Official Club Stuff Notice of General Meeting - Tuesday 17 August 2021 at 6:30pm

[jpfalvo]

The only one of those ancillary groups that you mentioned that I rate is the Spirit of Carlton as far as it keeping ex-players together as part of the club goes. I rate neither the Carltonians nor YCP, just my opinion but as far back as 25-30 years ago I found the Carltonians to be an elitist and exclusionary group and refused to join when I was approached.

I still found ways to support the Club without being involved with them. Those groups don't represent the interests of the rank and file members in my opinion. They are the 'suits' that you're dismissive of.

By the way don't let Aph catch you calling it princess park

Typo, clearly... although we have a few princesses playing there at the moment!

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[Blue and Blue]

If it is so trivial then why is it so important to Sayers and his board?

Look at the history of the club...of all clubs..and in all sports and similar organizations. It is constant changes and evolution.
The problem isnt the evolution and devolution. Its the assumption by disgruntled observers that all they do is based on self interest. On the assumption they are causing problems deliberately rather than doing their best to see all involved enjoy the thing we became members for.
Supporting a winning team in the case of a footy club.
Unfortunately its damn hard to be a winner and success is a fickle and fleeting thing.
Just because that aim of sucess is not acheived does not prove any poor effort or failure.

 

[cookie monster]

Section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) provides that directors of a company must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting.

Thanks for that.

So what are the repercussions of us not following this?

Isn't the corporations act just a default position that is applied when a company's own constitution is either absent or silent on the matter?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I was responding, I would like to know why people think these proposed changes would effect the club, members and or supporters poorly

Especially given people are willing to sign petitions and or believing some supporters are board apologists

That was all cleaned up. What are your thoughts on the changes as outlined?

 

[gab213]

Thanks for that.

So what are the repercussions of us not following this?

Isn't the corporations act just a default position that is applied when a company's own constitution is either absent or silent on the matter?

I'm not sure of the repercussions of not following it but as I'm embarking upon the updating of the constitution of an association I am President of I will ask the lawyer that I will be consulting with for his opinion. I will also be interested to know whether different amendments are able to be considered seperately or not.


You could be right but it is a common provision in the constitution of many organisations. When drawing up the constitution I assume that lawyers default to a pro forma structure in many areas. I do know that any changes made even after being approved by members also have to be approved by the relevant statutory body. It's a long and drawn out process.

 

[Arr0w]

That was all cleaned up. What are your thoughts on the changes as outlined?

None will have any direct effect on-field, so have absolutely no concerns with the proposed.

I do feel removing the 2 year membership requirement to join the board is a good move.

If a an exceptional business and or footy person became available and wanted to join the board, it would be better than asking them to wait 2 years and losing them to another appointment

What are your thoughts

 

[BigFrizz36]

If all of our contrarions are against it (primarily on the basis that if the board want to do it then it must be bad) then it probably must be good.

 

[BigFrizz36]

None will have any direct effect on-field, so have absolutely no concerns with the proposed.

I do feel removing the 2 year membership requirement to join the board is a good move.

If a an exceptional business and or footy person became available and wanted to join the board, it would be better than asking them to wait 2 years and losing them to another appointment

What are your thoughts

So you are saying that if Leppitsch was deemed to be the right person to replace Judd, as it currently stands he couldn't do it as he wouldn't have been a member for 2 years?

 

[gab213]

Look at the history of the club...of all clubs..and in all sports and similar organizations. It is constant changes and evolution.
The problem isnt the evolution and devolution. Its the assumption by disgruntled observers that all they do is based on self interest. On the assumption they are causing problems deliberately rather than doing their best to see all involved enjoy the thing we became members for.
Supporting a winning team in the case of a footy club.
Unfortunately its damn hard to be a winner and success is a fickle and fleeting thing.
Just because that aim of sucess is not acheived does not prove any poor effort or failure.

The biggest problem is that we aren't winning enough games, as soon as we get to that point a lot of these issues both perceived and real fade into the background and it becomes a big lovefest again

 

[Blue_Fusion]

So you are saying that if Leppitsch was deemed to be the right person to replace Judd, as it currently stands he couldn't do it as he wouldn't have been a member for 2 years?

There's pros and cons to it...

Do you honestly think they will never try and take advantage of that rule to bring in their mates?

It definitely works when it comes to bringing in the right people... but it also works to bringing in people for the wrong reasons.

 

[Arr0w]

So you are saying that if Leppitsch was deemed to be the right person to replace Judd, as it currently stands he couldn't do it as he wouldn't have been a member for 2 years?

Not just Leppa. Could you imagine Clarko wanting time away from coaching but willing to take on a board position, only to be told he would have to wait 2 years?

Not concerned if the board tried to bring in one of their mates, as that could take place now, if that person was already a member, as long as they were seen as adding value to the club.

And there are mechanisms to stop that fairly quickly such as forcing an EGM, if that person wasn't the ideal candidate

I can't see any disadvantages with that aspect of the proposal

 

[BigFrizz36]

There's pros and cons to it...

Do you honestly think they will never try and take advantage of that rule to bring in their mates?

It definitely works when it comes to bringing in the right people... but it also works to bringing in people for the wrong reasons.

It's not like picking a couple of teams for a scratch match in the backyard.

I think that they would need a fair bit of transparency to bring anyone on to the committee. Yes I honestly believe that they would not take advantage of that rule to bring on their mates.

It actually scares me that so many people naturally assume the worst of everyone these days.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

It's not like picking a couple of teams for a scratch match in the backyard.

I think that they would need a fair bit of transparency to bring anyone on to the committee. Yes I honestly believe that they would not take advantage of that rule to bring on their mates.

It actually scares me that so many people naturally assume the worst of everyone these days.

Have they shown the ability to do that?

Don't be afraid if people assume the worst, be afraid of assuming the best.

Let's be honest not everyone is going to sift through all the jargon in the email, in fact I'd wager that most will just go ahead and agree with it since they've done a nice job of highlighting the equality changes. The main thing is that all voting members are aware of these additional caveats that they've added in.

If after that, 75% vote to go ahead with it, then that's totally fine, the <= 25% will just have to live with it.

 

[Dramoth]

Can you please provide the extract of "government corporate law" that necessitates these changes?

Genuinely interested

Go back a couple of pages, gab213 references it.

 

[Dramoth]

Thanks for that.

So what are the repercussions of us not following this?

Isn't the corporations act just a default position that is applied when a company's own constitution is either absent or silent on the matter?

IANAL, but I think that they are the minimum level of standards required by law that an Australian corporation has to operate at. A bit like the yanks corporate law basically saying that it's ok for the corporations to screw other countries so long as they make a profit for their shareholders. It's also the bit of their law that allows their corporations to sue sovereign nations if their profits are affected by the laws of those sovereign nations. I.e. the plan wraps on cigarette packets. Phillip Morris sued Australia because it was affecting their bottom line. Some US corporation sued Argentina as well.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) provides that directors of a company must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting.

This seems a little vague. Is it based on members with voting rights or likely votes at an AGM? I'd imagine there is a vast difference between those two numbers.

I don't see the need to go from 100 votes for an EGM to 2500+, but I agree an increase is necessary to avoid frivolous campaigns. 1000 votes seems a fair compromise to me.

I guess I'm okay with an 8 year board member getting a 4 year term as President for stabilities sake. I do believe an EGM should be able to force a poor performing president to stand down though. 4 years is a long time to do damage.

 

[gab213]

This seems a little vague. Is it based on members with voting rights or likely votes at an AGM? I'd imagine there is a vast difference between those two numbers.

I don't see the need to go from 100 votes for an EGM to 2500+, but I agree an increase is necessary to avoid frivolous campaigns. 1000 votes seems a fair compromise to me.

I guess I'm okay with an 8 year board member getting a 4 year term as President for stabilities sake. I do believe an EGM should be able to force a poor performing president to stand down though. 4 years is a long time to do damage.

It's based on the members with voting rights. From 80,000 members there's probably 50,000 of those which is where the 2500 would come from, it's 5%

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's based on the members with voting rights. From 80,000 members there's probably 50,000 of those which is where the 2500 would come from, it's 5%

That's where I came up with the figure. I find it unnecessary. Should be lower.

It's a lot harder for someone to make contact with football club members than for an executive to contact voting partners/shareholders etc.

 

[gab213]

That's where I came up with the figure. I find it unnecessary. Should be lower.

It's a lot harder for someone to make contact with football club members than for an executive to contact voting partners/shareholders etc.

Well, that quoted part is corporate law (the relevant section is quoted there) and it's the same in pretty much every constitution I've looked at. It's possible that it's not a choice.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well, that quoted part is corporate law (the relevant section is quoted there) and it's the same in pretty much every constitution I've looked at. It's possible that it's not a choice.

If we aren't doing it right now, then it just be a maximum requirement, not a minimum.

 

[gab213]

If we aren't doing it right now, then it just be a maximum requirement, not a minimum.

That says it's a minimum of 5%, obviously parts of our constitution are quite outdated.

 

[Wickzki]

I guess I'm okay with an 8 year board member getting a 4 year term as President for stabilities sake. I do believe an EGM should be able to force a poor performing president to stand down though. 4 years is a long time to do damage.

As evidenced, it's also often not long enough for a very good president to achieve what they're capable of achieving.

That's not referencing anyone involved in the club now but other recent successful clubs (e.g. Geelong, Richmond, Eddie at the Pies to an extent).

 

[jpfalvo]

There's pros and cons to it...

Do you honestly think they will never try and take advantage of that rule to bring in their mates?

It definitely works when it comes to bringing in the right people... but it also works to bringing in people for the wrong reasons.

If they want to tinker with the membership requirement, reduce it to 1yr.

That means, someone signs up start of season and qualifies by the time of AGM.

I think thats fine. It also forces someone to be apart of the club, they want to run.

I cant think of any other major public club, Kooyong, MCC, VRC where non members get to be appointed and run the club.

It seems very very strange to me, that people think its acceptable to have non members on the board, representing members. Like I said of the 3 clubs mentioned above, all of them ensure membership is a privilege requiring proposers and seconders. This is followed by a requirement to be a member to become an electable board member.

Reducing from 2 to 1 yr is reasonable, if they think its such an impediment.

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[Arr0w]

If they want to tinker with the membership requirement, reduce it to 1yr.

That means, someone signs up start of season and qualifies by the time of AGM.

I think thats fine. It also forces someone to be apart of the club, they want to run.

I cant think of any other major public club, Kooyong, MCC, VRC where non members get to be appointed and run the club.

It seems very very strange to me, that people think its acceptable to have non members on the board, representing members. Like I said of the 3 clubs mentioned above, all of them ensure membership is a privilege requiring proposers and seconders. This is followed by a requirement to be a member to become an electable board member.

Reducing from 2 to 1 yr is reasonable, if they think its such an impediment.

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

So if a brilliant candidate was available now, we would have to advise them that they would need to wait and we may lose that person forever?

I just don't see the downside to changing this aspect

 

[Arr0w]

People's concern with bundling the new proposals together

Has it occurred to people that if any of the new amendments, were circumspect, which would ensure a no vote, that none of the amendments would be implemented

Why would the club risk such a proposal

Again, work backward, what is the downside to any of the new amendments, how would it effect the club members and supporters