Seems to be a right mess at Moore park now. Nest of vipers I would guess with each person trying to stay on the gravy train. No interest in anybody but themselves.
Printable View
Seems to be a right mess at Moore park now. Nest of vipers I would guess with each person trying to stay on the gravy train. No interest in anybody but themselves.
From what I've read, apparently Shute Shield/Sydney Rugby tried to move to have the Board removed, but unsuccessful. Sounds like Clyne scrabbling for whoever will shore up his position. Sooner ASIC & Royal Commission (hopefully) get hold of him the better. It's all bound to catch up with him sooner or later.
According to the ARU / RA constitution the board may appoint two directors along with the managing director, so they are entitled to make this call. The fact that one position was replacing a WA director and they didn't consult with RWA speaks volumes about their intent and level of good will.
Pretty sure it has to go by Sydney Uni sorry the nominations committee.
Came across on the Rebels forum on G&G as TOCC has been asking the tough questions. A lot still have their heads in their sand and been falling for de Clyne's bullshit.
Particularly Daz
News flash a major sponsor is not a 'must have' it's one of the most important tasks for a management committee to get a deal.Quote:
Why are you pushing this? It’s not like anyone here knows, or is willing to say. Ring 13REBELS and ask them.
I’m guessing that since the VRU and RA are underwriting the Rebels for this year at least, a major sponsor is in the “nice to have” category for season 2018.
The only people overvaluing the Rebels are the ones who think we are going to win the comp with one hand behind our back. I’m not one of those; I think we are going to need both hands.
No, it was the independent nominations committee and the board who conducted the search. RugbyWA will have the opportunity to approve or disavow it when the Council meets to rubber stamp it. They will be a lone voice, because the power broker states will vote for the status quo and everybody else is too shit scared to rock the boat.
At least we'll cast our one vote honestly, because we've already been thrown overboard.
Always has been a mess, now and in the past.
The only difference is that the favourite drinking holes have been shifted from Crows Nest to Surry Hills.
(PS, Exile: Subbies thinking of leaving the NSWRU!?! Would the NSWRU and their partner in crime the SRU have given a cr@p if they did?)
If they were appointed as casual vacancies then yes. Section 5.1 (b) of the ARU / RA constitution says "The directors may at any time appoint a person to be a director to fill a casual vacancy. Any director appointed under this clause may hold office only until the next general meeting and is then eligible for election at that meeting, subject to rule 5.1(a)."
However, they may just be appointments as per Section 5.1 (a) iii "up to two directors appointed by ordinary resolution of the directors following nomination by the Nominations Committee."
I'm assuming the latter for now.
Well after the banning sweep that occurred a couple of months ago there isn't much posters besides TOCC left who don't march by that drum. There are a few posters who will call BS every now and again but that seems to be swiftly overwhelmed by more crap that isn't called on. (Probably because of limited Force related posters around now)