Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:New Jumper, New Song
|
#334574 |
|
pollyanna, heirachy don't care. The only way there would possibly be a change would be if there was a protest march involving 10,000+ people at Freo Oval. In addition the sales of the new strip would have to be very, very low. Finally, membership renewals would be sent back with a protest letter without credit card details.
When it got to mid February 2011 and only 8,000 had renewed, there had been only minor sales of the new sgrip and the protest march of course had happened they would seriously consider reversing the change.
Based on apathy and the fact that 'it's all too hard to do something other than have a bitch and moan on a supporters website' the decision will not be reversed!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:New Jumper, New Song
|
#334578 |
|
I have to admit to still being confused on the 'survey'. matto, I don't think the the training jumper survey is the survey the club refers to. Sure, they use it to back up their support of the freshnewbold jumper, but it's not what they are referring to in regards to the 2900 that they surveyed. From my discussions with the Steves, that survey included all sorts of people, not just members, but supporters, players, media etc etc etc. I think there must have been multiple surveys over the last few years and they have hodgepodged them together to get the results they wanted.
I think it's pretty clear that we vocal minority think the right thing to do would have been to be open and honest with ALL members and say, hey, we think the jumper sucks and we've done some research that agrees with that so we'd like to change it. Here are the options - what do you think?
If Kate was actually interested in answering questions, perhaps she could explain if that was ever an option that was considered by the club, and if so, what was the reason for not doing it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Board Nominees
|
#334582 |
|
freoson - none of us were regulars here until we started posting. No time like the present to get on board. I'm pretty damn cynical and even I don't think it is inappropriate for you to strike up a good banter here pre-elections. Mind you I'm not even a bloody member so don't worry about what I think.
Yes it probably should have gone out to everyone, but that should have been backed up by genuine randomly selected surveys and focus groups and the like to get some rigour in the numbers.
If I were a member, I'd just want at this stage to vote for someone who was not embarrassed by the past 16 years, didn't cringe when they heard the song, and wasn't particularly worried about what other clubs fans said about us. That would rule Rosich out. This change could have worked after 2001 but not now, not when we're on the rise, it's crap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Board Nominees
|
#334586 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334645 |
|
Gary Angel here again, just replying to Walter the Baker from a few posts back.
I am a candidate that understands the views being put forward on dockerland. I spend far too much time in this place and read nearly every post. The past few weeks, especially. I would prefer that this Director election was not running simultaneously with the jumper/logo controversy, only because the whole election seems to have become a single issue election. But that's more of a problem for Kate, bad timing that the expiry of her term coincides with this re-branding fiasco.
I am unimpressed by Kate's call for us to throw questions at her, then totally wimp on the answers. But what's good about this election is that it has thrown up 12 other candidates and many of them look to have some great credentials and are making some very encouraging statements, so hopefully we will end up electing someone who has the guts to stand up to the Board when it looks clear that they are trying to shaft us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334646 |
|
Ok Gaz, if you were voted in and the board wanted to steam roll a change where the 'Fremantle' was dropped, how would you handle this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334647 |
|
But Gary, according to your earlier post "standing up" to the rest of the board would never occur, because you can only make decisions based on the best interests of the shareholder.
The obvious corollary here is that there is no point for a board whatsoever, beyond serving the personal interests of the members of the board, who can then tell everyone that they are/were on the board. Which is why I for one will not be voting at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334668 |
|
there would be many intances where member interests and shareholder interests are aligned, as pointed out by one of the previous posters on another thread.
The Board has overseen some terrific work over the last 4 years in regard to the football department, with key appointments, infrastructure, programs, strategies etc.
Kudos to the Board.
But I would think that 'branding' has had little to do with on-field performance, which has been improving under the old branding anyway, and I reckon we are heading to our first Grand Final appearance in the next three years, regardless of chevrons and logos.
So the re-branding is a corporate strategy focused on revenue, it has nothing to do with football itself. What we do not know is if the Board was privy to some expert strategic branding report from one of the big accounting firms, and their report indicated that club revenues would grow by 20% per annum for the next 5 years as a result of this re-branding, and would only grow by 1% per annum with the old branding - then Directors including Kate and Ben would be required under Corporations law to act in the best interests of the shareholder and support the re-branding. Or argue that the accountants report is full of holes.
I'd be horrified if the branding consultants ever suggest we drop the word Fremantle. Let's not wander into hypothetical scenarios.
(Gary Angel)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334675 |
|
Leaving the hypothetical scenario question aside, valid as it is in my opinion, that leaves how you would have responded to events from the past. I don't think hindsight is a good platform for electioneering.
What CAN YOU DO for us, the members?
Will you help to remove the Steve's?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334681 |
|
So, I know this is a bit drastic, but lets do the obvious things.
1st home game next season, we can either
a) Stay at home
or
b) All come dressed in red and green, carrying anchors
or
c) Sell the naming rights to the club, so we could become "The MacDonalds Freo Dockers".
I favour staying at home, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that (c) is more likely to come up in a board discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334685 |
|
you are a very Bad wolf, Mr Wolf.
It's not likely that any of the current candidates are running on a platform to remove the CEO and President of the club.
I'm running on the basis that I think I can add something to improve Board decisions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Month, 2 Weeks ago
Re:Ready to answer your questions
|
#334686 |
|
The board can veto candidates. I imagine a platform to remove the CEO and President of the club isn't going to get through.
|
|
|
|
|
