-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
2017 AGM
- Thread starter taztiger4
- Start date
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
I'm also happy for the 100 sigs clause to remain personally & will also be voting no.
That there's never been an EGM I see no reason to change it.
I'm also happy for the 100 sigs clause to remain personally & will also be voting no.
That there's never been an EGM I see no reason to change it.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Its your democratic right jb, but changing the 100 sigs madness? And do you really think this move 'lessens the members say'? Or just lessens the ability for a disgruntled fringe to agitate and suck time and energy? 'the members' are 50K remember, not 100.
TBH I won't be spending anytime campaigning for the yes vote, my beef is with the view that implies the board are an evil empire that some push. Personally I think this is a move by the board to head off the potential for instability and the exploitation of short term anger and panic, under slightly diff circumstances FoF could have gotten a lot further than they did last year for example.
jb03 said:
Its your democratic right jb, but changing the 100 sigs madness? And do you really think this move 'lessens the members say'? Or just lessens the ability for a disgruntled fringe to agitate and suck time and energy? 'the members' are 50K remember, not 100.
TBH I won't be spending anytime campaigning for the yes vote, my beef is with the view that implies the board are an evil empire that some push. Personally I think this is a move by the board to head off the potential for instability and the exploitation of short term anger and panic, under slightly diff circumstances FoF could have gotten a lot further than they did last year for example.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Aren't a "disgruntled fringe" members as well?
Again with the "agitate and suck time and energy".
THE BOARD INITIATED THESE CHANGES NOT YOUR DISGRUNTLED FRINGE.
Reported that FoF threatened to call an EGM, as did the Malvern Hotel group.
The board called their bluff and neither group even stood a candidate in the wash up.
The closest we got to an EGM was in 2004 when a serious resolution to spill the board at an EGM was proposed.
At that time (IIRC) President Clinton Casey saw the writing on the wall and spilled the board for an election at the AGM, effectively having an AGM replace the mooted EGM.
Since there have been no EGM's EVER called it is unlikely that anyone has any data on failed attempts.
tigersnake said:
Aren't a "disgruntled fringe" members as well?
Again with the "agitate and suck time and energy".
THE BOARD INITIATED THESE CHANGES NOT YOUR DISGRUNTLED FRINGE.
Reported that FoF threatened to call an EGM, as did the Malvern Hotel group.
The board called their bluff and neither group even stood a candidate in the wash up.
The closest we got to an EGM was in 2004 when a serious resolution to spill the board at an EGM was proposed.
At that time (IIRC) President Clinton Casey saw the writing on the wall and spilled the board for an election at the AGM, effectively having an AGM replace the mooted EGM.
Since there have been no EGM's EVER called it is unlikely that anyone has any data on failed attempts.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
yes of course the disgruntled fringe are members. My view is that 5% allows for an EGM. 0.1% allows for potential grandstanding and distracting spotfires. Even if the EGMs based on 100 sigs don't actually eventuate, the threat of it can achieve political mileage and instability. The almost EGMs by FoF and the Pub crew supports that. You might think that is a good thing, I don't. That is all.
RedanTiger said:
yes of course the disgruntled fringe are members. My view is that 5% allows for an EGM. 0.1% allows for potential grandstanding and distracting spotfires. Even if the EGMs based on 100 sigs don't actually eventuate, the threat of it can achieve political mileage and instability. The almost EGMs by FoF and the Pub crew supports that. You might think that is a good thing, I don't. That is all.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
I’ll happily admit that membership has grown substantially since the original 100 sig bill was drafted so on that basis I’d be ok with doubling that number to 200 to grow with the times. However there’s a fair chance in the next few seasons we’ll be over 100,000 strong and I’m uncomfortable with having to get 5000 signatures. Ridiculous jump.
I’ll happily admit that membership has grown substantially since the original 100 sig bill was drafted so on that basis I’d be ok with doubling that number to 200 to grow with the times. However there’s a fair chance in the next few seasons we’ll be over 100,000 strong and I’m uncomfortable with having to get 5000 signatures. Ridiculous jump.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
I’d be happy with 500 signatures for an EGM, but no more.
I’d be happy with 500 signatures for an EGM, but no more.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
im just happy.
in benny and peggy I trust, blindly like a sheep. One thats tethered out the back of an Arabic restaurant whose specials board says
'sheeps eyes soup'
im just happy.
in benny and peggy I trust, blindly like a sheep. One thats tethered out the back of an Arabic restaurant whose specials board says
'sheeps eyes soup'
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Yeah it's great now & hopefully will be forever. History tells us that may not always be the case.
easy said:
Yeah it's great now & hopefully will be forever. History tells us that may not always be the case.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
I'll worry about that after Dusty retires I reckon.
I dont know much about process and constitutions and that.
they actually give me heartburn.
But twice now, the look on Benny's face makes me trust whatever he reckons
The first time when he fronted the media to denounce the loony pub board coup, the second time when we won the flag.
I emailed the club and said
"im with benny"
Tigers of Old said:
I'll worry about that after Dusty retires I reckon.
I dont know much about process and constitutions and that.
they actually give me heartburn.
But twice now, the look on Benny's face makes me trust whatever he reckons
The first time when he fronted the media to denounce the loony pub board coup, the second time when we won the flag.
I emailed the club and said
"im with benny"
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
For God's sake stop embarrassing yourself.
An EGM is any meeting other than an AGM, it doesn't occur only if a Godzilla event happens. What we are looking at is EGMs initiated by members rather than those which can be called by directors.
Richmond Footy club is a company.
Your grasp of what is rare and what isn't is laughable.
If you don't know about a subject best to try and listen and learn before you start lecturing those who do.
tigersnake said:
For God's sake stop embarrassing yourself.
An EGM is any meeting other than an AGM, it doesn't occur only if a Godzilla event happens. What we are looking at is EGMs initiated by members rather than those which can be called by directors.
Richmond Footy club is a company.
Your grasp of what is rare and what isn't is laughable.
If you don't know about a subject best to try and listen and learn before you start lecturing those who do.
No for me.
All the recent changes have diminished members rights.
Especially how the club appoints board members as they wish outside being voted by the members.
A rule change brought in to help the board that they have exploited. Premiership or no premiership. Nope don't trust them 5% is too much. it has never happened so why continue to put it up.
Winning a premiership the current board imo hope those rose coloured glass goes in their favour.
All the recent changes have diminished members rights.
Especially how the club appoints board members as they wish outside being voted by the members.
A rule change brought in to help the board that they have exploited. Premiership or no premiership. Nope don't trust them 5% is too much. it has never happened so why continue to put it up.
Winning a premiership the current board imo hope those rose coloured glass goes in their favour.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
I honestly wouldn't care in this day & age if it was 1000 max.
They say 50,000+. so people quickly do the sums on 50K.... ahhh 75,000 members and climbing,but better to understate it in a manner that is indirect
Spot on.The_General said:
I honestly wouldn't care in this day & age if it was 1000 max.
They say 50,000+. so people quickly do the sums on 50K.... ahhh 75,000 members and climbing,but better to understate it in a manner that is indirect
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
You need to relax a bit, the way your speak you’d think we just finished the season last and the board made a 5 million dollar losslamb22 said:
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Why highlight how pointless the clause is. Change it to 5% and be done with it. Our board is excellent no issue with this proposalRedanTiger said:
ReddenTiger you rejecting the second change in particular about premiership players getting life membership might be the dumbest thing I have heard to be frank
I am rejecting the change since it entitles VFL players to Life Membership, even those NOT an AFL listed Richmond player (Beasley, Darley, Ballard).Tiger_mitch said:
I have no problem with AFL players entitlement, which are being done on a retrospective basis ATM.
This is further compounded by removing the entitlement of 100 game Richmond players (Rioli, Knights, Gale, Richardson)
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Our CURRENT board is excellent. This change will be in place long after they're gone if it's made.
Tiger_mitch said:
Our CURRENT board is excellent. This change will be in place long after they're gone if it's made.
