Life membership debate

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

It is already discretionary isn't it ? , if not by what criteria was Maurice Rioli awarded Life Membership ?

Was just going by tommystigers' post which suggests that there is still a semblance of structure to the process.

Some might suggest Maurice's two b&f's + Norm Smith are deserving enough. Others might point to his departure after four years and reluctant mid-season return.

 

[taztiger4]

Was just going by tommystigers' post which suggests that there is still a semblance of structure to the process.

Some might suggest Maurice's two b&f's + Norm Smith are deserving enough. Others might point to his departure after four years and reluctant mid-season return.

absolutely deserving but was discretionary , didn't play 150 & didnt give 10 years service

 

[Don’t Argue]

To Marlion, sorry your thread has been so heavily distracted. You deserve better.

You’re obviously very passionate about politics but notice you don’t write much about football.
You’re last paragraph is one of your few contributions about players or the team for a while and wonder whether you’re too focussed on the admin? I assume you’re commentary is based on a natural political disposition and expect you’re also enjoying the marvellous ride we’re all enjoying.
Happy this thread has been moved from the Pickett discussion as it was becoming a real downer

 

[DuD_Delist]

Also won a JD Medal which is harder to win than a Premiership medal, but will never be a life member. Is he less worthy than Pickett?

When we were crap for all those years.If you were half decent you'd win a JD.
When we were a half decent side we'd finish 9th.
Premierships are hard.

 

[Baloo]

Other the clubs will start to do it too. We're trend setters. Watch when finally another team other than us win the Grand Final, I bet their entire squad of players, with jumpers on, will run out onto the field at the final siren.

 

[strachanie19]

Paul Collingwood getting and MBE for playing one test in 2005 Ashes series (scoring 10 runs) takes the cake.

 

[AngryAnt]

If you subscribe as I do to the idea that sporting success is almost completely about good fortune, then our current administration has certainly used that good fortune to their advantage.

The harder and smarter we work, the luckier we get.

 

[RedanTiger]

You’re obviously very passionate about politics but notice you don’t write much about football.
You’re last paragraph is one of your few contributions about players or the team for a while and wonder whether you’re too focused on the admin? I assume you’re commentary is based on a natural political disposition and expect you’re also enjoying the marvellous ride we’re all enjoying.
Happy this thread has been moved from the Pickett discussion as it was becoming a real downer

Since it's directed at me I'll respond.
I do write about footy (during the season mostly and also the drafts).
I do write a LOT about the politics of our club but I would say mostly during the off-season (when the AGM and constitutional changes are proposed) or in response to messages from the President.
It's simple to check past posts and I've been posting since around 2005. I notice that you joined this year, according to your profile, so maybe you're just looking at the latest debate.
Just checked and I've posted 5 times about the AGM recently. Before that I posted about footy only 34 times during the season till October 24 (a while?) and before that my last "political" one was February in response to the President's message.

I have posted a LOT about the changes in 2011, 2016 and 2017 and this year.
I have done this because I care about the club and it's members and I was against most of the changes.
I posted in GREAT DETAIL about the changes because I felt a lot of members either were apathetic or it was too complicated and they gave up.
The changes are usually complicated, fairly legalistic and it's hard to foresee their results.
I'll probably continue to do so but as I said before - the damage is done IMO.

As far as this particular debate goes, you will see that the very problem of VFL players (noted in the club's Understanding explanation) was the very reason why I questioned it at the time in 2017.

Similarly I questioned the use of By-Laws to decide the rules of Election for the club on the basis that these can be changed simply by a board decision with NO requirement for member input in 2016. This is what is proposed for Life Membership under my reading of the changes and referred to above.

You can check these for yourself if you can find the thread but I couldn't find any of my posts prior to 2017 under my profile which would have made it easier.
I see my posts re Life Membership are under my profile (last page).

 

[glenn downing]

From a personal point of view, next season will be my 49th consecutive year as a paid up member of the RFC. Therefore, one more year to the golden 50. My understanding is that even a 50 year membership of the club doesn't qualify a person for life membership. A bit disappointing really.

 

[TigerMasochist]

From a personal point of view, next season will be my 49th consecutive year as a paid up member of the RFC. Therefore, one more year to the golden 50. My understanding is that even a 50 year membership of the club doesn't qualify a person for life membership. A bit disappointing really.

There was something a few years back when Sheeds was still coaching Essendrugs. Where they had three or four old farts who'd been proven constant members for 50 or 60 years. Pretty sure Sheeds arranged something where they got a life membership or free seasons membership for the rest of their time as a recognition of their support of the club. There was a news / media report on it at the time. Probably never gunna happen, but I reckon it's something all clubs should consider for fans that provide such long unbroken support of their clubs.

 

[RedanTiger]

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.

For those posting on this thread, it is irrelevant under the change proposed for the AGM.

As TT has said, once the change is made the whole question of Life Membership will be controlled under By-Laws.
By- Laws, as said under para 3 in the explanation, can be made and amended by the Board. What is less well known is that this power exists at any time and in any form. This means that the proposed By-Laws, currently posted under the club section of the website, are only pertinent in that they are the current ones.

An example of the use of By-Laws is the use of them for Elections. When Simon Wallace set up a website to publicise and promote his candidacy in 2016 the then current laws did not refer to "electronic campaigning". The club asked Simon to take down his website while they wrote new By-Laws to cover the area. Some time later new rules were posted on the website and the election continued with candidates ignoring the rules to a large extent because they were largely impossible to follow in practice. The club and incumbent directors up for election (who sat on the governance committee who wrote them) were the ones who mostly ignored the "new" rules.

In a similar vein, these Life Membership By-Laws can be re-written at any time at the discretion of the board and members will be notified by their presence on the website. Iindeed they form the second part of the club By-Laws. It's worth a read and is on the club website as said but are relevant only as they currently exist.

The major change to the current Life Membership By-Laws seems to be the additiion of a section granting the same rights to AFLW as currently exists for AFL although some of the criteria has NOT been set (eg total games played or length of service) and are at the discretion of the board.


As to the first resolution, it appears from the explanation that at the least the same number of board meetings will be held but spread over a longer period of the year due to the AFLW and the monthly meeting requirement is thus removed and there will be longer periods between meetings.

I would point out that in the current business climate, after the Banking Royal Commission, there have been many calls to push for MORE board oversight into the operations of companies. This seems to go in the opposite direction and leads to LESS oversight.






HAve just read

 

[Harry]

Good thread split. I wanna talk about blind turns in the Pickett thread.

 

[Mappa]

The perception of our current club culture is that every individual within our organisation plays there role in helping us win flags and be a successful premiership club.

So following that premise should everyone evolved in a premiership year not receive life membership to support our culture.

It could be argued that giving life memberships to just the premiership team is counter to our current culture and thus should not be part of how we operate, as is does suggest that those twenty two individuals are more important that the whole.

Whilst I’m not for or against it, it does raise an interesting cultural question.

 

[Baloo]

Are the players Awarded Life Membership, or lifetime membership?

 

[BrisTiger24]

The perception of our current club culture is that every individual within our organisation plays there role in helping us win flags and be a successful premiership club.

So following that premise should everyone evolved in a premiership year not receive life membership to support our culture.

It could be argued that giving life memberships to just the premiership team is counter to our current culture and thus should not be part of how we operate, as is does suggest that those twenty two individuals are more important that the whole.

Whilst I’m not for or against it, it does raise an interesting cultural question.

Great point. Dimma was of the view all players should receive medals. Club life memberships are controlled by the club and should also follow. Tough debate. On one hand I'm not sure I agree but, on the other hand, I think of Jack Graham and that bloke deserves a *smile* knighthood (albeit he is already a life member).

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't think, in fact I'm certain, that we work any harder or smarter than other AFL clubs though Antman.

Everyone is out there busting their arses.

so you put our systems, game plan, team commitment to putting the team first, list management, drafting, recruitment, development of rookies and late round picks, team culture, management and leadership down to pure luck? Contrasted to say, Carlton or Essendon?

That is totally bizarre.

 

[MD Jazz]

Those things are all factors, what I'm saying is they are insignificant compared to the most important factor, which is playing talent and that is where the luck comes in.

Drafting players is a lottery, no matter how much science and preparation clubs put in. If you are lucky enough to assemble a list of talented players who are mentally and physically equipped for success then all of a sudden all of the factors you describe are seen as being pure genius, when in reality the margin between the best and worst club in those areas in very small.

I think you discount culture and leadership. They do not come down to luck.

 

[tigerlove]

I think you discount culture and leadership. They do not come down to luck.

Yep. Culture was definitely our downfall in the 80s and culture is what has brought us back to stardom in recent times. Culture is super important.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Those things are all factors, what I'm saying is they are insignificant compared to the most important factor, which is playing talent and that is where the luck comes in.

Wish I could accept that we were simply unlucky for a long period.

Throughout our time in the wilderness we were broke (or worse). I don’t think it’s coincidental that the club’s on-field fortunes have risen with our financial stocks.

 

[IanG]

Wish I could accept that we were simply unlucky for a long period.

Throughout our time in the wilderness we were broke (or worse). I don’t think it’s coincidental that the club’s on-field fortunes have risen with our financial stocks.

Yep luck could get us to 1 premiership but not a sustained period of success.