|
|
Post by BarryB on May 9, 2018 18:59:03 GMT 12
I see David Jones not standing again, he's done a few years, and we have Ricky Boulton up against Marty Jones for the vacant post.
Some interesting names standing for The Board too, including the two that resigned part way through their last time, as well as the likes of Willie Kay and Peter Kuriger.
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by Go Slideways on May 9, 2018 19:24:30 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by jayrea on May 11, 2018 9:37:57 GMT 12
I see David Jones not standing again, he's done a few years, and we have Ricky Boulton up against Marty Jones for the vacant post. Some interesting names standing for The Board too, including the two that resigned part way through their last time, as well as the likes of Willie Kay and Peter Kuriger. Barry B I struggle with ex members re standing. How can the sport ever progress forward when they start in the past? The ones that would / could make a difference are reluctant to stand simply because of what has been a "Boy's Club" and become the "one" amongst a pack, only to be alienate. I believe its time for a NEW structure within SNZ taking away most of the power of clubs therefore taking away several influences and bias. It's time to make SNZ a governing body with a spine and respect. YES they can and should be stakeholders BUT with less powers. The simple analogy I like to use is NZ Rugby ... The have a set of rules ... Beauden Barrett doesn't decide to take a conversion from where he wants simply because it suits him better nor does he seek to change the rule simple because he doesn't like it. Also they have a regional structure BUT the regional CEO's all sing from the same song book and follow what is dictated from above. Its time for a Franchise Model SNZ have a "Bible" of all aspects of Speedway in NZ. So the brand of Speedway is the same no matter where you are in the country. A Big Mac is the same weather your in Invercargil or Auckland. Im pretty sure McDonalds is a successful company so they might be onto something. National supply contracts will save the franchises money, ie radio advertising. Consistency of the product, and sharing of resources will all help towards the betterment of the sport. I'll leave you with ... "Just because that what we have always done, dosn't mean to say it's the best way to do it" Chur |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 11:50:08 GMT 12
I see David Jones not standing again, he's done a few years, and we have Ricky Boulton up against Marty Jones for the vacant post. Some interesting names standing for The Board too, including the two that resigned part way through their last time, as well as the likes of Willie Kay and Peter Kuriger. Barry B I struggle with ex members re standing. How can the sport ever progress forward when they start in the past? The ones that would / could make a difference are reluctant to stand simply because of what has been a "Boy's Club" and become the "one" amongst a pack, only to be alienate. I believe its time for a NEW structure within SNZ taking away most of the power of clubs therefore taking away several influences and bias. It's time to make SNZ a governing body with a spine and respect. YES they can and should be stakeholders BUT with less powers. The simple analogy I like to use is NZ Rugby ... The have a set of rules ... Beauden Barrett doesn't decide to take a conversion from where he wants simply because it suits him better nor does he seek to change the rule simple because he doesn't like it. Also they have a regional structure BUT the regional CEO's all sing from the same song book and follow what is dictated from above. Its time for a Franchise Model SNZ have a "Bible" of all aspects of Speedway in NZ. So the brand of Speedway is the same no matter where you are in the country. A Big Mac is the same weather your in Invercargil or Auckland. Im pretty sure McDonalds is a successful company so they might be onto something. National supply contracts will save the franchises money, ie radio advertising. Consistency of the product, and sharing of resources will all help towards the betterment of the sport. I'll leave you with ... "Just because that what we have always done, dosn't mean to say it's the best way to do it" Chur Sorry bud, while I normally like and agree with your views not many of these are on the money IMHO. Start with the ex board members standing. I don't have a problem with this, the more standing the better I reckon. Just because someone is standing doesn't mean they will get the votes. In fact ex members have a track record, be it good or bad that the delegates can vote on. I think our regional system works OK at the mo, the regional ceos are the track licence holder in the case of private promotion and club president in the case of club run tracks,and they will always look to benefit their tracks, just as the sub union ceos of the nzrfu do. National supply contracts just won't work in most cases. Some tracks have had great relationships with existing suppliers like radio, hire centres, caterers, sign writers etc, which are often contra deals. What would happen for example if they did a supply deal with Ford to supply pace Ute's to every speedway? Wellington say hang on, Max Motors supply ours as part of the naming rights deal. Palmy say hang about, there is no way known we are having Ford branded vehicles. Radio advertising is the same, what say Rotorua has an existing contra deal with mediaworks and snz sign up to NZME, Or Wanganui say we dint spend anything on radio advertising now snz have signed us up to spend X number of $ per year. Having said all that, I do believe major changes are needed, particularly in the voting system. There is no way in this day and age why the stupid system we use now needs to exist. It should be one member/one vote. This could be done either thru a proxy system at the agm or thru Internet voting system prior to the meeting. This in turn would even up the play field giving more power to the racers (members) than the clubs. |
|
|
|
Post by hbhornets on May 11, 2018 12:38:03 GMT 12
Having said all that, I do believe major changes are needed, particularly in the voting system. There is no way in this day and age why the stupid system we use now needs to exist. It should be one member/one vote. This could be done either thru a proxy system at the agm or thru Internet voting system prior to the meeting. This in turn would even up the play field giving more power to the racers (members) than the clubs. disagree with you there. we all know how frustrating it is when your delegate goes against what the club have said. but remember clubs are not making desicions with all the infromation in front of them. each point needs to be clarified, and debated. where it can become quite heated. once all the information are pros and cons have come out. then yes to a vote. if somebody goes against there club for the good of there or the ill. thats how democracy works. i dont know any organisation that has all its members vote on everything. but will agree that if rules are made and half the tracks agree to dislike get a referendum by all means. get the members to vote. but this is very costly exercise. getting all your members to vote on everything is very costly. hence why no government or any organisation does it. to take out human error first you must take out the humans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 13:47:14 GMT 12
if somebody goes against there club for the good of there or the ill. thats how democracy works. Ummm nope, it's really not, but then again I'm not sure that SNZ have ever said they are a democratic organisation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 14:55:09 GMT 12
Any time you see hidden details of votes...you know its not a democracy!!
Agree,rolling out old dinosaurs isnt going to further the sport Imho..
why do people want to be involved in the presidency of the sport or any other position actually..when we keep getting told that the members make the rules..what can you achieve?
|
|
|
|
Post by midway on May 11, 2018 17:51:15 GMT 12
It will continue just like politics ,as there is No one to wipe the slate clean ..
A disgrace to the sport ,and the sports people involved that no democracy takes place as far as the vote,s are concerned ..
Old relic,s of the past wait at the door ,as to say remember me ,!have been to spec savers and got new glasses to read the 80 odd pages of well thought out documentation ..
We need to seek change ,but amongst many in this sport the week link in the chain is the financial membership there is no unity to progress forward ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 18:38:23 GMT 12
so your saying we need a shadow goverment for speedway..to contest the coming elections, one that sets forth a direction with stipulated aims and a cohesive plan to achieve them..we need to find unity..because with "einhied we kan take over zee werld".....cough cough..hhheemm.. what i mean to say is together we can find a bold new world...and bring about speedway Utopia...my vote goes to the fuhrer who can build an indoor speedway track in the center of the North Island...so we never have a rained out championship again..and is available to all clubs to run meetings under their own umbrella for hire/ or by rotation...always open for testing etc,,,
|
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 11, 2018 20:08:10 GMT 12
It will continue just like politics ,as there is No one to wipe the slate clean .. A disgrace to the sport ,and the sports people involved that no democracy takes place as far as the vote,s are concerned .. Old relic,s of the past wait at the door ,as to say remember me ,!have been to spec savers and got new glasses to read the 80 odd pages of well thought out documentation .. We need to seek change ,but amongst many in this sport the week link in the chain is the financial membership there is no unity to progress forward .. There are two special general meetings taken place during the weekend. The second of which seeks to change some of the rules around President/Director elections. The proposal seeks to institute a vote of no confidence provision to remove an entire board during a Special General Meeting. It also seeks to remove that the President has to have served at least two of the previous six years on the board. |
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 11, 2018 20:17:45 GMT 12
I see David Jones not standing again, he's done a few years, and we have Ricky Boulton up against Marty Jones for the vacant post. C8 COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE BOARD (d) The President must have served as a Director for two of the previous six years Going by the letter of the law I don't believe David Jones is eligible to be President as he hasn't been a director at any time during the last 6 years. He's been the President for that entire time |
|
|
|
Post by beachboy on May 11, 2018 20:38:50 GMT 12
If you were to follow NZ rugby's way of doing things jayrea then you would have to tell half the superstocks contracted to Palmy to join other club's.
If you want new members at the top then you have to put yourself or those new people forward rather than just say it and do nothing otherwise nothing will ever change.
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on May 11, 2018 21:43:52 GMT 12
I see David Jones not standing again, he's done a few years, and we have Ricky Boulton up against Marty Jones for the vacant post. C8 COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE BOARD (d) The President must have served as a Director for two of the previous six years Going by the letter of the law I don't believe David Jones is eligible to be President as he hasn't been a director at any time during the last 6 years. He's been the President for that entire time Didn’t he come in on an odd year when they split the board election away from the rule making years? So therefore he’d of done 5 years? Or seven? Interesting point though Percy. |
|
|
|
Post by sonic33 on May 11, 2018 21:54:13 GMT 12
I am not in the know with how SNZ works in detail. I hear alot that the sport has been held back by the aged constitution.
Questions:
1. What does it take to get change with the constitution? (the odd vote at conference doesn't make significant change)
2. Is the current constitution open to abuse by the old boy club?
3. Why hasn't somebody with money and brains created a new identity called NZ Speedway (or the likes) and sign up tracks to run affiliated to them?
In possibly answering my own question, is option 3 stifled by the amount of big players within SNZ/promoters that means this would be a dead duck.
If this is the case then suggesting SNZ is run by the drivers/members is a joke. Presently it seems that the members are far from driving this sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by midway on May 11, 2018 22:10:59 GMT 12
It will continue just like politics ,as there is No one to wipe the slate clean .. A disgrace to the sport ,and the sports people involved that no democracy takes place as far as the vote,s are concerned .. Old relic,s of the past wait at the door ,as to say remember me ,!have been to spec savers and got new glasses to read the 80 odd pages of well thought out documentation .. We need to seek change ,but amongst many in this sport the week link in the chain is the financial membership there is no unity to progress forward .. There are two special general meetings taken place during the weekend. The second of which seeks to change some of the rules around President/Director elections. The proposal seeks to institute a vote of no confidence provision to remove an entire board during a Special General Meeting. It also seeks to remove that the President has to have served at least two of the previous six years on the board. If the application was a success to remove the entire board of Directors /President ,the new incoming president may of not served two of the previous six years .. / |
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 11, 2018 23:40:33 GMT 12
C8 COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE BOARD (d) The President must have served as a Director for two of the previous six years Going by the letter of the law I don't believe David Jones is eligible to be President as he hasn't been a director at any time during the last 6 years. He's been the President for that entire time Didn’t he come in on an odd year when they split the board election away from the rule making years? So therefore he’d of done 5 years? Or seven? Interesting point though Percy. The 2011 election was the one year election, we've been back to two year terms since 2012. So would that make it 7 years? I suspect the rule book wording is unintentional but it effectively sets a 6-year maximum on Presidential terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Nigel on May 12, 2018 11:40:10 GMT 12
I see David Jones not standing again, he's done a few years, and we have Ricky Boulton up against Marty Jones for the vacant post. C8 COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE BOARD (d) The President must have served as a Director for two of the previous six years Going by the letter of the law I don't believe David Jones is eligible to be President as he hasn't been a director at any time during the last 6 years. He's been the President for that entire time Percy, not like you to make such an ill informed statement... Refer Rule C8(a) C8 - COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (a) The Board of Directors consists of a President and six elected members, “The Board”. (b) Elections for President and six Directors be held every two years at a non-remit AGM. Note: To facilitate this transition the 2011 elections for President and Directors of SNZ are for a one year term, with the next election for President and Directors be held during the 2012 AGM. (c) Nominations for the positions of the President and Directors will be in writing and received by the Gen- eral Manager at least 60 days prior to the AGM. (d) The President must have served as a Director for two of the previous six years. (e) Nominations for the positions of the President and Directors must be moved and seconded by a member of SNZ. The mover and seconder will be from different tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by graemeh on May 12, 2018 12:18:50 GMT 12
The President is a Director also, being on the Board of Directors, he just has an extra title.
|
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 12, 2018 14:56:50 GMT 12
Nigel, I take your point but I don't agree with it.
Just because the President is on the Board of Directors does not mean the President is a Director. Many company boards have the CEO as a board member yet the CEO is not a Director. In the company I work for we have a 5 person board of which I am a member. We have only 2 directors on our board of directors.
Section a), b), c) and e) refer to "President and elected members" or "President and Directors" which indicates to me they are not one and the same.
In any case it's a bit of a non-issue and we probably shouldn't bog down this thread with our interpretations!
|
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 12, 2018 20:10:53 GMT 12
I should add to my post above that you could drive a truck through Section C8 of the constitution. It's a great example of a section of the rule book that due to being poorly written, can create confusion. The worst culprit being C8d) which clearly needs the words "at least" added.
I see one of the changes being considered in the first SGM is that all remits will be subject to legal review before being presented to the delegates for voting. I think such a measure is a very good idea.
|
|
