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

Alanis Morrisette irony all over the joint.

I got a proxy form off've Nicki Crivari [email protected]

ive given my proxy to Benny Gale. I hope its valid, cause I listed his address as 'Tigerland'
 
rosy3 said:
Peggy is the woman now but one day it might be another Clinton Casey. It isn't now that concerns me in regards to the board gradually whittling away members say. It's the future. One day action might be needed and the members will have long since been emasculated..

Spot on rosy & by then it will be too late to start crying about it.
 
tigersnake said:
I made 2 logical points which have been ignored by the no mob. That is Fair enough, but I'll re-state them anyway because they are restating and restating their arguments:

1) Just because something has rarely occurred (thanks for the homework RB ;D), or even never occurred, does not mean that it is not a bad regulation, or that it will not occur in the future. Far from it. By the same logic, why bother installing smoke detectors in a house that has never had a fire? Why change from old re-tread cross-ply tyres to brand new radials when you haven't had a blow out yet? Why bother revoking sodomy laws when nobody has been convicted for 50 years? You might not think the analogies are relevant, but they are used to illustrate logic.

2) The potential for a hair trigger EGM even if it not used, still has potential to be politically, administratively and financially de-stabilising just by the potential threat of it happening.

tigersnake said:
I made 2 logical points which have been ignored by the no mob. That is Fair enough, but I'll re-state them anyway because they are restating and restating their arguments:

1) Just because something has rarely occurred (thanks for the homework RB ;D), or even never occurred, does not mean that it is not a bad regulation, or that it will not occur in the future. Far from it. By the same logic, why bother installing smoke detectors in a house that has never had a fire? Why change from old re-tread cross-ply tyres to brand new radials when you haven't had a blow out yet? Why bother revoking sodomy laws when nobody has been convicted for 50 years? You might not think the analogies are relevant, but they are used to illustrate logic.

2) The potential for a hair trigger EGM even if it not used, still has potential to be politically, administratively and financially de-stabilising just by the potential threat of it happening.

1) Why remove the smoke detectors from a house that has never had a fire? Why have a regulation at all that allows members to call an EGM? Surely if all you are arguing is the base required to call an EGM then the regulation itself cannot be deemed bad. At 5% you might as well write it out completely as it will be diluted to the point of impossibility.

2) A poorly run board, which we have had, is politically, administratively and financially de-stabilising. A poorly run board that is entrenched and unable to be held accountable due to the impossibility of a rally of sufficiently concerned members is an epic fail. Essendon is a great example of why the number needs to stay where it is.
 
tommystigers said:
1) Why remove the smoke detectors from a house that has never had a fire?

I took all mine out cause they beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeped every time I cooked toast.

since i took them out, its been heaps quieter at breakfast
 
easy said:
I took all mine out cause they beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeped every time I cooked toast.

since i took them out, its been heaps quieter at breakfast


Would've been easier to turn your toaster down
 
easy said:
I took all mine out cause they beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeped every time I cooked toast.

since i took them out, its been heaps quieter at breakfast
Mine's well cooked bacon. Damn thing is either made in Iran or Israel or has been infiltrated by a vegan.
 
tommystigers said:
Mine's well cooked bacon. Damn thing is either made in Iran or Israel or has been infiltrated by a vegan.

they can put a woman on the moon, they can grow ears in a petri dish, they can turn the grand final into 0's and 1's and send it live around the globe

but they cant make an alarm that can tell the difference between well done bacon or bread and a burning house. :headscratch

im not trying to sound alarmist either.
 
rosy3 said:
Peggy is the woman now but one day it might be another Clinton Casey. It isn't now that concerns me in regards to the board gradually whittling away members say. It's the future. One day action might be needed and the members will have long since been emasculated.

This. This. This.

Adding names like supporting Benny/Peggy etc by some means you aren't thinking long-term of the ramifications of voting this in.

It will be in forever, not just for the current term of incumbents.
 
Anyone know what other clubs have as requirement to force an EGM? I bet it's a lot more than 100 members.
 
caesar said:
Anyone know what other clubs have as requirement to force an EGM? I bet it's a lot more than 100 members.

Some other clubs don't even give members voting rights. I don't care what they do. I prided myself that Richmond was willing to let the rank and file members have a say. It's changed big time now though. They are gradually being gagged.
 
rosy3 said:
Peggy is the woman now but one day it might be another Clinton Casey. It isn't now that concerns me in regards to the board gradually whittling away members say. It's the future. One day action might be needed and the members will have long since been emasculated. Having said that I don't intend to vote. Quite possibly will never be a member again. I'm a bit undecided at the moment. I don't see much point any more.

Captures most of my views.

Also add I hate how the board introduced a change to help them replace people from "unexpected" resignations from the board. They have manipulated that to the enth degree bringing in whoever they want. Peggy for example has constantly avoided a vote from members. Big flag of look at me I'm up for election last year when challenged, then sheepishly avoided it using the newish rule just prior to the elections.

I just got the proxy form and sending it back to club today.
 
rosy3 said:
Some other clubs don't even give members voting rights. I don't care what they do. I prided myself that Richmond was willing to let the rank and file members have a say. It's changed big time now though. They are gradually being gagged.

Then I'd say we are ahead of the rest. I don't think 100 members represents rank and file, more a platform for minority interests.

But rightly, each to their own.
 
caesar said:
Then I'd say we are ahead of the rest. I don't think 100 members represents rank and file, more a platform for minority interests.

But rightly, each to their own.
With social media & internet awareness, email now compared to pre electronic days, I do believe it needs a change. We have big members base now,

I would vote yes for example for up to a 1000 signatures but not a percentage. Unless it was say a particular % or up to 1000 members for example which ever was greater.
 
Yeah agree no issue increasing the 100 to say 500 or 1,000.

Not the ridiculous amount they are proposing which means another board can never challenge.
 
Al Bundy said:
With social media & internet awareness, email now compared to pre electronic days, I do believe it needs a change. We have big members base now,

I would vote yes for example for up to a 1000 signatures but not a percentage. Unless it was say a particular % or up to 1000 members for example which ever was greater.

Not unreasonable AB
 
Even if it got proposed to 500 or 1000 I don’t think that would please the ones strongly against the change
 
Tiger_mitch said:
Even if it got proposed to 500 or 1000 I don’t think that would please the ones strongly against the change
True but you might find that many more will accept the change of up to 500 or 1000 though rather than what the club is going for as its extreme& will make it untouchable. Their tactic of unquoting membership numbers to show low numbers that would need to sign made me laugh. Its like seeing pricing of $2.99 as $2 when its really $3 , lol

The club imo is using the premiership win for people to hopefully just blindly accept things & I see this happening. They too, I think and want to capitalise on it. just my view.
 
Tiger_mitch said:
Even if it got proposed to 500 or 1000 I don’t think that would please the ones strongly against the change
You are right Mitch. But the RFC is not giving you or I the option to choose a "reasonable" number. They are ignoring the voice of the members that rejected this amendment just 12 months ago. They want the figure beyond the realms of possibility, beyond the number of members who care enough to actually cast a vote.

Anyhow, my vote has been cast and my proxy sent.
 
tommystigers said:
You are right Mitch. But the RFC is not giving you or I the option to choose a "reasonable" number. They are ignoring the voice of the members that rejected this amendment just 12 months ago. They want the figure beyond the realms of possibility, beyond the number of members who care enough to actually cast a vote.

Anyhow, my vote has been cast and my proxy sent.

That is one view, and of course you have every right to hold it. The alternate view is that the threshold should be high enough that it takes sustained non-performance for a member-led spill. It is not beyond the realms of possibility. They said Brexit and Trump were beyond the realms of possibility. Its a high threshold sure, as it should be (personally I don't think 5% of members, or maybe 20-30% of members who might be inclined to get political is that high).

ATM, 100 sigs leaves the door open for a knee jerk reaction to a short term crisis to destabilise things longer term. Its a real possibility. If the cards had have fallen a bit differently for example Dr Hiscock and his crew might have ridden a wave of discontent, got some good press, Peggy or Benny have family problems and have to resign or something, and got in. Imagine that! Politics is a lot like footy, things can change quickly and very surprising, even unthinkable results can and do happen.

People keep saying 'hasn't happened through history', well historically the rule would have been introduced 100 years ago when our membership was what? 1500? which was guess what? 5%-ish!