So a $60million turnover sporting club doesn't want the supporters (technically we're not members) to have a say in who is on the board. I find that fascinating considering that other sporting clubs in the same sport with higher turnover (eg Richmond, Collingwood $80million) seem to manage just fine with member elected board positions. I note that Richmond has a nominations committee which ensures that nominees have the required skills, knowledge and motivations to serve on the board, which means you can get the right people and still let the members have a say.
It's not difficult, that is, if you actually want your supporters to have a say. I wouldn't be surprised to see Fremantle managed differently from West Coast as the owner of both tries to get some product differentiation happening to maximise members across both clubs. I'm a cynic, but time will tell.
