Manly Chairman Penn calls for change at the club

[Canteen Worker]

I feared as much as this when I saw the reports on Sunday that URM owners, some players and some FC board members were meeting together. Certain people on this site were positive about this. My worry was that didn't involve Penn and so whatever discussions were taking place, did not have his support. They even seemed to be provocative.

I sense strong frustration in that those who control the FC and Leagues Club seemingly want Penn out, Penn wants a workable board without some of the FC people and of course the Quantum shares, reputed to be closely connected to Max Delmege.

Someone involved at the moment needs to go - maybe for the good of the club!!

 

[Jono]

I feared as much as this when I saw the reports on Sunday that URM owners, some players and some FC board members were meeting together. Some on this site were positive about this. My worry was that didn't involve and so whatever discussions were taking place, did not have his support. They even seemed to be provocative.

I sense strong frustration in that those who control the FC and Leagues Club seemingly want Penn out, Penn wants a workable board without some of the FC people and of course the Quantum shares, reputed to be closely connected to Max Delmege.

Someone involved at the moment needs to go - maybe for the good of the club!!

It can't be the Football Club or the Leagues Club that walk, end of story. The only party that doesn't seem to be able to work with the others is Penn at the moment.

In addition it scares me that Penn is starting to get involved in the LC and FC votes. Makes me wonder whether Zorba is running for the good of the Manly Sea Eagles, or for the good of Scott Penn. Scott, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHO WE ELECT!!! Please butt out and let it work itself out. You are just making things worse.

 

[Canteen Worker]

Jono - noone is asking the Football Club or Leagues Club to walk. Penn has invested heavily in the Leagues club so that would be madness.

His point, agree with it or not, is that two parties (four votes) are putting millions into the club whilst a small group of elected individuals (with no financial stake and representing a small share of the total financial input) represent three votes and are blocking organisation from progressing.

It is he said - she said stuff, but if I had put 20 million in and yet could be outvoted with the support of just one other party, I would have a problem too. i would want a workable board - one way or another.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

CW....in a voting sense doesn't 4 votes beat 3 votes???

So if a decision was purely "commercial" and the two major contributors said "hey this is a good idea" then they'd outvote the FC/LC block every time.

As far as I am aware the FC / LC group of three pretty much vote on Colours / Venue and the amount of games they can take away from Brookvale each year and nothing else.

Don't kid yourself that Penn (or perhaps URM) want total control....4 votes would give them that (except for the rights listed above which I think are enshrined in the rules).

 

[Frank]

CW....in a voting sense doesn't 4 votes beat 3 votes???

So if a decision was purely "commercial" and the two major contributors said "hey this is a good idea" then they'd outvote the FC/LC block every time.

As far as I am aware the FC / LC group of three pretty much vote on Colours / Venue and the amount of games they can take away from Brookvale each year and nothing else.

Don't kid yourself that Penn (or perhaps URM) want total control....4 votes would give them that (except for the rights listed above which I think are enshrined in the rules).

I thought 4-3 wasn't good enough. Pretty sure I read that a margin of at least 2 was required.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

CW....in a voting sense doesn't 4 votes beat 3 votes???

So if a decision was purely "commercial" and the two major contributors said "hey this is a good idea" then they'd outvote the FC/LC block every time.

As far as I am aware the FC / LC group of three pretty much vote on Colours / Venue and the amount of games they can take away from Brookvale each year and nothing else.

Don't kid yourself that Penn (or perhaps URM) want total control....4 votes would give them that (except for the rights listed above which I think are enshrined in the rules).

I thought 4-3 wasn't good enough. Pretty sure I read that a margin of at least 2 was required.

You may be right George.....although I am not even sure they vote, from what I have heard (in the past) it's pretty much done on consensus.

But I doubt we'll ever know (unless the total board front a media conference and tell us) as the MWSE Board are not a public company, nor like the FC and LC boards are they run for members.

 

[Fluffy]

Jono - noone is asking the Football Club or Leagues Club to walk. Penn has invested heavily in the Leagues club so that would be madness.

His point, agree with it or not, is that two parties (four votes) are putting millions into the club whilst a small group of elected individuals (with no financial stake and representing a small share of the total financial input) represent three votes and are blocking organisation from progressing.

It is he said - she said stuff, but if I had put 20 million in and yet could be outvoted with the support of just one other party, I would have a problem too. i would want a workable board - one way or another.

CW Penn got the league club etc at a very good price, even if it goes pear shaped he still has a lot of value in his assets he can cash in on - what you are insinuating is stretching the truth big time.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

CW....in a voting sense doesn't 4 votes beat 3 votes???

So if a decision was purely "commercial" and the two major contributors said "hey this is a good idea" then they'd outvote the FC/LC block every time.

As far as I am aware the FC / LC group of three pretty much vote on Colours / Venue and the amount of games they can take away from Brookvale each year and nothing else.

Don't kid yourself that Penn (or perhaps URM) want total control....4 votes would give them that (except for the rights listed above which I think are enshrined in the rules).

I thought 4-3 wasn't good enough. Pretty sure I read that a margin of at least 2 was required.

Someone put that rumour about, it is not correct. Bigger majority is only required for something like constitutional amendment, or maybe election of chairperson.
Otherwise simple majority, I believe.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

As I said above I think they just work on consensus anyway, but yes I imagine (for example and only as an example), if another party bought the Quantum shares, and then wanted to stand someone for Chairman to oppose Scott Penn, then I'd imagine it would come down to a vote.

I did speak to a board member about 2 years ago and asked how it worked and they said that like most boards ....the issue is discussed, consensus gained and they move onto the next item. Due to it not being like a proper board of members (as is the FC and LC) there's no motions and voting as such (which flies in the face of the famous 5-2 vote that was supposed to have happened a few times).

 

[lsz]

Just to beat the drum again

The solution (as far as I can see it) would be..

- All Parties agree to appoint an independent person to review the club structure and situation
- review to include a recommendation on structure / preferred ownership
- All parties to agree to adopt outcomes...even if it was to recommend one party should be sole owner etc (which would mean a buy out i.e. it could recommend Penn be the sole owner...and the other parties sell at market price to him)

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a vested interest / inherit bias.

I do. I would prefer the Penn's owned the club outright with a commitment to retain club colors and name

This is why I should not make the "decision" rather someone who is independent and can review all options...

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Isz

That's where I disagree.....I think a one person (or company) ownership would be a disaster.

Yes the boardroom would run perfectly (as there wouldn't be one).

But then we'd have a commercial enterprise making each and every decision (including one that "could" include moving the club elsewhere).

One of the dangers of that is that the owner(s) may view us purely as "customers used to gain a profit"...and we all are far more than that.

Scott Penn clearly wants total control, and from a business sense (I am one of them as well) I can somewhat understand that....but as I say that "could" lead us to a situation where we are just pawns in a money making game.

I do not have anything against Scott, have met him quite a few times, lovely guy and I applaud him for what he and his family have done, however (and I would have the same view if it was all Quantum or URM or BHP) total and absolute control could perhaps see a very very different Manly and there would be few on here that would want that.

Regardless of all the rhetoric about the FC and the LC they basically are answerable to us as members (if you are one of those) and they really should be about keeping Manly just that...Manly.

And that's why we should ALL be members!!

 

[lsz]

Mark this is why we need an independent review (which will never happen)

We both hold differing valid views..which can be argued until the end of the world.

In the end you will struggle to change my mind as much as I would change yours

 

[DSM5]

Isz, just take a look at the situation in the US with private ownership of football/baseball/basketball clubs. They up and move when the city doesn't/can't come across with the money to bribe them to stay. Goodnight local fans. Under total private ownership we would be playing out of Homebush. That just makes financial sense.
The most successful soccer league in Europe is the German league where the clubs are all fan owned. All other European leagues are privately owned and up to their eyeballs in debt. Only kept afloat by TV rights. Even Man U is ridiculously in debt. The problem at the moment at Manly is that there is more than one private owner in there beavering away. If URM, or some other body, bought out the current two partners, we would be fine.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

lsz what makes you think the different owners would ever agree on who was to do a review? Sorry but your view is not a valid option in this situation. In the end money will decide this one, one way or another.

 

[lsz]

DSM I do not agree with you

For every example of poor ownership there are numerous examples of positive ownership. I am not sure why any businessman would stump up their money, where they are likely to not make a profit, without gaining some control?

As for the owners agreeing to do it - of course they would not. This is what i would like to happen rather than what I think will happen.

We all know this will continue to go on. Elections will come and go with no real change to the structure or the vested interests that dominate proceedings.

 

[Matabele]

Few owners are willing to move their franchise and dislocate it from their roots. Only marginal sides get moved. Look at LA, 2nd largest city in the USA and they can't attract a side.

---

Isz


One of the dangers of that is that the owner(s) may view us purely as "customers used to gain a profit"...and we all are far more than that.

The preference share covers this off from the Manly perspective. But at the moment the preference share seems to hold far too much sway over day to day management decisions that are nothing to do with the preference share.

 

[Fluffy]

The preference share which is now has a Penn family members partial control now which i dont like one bit.

We need something that rules out multiple board members that way Reilly, Delmege and the Penn's cant get enough power for their ego's to cause too much strife.

 

[Matabele]

Is there one scrap of hard evidence to suggest the Penn agenda is to move the club? And don't come with hysterical FC conspiracy theories like domain names. Are people seriously suggesting Zorba is complicity in such an agenda? Really?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Is there one scrap of hard evidence to suggest the Penn agenda is to move the club? And don't come with hysterical FC conspiracy theories like domain names. Are people seriously suggesting Zorba is complicity in such an agenda? Really?

Zero evidence BUT it is something that could eventuate with total power so worth being on the table

 

[WAMF]

Mark this is why we need an independent review (which will never happen)

Yes, it will never happen. If Penn didn't want to find the 50k to keep Hasler, he will be completely reluctant to find a similar amount to fund an independent review, that could backfire for him.

---

Is there one scrap of hard evidence to suggest the Penn agenda is to move the club? And don't come with hysterical FC conspiracy theories like domain names. Are people seriously suggesting Zorba is complicity in such an agenda? Really?

No, there does not appear to be concrete evidence of any such plans.
That doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't happen. It's only going to take a mighty tempting offer that can't be refused (relocation wise).