Ray Gluyas and Di Nevett have resigned, leaving just Mark McGrath and Richard Start on the current panel.

This follows last week’s news that interim chairman Shaune Moloney and Stephen Jurica had also taken themselves off the board, following a number of others in recent times.

“I do so (step down) with a heavy heart, but believe that this is in the best interests of the football club at this point in time,” Gluyas wrote in a statement.

“For some time now, the board has been unable to carry out its duties as it should, constrained by the activities, both private and public, of outsiders seeking to wield influence over the board’s decision making.

“I have always had the interests of the club - the whole club - at the centre of every decision I have made. I know my fellow board members have too.”

Gluyas claims that the outgoing board was unaware of the number or names of potential new members when it refused to ratify them on Monday.

The decision hinged on these people not being paid up by October 31, as per club rules.

Some of these names were part of Peter Wilson’s ticket for the board and were subsequently ruled ineligible to stand. Wilson then pulled his nomination to the position of chairman.

Jurica, who was present at the meeting on Monday, disputes Gluyas’ version of events.

“Just prior to the extraordinary meeting, two board members raised the issue of new members needing to be approved by the board before the election,” Jurica wrote in a statement.

“The board was advised of the names of all those members who had nominated for the upcoming election.”

Gluyas said an offer for Wilson to be chair with five eligible members of his ticket was communicated as late as Wednesday.

Wilson told The Courier this did not occur and that he hadn’t received any communication from the club or board since he emailed last Tuesday to inform he would not be standing for chairman.

GLUYAS’ STATEMENT

After much soul searching and deliberation, I have decided to resign from my position as a Director of the North Ballarat Football Club.

I do so with a heavy heart, but believe that this is in the best interests of the football club at this point in time.

For some time now, the board has been unable to carry out its duties as it should, constrained by the activities, both private and public, of outsiders seeking to wield influence over the board’s decision making.

I have always had the interests of the club - the whole club - at the centre of every decision I have made. I know my fellow board members have too. I accept that not everyone has agreed with every decision, but I leave knowing that as a board we have always chosen to put the best interests of the club and all our members ahead of any personal ego or politics.  We are long-term members and volunteers with the club and have never sought to put ourselves in the spotlight - and certainly not to put the club at risk.

What has been published in The Courier this week is not an accurate account of what has taken place. I hope the following information will help set the record straight.

- As the only nomination, Peter Wilson was to be elected unopposed to the Position of Chairman. As has been publicly stated, the board welcomed that result.

- In order to avoid a costly election for our financially-strapped club, on Thursday, January 26,  Peter Wilson was offered control of the board, with himself as chair and five members of his ticket to be elected unopposed. This offer to him was confirmed via email on Sunday, January 29.

- On Monday, January 30, a previously-organised Special General Meeting took place to update members on the current financial situation of the club and the future of the Roosters in the VFL. They were the only items of discussion at that meeting.

- There was no extraordinary board meeting held on Monday, January 30 - or at any other time this year.

- After the Special General Meeting, a request was made for board members present to “have a quick catch up”. No mention was made that this was to be a meeting of the board, no notice was given, and neither the CEO nor the North Ballarat Sports Club Board were present (as has been standard practice for a board meetings of recent times).

- Once gathered, we were told the purpose of the catch up was to ratify “a few new membership applications” (no specific number or names were given). No documentation or information was provided to the board members present as to who the new the members were, nor why they needed to be ratified outside the standard constitutional process (at an ordinary board meeting, which was due to take place on Monday, February 6 - a week later).

- A lengthy debate took place around the governance of making a decision without knowledge of who these people were. A motion was put up to ratify the applicants, still with no knowledge of who they were. That motion was rejected amidst concerns that this wasn’t a properly constituted meeting and there was no evidence of whether the membership applications were in fact valid.

- Within the next 24 hours, I found out that the applications included five candidates on Peter Wilson’s ticket (I have subsequently been told it was four). I was also told that it wasn’t “a few” memberships, but 240, the majority being employees of two local companies. None of this was revealed in our “catch up”.

- The decision not to ratify unknown bulk membership was conveyed to Peter Wilson and he withdrew his nomination as the chair. Peter Wilson responded with an email saying he was going to the media.

- On Wednesday, February 1, Peter Wilson was advised that the offer for him to be chair with 5 members of his ticket still stood. We did not receive a response.

So, to be clear, at no stage has an extraordinary board meeting been held to knock back membership for any members on Peter’s ticket. At all times, the board has acted within the framework of its constitution. It does seem that the attempt to disguise, if that’s what it was, a ratification of 240 potential members is an attempt to sabotage the election process.  

Steven Troon has indicated he would immediately renew his support for the club if Peter Wilson was allowed to take control of the Board. This option has always been there for Peter Wilson. To date, he has chosen not to accept it.

It is my sincerest hope that the election on February 21 will deliver a board with the passion and commitment to our club - our whole club - that recent board members have had. I also hope they bring with them skills and tenacity to deal with the difficult challenges that lie ahead, because regardless of who is on the board, those challenges will remain.

While the issues and attacks faced by recent board members have taken their personal toll on us, my great regret is the impact this has had on the players, the general (and genuine) membership and, of course, the reputation of the club.

JURICA’S STATEMENT

On 19 December 2016, the board agreed that all nominations for the incoming board were to be received by 24 January 2017. This was communicated to all members on 3 January 2017.

There was an extraordinary board meeting after the Special General Meeting on Monday 30 January 2017.

Just prior to the extraordinary meeting, two board members raised the issue of new members needing to be approved by the board before the election.

In the extraordinary board meeting, the board was told that the new membership list totalled 240 members.

The board was advised of the names of all those members who had nominated for the upcoming election.

The interim chair proposed a motion to allow those that applied for membership post 31 October 2016 to be allowed to become members.

In the meeting, the board was reminded that members were notified in writing that the cut off date for nominations was 24 January 2017, and that the board was now effectively going back on its word.

The majority of the board decided not to pass the motion. This resulted in new members not being allowed to vote in the upcoming election.  Further, those that had nominated for the election could not be ratified as members (and therefore be ineligible to nominate in the election).

The interim chair in an email later that same evening on 30 January asked the board to reconsider its position. The board did not wish to do so.