-
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.
Life membership debate
- Thread starter Jonesracing82
- Start date
the easiest and best solution is of course to stop winning flags, then we won't have any more of these pesky premiership winning life members.
Get it done Benny, Peggers and Dimma!!!
Branch stacking is a term used in Australian politics to describe the act of recruiting or signing up members for a local branch of a political party for the principal purpose of influencing the outcome of internal preselections of candidates for public office, or to inordinately influence policy of the party.
Branch stacking? I'm happy to vote the way Peggy and Benny want me to in return for them paying for my annual membership fee every year. And guaranteed GF tickets too.
How many members do we have now anyway, 100,000? That's a big branch to stack.
How many members do we have now anyway, 100,000? That's a big branch to stack.
Could not have said it better!!!!
I held off as long as possible from asking the question: who are these idiots questioning this decision/outcome????
I mean - seriously - watch the game clowns!!!!
One extra goal and this guy wins the Norm Smith!
If you win the Norm Smith (or come top three) in a GF winning team how TF are you begrudging his life membership????
He didn't eat hamburgers, beat up on friends or otherwise disgrace the club!
FFS! This is one of the best example ever of awarding Life Membership - and too sad - too bad - to those that have missed out!
Those that can - DO!
You don't need to overcome the total membership figures.
You only need enough to win the vote.
See below:
The proxy figures held by Peggy increased by about 100 from 2016 to 2017.
Peggy also announced when stating the proxy figures there were a lot of extra proxies because a lot of people didn't know they could lodge a proxy.
I took this to mean a lot of staff members had abstained from voting in 2016.
Consider your position as a staff member. I personally would find it very intimidating to write out a proxy and deliver it to the administration saying I was voting a proxy against their proposed changes. Safer to just abstain completely if you disagree.
Pretty sure it was only enshrined in the constitution after a vote at the December 2017 AGM.
Habitual negative thinking limits what we believe is achievable.
Hmmmmmmm. From your ongoing comments about the board and the AGM's Red. Does this mean you don't believe we've managed to achieve anything over the last ten years? Like no debt, new facilities, 100,000 plus members, two flags n general overall awesomeness.
Just askin like
Hmmmmmmm. From your ongoing comments about the board and the AGM's Red. Does this mean you don't believe we've managed to achieve anything over the last ten years? Like no debt, new facilities, 100,000 plus members, two flags n general overall awesomeness.
Just askin like
Firstly to verify LRR's post. It was voted on at the 2017 AGM as this Rhett Bartlett post from the time shows.
If anyone is interested in a long, long read through past history there are a few threads on all these related topics in the 2nd and 3rd pages of the Off-Field board.
To answer the above post directly.
I strongly believe that the club, board, admin, staff and players have achieved possibly the strongest results in not only Richmond, but maybe AFL history, given the competitiveness, complexities and limitations of an AFL regime that openly pushes an "equalisation" model.
I started supporting Richmond about 1965 when we first started on that golden era.
I was present at the 2004 AGM, along with thousands of other members, that came about in a very poor time for us when we were actually insolvent (only being saved by an AFL guarantee of our debts according to the auditors). This was the very reason why I shook hands with and congratulated Maurice O'Shannassay and Rob Dalton for their efforts at the AGM. I did not forget where we had come from and those two directors were integral to that recovery.
Despite my statement above I do not accept that the "ends justify the means".
Richmond as a sporting club was a member based organisation devoted to excellence in it's competition.
The changes in 2011 (having 1/3 of directors "appointed") started the rot IMO and have continued regularly to diminish the power of members to direct the club ever since with the 2016 and 2017 changes (EGM limits, term limit exemptions, etc) the low point. As an aside I would mention that in 2016 at the same time as the EGM threshold was first mooted so was, in the final change, the ability of members to place an item on the AGM agenda. Applying the Corporations Act, 5% of members are now required to support any motion to be put to the members.
Outside of the constitutional changes I am also appalled at some of the things that have been done including staged resignations, biased elections and secrecy about the appointment of directors.
I look around the world and see a disturbing tendency towards dis-empowering members. In both NFL and Premier League we now have a model where largely un-elected boards make all the decisions. Those clubs are mostly privately owned but the operation are very similar.
We are really not members IMO, we are now shareholders and season ticket holders.
While I have taken a lot of heat for my views (including being called a "F**wit" to my face at the AGM) I really have few regrets and in fact have gained a lot, especially meeting and talking to Dr Joe Garra, Staphen Mayne, Simon Wallace and Peter Casey.
To a large extent the "horse has bolted" IMO. The damage is done and cannot be undone.
So I really don't want to debate this further but I would advise that judging by the fact that we still don't know what the mooted constitutional changes are going to be this year, it's gunna be a doozy that will generate plenty of heat.
To Marlion, sorry your thread has been so heavily distracted. You deserve better.
There was a general tut-tutting at the time, but post-premiership bliss helped it to pass.
What was it, 100 signatures required to bring about an EGM? No doubt the administration feels more insulated from member wrath now, but that facility was one of the things that set us apart from, say, a West Coast or even a Carlton.
We're fortunate to have good people running the club whose convictions were utterly vindicated after seeing off the 2016 board challenge. But that hasn't always been so and won't always be so, and there will likely come a time when members regret this dilution of influence.
The club’s caring values are the key driver of our success.
An individual-centred, results-driven culture was not.
I’m happy to see individual performance criteria, measured in games played, set at a more difficult threshold compared to team performance criteria, measured in premierships won.
There are other forms of recognition for past players, and I think our club does an excellent job in that area.
An individual-centred, results-driven culture was not.
I’m happy to see individual performance criteria, measured in games played, set at a more difficult threshold compared to team performance criteria, measured in premierships won.
There are other forms of recognition for past players, and I think our club does an excellent job in that area.
OK. So those debating the Life Membership changes and criteria it appears we are going again for more change at the AGM; taking the Life Membership clause from the constitution and plonking it under by-laws. If I read the proposed change correctly the by-laws allow the Board to decide what the criteria for Life Membership will be without reference to any existing clause and removing all previous constituted criteria such as 150 Games, premiership player, service rendered, etc. The By-Law clause allows the Board to enact decisions without member vote, discussion, or input. The only proviso is that they must notify members that a by law has been made, repealed, altered, or amended.
Discuss.
Discuss.
By making it entirely discretional, the club creates a rod for its own back. Why does (hypothetically), say, Craig Lambert get one and Ben Holland doesn't? Potential source of unrest. Not to mention the extra cost of hosting functions.
Anyway it's been in place for a couple of years. Don't agree with it but it doesn't make any material difference to me.
Yep, I reckon so. One of the special things about AFL clubs is that they are owned by the members, not many professional sports clubs are owned by members. I think 1 NFL club is and Premier League clubs are privately owned as far as I know.
Seems to be the trend to centralise power in so many organisations these days.
DS
Just on this point David.
Exactly what does the RFC itself actually own? The land the club is on is owned by the Council / Yarra park trust / State Govt? We just lease it off someone.
Pretty sure the AFL, Polo Gil n his shonky mates own all the marketing / licencing / colours n branding / competition rights.
Not sure there's too much left that clubs themselves actually own these days except perhaps their history n permission to play to play in a fancy sporting comp.
It is already discretionary isn't it ? , if not by what criteria was Maurice Rioli awarded Life Membership ?
