Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[Moose Malloy]

I dare not try to speak for HtB, but for me the issue isn't the motion per se (notwithstanding that I think the wording is poorly thought through) but that it has an anti-JB smell about it now, and is potentially disruptive to our season.

The last half dozen anti-JB/pro-PdR articles in the Hun have been written by Warner (teddy bear article etc), and so I have no doubt that he is PdR's mouth-piece. Given PdR is also a shareholder in SEN, I expect he'll have some air time on the issue soon enough, which will be just grand as we try to build optimism, re-sign sponsors etc.

And so for me, my major problem with the motion is quickly becoming that it is providing all of the old JB-haters another platform to lay the boots in and get their 5 minutes in the sun and pour fuel on a fire that was otherwise under control.

And as former Board members and executives, RJ and Euge ought to know better.

This conveys my feelings pretty much to the letter. I was initially, and perhaps simplistically, inclined to support the motion. Relocation=bad, and >4 games seemed a reasonable threshold. However the more I've thought about the issue, especially seeing this article from this journo (misleading headline and all), I can't help but feel there's more to the story.

I don't have the knowledge of club politics that many here do, but this just isn't sitting right with me. Not suggesting that people here from WANM are being disingenuous, or forgetting the good things they've done in the past... but yeah, I think I will pass on this one.

 

[Horace]

I wonder how much longer Hawthorn's deal has to go to play games in Launceston?

I wonder what would happen if North decides to play one or two more games out of Hobart over the duration of Hawthorn's current arrangement with Tasmania and as a consequence maybe it becomes less attractive for Hawthorn to continue that arrangement? Especially if the AFL offered Hawthorn something to tempt them not to continue in Tasmania?

What then if the Tasmanian government said, well lets throw a few more "eggs in the North Melbourne basket"? Attractive eggs. Say a game or two or three extra a year above the extra game or two North might decide to play there over the duration of the current Hawthorn arrangement ? Very nice money earners for North and that would be handy wouldn't it? And by that stage North might be playing 6, 7 or even 8 games over there?

We have all heard that Tassie can't support a team in its own right but does it make any difference if the club is a relocated ex-Victorian club with a nice little base of Victorian supporters? Supporters who don't necessarily want to go to the footy every week they can when their club is playing in Melbourne, but hey, they would be happy to pay a "tarted up" membership to go to see say 5 or 6 games in Melbourne? Just like the (dwindling number of) Fitzroy supporters were offered post 1996 to become Brisbane members? Would that sort of club playing 11 games out of Tasmanie, with say 6 in Hobart and 5 in Launceston, say 5/6 in Melbourne - all televised live (well for a year ot two anyway) - and the rest in WA, SA, NSW and Qld work?

What's the definition of stealth?

Just thinking aloud - well thinking in print really?

 

[berniemccarthy]

This conveys my feelings pretty much to the letter. I was initially, and perhaps simplistically, inclined to support the motion. Relocation=bad, and >4 games seemed a reasonable threshold. However the more I've thought about the issue, especially seeing this article from this journo (misleading headline and all), I can't help but feel there's more to the story.

I don't have the knowledge of club politics that many here do, but this just isn't sitting right with me. Not suggesting that people here from WANM are being disingenuous, or forgetting the good things they've done in the past... but yeah, I think I will pass on this one.

Here we go again getting this issue confused with a beauty pageant. This is not about whether JB is doing a good job or whether he has good intentions or not. This is a constitutional issue and is about protecting us from ourselves.

That is generally what constitutions do - put in all the checks and balances that the architects think thay may need and then load in a pile more just in case. I fail to see what is negative about the motion. This does not undermine the administration but it puts in place a confirmed framework under which that may negotiate.

What happens when JB calls it a day. Do we suddenly say - hang on a minute we are not too sure of this new person maybe we should get some sort of leash on them and THEN try to get this motion up. My preference is for the administration to throw up some hypotheticals as to when thay might want to relocate more than 4 games. Explain to us why they should not be restricted. What is the logic other than we dont want to be hamstrung just in case. Just in case WHAT ?

 

[Kimbo]

For clarity sake I'd be curious to hear from WANM people of they have any significant links with former club administrators and if any of those administrators are involved in influencing the activities of the group.

Indeed. Is RJ using WANM, or is WANM using RJ as a platform to get the issue airplay? Regardless of the personalities and politics if the Board aren't supporting the motion, and unlikely to give it public support, then figures like RJ and Euge will give it prominence.

Not saying they've done this, so yes I'd like to hear form WANM people (excuse me if they've already posted... I only remember/am familiar with Limerick due to his posting on the motion.)

 

[Bigeasy]

Bigeasy I quite often read your posts and usually respect the logic behind them.

But, whilst I understand the point you are making, I think you changing your view regarding support for the motion itself, because of the actions of individuals no longer even associated with the club is, with respect, kind of missing the point a little bit.

I have noticed that (especially in the AGM it's going to be a belter thread) consideration of whether the members should have a vote on how many games are played interstate and the (admittedly, not total) protection that gives against a relocation, gets muddled with opinions on certain previous (and current for that matter) club identities, and the general performance of JB and our current board - which I personally think has been pretty good.

Obviously we are all entitled to our opinion and to vote how we wish, but I think the issue, which is really quite a confined one about members' entitlements, and clearly expressed as not being an attack on our current board, needs to be judged on its merits and not what various others have to say as background chatter.

As I say, I respect your posting, but would urge you and others not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". This attempt to give the members some say on the issue is highly unlikely to happen again, and a vote against it could in the future be seen (in fact I personally fear it will be seen) as a vote of encouragement to the board to move however many games they think fit - on the basis that the members had, in a sense, already voted on the issue.

Hidden agendas mate. I'm sick of individuals putting themselves in front of the club. JB had proven his dedication the club so why do these former admin people keep having a crack. Take it offline and sort out your differences, not via the press.

While WANM have done some good in the past, I am skeptical now about their motives now. If they come out and condemn these clowns comments I might reconsider my stance.

 

[Mascot Greggo]

Here we go again getting this issue confused with a beauty pageant. This is not about whether JB is doing a good job or whether he has good intentions or not. This is a constitutional issue and is about protecting us from ourselves.

That is generally what constitutions do - put in all the checks and balances that the architects think thay may need and then load in a pile more just in case. I fail to see what is negative about the motion. This does not undermine the administration but it puts in place a confirmed framework under which that may negotiate.

What happens when JB calls it a day. Do we suddenly say - hang on a minute we are not too sure of this new person maybe we should get some sort of leash on them and THEN try to get this motion up. My preference is for the administration to throw up some hypotheticals as to when thay might want to relocate more than 4 games. Explain to us why they should not be restricted. What is the logic other than we dont want to be hamstrung just in case. Just in case WHAT ?

And there you have it!

A clear thinker at last. (With apologies to Horace - whose post was also smack on the money).

This isn't about personalities people. Its about building in a level of protection for the future. I reckon the majority of us are pleased with the achievements of the current board, and where we are likely headed on-field too.

The fact that a journo has decided, no doubt on the back of JB's somewhat timely "cast iron guarantee" media release in the last few days to contact the old chestnuts - well in the main RJ really given his consistent views on relocation - for a comment, is hardly surprising, and hardly the fault of WANM.

Its also got zero to do with the merit of the proposed constitutional change itself.

Aside from mere statements of intention/preference, which no matter how well-meaning they are at the time can change with a change in environment, of board incumbents - or AFL pressure - something in the constitution is likely to be our only protection. It shouldn't be forgotten, as it seems to be at the moment, that the club can still sell games beyond the 4. They'd just have to ask us first!

Ask yourselves this. Why hasn't the club put something up on relocation? After all, they've had over 5 years to think about it, and if the last scare wasn't enough, heaven knows what it would take.

 

[Saintly31]

There is no intention by our current (and most likely future) board for NM to relocate. There is equally no intention by Tas Govt to have NM relocate. The state wants its own new license or not at all, regardless what the AFL thinks.

With that being the facts, I think we should support and have confidence in the current administration to do what is best for our long term future as a Melb based club. It is a unnecessary amendment being peddled for no legitimate purpose.

 

[Grogg]

Agendas aside, the reasons for a no vote from some here have been a little perplexing.

Agreeing with the motion but voting it down?

Aaaaaah.....ok then.

Personally I don't think that a positive vote will see the establishment of a platform to launch a credible campaign of continued attacks on the current board.

Any figure going down that path would be quickly identified and called out for the shit stirrer they were.

 

[Kimbo]

Ask yourselves this. Why hasn't the club put something up on relocation? After all, they've had over 5 years to think about it, and if the last scare wasn't enough, heaven knows what it would take.

I doubt they'd put themselves through all this work to establish our base, espouse commitment to NM etc. all the while holding a relocation agenda MG.

That said, I thought what Brian Cook had to say about the size of clubs' supporter bases and their relative immutability with one exception, which I assume is Hawthorn, was interesting. If, at the end of the day, our supporter base and, with it, attendances and membership numbers, can't be dramatically altered in the short to medium term then 'additional markets' become critical.

Personally I'm not adverse to a genuine 'co-location' in which both NM and Hobart (or Tasmania) are seen as genuine home bases. To many on here, however, not only is the non-dualism of this notion challenging, but given the past anything remotely resembling 'relocation' will be rejected outright as it will be either seen as relocation or a path to relocation.

And, this...

Explain to us why they should not be restricted. What is the logic other than we dont want to be hamstrung just in case. Just in case WHAT ?

...is a good question.

Oh, and btw, I agree on divorcing this amendment question from personalities. I understand that the people issues relate, as they should, to credibility and trust. However, once again it doesn't need to be a dualist choice of 'either/or'. Trusting in one doesn't necessarily have to involve 'not trusting' the other.

 

[Mascot Greggo]

I doubt they'd put themselves through all this work to establish our base, espouse commitment to NM etc. all the while holding a relocation agenda MG.

That said, I thought what Brian Cook had to say about the size of clubs' supporter bases and their relative immutability with one exception, which I assume is Hawthorn, was interesting. If, at the end of the day, our supporter base and, with it, attendances and membership numbers, can't be dramatically altered in the short to medium term then 'additional markets' become critical.

Personally I'm not adverse to a genuine 'co-location' in which both NM and Hobart (or Tasmania) are seen as genuine home bases. To many on here, however, not only is the non-dualism of this notion challenging, but given the past anything remotely resembling 'relocation' will be rejected outright as it will be either seen as relocation or a path to relocation.

And, this...


...is a good question.

Oh, and btw, I agree on divorcing this amendment question from personalities. I understand that the people issues relate, as they should, to credibility and trust. However, once again it doesn't need to be a dualist choice of 'either/or'. Trusting in one doesn't necessarily have to involve 'not trusting' the other.

A very fair and balanced post Kimbo.

On the co-location aspect, under the proposed amendment, we could be playing 4 home games a season down in Tassie without the club even having to ask. WANM's motion accepts that. That scenario would, if it were maintained, be a form of co-location, but with the balance correct between the majority of games in the heartland on the one hand, and loyalty to our Tasmanian brothers and sisters who have been very welcoming of us on the other. (I took my family down there for the first game last year, loved it, and loved the reaction of the torrent of blue and white which poured into the ground.)

For me, its the balance. Its the balance. If the balance of the number and location of home games is wrong, we have effectively re-located as opposed to partially co-located.

 

[Horace]

The issue of "trust" is a curious one here. I seem to see too many posts suggesting that we should leave things alone and "trust" the current board. For what it is worth I don't think that the current board is of a calibre that we should not "trust" it, far from it, but equally, when "push comes to shove", sometimes unhealthy things happen, so why not improve the constitution by giving the members an opportunity to have some sort of a say in something as critically important as the number of games that will be played in the heartland of the club, being, Victoria.

The amendment to the constitution reads as follows:

“…….. the NMFC Constitution be amended to require a membership vote on any actual or proposed obligation, contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which is to permit, allow or require the Club (whether permanent, temporarily or otherwise) to play or relocate more than 4 home games during any Premiership Season outside of the State of Victoria.”

If that amendment is passed then all it does is give members a say on whether a home game or games be played outside of Victoria. It does not by itself prevent the club from playing games elsewhere; rather if the amendment to the constitution is approved it makes the club put any future such proposal first to a vote of the members. And if a proposal or proposals are put to the members, which can clearly demonstrate to the members that such proposal or proposals are in the best short and long term interests of the club, then in all likelihood they will be successfully implemented. Surely this is the value of a democracy, albeit in this case a football club.

So why on earth would anyone not support such a natural democratic process? Sure it means the club might have to do much more work, or to use the correct terminology, "proper due diligence", but what is wrong with that?

In all walks of life, history is littered with situations where people have relied on trust, rather than proper due diligence and the consequences have been bad. Let's not allow this to be another such situation.

(And for those querying the use of the word "relocate", if I am not mistaken this is not to mean relocation of the football club as such, but rather the word is required in a legalistic and definitive sense, to ensure that the amendment to the constitution is properly constructed.)

 

[Grogg]

For me, its the balance. Its the balance. If the balance of the number and location of home games is wrong, we have effectively re-located as opposed to partially co-located.

This is the central issue for me as well and all other factors considered are secondary issues.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was floored by our willingness to jump on board a 7 re located home game package.

It was incredibly naive to think that this would be met with nods of approval from a supporter base that fought to keep us a legitimate Melbourne identity.

 

[Kimbo]

If that amendment is passed then all it does is give members a say on whether a home game or games be played outside of Victoria. It does not by itself prevent the club from playing games elsewhere; rather if the amendment to the constitution is approved it makes the club put any future such proposal first to a vote of the members.

So why on earth would anyone not support such a natural democratic process? Sure it means the club might have to do much more work, or to use the correct terminology, "proper due diligence", but what is wrong with that?

For those fiercely opposed to anything resembling relocation, or who are concerned that the current constitutional set up allows a current or future Board to take us down a relocationist path, I'm with you Horace. I would have thought it's a no-brainer.

And if a proposal or proposals are put to the members, which can clearly demonstrate to the members that such proposal or proposals are in the best short and long term interests of the club, then in all likelihood they will be successfully implemented.

However, I can foresee a situation not unlike the situation we have with changes to the federal constitution where it is nigh on impossible to get an inherently conservative electorate to agree to anything at all because they simply resist any change, and because of the limitations on how constitutional change can occur.

In the case of the NMFC, while the 'extra money-making game in Hong Kong' situation might be passed easily enough, anything beyond that which is the difference between ensuring our long-term viability vs dying in Melbourne might be difficult to get the punters to even discuss rationally. That's my concern.

Let's just say the Board proposes a permanent model of 5 home games in Tassie and 6 in Melbourne, with decent arrangements on number of away games to be played in Melbourne, and with anything beyond that still requiring member approval. In other words it isn't the 'thin end of the wedge', but a permanent co-location model that seeks to genuinely honour/balance the concerns of existing Victorian supporters with the needs of a prospective supporter base in Tasmania.

I can see how this could be "clearly demonstrated" to be "in the best short and long term interests of the club" - which is not to say that everyone will agree, but rather that a reasonable case could be made. But, like some responses I might receive to this mere suggestion, it won't even get 'heard' because of the fear and prejudice (literally, "pre-judgement") many supporters have when it comes to anything that looks and smells like relocation. And I'm in no way judging those who hold concerns and suspicions and who remain vigilant against anything underhanded. But what I am saying is that the 'trust' issue could just as well be levelled at members - can they be trusted to consider the commercial viability of the club above well meaning passion that might see us die in Melbourne?

The number of games proposed in the amendment suggests the toleration benchmark is four games. What if the Board has similar thoughts, but thinks it is five, not four, but the members don't agree and effectively condemn us to death by a thousand cuts for the sake of one game that might be the difference between selling us a co-located team vs a team that plays a few games in Tassie?

Surely this is the value of a democracy, albeit in this case a football club.

I've tried in vain to locate a quote from Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister where Hacker and Sir Humphrey discuss the merits and demerits of the electorate having their say, and Hacker proudly proclaiming the virtues of the 'voice of the people' who are clever and know what's best. Let's just say Sir Humphrey has a less idealistic notion of the intelligence of the electorate, which of course Hacker takes umbrage at given they voted for him.

 

[RoyalBlue]

I support the motion and will vote for it.

 

[Limerick]

I’ve just come on so will try and respond to the issues raised from the WANM perspective (I have read up to post 37). I haven’t quoted posters specifically so we can address the issues not the personalities.
1.WANM is seeking to have this motion assessed on its merit and not on personalities. WANM has no control over other people.

2.None of these personalities had any input into the construction of the motion. The HUN article does indicate that some support it as is their right.

3.WANM is fully supportive of, and acknowledges, the good work of JB & the Board & the administration over the 2007-2012 period. I stated this to JB personally. Our only concern is the thinking that says we should play or sell any number of home games for financial reasons without regard to its long term effect. If the 2010 seven (7) home game in Tasmania proposal had got up with Hawthorn moving back to Victoria then, in our opinion, we would be heading for relocation. Seven (7) out of eleven (11) isn’t even co-location.

4.JBs recent statements indicate that it is highly unlikely that we will be playing more than 4 games interstate under his Presidency. However he hasn’t and can’t give any assurances beyond 2016.

5.Relocation is the death of one Club to enable the birth of a new Club. Fitzroy and south Melbourne no longer exist within the AFL. We acknowledge that some members (guess around 35%) and supporters would switch their allegiance. No problems with this.

6.“Brayshaw said his board did not support it because it would be too restrictive on future administrations.” How? This, and the 2010 proposal, seems to indicate a support of a co-location model? If this is true then explain that to the members. Are we seeking to play more than 4 home games in Tasmania as an ongoing agreement? The motion allows for a 4 home game agreement to go forever.

7.Some posters have stated that they will vote against the motion even though they basically agree with it. I find this thinking puzzling.

8.Other posters have stated that “The club cannot be relocated without the members blessing”. This simply isn’t true. We came VERY close in 2007.

9.One poster stated that the personalities “should fork out the $5 million debt from their own pockets”. I can’t see the relevance of this in the context of this discussion. One of the personalities has possibly put more into the Club than anyone else. Our debt is only one component of our challenge.

10.One poster stated “It's an issue which all North members have already been informed about”. I would say that the Club hasn’t contributed to, nor allowed for, real discussion on this issue. Did the Club fully inform and seek feedback on the 2010 proposal? What is the long term strategy of the Club. Has it came to the realisation that we will never be able to successfully exist playing 11 home games in Melbourne and that co-location is our future model.

11.The motion doesn’t stop a relocation or co-location. It only requires that the Board present its thinking to the members and then have them vote. If the vast majority of voting members are against the proposal then the Board has no right to go ahead. This is what being a member based Club is all about.

12.It has been stated that “We sell games to make money to ensure our stability as a Melbourne club.” However history has shown us that can lead the club being vulnerable to the pressure to be relocated. Relocation is the death of one Club to enable the birth of a new Club. Relocation is a very inaccurate description of what is being discussed.

13.One poster stated “Well if someone wanted to bring this to a head they would offer 7 games with one hand and threaten withdrawal of 4 with the other and deliberately trigger the member vote where the board would be in a state of paralysis.”. I assume that this scenario is where the Constitution has been amended via this motion. The members would simply have to assess the offer. There would be no state of paralysis but simply a voting process with the outcome determining the future.

Limerick (John Raleigh)
WANM Spokesperson on this motion.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

I have no problem with motion, I have a problem with other people jumping onboard and using the motion for their own political gains.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Thanks to those who have taken the time to lay the case out, and to most who have done it without ridicule. I've also had a bit of a re-read of previous threads in which similar points have been made.

I think my own reaction this morning was just an overwhelming "not this again" at the sight of that Hun article as much as anything else. I didn't want to lend my vote to something that was going to be used as a political wedge, especially one played out in public, but I accept that's not where the motion is coming from.

The point about taking the motion on its merits is well made... as is the point about the oddness of the position (which I managed to talk myself into) of agreeing with the substance of it but voting against it.

That is the long way of saying I think I was wrong.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Ok. I am against old farts jumping in and pushing their name forward in Herald Sun articles.

But I am for members putting up safeguards and Boards not having a free rein to do what they think best.

I love a lot of what JB has done and have had and will have no issue voting for him and his ticket to keep up the good work in a number of important areas. But his record also includes an offer to play seven games in Tasmania that shocked me. And if the Board thought that was a good idea then, why would they not think it's an even better idea with thousands of Tasmanian members joining up? The club - all respect to Carl and Cam - has a lot of beancounters at the top of its administration and its board. I am not convinced that an economic argument for colocation wouldn't get past a lot of the people who run our club, either while JB is in the chair or later on.

I am sure the motion is doomed but I'll vote for it regardless.

 

[Horace]

For those fiercely opposed to anything resembling relocation, or who are concerned that the current constitutional set up allows a current or future Board to take us down a relocationist path, I'm with you Horace. I would have thought it's a no-brainer.


However, I can foresee a situation not unlike the situation we have with changes to the federal constitution where it is nigh on impossible to get an inherently conservative electorate to agree to anything at all because they simply resist any change, and because of the limitations on how constitutional change can occur.

In the case of the NMFC, while the 'extra money-making game in Hong Kong' situation might be passed easily enough, anything beyond that which is the difference between ensuring our long-term viability vs dying in Melbourne might be difficult to get the punters to even discuss rationally. That's my concern.

Let's just say the Board proposes a permanent model of 5 home games in Tassie and 6 in Melbourne, with decent arrangements on number of away games to be played in Melbourne, and with anything beyond that still requiring member approval. In other words it isn't the 'thin end of the wedge', but a permanent co-location model that seeks to genuinely honour/balance the concerns of existing Victorian supporters with the needs of a prospective supporter base in Tasmania.

I can see how this could be "clearly demonstrated" to be "in the best short and long term interests of the club" - which is not to say that everyone will agree, but rather that a reasonable case could be made. But, like some responses I might receive to this mere suggestion, it won't even get 'heard' because of the fear and prejudice (literally, "pre-judgement") many supporters have when it comes to anything that looks and smells like relocation. And I'm in no way judging those who hold concerns and suspicions and who remain vigilant against anything underhanded. But what I am saying is that the 'trust' issue could just as well be levelled at members - can they be trusted to consider the commercial viability of the club above well meaning passion that might see us die in Melbourne?

The number of games proposed in the amendment suggests the toleration benchmark is four games. What if the Board has similar thoughts, but thinks it is five, not four, but the members don't agree and effectively condemn us to death by a thousand cuts for the sake of one game that might be the difference between selling us a co-located team vs a team that plays a few games in Tassie?


I've tried in vain to locate a quote from Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister where Hacker and Sir Humphrey discuss the merits and demerits of the electorate having their say, and Hacker proudly proclaiming the virtues of the 'voice of the people' who are clever and know what's best. Let's just say Sir Humphrey has a less idealistic notion of the intelligence of the electorate, which of course Hacker takes umbrage at given they voted for him.

I agree Kimbo, with the comparison you make with efforts to change the Federal Constitution. I think however that is a better problem to have, than being in a position where we do not have the ability to even consider anything of this nature. Because to not have any ability to have a say, smacks of a dictatorship. I think back to 2007 and the GC relocation and the de-facto dictator back then was Demetriou and the AFL Commission. I shudder to think what would have been the outcome if they had have had the say.

I have no problem with the current or any future board electing to put forward an increase in the number of games played in Hobart or wherever, or a possible permanent co-location proposal. I think that this is precisely what the proposed constitutional amendment is needed for. To give us a chance to consider any proposal on its merits, rather than one day wake up and hear that some such proposal is a "fait accompli".

Right now we really have no idea how many games the club might play elsewhere, or more significantly just what form the club might take in 5, 10, 15 years time. Nor I would imagine does the board, so it places all of us in a state of great unease. We all deserve to be fully informed and with an ability to have a say on anything as crucial as this.

This amendment to the constitution, if successful gives us some sense of security insofar as it means we will know that at the right time (if there is ever a time) we will have a chance to have a say and have that say in the full knowledge of all of the facts.

It would be incumbent on the board at that time to provide us with all of the facts, just as it would be incumbent on the supporters of any opposing group or organisation, to provide us with all of the facts for the basis for their opposition.

As for Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, I still love to watch re-runs on Fox Classiscs. Some of the greatest of British comedy in those shows and if you were never a cynic beforehand, you sure as hell became a cynic afterwards. They should actually be studied as a school subject. Might help remove some of the naivety of so many young people today.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

All I have read so far is the boogeyman will be some Trojan horse member elected to an unpaid position where the majority of the board will be brainwashed towards relocation.

In other words, completely ridiculous.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

8.Other posters have stated that “The club cannot be relocated without the members blessing”. This simply isn’t true. We came VERY close in 2007.

Relevance to 2013?

 

[Kimbo]

I agree Kimbo, with the comparison you make with efforts to change the Federal Constitution. I think however that is a better problem to have, than being in a position where we do not have the ability to even consider anything of this nature. Because to not have any ability to have a say, smacks of a dictatorship. I think back to 2007 and the GC relocation and the de-facto dictator back then was Demetriou and the AFL Commission. I shudder to think what would have been the outcome if they had have had the say.

I have no problem with the current or any future board electing to put forward an increase in the number of games played in Hobart or wherever, or a possible permanent co-location proposal. I think that this is precisely what the proposed constitutional amendment is needed for. To give us a chance to consider any proposal on its merits, rather than one day wake up and hear that some such proposal is a "fait accompli".

Right now we really have no idea how many games the club might play elsewhere, or more significantly just what form the club might take in 5, 10, 15 years time. Nor I would imagine does the board, so it places all of us in a state of great unease. We all deserve to be fully informed and with an ability to have a say on anything as crucial as this.

This amendment to the constitution, if successful gives us some sense of security insofar as it means we will know that at the right time (if there is ever a time) we will have a chance to have a say and have that say in the full knowledge of all of the facts.

It would be incumbent on the board at that time to provide us with all of the facts, just as it would be incumbent on the supporters of any opposing group or organisation, to provide us with all of the facts for the basis for their opposition.

Tell you what, as much as anything, I applaud the activism involved here. Nothing worse than people being passive when it comes to things they care about, in football or lesser issues like government. For true democracy to work and be 'for the people' it really does also need to be 'by the people'. I take comfort that because the NMFC has been returned to the people we do have elections and, worst case scenario, opportunity to trigger an EGM if things get fishy. And, of course, the opportunity to propose motions like this. If nothing else, the motion says "we're watching you" and "don't assume you have carte blanche here", even if unsuccessful.

 

[Kimbo]

As for Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, I still love to watch re-runs on Fox Classiscs. Some of the greatest of British comedy in those shows and if you were never a cynic beforehand, you sure as hell became a cynic afterwards. They should actually be studied as a school subject. Might help remove some of the naivety of so many young people today.

And, yeah, it's a very clever comedy and one that I appreciated as a young public servant in Canberra way back when.

Sir Humphrey on the WANM proposal:

"Notwithstanding the fact that this proposal could conceivably encompass certain concomitant benefits of a marginal and peripheral relevance, there is a countervailing consideration of infinitely superior magnitude involving RJ's personal complicity and corroborative malfeasance, with a consequence that the taint and stigma of his former associations and diversions could irredeemably and irretrievably invalidate WANM's position and culminate in public revelations and recriminations of a profoundly embarrassing and ultimately indefensible character."

 

[Horace]

And, yeah, it's a very clever comedy and one that I appreciated as a young public servant in Canberra way back when.

Sir Humphrey on the WANM proposal:

"Notwithstanding the fact that this proposal could conceivably encompass certain concomitant benefits of a marginal and peripheral relevance, there is a countervailing consideration of infinitely superior magnitude involving RJ's personal complicity and corroborative malfeasance, with a consequence that the taint and stigma of his former associations and diversions could irredeemably and irretrievably invalidate WANM's position and culminate in public revelations and recriminations of a profoundly embarrassing and ultimately indefensible character."

Brilliant stuff Kimbo.

 

[Limerick]

Relevance to 2013?

The same is true in 2013. Without the proposed Constitutional amendment any future Board can approve a "relocation", close the Club down, hand the AFL owned assets (licence, colours, logo) back to them so that they (AFL) can then establish a new club using our colours and logo that appears to be a relocated NMFC. All this without any reference to the members.