-
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
I think you should learn the definition of irony. Not sure how a grammar error is related to redden having no idea what he is talking aboutMidsy said:
Seems pretty rude to put the exact same issue to vote that was voted on only a year ago. Disrespecting the members.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Go back to sleep. Only fools relinquish their rights to hold executives accountable.
Damn straight! Muppets jump up and down at every opportunity spilling boards here decapitating Presidents there. The amount of EGMs called by emotive nuffy members have cost this club millions and millennia.Elmer said:
Go back to sleep. Only fools relinquish their rights to hold executives accountable.
Hoping the rabble have been silenced by a Premiership. Rolling the dice that less anger equals lower participation so the backslapping yes bois can get the amendment up.Giardiasis said:
It's explained in the attachment to the AGM notice emailed to members.Leysy Days said:
Basically contact Nicki Crivari (Gale and O'Neal's Assistant) by email [email protected] or (03) 94264411.
You will of course need someone to be your proxy at the meeting (need not be a member) and as said I am available for "NO" voters. PM if interested.
Writing your instead of you’re as it’s faster isn’t the same as Redden being wrong and still believing what he thinks. Again you need to learn what irony meansMidsy said:
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
100 people to call a egm is to little it’s as simple as that. On reflection I actually partly agree 5% would make it to hard. There needs to a middle ground of say 500 or 1000 because at the end of the day 100 is far to little and 5% to large. You still come across as very bitter for a supporter who just won a flag, do you give the board any credit at all?tommystigers said:
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Am I bitter? No. The board did a great job in standing firm amidst turmoil and carried out their plan to the ultimate resolution achievable. I don't think anyone can deny them the kudos they deserve. They have not, however, addressed concerns regarding ongoing board appointments, election discrepancies, and equal and just treatment of candidates for board positions that fall outside of their "circle of trust". We had an excellent candidate last year, one of us, put forward a very reasoned and professional application. He was not afforded equal or just opportunity to be elected by the club because of manipulation of the voting process in favour of the incumbents.
Did you actually pay attention to the election and vote at the AGM last year?
Your middle ground argument makes no sense. Why change something that has never been used during some very tumultuous periods in our history, even with such an achievable amount of signatures? The fact is that even if a bunch of nuff nuffs like myself manage to call an EGM, club stalwarts like yourself and pink sock and the yes bois will rally enough numbers to vote any of our resolutions down. This is a football club and I am a member, you can waive your rights but don't try to waive mine.Tiger_mitch said:
Am I bitter? No. The board did a great job in standing firm amidst turmoil and carried out their plan to the ultimate resolution achievable. I don't think anyone can deny them the kudos they deserve. They have not, however, addressed concerns regarding ongoing board appointments, election discrepancies, and equal and just treatment of candidates for board positions that fall outside of their "circle of trust". We had an excellent candidate last year, one of us, put forward a very reasoned and professional application. He was not afforded equal or just opportunity to be elected by the club because of manipulation of the voting process in favour of the incumbents.
Did you actually pay attention to the election and vote at the AGM last year?
Okay, this is my response to the proposed 2017 Constitutional Changes.
Resolution 1 Part (A)
Firstly my argument against are as they were last year.
The argument are about the level of votes required.
Some say 100 is too low. Some say 5% (effectively now above 2,500) is too high.
This question is a matter of opinion.
The board has said that 100 members is too low a threshold.
My rebuttal is that 100 is NOT too low, since this hurdle has NEVER been cleared in our 133 years.
The board has also said that an EGM is expensive for the "company".
Calling an EGM should, as the board says, only be done in "extraordinary" circumstances. That's why it's NEVER been done.
In 2004 the club admitted half-way through the season that we had an increasing debt of $2 million. Since that would lead to the club being insolvent, a petition for an EGM to address the worry of the debt increasing by the end of year was mooted by Michael Plahoff. In the event the then President forestalled the EGM by calling a spill of the board at the AGM, effectively making the AGM a de facto EGM.
Any member calling for an EGM is saying the costs of an EGM is less than the cost of doing nothing till the AGM.
There is also another non-financial cost to calling an EGM.
Anyone calling for an EGM should be aware that they will invoke a backlash against them from not only those against their resolutions but also against the costs.
I think this was the case in 2004 when no challenger was elected and also last year with the FoF and Malvern Hotel groups withdrawing any threat to call an EGM.
This leads to the next point.
At present 100 members can call for an EGM, at any time, and the Company Secretary must, within 21 days, give 14 days notice of the meeting. Effectively 5 weeks between lodgement and meeting.
The board has said that a member resolution to the AGM can cause the same effect as an EGM resolution.
Aside from the fact that this acknowledges that the easiest way to remove directors will be via a member resolution at the AGM this doesn't quite tell the whole story.
Last year resolution 6 changed member resolutions.
In line with the NEVER used EGM clause, I do not know of any member resolution to remove directors that was used under the 10 member requirement previously in place.
This means that any resolution can only be considered on one day of the year at the AGM with 2 months notice.
This makes it much more arduous than being able to call an EGM at any time.
Resolution 1 Part (B)
Section (b) of this clause entitles single VFL/AFL premiership players to Life Membership rather than the previous "multiple premierships".
This means that, if Lennon had kicked the goal and won a VFL premiership this year, a number of players would have become Life Members including Beasley, Darley, Ballard, Coffield, Silvestro and Wood.
I am rejecting the change since it entitles VFL players to Life Membership, even those NOT an AFL listed Richmond player.
I do not understand but surely the board did not intend to include VFL premierships.
Why they didn't simply change the "VFL/AFL" to simply AFL while redrafting I do not understand.
I have no problem with AFL players entitlement, which are being done on a retrospective basis ATM.
Section (c) of this clause removes the entitlement of VFL/AFL players who have played over 100 senior VFL/AFL matches to Life Membership.
Since it was 37 years between AFL premierships, this means that players like Maurice Rioli, Free, Knights, Gale (!), Naish, Campbell, Richardson and Deledio would NOT be entitled to automatic Life Membership.
Rather a glaring change and a slap in the face when you compare them to the above mentioned Beasley, Ballard etc.
This clause can be voted down this year and a properly written section put forward next year.
It will not make any difference to our current premiership players and past VFL ones are already being honoured at the board's discretion.
I am voting "NO" to both changes and again ask for proxies to PM me.
Now must away to read up on the draft picks and then follow for our picks after 6pm
Resolution 1 Part (A)
Firstly my argument against are as they were last year.
RedanTiger said:
The argument are about the level of votes required.
Some say 100 is too low. Some say 5% (effectively now above 2,500) is too high.
This question is a matter of opinion.
The board has said that 100 members is too low a threshold.
My rebuttal is that 100 is NOT too low, since this hurdle has NEVER been cleared in our 133 years.
The board has also said that an EGM is expensive for the "company".
Calling an EGM should, as the board says, only be done in "extraordinary" circumstances. That's why it's NEVER been done.
In 2004 the club admitted half-way through the season that we had an increasing debt of $2 million. Since that would lead to the club being insolvent, a petition for an EGM to address the worry of the debt increasing by the end of year was mooted by Michael Plahoff. In the event the then President forestalled the EGM by calling a spill of the board at the AGM, effectively making the AGM a de facto EGM.
Any member calling for an EGM is saying the costs of an EGM is less than the cost of doing nothing till the AGM.
There is also another non-financial cost to calling an EGM.
Anyone calling for an EGM should be aware that they will invoke a backlash against them from not only those against their resolutions but also against the costs.
I think this was the case in 2004 when no challenger was elected and also last year with the FoF and Malvern Hotel groups withdrawing any threat to call an EGM.
This leads to the next point.
At present 100 members can call for an EGM, at any time, and the Company Secretary must, within 21 days, give 14 days notice of the meeting. Effectively 5 weeks between lodgement and meeting.
The board has said that a member resolution to the AGM can cause the same effect as an EGM resolution.
Aside from the fact that this acknowledges that the easiest way to remove directors will be via a member resolution at the AGM this doesn't quite tell the whole story.
Last year resolution 6 changed member resolutions.
This means that it is now more than 10 times harder to remove directors (using the boards example) than previously.RedanTiger said:
In line with the NEVER used EGM clause, I do not know of any member resolution to remove directors that was used under the 10 member requirement previously in place.
This means that any resolution can only be considered on one day of the year at the AGM with 2 months notice.
This makes it much more arduous than being able to call an EGM at any time.
Resolution 1 Part (B)
Section (b) of this clause entitles single VFL/AFL premiership players to Life Membership rather than the previous "multiple premierships".
This means that, if Lennon had kicked the goal and won a VFL premiership this year, a number of players would have become Life Members including Beasley, Darley, Ballard, Coffield, Silvestro and Wood.
I am rejecting the change since it entitles VFL players to Life Membership, even those NOT an AFL listed Richmond player.
I do not understand but surely the board did not intend to include VFL premierships.
Why they didn't simply change the "VFL/AFL" to simply AFL while redrafting I do not understand.
I have no problem with AFL players entitlement, which are being done on a retrospective basis ATM.
Section (c) of this clause removes the entitlement of VFL/AFL players who have played over 100 senior VFL/AFL matches to Life Membership.
Since it was 37 years between AFL premierships, this means that players like Maurice Rioli, Free, Knights, Gale (!), Naish, Campbell, Richardson and Deledio would NOT be entitled to automatic Life Membership.
Rather a glaring change and a slap in the face when you compare them to the above mentioned Beasley, Ballard etc.
This clause can be voted down this year and a properly written section put forward next year.
It will not make any difference to our current premiership players and past VFL ones are already being honoured at the board's discretion.
I am voting "NO" to both changes and again ask for proxies to PM me.
Now must away to read up on the draft picks and then follow for our picks after 6pm
Multiple people who know what there talking about have said the new clause doesn’t enable vfl non listed players to life membership. I’d have thought it would be a good idea to ask the question and double check before rejecting that change.RedanTiger said:
and multiple people, including the Prime Minister and a lot of his federal politicians, thought they knew what section 44 meant.Tiger_mitch said:
Pity the High Court of Australia read it literally and against what they talked about.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
You make some valid points here. Not sure I agree with the notion that just because something hasn’t occurred in the past doesn’t mean no change should be made as I call that complacency. I wouldn’t vote in favor of 5% but if a number such as 500-1000 was put up in the future I’d vote for it as I think it’s a good future proof thing to have. In terms of the way nominations are handled you obviously feel a certain way and that’s fine. You saying the candidate put up was excellent is obviously personal opinion and not everyone members included would have agreed, Dunn was the clear standout out of them all imo. The processes in place obviously aren’t perfect and allowing outside candidates on the board can definitely have a positive impact. At the same time a board composed of a group with a chunk being selected by the board can also significantly ensure its run right and is effective.tommystigers said:
That’s a pretty poor analogy friend. Can’t see why you wouldn’t ask the question, if unhappy with the response reject it. Just seems a bit silly to potentially reject something for a reason which may not actually existRedanTiger said:
