Bob Reilly

[WAMF]

I think the first platter of assorted sangas that the caterers bring out, is strictly for him.

Like you im trying very hard to keep my distance from the politics of it all, so all i will say is thank god youve changed your avartar...the last one was disturbing. And i confess im in the mood for a sanga. Thats all.

Yes, that last avatar disturbed me too.

---

As mentioned earlier Bob is the Chairman of the Leagues Club and Football Club both which are non payed positions, he volunteers his own time whilst also running his own business.

Bob came onto the football club board back when the club was first privatised through his work with the junior league and work on the privitisation deal in 2002 (Paul Cummings Era). Himself & His family is heavily involved in the local Junior Leauge and has been for many years.

It's hard to base comments off what you read in the paper as you will never get the full story, I have asked bob re: The reports of Des not wanting to work with him & the board unrest he said they were completely false.

Good, if he volunteers his time for free, it should be very easy to stop doing it. He's a cancer to the organisation.

Ryan, that's pretty harsh.
Can you provide examples? I'm currently a fence sitter on this one.

 

[Jonesyv2]

Jonesy do you kno what was the rationale behind sending that members letter? not so much the content but the timing?

Did you want the Telegraph’s wild suggestions about people being against re-signing Des to be left to fester uncorrected during Grand Final week ?

I thought the timing was actually good as the letter went out immediately after (not before) the Broncos game and before the whole Grand Final build up really got underway (we didn’t even know the opponents at that stage). The Bulldogs speculation in the lead up (and post) Grand Final was bad enough. Could you imagine the crap that would have gone on if the Tele was allowed to continue to push the line that not only do the Dogs want him, but there may be Manly people who want him to go.

The timing would have been much worse if a statement had to be issued 3 days before the Grand Final refuting those sorts of stories.

 

[The Wheel]

At the end of the day the Football Club and Leagues Club are providing sweet FA in terms of funding (true the LC has in the past but I think there $ support is minimal in 2011).

As a result you really have to ask is do they have right to hold such a large proportion of the votes on the board?

And are the right people in place to make those decisions on behalf of the members?

 

[Jonesyv2]

At the end of the day the Football Club and Leagues Club are providing sweet FA in terms of funding (true the LC has in the past but I think there $ support is minimal in 2011).

As a result you really have to ask is do they have right to hold such a large proportion of the votes on the board?

And are the right people in place to make those decisions on behalf of the members?

It's hard to form opinions of people when you don't see the work they are doing behind the scenes at the club and rely on Stories printed in the telegraph which are usually off the mark as your source of this.

I would suggest if you are either a Leauges club or Football club member become more involved and ask questions if you're worried. Unfortunately silvertails is not the best place to do this but there is an AGM every year that all members are welcome to attend. You can also contact the chairman on e-mail if you are a member.

The main thing i personally see and have been involved with the football club as doing is lobbying for Brookvale oval upgrades so we can stay there long term and also protecting the preference share so we control the name, colours and 10 games minimum @ brookvale.

I don't have figures on the Leauges club contribution to the club but they have been supporting the team for a long time and are part owners so would be paying their required share.

 

[Simmo]

At the end of the day the Football Club and Leagues Club are providing sweet FA in terms of funding (true the LC has in the past but I think there $ support is minimal in 2011).

As a result you really have to ask is do they have right to hold such a large proportion of the votes on the board?

And are the right people in place to make those decisions on behalf of the members?

Can't agree with your first question.

The Football Club members agreed to privatisation on the basis that they would retain certain rights under its preference share, one of which was the right to have 2 Directors on the Sea Eagles Board. The deal that was offered (and the private shareholders bought into) was never full ownership and total control. There never was and never should be a financial obligation on the football club.

Should the Football Club lose its other preference share rights over the name, colours and home ground too because it doesn't contribute financially?

As for your second question, what are you saying about Vidmar and Jonesy?

 

[Dan]

Jonesy do you kno what was the rationale behind sending that members letter? not so much the content but the timing?

Did you want the Telegraph’s wild suggestions about people being against re-signing Des to be left to fester uncorrected during Grand Final week ?

I thought the timing was actually good as the letter went out immediately after (not before) the Broncos game and before the whole Grand Final build up really got underway (we didn’t even know the opponents at that stage). The Bulldogs speculation in the lead up (and post) Grand Final was bad enough. Could you imagine the crap that would have gone on if the Tele was allowed to continue to push the line that not only do the Dogs want him, but there may be Manly people who want him to go.

The timing would have been much worse if a statement had to be issued 3 days before the Grand Final refuting those sorts of stories.

The problem was the not entirely subtle finger pointing that was in the letter. That just seems silly and not only that, spun more media crap.

It is very clear that the current setup does not work, and there is still a lot of disharmony in and between all the boards.

Something or someone has to give and soon, or we are going to see the club "loved" into the ground.

 

[The Wheel]

I am a member of the club and FC (Season Tciket holder as well) and have emailed/spoken to Bob a number of times in the past about these types of issues. During these calls he was quite friendly and open so I dont have a personal issue with him.

But frankly I couldn't be bothered any more, all these issues that have cropped up over the last few years seem to have Bob in the middle of them.

Rightly or wrongly someone is damaging the business at a high level, we need to cohesive board and management team.

I will attend the AGM and listen and learn there and make my decision at the ballot box.

---

At the end of the day the Football Club and Leagues Club are providing sweet FA in terms of funding (true the LC has in the past but I think there $ support is minimal in 2011).

As a result you really have to ask is do they have right to hold such a large proportion of the votes on the board?

And are the right people in place to make those decisions on behalf of the members?

Can't agree with your first question.

The Football Club members agreed to privatisation on the basis that they would retain certain rights under its preference share, one of which was the right to have 2 Directors on the Sea Eagles Board. The deal that was offered (and the private shareholders bought into) was never full ownership and total control. There never was and never should be a financial obligation on the football club.

Should the Football Club lose its other preference share rights over the name, colours and home ground too because it doesn't contribute financially?

As for your second question, what are you saying about Vidmar and Jonesy?

Times have changed old mate and I am not questioning the FC right to hold the preference share - you must have trouble reading if you took that from my post. The issue I have is that these LC & FC directors on the Sea Eagles baord are using their block of votes for political purposes rather acting indepently in the best interests of the business like any other board of directors are supposed to do.

As for your second paragraph I wont dignify that with a response except to say that you are a moron

 

[jbb/james]

It is my understanding that earlier this year whe manly hd no sposorship that Penn, quantum and the FC ventured in a 3 way deal to sponsor manly until such a time kasperky was found

Financially it was an equal 3 way deal, with quantum and Penn sharing the 1st grade jersey with the FC getting the reggies

I also belive that bob has providd some sponsorships to manly in the pst. I think Mack trucks wasone from memory Not !00% sure

 

[lsz]

What Dan said

To be honest a more professional approach would have been for the CEO / owner to make one statement

 

[Cameron]

Firstly i don’t think there is any need for the personal stuff that has already surfaced in this thread.

I think the current structure is flawed because

Penn Family: Shareholder that contribute to financial Shortfalls (2 votes)
Quantum: Shareholder that contribute to financial shortfalls (2 Votes)
Football Club: who is in no position to contribute financially but does however hold the critical preference share dictating, name, colours and home ground. (2 Votes)
Leagues Club: that contribute to financial shortfalls (1 Votes)

The first thing I’d like to see changed is the number of votes the Leagues club gets to 2 and the Football club reduced to one.

The next thing is a tricky one and something that despite the person being someone i like and have a lot of time for just doesn’t seem kosher.

Both majority shareholders have 2 votes on the board while Bob who effectively has 3 votes because he is the chairman of both the leagues and footy club.
This isn’t an attack on Bob he’s a good bloke and has done some great things however i wouldn't care if it was Steve Menzies no volunteer should have more votes than a majority shareholder.

The other thing its opens is when the FC and LC vote with either a Shareholder there is a perception that there are factions amongst the board.

 

[Bradza]

Crikey Cambo - three days off the drink and you are already sounding more articulate!

 

[The Wheel]

Both majority shareholders have 2 votes on the board while Bob who effectively has 3 votes because he is the chairman of both the leagues and footy club.
This isn’t an attack on Bob he’s a good bloke and has done some great things however i wouldn't care if it was Steve Menzies no volunteer should have more votes than a majority shareholder.

The other thing its opens is when the FC and LC vote with either a Shareholder there is a perception that there are factions amongst the board.

Well said cambo, that is what I was trying to say 🙂

 

[Jonesyv2]

Just for the record i am not getting into personal stuff, just here to answer questions and state my opinion on things.

 

[Cameron]

Just for the record i am not getting into personal stuff, just here to answer questions and state my opinion on things.

Jonesy that wasnt aimed at you matie.
It was aimed at a few others, we should be able to debate this rationally.

 

[Jonesyv2]

Yea i know mate, mine wasn't aimed at you either LOL.

 

[vidmar]

Who Bob Reilly is and his involvement with the club has pretty much been covered above.

I’d like however to give some input as a director of the Football Club but mostly (and I think importantly) from the viewpoint of a passionate supporter of the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles.

Firstly, the representatives of Leagues Club and Football Club play an incredibly important part in the make up of the Sea Eagles board - namely being that they are both representatives of member based entities (ie you and me) – if you are not sure of the make up of the group see here

http://www.silvertails.net/supporters/48-mw-football-club/5371-membership-information

The boards of both are voted in (or out) by members and as such are accountable and answerable to them – There are ample opportunities to approach the board or it’s members should you have any concerns or questions – WAMF it’s unusual that you didn’t get a response? Let me know if there is anything I can help with?

Each and everyone of us has a say on who holds those positions via the elections (assuming of course that you are a member or either or both of those groups.) and if you meet the criteria you can even stand for a position on the board if you feel you have something to contribute.

Cambo - Bob Reilly doesn't have 3 votes - He is the representative of the Leagues Club and Football Club which collectively have 3 votes (I think that is important to note?) so really WE have 3 votes

The fact that people like Bob are re-elected I’d suggest is indicative of how he is perceived by the member base rather than a Telegraph reporter’s profile?

The fact he has been a director of the Leagues Club for close to 6 years and Chairman for nearly 4 years of them would not be the case if he were not seen as being effective by the members

Much though it may not fit with some on here’s vision of faceless men in dark suits running around constantly plotting the demise of our club – the opposite is actually the case.

I’ve seen the involvement Bob Reilly has in and around the club first hand and the reason his name will crop up in the press and in conversation is because he is on 2 boards of part owners and also has representation on the Sea Eagles board – as a member of all 3 of that group and someone who wants to see my club grow and succeed - I’d be concerned if my representative wasn’t being mentioned as doing something or getting involved?

The annual report for the Leagues club for 2010 can be seen here

http://www.manlyleagues.com.au/docs/2010-annual-report.pdf

Have a read and then form your own opinion as to him and the board he leads at the leagues club?

For what it is worth I am fully supportive and appreciative of Bob Reilly and his work for our club.

I'm on the board of the Football Club to help represent the fan base and I wouldn't be posting here or supporting him if I did not think he was doing the right thing by the club we support.

Re the letter that was sent out – What has been missed is that it was a letter to members updating them on the League and Football clubs boards’ position (It wasn’t a statement from Penn or Quantum or the Sea Eagles board?)

It was sent in response to a number of questions that had been raised to the board by members – There is nothing sinister about it – I’m not sure why the timing of the email had been dissected but I am happy that the board communicated to people and didn’t go in to lock down and not address peoples concerns (That I’m convinced were hatched courtesy of our friends in the press to unsettle the camp in the lead up to the GF)

We've just won a Grand Final, we have a COO with a plan to help the club turn a profit, we have a major sponsor for next year plus many other sponsors signed up and pending, we have a settled board, Plans are progressing well for Brooky (stay tuned on that one people!), our membership numbers doubled this year, we have an excellent membership and merchandising team and a leagues club making money which means more funding to the Sea Eagles - it could be a lot worse people?

 

[tookey]

Firstly i don’t think there is any need for the personal stuff that has already surfaced in this thread.

I think the current structure is flawed because

Penn Family: Shareholder that contribute to financial Shortfalls (2 votes)
Quantum: Shareholder that contribute to financial shortfalls (2 Votes)
Football Club: who is in no position to contribute financially but does however hold the critical preference share dictating, name, colours and home ground. (2 Votes)
Leagues Club: that contribute to financial shortfalls (1 Votes)

The first thing I’d like to see changed is the number of votes the Leagues club gets to 2 and the Football club reduced to one.

The next thing is a tricky one and something that despite the person being someone i like and have a lot of time for just doesn’t seem kosher.

Both majority shareholders have 2 votes on the board while Bob who effectively has 3 votes because he is the chairman of both the leagues and footy club.
This isn’t an attack on Bob he’s a good bloke and has done some great things however i wouldn't care if it was Steve Menzies no volunteer should have more votes than a majority shareholder.

The other thing its opens is when the FC and LC vote with either a Shareholder there is a perception that there are factions amongst the board.

What is the leagues club currently contributing to the football club?

Our leagues club has struggled financially for years and shouldn't have any more votes unless they provide greater funding to the football club.

 

[Dan]

My opinion is that the position needs to be changed into a paid position rather than a time volunteered one.

The reason is you will then get someone who is acting in the best interest of their job, position and the business.

Not saying the people who volunteer would not be suitable, the problem is, it is held then as a position of privilege and in my experience, that lends itself to incorrect decisions being made. I won't go into that in too much depth because I don't want to offend anyone. It isn't their fault and it is human nature that such a position leads to a certain natural and human response and ultimately fuzzy logic being applied to business decisions.

That is the first change that needs to be made, a paid and voted on position.

I also think that the votes are not equally shared.

In reality we need to combine the boards, or break away from each other. There needs to be a single board, and stakeholder, making decisions for the one business, rather than 3 entities making decisions that suit their agenda for the one business.

We are currently in a position where we have 3 parties that don't and likely will not see eye to eye, this is a failing model.

For better or for worse and for no fault of their own, we are currently in danger of loving the club to death

 

[Dan]

I think additionally, a decision in the not so distant future will eventually need to be made, survival at any cost, or death at Brookvale with our colours and name.

It may not come to that, but for mine, I would prefer to survive as a club even if that means 6 games out of 12 played at the SFS, ANZ or blue tongue than have no club at all.

The fight to stick to strongly, may see us fold

 

[Jonesyv2]

Firstly i don’t think there is any need for the personal stuff that has already surfaced in this thread.

I think the current structure is flawed because

Penn Family: Shareholder that contribute to financial Shortfalls (2 votes)
Quantum: Shareholder that contribute to financial shortfalls (2 Votes)
Football Club: who is in no position to contribute financially but does however hold the critical preference share dictating, name, colours and home ground. (2 Votes)
Leagues Club: that contribute to financial shortfalls (1 Votes)

The first thing I’d like to see changed is the number of votes the Leagues club gets to 2 and the Football club reduced to one.

The next thing is a tricky one and something that despite the person being someone i like and have a lot of time for just doesn’t seem kosher.

Both majority shareholders have 2 votes on the board while Bob who effectively has 3 votes because he is the chairman of both the leagues and footy club.
This isn’t an attack on Bob he’s a good bloke and has done some great things however i wouldn't care if it was Steve Menzies no volunteer should have more votes than a majority shareholder.

The other thing its opens is when the FC and LC vote with either a Shareholder there is a perception that there are factions amongst the board.

What is the leagues club currently contributing to the football club?

Our leagues club has struggled financially for years and shouldn't have any more votes unless they provide greater funding to the football club.

The seat on the MWSE board is subject to this clause *The right of the Leagues Club to appoint Directors to the Board of the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles Limited is subject to the payment of specified propagation grants.