanagh (what is with the Mr Cavanagh business?) I would reflect on how my behavior resulted in the situation where the "powers that be" decided to cancel my membership. I current sit on a board and have been on management committees of various types and sizes. There are ways to get things done and ways to ensure that things will definitely not get done. Regardless of right or wrong, Cavanagh has proven himself to be politically inept and on that basis alone is best out of the organisation. If his behaviour is as reported, it is doubly so. he has shown that he is prepared to figuratively burn the place to the ground to push his agenda. Best that he is out of there on all accounts.
We do all have freedom of speech (although not enshrined in law in Australia), but freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions. By your own words you have publicised serious allegations about the Tigers board that may not be fact, but will have repercussions regardless. These repercussions might be increased media criticism of the the WT, might be hesitancy in sponsors to commit financially to the club, it might be hesitancy in fans to fork out for memberships. These repercussion will flow down to marketing, recruitment etc. All for a completely unsubstantiated, unproven, baseless accusation by a bloke with a clear axe to grind and who has been evicted from any organisation associated with WS or WT because of his behaviour.
Freedom of speech is not free of repurcussions. Shannon Cavanagh has been disgraced and seem to be willing to try to burn the place to the ground on the way out. Its your website and pod joel and you make the decisions but to me it seems a pretty fraught path to hitch your site and pod to. Repercussions to unsubstantiated, baseless allegations seem to me to be defamatory. Will be interesting to see the result of the ASIC referall and the response to that.
I would reflect on how my behavior resulted in the situation where the "powers that be" decided to cancel my membership. I current sit on a board and have been on management committees of various types and sizes. There are ways to get things done and ways to ensure that things will definitely not get done.
Voted out by Wests Ashfield appointed board members, not the Wests Magpies members that elected Cavanagh to represent the interests of the Wests Magpies. I like that you’re defending the WT and WA boards but if you can’t see what the possible issue is here I can’t help you.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
