2017 AGM

[Al Bundy]

Thanks Rhett.

Silly imo. They are separate issues!?!

On further thought...

They are trying to capture the emotion of the premiership (vote for) and in what I see a underhanded manner, pass what I feel is the real objective to block the EGM criteria of 100 votes

Imo believe its poor form & captures true attitude of discontent towards members after they got shaken up last year. Feel they are trying to take away any opportunity for a board to be truly challenged. The effect of this is beyond the current board and will be impossible to change in the future.

Slowly, they have over the past 10 years, systemically made alterations to run our club out of the influence of the normal members. Its how I feel

I think people need to be careful how they vote.

I gave my proxy in

 

[RedanTiger]

Under the changes voted in last year, members resolutions for the AGM require 100 members OR 5% signatures under the Corporations Act.
If they get the EGM through this year it means that to have any input may well require above 2500 members.

And this is only to get the membership to vote on a motion.

 

[joegarra]

sent my no proxy in, unfortunately really busy at work

 

[caesar]

Resolution passed approx. 90% for 10% against :clap

Shows the apathy of members though only about 340 voted.

 

[Al Bundy]

Also shows blindness of rose coloured glasses. Kudos on the board sucking people in with 1 vote captures everything on separate topics.
Board has become untouchable. Members can forget now in having any rights for any say in the club. Yes we must applaud that :clap. Pathetic.

 

[caesar]

Also shows blindness of rose coloured glasses. Kudos on the board sucking people in with 1 vote captures everything on separate topics.
Board has become untouchable. Members can forget now in having any rights for any say in the club. Yes we must applaud that :clap. Pathetic.

Only 34 members out of 50,000 voted NO, OH yes but they are the intelligent ones the rest must have no idea.

 

[Blind Turn]

Only 34 members out of 50,000 voted NO, OH yes but they are the intelligent ones the rest must have no idea.

Al voted 34 times?

 

[Al Bundy]

hahaha. 50000. ok, I mustve done my maths wrong. Thanks for the swipe oh superior intellects that you both are. Tow the line lambs

 

[turk-d-tiger]

I'm 52 years old and have not seen a board and all administration as dedicated , devoted and caring for this club since the late Graeme Richmond ruled with an iron fist and did anything possible for the richmond football club to be the best club in the land.
Peggy O'neal ,Brendon Gale,Emmett Dunne,Malcom Speed are the people i would trust to do the best thing for my football club possible

If they believe that this was what was required to be in the best interest of the Richmond Football Club - Then im happy for whats occured

 

[Al Bundy]

Goes back to Gary March led board created the foundations and blueprint. He was instrumental to the changes that got the club to where it did. And current board capped it off.
I truly hope in the future we dont see a Casey era. Good luck for the members then if they want change. It wont be possible.

I wanted to votes Yes for the premiership player amendment but couldnt.

 

[tommystigers]

300 members validate an amendment that changes the required number of signatures for an EGM from 100 to appx 4,000.
:rofl
Does the board see the irony in this? Surely they cannot accept this low a vote as being valid. A vote of 5% of the members should be required for it to pass. Guess we will have to wait for real issues to arise so we can see the masses of members get political. :

Let's hope we never see another Alan Bond or Clinton Casey get a gig on the board. Eunuchs, the lot of us.

 

[Blind Turn]

300 members validate an amendment that changes the required number of signatures for an EGM from 100 to appx 4,000.
:rofl
Does the board see the irony in this? Surely they cannot accept this low a vote as being valid. A vote of 5% of the members should be required for it to pass. Guess we will have to wait for real issues to arise so we can see the masses of members get political. :

Let's hope we never see another Alan Bond or Clinton Casey get a gig on the board. Eunuchs, the lot of us.

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 ?

 

[Tigers of Old]

I truly hope in the future we dont see a Casey era. Good luck for the members then if they want change. It wont be possible.

x 2

All smelling of roses now.. Hasn't always, won't always.

Very sneaky of the club to put the two resolutions together. Kind of like appointing your own board members when others resign to avoid elections..
This board is doing a good job of that there's no doubt but they sure know how to get what they want, whatever tactics are required.

 

[Al Bundy]

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 ?

?did he?? he didn't call a EGM. Spoke to club then called it quits. He used it as leverage but didn't do it. Noone is privy to what happened in that meeting and members (right or wrong) are entitled to exercise their rights.
The change they wanted in the end happened (parts the club was doing). They were amateur hour but their views of the type of change needed was close.

I agree 100 is too low but 5% is too high. just my imo. stated that before thought 500 to 1000 would be better. Whats done is done now. This board can now bring multiple board members in without being voted. Members can kiss goodbye bringing things up to be considered plus now board members are entrenched and cant be removed. Meanwhile members rights or ability for change just disappeared.

This is not about attacking the current board(miss the point) its about, I feel, the diminishing rights/abilities of members for change.

I don't expect anyone to nominate anymore especially how nominees were treated poorly last year. Good luck on future change if you want it.

 

[Blind Turn]

?did he?? he didn't call a EGM. Spoke to club then called it quits. He used it as leverage but didn't do it. Noone is privy to what happened in that meeting and members (right or wrong) are entitled to exercise their rights.
The change they wanted in the end happened (parts the club was doing). They were amateur hour but their views of the type of change needed was close.

I agree 100 is too low but 5% is too high. just my imo. stated that before thought 500 to 1000 would be better. Whats done is done now. This board can now bring multiple board members in without being voted. Members can kiss goodbye bringing things up to be considered plus now board members are entrenched and cant be removed. Meanwhile members rights or ability for change just disappeared.

This is not about attacking the current board(miss the point) its about, I feel, the diminishing rights/abilities of members for change.

I don't expect anyone to nominate anymore especially how nominees were treated poorly last year. Good luck on future change if you want it.

Nothing much has changed Al. The board can and has done pretty much whatever they wanted to.
An Emergency General Meeting is an extrodinary event that would only every happen with extrodinary circumstances.
Extrodinary circumstances are not ordinary business decisions. That's for the AGM.

 

[Al Bundy]

Nothing much has changed Al. The board can and has done pretty much whatever they wanted to.
An Emergency General Meeting is an extrodinary event that would only every happen with extrodinary circumstances.
Extrodinary circumstances are not ordinary business decisions. That's for the AGM.

agree, cool. I also get the cost bit they raised too. I just didn't like how they went about it and voicing my opinion for what I see that has just happened

 

[Leysy Days]

x 2

All smelling of roses now.. Hasn't always, won't always.

Very sneaky of the club to put the two resolutions together. Kind of like appointing your own board members when others resign to avoid elections..
This board is doing a good job of that there's no doubt but they sure know how to get what they want, whatever tactics are required.

Absolutely mate, couldnt agree more. Very underhanded are our board when it comes to protecting their turf and getting their way with members.

300 members validate an amendment that changes the required number of signatures for an EGM from 100 to appx 4,000.
:rofl
Does the board see the irony in this?

Leysy certainly does.

 

[tigersnake]

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.

 

[Tiger_mitch]

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

 

[Giardiasis]

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

We've now entered the post-incompetence era....