2017 AGM | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

Blind Turn said:
And yet you're happy for 100 mug punters to call an EGM to initiate change like the mad Hiscock gang who thought they knew better?
That would be letting the lunatics run the asylum.
Surely 5% is more of a representation of the membership demographic. If change was so desperately needed that the members felt compelled to cause an EGM, surely 5% is more representative than 100 ?
Click to expand...
I am happy for 100 mug punters to call an EGM where 400 nuffies in total vote on proposed resolutions. That's 25% of the voters.

Did you even vote?

Anyway, my post was a sarcastic review of the irony of the club accepting a figure of 300 votes as a mandate for change while demanding 10 times that amount from members. :hihi

The board is now virtually untouchable. Need 4000 (at the end of season 2019) votes to move an EGM and 2 months notice prior to the AGM to bring a resolution. The board can appoint who it likes when it likes and shield board members from facing election. They can also manipulate elections to get their candidate up. Never fear, however, since Essendon covered up systemic doping, and the AFL whipped the daylights out of them, we are in an infinite age of football club boards behaving with integrity and following worlds best practice governance. Essendon? Never again! :rofl
 
tigersnake said:
I think its just cold, hard good governance myself. There is no sinister conspiracy here. As I've said like a stuck record, the potential of well-meaning but out of their depth or worse, cynical opportunistic groups trying to make a name for themselves to exploit a short term crisis and damage the club in the medium to long term is infinitely greater than the potential for a 100 sig AGM spill having a beneficial effect.

100 sigs was from a time when we had 1000 members.
Click to expand...

100 Sigs is on the low side - no-one disputes that.

5,000 is unobtainable though. Ridiculous.

Heaven help us if when we have a poor board in power leading us up the river. Because the dam walls are going to break on said river.

With everyone sitting helplessly watching the tide rise.
 
Leysy Days said:
100 Sigs is on the low side - no-one disputes that.

5,000 is unobtainable though. Ridiculous.

Heaven help us if when we have a poor board in power leading us up the river. Because the dam walls are going to break on said river.

With everyone sitting helplessly watching the tide rise.
Click to expand...

And yet we've sat through 30 odd years of mismanagement, Alan Bond, Clinton Casey, the Richmond/Wilson led list destruction and yet no 100 members decided to call an EGM.
Appreciate the theoretical arguments about democracy but point is 100 people was too low and 5000 wold be appropriate if things got so out of control bad that we need to call an EGM. They are expensive and for emergencies only.
 
tommystigers said:
I am happy for 100 mug punters to call an EGM where 400 nuffies in total vote on proposed resolutions. That's 25% of the voters.

Did you even vote?

Anyway, my post was a sarcastic review of the irony of the club accepting a figure of 300 votes as a mandate for change while demanding 10 times that amount from members. :hihi

The board is now virtually untouchable. Need 4000 (at the end of season 2019) votes to move an EGM and 2 months notice prior to the AGM to bring a resolution. The board can appoint who it likes when it likes and shield board members from facing election. They can also manipulate elections to get their candidate up. Never fear, however, since Essendon covered up systemic doping, and the AFL whipped the daylights out of them, we are in an infinite age of football club boards behaving with integrity and following worlds best practice governance. Essendon? Never again! :rofl
Click to expand...

Sorry Tommy.
Think my response was toward another post.
Need to wear my glasses in future!
P.S I voted.
 
Blind Turn said:
And yet we've sat through 30 odd years of mismanagement, Alan Bond, Clinton Casey, the Richmond/Wilson led list destruction and yet no 100 members decided to call an EGM.
Click to expand...

Why would the board change it then?
 
Leysy Days said:
100 Sigs is on the low side - no-one disputes that.

5,000 is unobtainable though. Ridiculous.

Heaven help us if when we have a poor board in power leading us up the river. Because the dam walls are going to break on said river.

With everyone sitting helplessly watching the tide rise.
Click to expand...

Simply don't agree. Which is fine. If the *smile* does hit the fan, 'everyone' need not sit helplessly, they can mobilise and gather 5% of members sigs, or 10% of members who really care and are aware, and shake things up. If the *smile* did indeed hit the fan, and the fan stayed covered in *smile* for a while, and the board showed no signs of responding or were making it worse, I have complete faith in a core of members mobilising and getting 5% support. I've stated my reasons for supporting the change: the potential for negative impacts of a low threshold EGM are far greater than positive effects imo.
 
Leysy Days said:
Why would the board change it then?
Click to expand...

I've responded to this about 10 times. Just because something bad hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't in the future. Good managers identify and mitigate potential disasters before they happen.
 
Leysy disagrees ;D - Reckon it is impossible to get that many sigs.

Thus the ability for a rival board to usurp the incumbent is now a thing of the past.
 
Leysy Days said:
Leysy disagrees ;D - Reckon it is impossible to get that many sigs.

Thus the ability for a rival board to usurp the incumbent is now a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

So no more Bruce Monteath or the other half a dozen idiots who continually pop up to challenge the board and want to overthrow rather than contest a seat?
Thank god!!
 
caesar said:
Resolution passed approx. 90% for 10% against :clap

Shows the apathy of members though only about 340 voted.
Click to expand...

seriously? me and my boy voted and only 338 others did?

astonishing.

As an aside, I used to belong to a non-hierarchic environment collective. we pretty much got nothing done. Oh, once we blockaded a Malaysian rainforest ship and a bloke who got arrested collected his own bail that we raised and bought himself a new computer.

I havnt got a problem with a decisive, authoritarian, benevolent board.

especially one that delivers :cupgold
 
easy said:
seriously? me and my boy voted and only 338 others did?

astonishing.

I havnt got a problem with a decisive, authoritarian, benevolent board.

especially one that delivers :cupgold
Click to expand...
Actually the correct figures were 284 FOR and 30 AGAINST for a TOTAL of 314 votes.

Peggy announced the proxy holders well before the debate IIRC and these figures were about (she read them very quickly):
O'Neal 140
Other board members collectively about 30 (Dalton 3, Powell 5 were a couple I remember hearing).
Against were 13.

I've always agreed with Paul Hogan that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government for Australia.
Finding one is the big problem. ;D

Continuing to be benevolent is an even bigger problem given the absolute power cliché.
 
A few on here seem to be worried unnecessarily about their rights being removed.
I don't see how the changes to the EGM requirement will make any difference to our ability as members to oust a poorly performing board.
We still have the AGM as the traditional vehicle for making changes at board level and if the club was being run so badly that a new board just had to be installed urgently (a very unlikely event) then surely 5% of members in not an unreasonable requirement.

Having said that I believe the two resolutions should have been listed separately on the ballot papers even if they felt both had equal worth.

Someone mentioned a concern about the wording "VFL/AFL premiership player" so perhaps a future VFL premiership player could be included as a life member? The historical meaning of VFL/AFL does not include future VFL level players.
 
I don't know from where the yes posters are going to pull 4000 members to call an EGM when the faecal matter hits the ceiling fan in the boardroom. Please remember that the average colon is about one and a half meters long. I would suggest investigating another source in order to garner numbers that high.

And you would want to hope that any boardroom shenanigans that deserved a spill took place at least two months before the AGM.

Welcome to the new philosophy. We are Richmond, we are premiers, bad things never happen to us no more.

Time for me to shut up. Ain't no getting that genie back in the bottle.
 
tommystigers said:
...
Time for me to shut up. Ain't no getting that genie back in the bottle.
Click to expand...

x2 likewise on this matter !

Well said. :clap They wont be able to reach the ceiling to clean it :hihi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< New Board Member | Proposed Constitution Changes >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom