2017 AGM

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

you can have my proxy Redan

I'm giving mine to one of my childhood heros: Bryan Wood. Oh hang that might not be a good idea scratch that, ROACHAY!

 

[Ian4]

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.

how about looking at it the other way? if an EGM has never been called, then why does it need to be changed to make it even harder to call one? makes no sense.

 

[lamb22]

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.

Baaaaa.

 

[lamb22]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

how about looking at it the other way? if an EGM has never been called, then why does it need to be changed to make it even harder to call one? makes no sense.

Exactly.

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

how about looking at it the other way? if an EGM has never been called, then why does it need to be changed to make it even harder to call one? makes no sense.

makes sense to me. Again using the same logic, why have a fire drill in your building when there has never been a fire?

 

[Baloo]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

100 signatures sounds too little. Wouldn't want some wacky weird Eddie McGuire funding alternate group forcing EGM's just to push their agenda.

Using a % sounds fine, just decide on the %

 

[TigerFlag2017]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

To be honest, I will be likely sitting on the couch watching dusty highlights or a finals replay.

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

Baaaaa.

hey I'm not the one with the sheepy handle 8-

great response to the argument BTW, but its in keeping.

 

[lamb22]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

From the Australian Shareholders association.

ASA notes that only a handful of EGMs have been successfully called over the past 20 years (refer to attached analysis). The 100 signature rule is arguably too arduous and ASA has not gathered the necessary 100 signatures for any purpose for almost a decade. ASA estimates there have been only 35 Australian listed company shareholder meetings influenced by the successful gathering of 100 signatures from shareholders over the past 25 years, with Commonwealth Bank and ANZ the latest examples. Unions, green groups, the ASA and Get-up are the only entities which have done this on multiple occasions.

Note that the 5% rule works for companies with share capital because it might mean only 1 disgruntled shareholder with 5% of the shares can call a meeting.

RFC is a company without shareholding, it is a company limited by guarantee so we work pretty much on one member one vote.

There are few companies limited by guarantees as opposed to millions limited by shares. The amendment while arguable for companies with share capital to save costs (even though undemocaratic) really just does not work for companies limited by guarantee.

 

[lamb22]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

hey I'm not the one with the sheepy handle 8-

great response to the argument BTW, but its in keeping.

You're lucky to get any response at all with the level of naivety you are displaying.

 

[lamb22]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

The question is really do you want EGMs. I am betting most members don't care enough.

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

can't work out what your point is, seriously.

100 sigs is too arduous, ('arguably', is the key word in there), but its happened 1.5 times a year for 25 years. So when you consider its intended to an extreme action, as implied in the word 'extraordinary', prima facie seems to be working.

Yes, footy clubs are not companies, agree on that 100%, which has an absolute stack of implications, ergo, the connection has tenuous validity.

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

You're lucky to get any response at all with the level of naivety you are displaying.

seriously, you might know a bit about company law, but your logic is flawed. Going on form, I have zero chance of convincing you otherwise, so carry on pal.

 

[RedanTiger]

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.

Not going to argue the toss about the changes now but to correct some things before they are accepted as the truth.

In the attachment sent out by the club it says the CLUB has "more than 50,000 voting members", not 75,000 which is thousands above the official member count.

In 2011 the TOTAL (for and against) vote on changes was 190. We were not informed of the numbers voting in 2016 but I would estimate around 200. Around 120 attended. Hardly a "majority of members".
These low numbers are also the reason why "scavenging for proxies" is essential for either "Yes" or "No".
I note in the attachment it says "You may appoint the Chairman". Scavenging?

Finally "hijack the AGM"?
The board has put these resolution, as required under law, to change the Constitution.
Voting (and proxies) is part of that process, started by the board.

 

[RedanTiger]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

100 sigs is too arduous, ('arguably', is the key word in there), but its happened 1.5 times a year for 25 years. So when you consider its intended to an extreme action, as implied in the word 'extraordinary', prima facie seems to be working.

While you (and Lamb22) are talking in general about all companies in Australia and 1.5 times a year, the Richmond Football Club is different.
The clause requiring 100 signatures for an EGM has NEVER been used in the 133 years of RFC's history. Not even when we were insolvent in 2004.

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

While you (and Lamb22) are talking in general about all companies in Australia and 1.5 times a year, the Richmond Football Club is different.
The clause requiring 100 signatures for an EGM has NEVER been used in the 133 years of RFC's history. Not even when we were insolvent in 2004.

did someone try and get 100 sigs in 2004? (I forget what happened with Pahoff) got any data on attempts over 133 years? not being a smart arse, but there are all sorts of potential reasons for this, it isn't necessarily, or even probably, because of the threshold.

 

[Ian4]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

The question is really do you want EGMs. I am betting most members don't care enough.

I said this back in February. obviously some of my points look a bit hollow now that we have won the flag, but my point about the supporters apathy towards the board is still as valid as ever.

http://puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=52949.msg2073909#msg2073909

 

[Harry]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

Why change something that aint broke?

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

some of my points look a bit hollow now that we have won the flag

apart from the 'some' and the 'a bit' bit, x2

 

[tigersnake]

Re: 2017 EGM Constitutional Changes (again)

Why change something that aint broke?

because its an obvious structural weakness.