2017 AGM

[rbartlett]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

While you (and Lamb22) are talking in general about all companies in Australia and 1.5 times a year, the Richmond Football Club is different.
The clause requiring 100 signatures for an EGM has NEVER been used in the 133 years of RFC's history. Not even when we were insolvent in 2004.

Actually it has been used.
The 100 signatures clause was used on Feb 27 1911.

Advertisement in the paper:
Richmond Football Club.
"By request of over one hundred members, a SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING of the members of the above club will be held in the Richmond Town Hall on Monday Evening, February 27 at 8pm"

As well, the committee itself called 2 Special member meetings on Feb 5 1930, and Jan 19 1944

 

[rbartlett]

As for the premiership = life members proposal.
It relates only to those who play in a Senior premiership. I don't think the terminology is quite clear on the document. They've kept the VFL reference from the earlier criteria (which relates to the VFL seniors, not current VFL reserves).

So if you are a Senior player, and dropped to the reserves during the season and only play in a Reserves premiership - you don't receive life membership.
It is only if you play in a Senior premiership

 

[Tiger_mitch]

As for the premiership = life members proposal.
It relates only to those who play in a Senior premiership. I don't think the terminology is quite clear on the document. They've kept the VFL reference from the earlier criteria (which relates to the VFL seniors, not current VFL reserves).

So if you are a Senior player, and dropped to the reserves during the season and only play in a Reserves premiership - you don't receive life membership.
It is only if you play in a Senior premiership

Redden tiger doesn’t believe you. Will argue the point

 

[tommystigers]

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.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this but I don't think you get it, Mitch. Both Dunne and Ryan were allowed favourable club sponsored articles on the website containing a link to vote. Wallace and Casey were denied. Dunne would most likely have been elected as he had a significant margin. Simon Wallace missed out on being elected by 63 votes behind Ryan. There is no doubt in my mind that the timing and content of the articles and the link got Ryan up. Both Wallace and Casey were unable to cross election by-law boundaries that Dunne and Ryan were as incumbents and endorsees of the club and the president.

Here http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2016-11-25/director-kerry-ryan-stands-for-reelection you can see Kerry Ryan inside the players locker room. Candidates are not allowed to use the club logo or infer that they are endorsed by the club in any way. One of the most telling statements in the article is the very bottom line . "The publishing, and contents, of this article was authorised by the electoral Returning Officer." The electoral Returning Officer did not acknowledge concerns put to them regarding the board election process and proxies, most likely because I and others are emotive nuffy members.

That "the processes in place aren't perfect" is the very reason that board elections and constitutional amendment votes are so critical for the welfare of the club moving forward. Most of the members are in a stupor and couldn't be bothered voting. About 6000 voted for the board last year. When so few vote there is a necessity for the club to get it right and for the voting and elections to be transparent and above board. Last year was a farce. So far I have received no acknowledgement of my request for a proxy form.

 

[RedanTiger]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

Actually it has been used.
The 100 signatures clause was used on Feb 27 1911.

Advertisement in the paper:
Richmond Football Club.
"By request of over one hundred members, a SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING of the members of the above club will be held in the Richmond Town Hall on Monday Evening, February 27 at 8pm"

As well, the committee itself called 2 Special member meetings on Feb 5 1930, and Jan 19 1944

Fair enough Rhett.
I was mainly going on the comment from the President last year when she said it had never been used. 1911 hmmm so 106 years ago.
I bow to your better historical knowledge of the Richmond FC.

I thank you for saying that the VFL section terminology is not clear.
As I said I don't know why they didn't just remove the VFL section this year since they have been granting Life Memberships to former single premiership players.
VFL and AFL are two separate competitions and have been since 1996.
The VFL reserves this year was called the Development League and I think is not going next year. AFAIK there is no AFL reserves competition.

 

[Number8]

Cannot believe the board is fronting up with this proposed amendment again, one year after it was defeated.

Imagine if the Tories tried to re-run the marriage equality plebiscite just because they didn't like the result?

This board doesn't seem to get that no means NO!

 

[Baloo]

This board doesn't seem to get that no means NO!

That's lucky for us then seeing almost every man and his dog were screaming "no more Hardwick" at the end of last year.

 

[RedanTiger]

That's lucky for us then seeing almost every man and his dog were screaming "no more Hardwick" at the end of last year.

There was no vote on Hardwick.
The vote for the board members who made the decision returned them.
Your guess on the numbers of "every man and his dog" is just that - your guess.

 

[Singapore Tiger]

Just received my proxy form and unless I'm reading it incorrectly then the 2 proposed changes are covered by 1 special resolution, i.e. you can't vote yes for one and no for the other, it's a job lot. Doesn't matter to me as I'm planning on voting the same was on both, just found it interesting....

 

[Brodders17]

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 Brian Leys, Daffy, Palm, Ottens, A. Krakouer, Pettifer, Tambling, L. Mcguane, White and Ty Vickery would NOT be entitled to automatic Life Membership.

these are the guys that change would effect. but list those names doesnt quite have the same effect as your list, who would all likely be awarded life membership anyway.

 

[RedanTiger]

Okay, I was basing my objection to the removal of clause 3.3.2 (c) - the removal of Life Membership criteria for 100 game players - on the attachment sent by the club.
I was wrong.

After reading the post from Brodders I went directly to the constitution to look at this again and found 3.3.2(a) entitles a player to life membership after 10 years or 150 games.
The section they wish to delete only refers to SINGLE premiership players needing only 100 games ie a lower bar than normal.
Since they are granting Life Memberships retrospectively to players with less than 150 games and a single premiership outside these guidelines I have no problem with the deletion of this clause.

I still, however, believe the continued use of the wording "VFL/AFL" in the re-written clause 3.3.2(b) creates a problem with the two separate competitions. The VFL part should have been removed.

I note ST's post and to approve this change also requires approval of the proposed raised numbers (100 -> 5%) on calling an EGM.
I think this is the very reason why these two issues have been combined in one resolution - to tie our love for the players with increasing the power of the board.

 

[tigersnake]

I made 2 logical points which have been ignored by the no mob. That is Fair enough, but I'll re-state them anyway because they are restating and restating their arguments:

1) Just because something has rarely occurred (thanks for the homework RB ;D), or even never occurred, does not mean that it is not a bad regulation, or that it will not occur in the future. Far from it. By the same logic, why bother installing smoke detectors in a house that has never had a fire? Why change from old re-tread cross-ply tyres to brand new radials when you haven't had a blow out yet? Why bother revoking sodomy laws when nobody has been convicted for 50 years? You might not think the analogies are relevant, but they are used to illustrate logic.

2) The potential for a hair trigger EGM even if it not used, still has potential to be politically, administratively and financially de-stabilising just by the potential threat of it happening.

 

[caesar]

Good onya Tigersnake I am with you,

This is more of a "NO VOTE", political campaign thread.

 

[tigersnake]

I respect the no proponents arguments, I genuinely do. But based on my own experience and knowledge of the law and politics, I personally reckon they are a bit naive, inconsistent and barking up the wrong tree. Footy boardroom politics, for better or worse, is a brutal bloodsport (better IMO obviously). I want my board to be the most brutal if they need to be, which they were during our last period of sustained success and were also last year to bayonet the FoF and pub mob. I do not want any feel-good, hippy, consensus, new age kum-by-ah sh!t anywhere near the Richmond Boardroom. I want brutal, decisive efficiency that can absorb the lows and maximise the highs. Brutal on the field, and brutal off it, thats what I want. Peggy is the woman.

 

[Rosy]

...... Brutal on the field, and brutal off it, thats what I want. Peggy is the woman.

Peggy is the woman now but one day it might be another Clinton Casey. It isn't now that concerns me in regards to the board gradually whittling away members say. It's the future. One day action might be needed and the members will have long since been emasculated. Having said that I don't intend to vote. Quite possibly will never be a member again. I'm a bit undecided at the moment. I don't see much point any more.

 

[Tiger_mitch]

Peggy is the woman now but one day it might be another Clinton Casey. It isn't now that concerns me in regards to the board gradually whittling away members say. It's the future. One day action might be needed and the members will have long since been emasculated. Having said that I don't intend to vote. Quite possibly will never be a member again. I'm a bit undecided at the moment. I don't see much point any more.

Out of curiosity why don’t you see a point in being a member? Isn’t the point that it helps support the club financially?

 

[Rosy]

Out of curiosity why don’t you see a point in being a member? Isn’t the point that it helps support the club financially?

There are many ways of helping support the club financially. For example running PRE. I spend more on the site than I do on memberships and the club benefit from it bigtime. We've raised around $80,000 for them in fundraising. There are also benefits of people being members due to this site as well as advertising all sorts of things that bring the dollars in. As for being a member I don't really like the direction. Gradually whittling away at member's rights. Removing benefits from reward and Recognition so in effect it's just a title now. No loyalty for long term members. More about the $$ than the person now. No increased finals access.

 

[Rosy]

Out of curiosity ....

Out of curiosity have you ever supported PRE's fundraising for the club or helped the site financially or with your time? I don't judge you or make you less welcome if you haven't. I'd appreciate the same courtesy from people.

 

[Tiger_mitch]

There are many ways of helping support the club financially. For example running PRE. I spend more on the site than I do on memberships and the club benefit from it bigtime. We've raised around $80,000 for them in fundraising. There are also benefits of people being members due to this site as well as advertising all sorts of things that bring the dollars in. As for being a member I don't really like the direction. Gradually whittling away at member's rights. Removing benefits from reward and Recognition so in effect it's just a title now. No loyalty for long term members. More about the $$ than the person now. No increased finals access.

That’s fair enough you clearly support the club in other ways anyway. But in relation to your statement about long term members not being rewarded I’m not sure exactly what you mean. Those with certain higher tier memberships and long term members are rewarded with benefits such as guaranteed finals and grand final tickets. Every club in the afl is identical to this

 

[Rosy]

.......Those with certain higher tier memberships and long term members are rewarded with benefits such as guaranteed finals and grand final tickets. Every club in the afl is identical to this

When Reward and Recognition was introduced Platinum membership had grand final access. That was taken away and you needed to join other categories on top of your membership to get the granny benefit. I understand that and am not criticising it. It's just meant that the reward for long term membership was removed and money (being able to afford the appropriate categories) was given priority.

I am not a fan of anyone judging others on whether they are a member or not. I've been a member for more than 36 years. My Mum, who I got my Tiger passion from, was never a member. She's certainly done her bit for the cause over the years just the same and is no less a supporter than the rest of us here.

I'm sure a lot here aren't members for varying reasons. That's their business. I know a lot here are members due to the passion and information on this site. That makes me proud.