Sounds nice.

My concern would be enabling another group of people to pressure a board that appears to struggle to run the organization already.

If its raison d'être was action aimed at removing the current board and replacing it with something better (what that would look like I have no idea) I might be more enthusiastic.

Just on that, would it take removing the current board before there is a realistic prospect of a supporters alliance getting anything more than token acknowledgement?

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

The only problem with "Sakc the board!!1!" type movements, is they have little to no plan for how to move forward successfully when they've achieved that aim. The previous decade has been testament to that.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

That's not its purpose. It's purpose is to work with the board and take some ownership of the decision making process. I have mentioned an advisory board - similar to a Richmond and Hawthorn model - but the current board wouldn't be keen on that idea.



No. Just the current President.

I think it's a fantastic idea - one of the recent frustrations was the whole interstate members voting rights issue - this is exactly the platform something like that can be addressed from.

Bring it on Doc - 100% support from WA!

_________________
I'm shocked to be sitting here