http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-10-29/133rd-annual-general-meeting-of-the-richmond-football-club
-
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
2 items I think.
1. The corporations act was changed so that we need 5% of members signing to call an EGM. The clubs constitution still references 5% or 100 members so they want to align the Constitution to the Corp Act.
2. All premiership players awarded life membership. Apparently current clauses allow the board enough rope to stop a premiership player from getting life membership.
I looked but I couldn't find the change to allow Peggy to remain Premiership Winning President for Life
1. The corporations act was changed so that we need 5% of members signing to call an EGM. The clubs constitution still references 5% or 100 members so they want to align the Constitution to the Corp Act.
2. All premiership players awarded life membership. Apparently current clauses allow the board enough rope to stop a premiership player from getting life membership.
I looked but I couldn't find the change to allow Peggy to remain Premiership Winning President for Life
Thanks people.
Yes, it was only after I downloaded the attachment that I noticed the extra 2 pages about the actual changes.
1) The only change from last year that failed has been put up again after our premiership.
To change the conditions for an EGM to require 5% rather than 100 members.
2) to change the criteria for a Life membership for premiership players to a single rather than multiple flags.
Strange that it seems to remove the criteria of 100 games for the club.
Yes, it was only after I downloaded the attachment that I noticed the extra 2 pages about the actual changes.
1) The only change from last year that failed has been put up again after our premiership.
To change the conditions for an EGM to require 5% rather than 100 members.
2) to change the criteria for a Life membership for premiership players to a single rather than multiple flags.
Strange that it seems to remove the criteria of 100 games for the club.
Also notice there is an election for two directors but no mention yet of who is up this year.
I hope that with the lack of turmoil Michael Stahl has fixed the proxy farce and that the election by laws will be applied to all candidates.
Will be voting no again for changes to the EGM requirement.
I hope that with the lack of turmoil Michael Stahl has fixed the proxy farce and that the election by laws will be applied to all candidates.
Will be voting no again for changes to the EGM requirement.
tommystigers said:
reported on 29th October as below
ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS
In accordance with the Club’s Constitution, the positions of John O’Rourke and Joe Powell are to be filled by an election.
Each of these Directors being eligible, may offer themselves for re-election.
Nominations for the position of the two (2) Directors will be accepted at the Club until 5.00pm on Friday, 10 November 2017. All nominees must be a member of the Club and nominations signed by two (2) members of the Club (in accordance with the Club’s Constitution).
Under the Constitution of the Club, the nominee and their proposer and seconder and all members intending to vote must be a financial member of the Club for the 2017 year by the 31st day of August 2017.
Nominees should be aware that due to Directors obligations, any new Director is to be subject to a police investigation and any other enquiries necessary to ensure that the Director meets the criteria of the relevant Acts and Regulations.
Nomination Forms and further information are available by enquiry to the Company Secretary, Michael Stahl at the Club on (03) 9426 4415 or at [email protected].
tommystigers said:
Since John O'Rourke and Joe Powell are up for re-election it shows that Powell, who was appointed to the board this year, took the place of Tony Free (a board-appointed director) who's term was up this year.
One can only presume that Malcolm Speed will be the board-appointed director for the next 3 years.
These board-appointed directors are not revealed to the membership with the exception of Peggy O"Neal last year when she was under pressure over election. Since she was NOT seeking election (Ryan and Dunne were) but remained on the board it showed she was being board-appointed. Neither the club not O'Neal revealed that this was her second consecutive appointed term
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-02-28/rothschild-and-powell-join-richmond-board
Thus it can be worked out that Henriette Rothschild takes the place of Rex Chadwick whose term expires next year.
It should be noted that, by a process of matching election results to board membership, board-appointed directors can be discerned and this is what revealed O'Neal is now serving her second consecutive board-appointed term.
Board-Appointed directors:
2013 - O'Neal
2014 - Free
2015 - Dalton
2016 - O'Neal
2017 - Speed (prospective after AGM)
I have no doubt that Stahl has already "fixed the proxy farce" and that these changes will sail through.
2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Yesterday I got an email detailing the AGM.
After clicking though the links it showed the constitutional changes proposed.
I think it is important that as many members as possible are aware of these changes and this is why I have posted these on this main board.
Constitution amendments for 11 December 2017 AGM
Resolution One:
(A) That existing Clause 6.4.1 is deleted and replaced with new Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 below and that existing Clause 6.4.2 is re-numbered Clause 6.4.4; and
(B) That existing Clause 3.3.2(b) and Clause 3.3.2(c) is deleted and replaced with new Clause 3.3.2(b).
(A) Existing Clause 6.4.1 (to be deleted)
Subject to section 249D of the Act, on a requisition in writing signed by at least one hundred Ordinary Members with their addresses and their Membership Ticket numbers, being delivered to the Company Secretary, the Company Secretary shall within twenty-one days from receiving such requisition call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the Club by giving fourteen days notice of the same by advertisement in a daily newspaper. The requisition must state precisely the objects of the Meeting including any resolution to be proposed and such objects shall appear in the advertisement in the same or a more abbreviated form.
New Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 (to be inserted)
6.4.1 The Club must call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the Club as required by the Act.
6.4.2 The Extraordinary General Meeting must be held within the time limits permitted by the Act.
6.4.3 Notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting must be given to each member entitled to vote at the Meeting and in the form and within the time limits set out in the Act and must be given in a manner authorised by Clause 6.1.3 and the Act.
Explanation Before 2015, section 249D of the Corporations Act provided that an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) could be called upon the request of the lesser of (1) 5% of voting members or (2) 100 voting members. In 2015, section 249D was amended to remove the reference to 100 members. However, the Club's Constitution still allows 100 members to call an EGM.
The proposed amendment would bring the Constitution into line with the Corporations Act. The Board also notes that an EGM has never been called in the history of the Club.
(B) Existing Clauses 3.3.2(b) and (c) (to be deleted)
(b) a VFL/AFL multiple premiership player; or
(c) a single VFL/AFL premiership player who has played a minimum of 100 senior VFL/AFL matches for the Club; or
New Clause 3.3.2(b) (to be inserted)
(b) a VFL/AFL premiership player; or
(c) [deliberately left blank]
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Richmond/Images/RFCAGMpages.pdf?camefrom=EMCL_1967524_80108751
Obviously Resolution 1 is a re-run of the only change that failed to pass at last years AGM.
I have removed the board's reasoning for these changes (and any rebuttal I have) as I think it would be better discussed on the Off-Field child board after a week or two of exposure on this main board.
Note that a discussion has already begun on the Off-field board under 2017 AGM.
Suffice to say I will be voting "NO" and appeal (again) for proxies to vote at the AGM.
Any member willing to grant me their proxy can PM me to arrange this.
I look forward to hearing from Leon regarding these changes.
Yesterday I got an email detailing the AGM.
After clicking though the links it showed the constitutional changes proposed.
I think it is important that as many members as possible are aware of these changes and this is why I have posted these on this main board.
Constitution amendments for 11 December 2017 AGM
Resolution One:
(A) That existing Clause 6.4.1 is deleted and replaced with new Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 below and that existing Clause 6.4.2 is re-numbered Clause 6.4.4; and
(B) That existing Clause 3.3.2(b) and Clause 3.3.2(c) is deleted and replaced with new Clause 3.3.2(b).
(A) Existing Clause 6.4.1 (to be deleted)
Subject to section 249D of the Act, on a requisition in writing signed by at least one hundred Ordinary Members with their addresses and their Membership Ticket numbers, being delivered to the Company Secretary, the Company Secretary shall within twenty-one days from receiving such requisition call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the Club by giving fourteen days notice of the same by advertisement in a daily newspaper. The requisition must state precisely the objects of the Meeting including any resolution to be proposed and such objects shall appear in the advertisement in the same or a more abbreviated form.
New Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 (to be inserted)
6.4.1 The Club must call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the Club as required by the Act.
6.4.2 The Extraordinary General Meeting must be held within the time limits permitted by the Act.
6.4.3 Notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting must be given to each member entitled to vote at the Meeting and in the form and within the time limits set out in the Act and must be given in a manner authorised by Clause 6.1.3 and the Act.
Explanation Before 2015, section 249D of the Corporations Act provided that an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) could be called upon the request of the lesser of (1) 5% of voting members or (2) 100 voting members. In 2015, section 249D was amended to remove the reference to 100 members. However, the Club's Constitution still allows 100 members to call an EGM.
The proposed amendment would bring the Constitution into line with the Corporations Act. The Board also notes that an EGM has never been called in the history of the Club.
(B) Existing Clauses 3.3.2(b) and (c) (to be deleted)
(b) a VFL/AFL multiple premiership player; or
(c) a single VFL/AFL premiership player who has played a minimum of 100 senior VFL/AFL matches for the Club; or
New Clause 3.3.2(b) (to be inserted)
(b) a VFL/AFL premiership player; or
(c) [deliberately left blank]
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Richmond/Images/RFCAGMpages.pdf?camefrom=EMCL_1967524_80108751
Obviously Resolution 1 is a re-run of the only change that failed to pass at last years AGM.
I have removed the board's reasoning for these changes (and any rebuttal I have) as I think it would be better discussed on the Off-Field child board after a week or two of exposure on this main board.
Note that a discussion has already begun on the Off-field board under 2017 AGM.
Suffice to say I will be voting "NO" and appeal (again) for proxies to vote at the AGM.
Any member willing to grant me their proxy can PM me to arrange this.
I look forward to hearing from Leon regarding these changes.
leon said:
I have posted the details of the changes on the main board where I hope it gets some exposure before being moved to this board for discussion.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
what is your problem with it redan? Looks all fine to me.
what is your problem with it redan? Looks all fine to me.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Im happy to give my proxies (Ive got 2 memberships, so Ive got 2 votes right?) to Benny and Peggy.
How do I do that?
Im happy to give my proxies (Ive got 2 memberships, so Ive got 2 votes right?) to Benny and Peggy.
How do I do that?
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
The recent changes to s 249D are there to disenfranchise members and protect non performing boards full of failed private school prefects and various ex politicians, schmoozers schemers and the odd woman who gets in after being mistaken for the note taker. Typical of how liberals kowtow to their constituencies - entitled hacks.
Bad law. If you actually believe in democracy you'd back Redan all the way.
A relevant interest in a company is 20% for takeover purposes. Essentially an entity cannot acquire more than 20% without making a formal takeover bid. I ask my students why? You would expect something more than 50% would be a controlling interest. The fact is that only around a third of the shareholders ever vote. If you have 20% of the shares you effectively have a controlling interest if voted at AGMs.
In companies with a large number of members/shareholders (we are a company limited by guarantee) having a 5% threshold effectively means EGMs just can't get up. No way we could get 4000 plus signatures. You might as well just ban EGMs.
There are a lot of sheep in the world and very compliant unquestioning members so I am betting this cynical play by the board gets up.
The recent changes to s 249D are there to disenfranchise members and protect non performing boards full of failed private school prefects and various ex politicians, schmoozers schemers and the odd woman who gets in after being mistaken for the note taker. Typical of how liberals kowtow to their constituencies - entitled hacks.
Bad law. If you actually believe in democracy you'd back Redan all the way.
A relevant interest in a company is 20% for takeover purposes. Essentially an entity cannot acquire more than 20% without making a formal takeover bid. I ask my students why? You would expect something more than 50% would be a controlling interest. The fact is that only around a third of the shareholders ever vote. If you have 20% of the shares you effectively have a controlling interest if voted at AGMs.
In companies with a large number of members/shareholders (we are a company limited by guarantee) having a 5% threshold effectively means EGMs just can't get up. No way we could get 4000 plus signatures. You might as well just ban EGMs.
There are a lot of sheep in the world and very compliant unquestioning members so I am betting this cynical play by the board gets up.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
Why 100 people out of a Membership base of 75,000 can force an EGM is the most ridiculous, archaic clause in the clubs charter.
I will be voting yes for change.
Once again individuals who value their own importance ahead of the club or the majority of members have to revert to scavenging for proxies to get their way and hijack the AGM.
Why 100 people out of a Membership base of 75,000 can force an EGM is the most ridiculous, archaic clause in the clubs charter.
I will be voting yes for change.
Once again individuals who value their own importance ahead of the club or the majority of members have to revert to scavenging for proxies to get their way and hijack the AGM.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
now hang on, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part, but it isn't really related to the 100 sigs matter. 100 sigs is crazy, and 5% is not 20%. And we're taking EGMs not company takeovers. The connection is a furphy. By the same logic, why not make it 10 signatures? That would be fun. As usual you're drawing long bows and using half truths. Also I disagree with the assertion that EGMs would never get up, it would just take something sustained and extreme for them to happen, which is correct and the intention of the rule.
lamb22 said:
now hang on, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part, but it isn't really related to the 100 sigs matter. 100 sigs is crazy, and 5% is not 20%. And we're taking EGMs not company takeovers. The connection is a furphy. By the same logic, why not make it 10 signatures? That would be fun. As usual you're drawing long bows and using half truths. Also I disagree with the assertion that EGMs would never get up, it would just take something sustained and extreme for them to happen, which is correct and the intention of the rule.
Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)
spot on, no brainer IMO. 0.1% v 5%. one man's fruitcake fringe is another man's utopian democracy I guess.
caesar said:
spot on, no brainer IMO. 0.1% v 5%. one man's fruitcake fringe is another man's utopian democracy I guess.
