2017 AGM

[Tigers of Old]

Interesting that Rhett Bartlett tweeted that Rob Dalton remembers when there was 2,000 members at 2004 AGM & in his words "a lot of people wanted to kill us'.
That there was only a couple of hundred at this AGM shows that success certainly breeds apathy. Here's hoping the good times last..

 

[easy_tiger]

Continuing to be benevolent is an even bigger problem given the absolute power cliché.

agree that benevolence has a habit of distorting

 

[taztiger4]

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.

was mentioned on the night that we have around 50000 members eligible to vote

 

[RedanTiger]

Interesting that Rhett Bartlett tweeted that Rob Dalton remembers when there was 2,000 members at 2004 AGM & in his words "a lot of people wanted to kill us'.
That there was only a couple of hundred at this AGM shows that success certainly breeds apathy. Here's hoping the good times last..

I think that's a bit misleading.

At last years AGM there were only about 120 people and that was with a fair bit of angst at our ladder position, two outside challenger groups, four candidates for election and 6 resolutions to fundamentally change our constitution.
This years AGM had about 140 people by my count and this is shown by the votes. 314 - 194 proxy = 120 present voting.

In 2004 the club was insolvent, the board was spilled and as said there was a LOT of feeling.
There were people lining up to take a shot at the board.
That AGM was held in one of Garry Cameron's (ex treasurer) hotel conference rooms and it was overflowing.
By contrast the Maurice Rioli room would only hold about 400 all up.

Judging on 2016 and 2017 at least there is not enough interest to expect more than 200 maximum to attend.
Don't think it's really about the relative on-field success of the club rather that the club's finances have got to a pretty good stable level.

As an aside I was talking to Stephen Mayne who was there to push an anti-pokies agenda and he said (paraphrasing) that as head of the Shareholder group he no longer puts any time into member resolutions but rather tries to change things by getting onto boards. Got the impression that member resolutions can be so delayed or diluted as to be pointless.
It was interesting to note that both Dalton and O'Shannassy have indicated they will not stand for re-election next year.
Will the board do their usual thing and rig early resignations and give their choices the advantage of incumbency?
I personally hope that the two excellent candidates (IMO) from last year stand next year.

 

[Mappa]

This thread represents better comedy than Abott and Costello, long may we be an organised well managed unit.

 

[Blind Turn]

I think that's a bit misleading.

At last years AGM there were only about 120 people and that was with a fair bit of angst at our ladder position, two outside challenger groups, four candidates for election and 6 resolutions to fundamentally change our constitution.
This years AGM had about 140 people by my count and this is shown by the votes. 314 - 194 proxy = 120 present voting.

In 2004 the club was insolvent, the board was spilled and as said there was a LOT of feeling.
There were people lining up to take a shot at the board.
That AGM was held in one of Garry Cameron's (ex treasurer) hotel conference rooms and it was overflowing.
By contrast the Maurice Rioli room would only hold about 400 all up.

Judging on 2016 and 2017 at least there is not enough interest to expect more than 200 maximum to attend.
Don't think it's really about the relative on-field success of the club rather that the club's finances have got to a pretty good stable level.

As an aside I was talking to Stephen Mayne who was there to push an anti-pokies agenda and he said (paraphrasing) that as head of the Shareholder group he no longer puts any time into member resolutions but rather tries to change things by getting onto boards. Got the impression that member resolutions can be so delayed or diluted as to be pointless.
It was interesting to note that both Dalton and O'Shannassy have indicated they will not stand for re-election next year.
Will the board do their usual thing and rig early resignations and give their choices the advantage of incumbency?
I personally hope that the two excellent candidates (IMO) from last year stand next year.

I'm personally more than happy for a well functioning board to seek out the best possible talent available to fill board positions.
I also trust the football department to pick the best team.
That's what great organisations do.

 

[22nd Man]

Afl boards and the entire landscape has changed significantly in recent times, comparing past boards such as the Casey one to what could potentially happen in the future isn’t really accurate or realistic

Pure naivety.

 

[22nd Man]

I think that's a bit misleading.

At last years AGM there were only about 120 people and that was with a fair bit of angst at our ladder position, two outside challenger groups, four candidates for election and 6 resolutions to fundamentally change our constitution.
This years AGM had about 140 people by my count and this is shown by the votes. 314 - 194 proxy = 120 present voting.


As an aside I was talking to Stephen Mayne who was there to push an anti-pokies agenda and he said (paraphrasing) that as head of the Shareholder group he no longer puts any time into member resolutions but rather tries to change things by getting onto boards. Got the impression that member resolutions can be so delayed or diluted as to be pointless.
It was interesting to note that both Dalton and O'Shannassy have indicated they will not stand for re-election next year.
Will the board do their usual thing and rig early resignations and give their choices the advantage of incumbency?
I personally hope that the two excellent candidates (IMO) from last year stand next year.

On Mayne was anything said by Board Or CEO about policy on pokies? I know they have made some statements in the past but is there any strategy to reduce reliance in poking revenue? I would like to think we can thrive without them.