Caro article tomorrow

Remove this Banner Ad

B Tron said:
Hey mate, I've been massively supportive of JB but these comments from Gilligan who is on the cusp of taking the top job, the timing of the contracts ending, the close relationship of Gilligan and JB, the change to the constitution that effectively allows the board to quasi-relocate the club and the position of JB from 2010 worries me. Maybe I am over reacting, maybe not.
Click to expand...

If I wasn't so proud of my grey hairs at my age I'd say I worry too much myself. I'm always willing to be given refresher courses in our history so I just got unnecessarily defensive. I'm fine now.
 
9. APPROVAL OF MERGER OR INTERSTATE RELOCATION
9.1 Definitions

In this Rule 9:
“Merger Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose of which is to merge or join the Club, or footballers employed, supported or controlled by the Club with any other club, team or entity (except an entity owned or controlled by the Club).

“Relocation Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which will result in or require the Club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside of the State of Victoria.
9.2 Approval requirements
The Club must not approve any Merger Proposal or any Relocation Proposal unless:
(a) the Board has provided Members with full information about the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be); and
(b) the Board has convened a general meeting of the Club at which the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be) is voted on by the Voting Members; and
(c) at least 75% of the total votes cast by Voting Members at the meeting personally or by proxy or attorney acting under power of attorney are in support of the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

 
Wasn't there a plan to add something to the consititution requiring member approval to have more than x number of home games played away from home? I would certainly hope so because playing 8 games in Tassie wouldn't be seen as a "relocation".

Even as someone living in Tasmania, I don't want to see North play any more than 3 games here (2 even is quite enough).
 
TwentyNine said:
Wasn't there a plan to add something to the consititution requiring member approval to have more than x number of home games played away from home? I would certainly hope so because playing 8 games in Tassie wouldn't be seen as a "relocation".

Even as someone living in Tasmania, I don't want to see North play any more than 3 games here (2 even is quite enough).
Click to expand...
Yep, it was a maximum of 4 games. Didn't get enough votes. And was rejected by JB.
 
TwentyNine said:
Wasn't there a plan to add something to the consititution requiring member approval to have more than x number of home games played away from home? I would certainly hope so because playing 8 games in Tassie wouldn't be seen as a "relocation".

Even as someone living in Tasmania, I don't want to see North play any more than 3 games here (2 even is quite enough).
Click to expand...

A motion to require a member vote if more than 4 home games were played interstate was put up at the 2012 AGM and while it got a 58% Yes vote it didn't get the required 75%. In 2013 AGM JB was successful in getting an amendment through that defined relocation as “Relocation Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which will result in or require the Club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside of the State of Victoria. i.e. there is no limit on the number of games.

This is not JB bashing as he and the Board have done a magnificent job BUT if over the next decade we end up as the Tassie Roos ( a new franchise club) because the membership wasn't involved in such a critical decision then it was only a stay of the execution.
 
Correct me if im wrong but arent we doing ok now?

Membership is at an all time high, debt reducing rapidly, team looking good.....all on playing only 2 games in Tassie. JB faught hard to keep the club in Melb and it has improved dramatically since then.

What would be the reason to sell 8 games, which is effectively relocating, and pissing all that away.

I dont understand why it's even a discussion.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
I seriously doubt the AFL will force this, if they did then they are dumb and they're not. There is a reason why the AFL has never issued Tassie with a licence and that's due to its inability to work as one, the opportunity to have two major AFL presences in the two regions works well with the Tassie psyche. One of the articles posted above hits the nail on the head about this.

Maybe the AFL is shooting a cannon ball over Tassie's bow and not ours or the Hawks.

Sent from my waffle machine using Tapatalk.
 
Bigeasy said:
I seriously doubt the AFL will force this, if they did then they are dumb and they're not. There is a reason why the AFL has never issued Tassie with a licence and that's due to its inability to work as one, the opportunity to have two major AFL presences in the two regions works well with the Tassie psyche. One of the articles posted above hits the nail on the head about this.

Maybe the AFL is shooting a cannon ball over Tassie's bow and not ours or the Hawks.

Sent from my waffle machine using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Sure hope you are right.
 
I cant see how having this 7-8 Tassie game proposal hanging over our heads can be beneficial to the club. Surely off field it creates a negative image and goes a long way to undoing some good work.
Quite frankly next AGM meeting that 2012 should be a top of the agenda. Theres a couple of little things that we as members need to settle so as to sleep a little easier.
 
Zondor said:
Exactly. Is it too much to ask for Wonder Woman to come out and say something like. "Jeepers, I was an idiot for thinking it a good idea that we play 7 home games on the Map. I didn't realise that our Melbourne Supporter Base wouldn't stand for it. I think my Mankini was too tight around my nuts and that. Cut the oxygen supply to my brain. Anyways I've changed my stance and the maximum amount of games we wish to play in Hobart is 3. That's it. And whilst I'm at it I will change our constitution to reflect this new found stance that we can't play more than 3 home games outside of Melbourne moving forward." :stern look
Click to expand...
Would send a strong message that we members would like to hear.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

giantroo said:
Yep, it was a maximum of 4 games. Didn't get enough votes. And was rejected by JB.
Click to expand...
Limerick said:
A motion to require a member vote if more than 4 home games were played interstate was put up at the 2012 AGM and while it got a 58% Yes vote it didn't get the required 75%. In 2013 AGM JB was successful in getting an amendment through that defined relocation as “Relocation Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which will result in or require the Club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside of the State of Victoria. i.e. there is no limit on the number of games.

This is not JB bashing as he and the Board have done a magnificent job BUT if over the next decade we end up as the Tassie Roos ( a new franchise club) because the membership wasn't involved in such a critical decision then it was only a stay of the execution.
Click to expand...

Well that's disappointing. I'm surprised it would struggle to get votes - you'd think most every member would be in support. I don't think we're at any risk of relocation but it would be nice to have it in the constitution.[/quote]
 
You know what gives me the shits about these ever-repeating threads? After one day we're 120 posts in and post after post of enthusiastic JB bashing and conspiracy theories. But a month or so ago I went to the AGM to vote on a clause entrenching a member vote on any proposed relocation. We are now the only Club in the AFL that has any clause that deals with member approval for a relocation. No other club in the AFL has the level of protection that we do, thanks to an amendment proposed and supported by JB. And yet you come on here and it reads as though JB has an evil plan and wants nothing more than to move the club to Tasmania because ... well, because he's a mate of the next AFL CEO? Really?

I was one of about 70 people at the AGM (yep, 70 out of over 35,000 members), and there were only 20-odd proxies received. And so the clause was added to the constitution by the votes of less than 100 members. So when it matters, either our members don't give a toss about the issue or, perhaps more likely, they trust this administration and specifically JB. But when you only get 90-odd members caring enough to actually vote on the issue, and yet we get hundreds of posts on this forum dealing with JB's sinister plans, one wonders whether this topic on this board merely reflects a very vocal but boringly predictable minority.
 
Repeat after me.... "Without James Brayshaw, we would be the Gold Coast Kangaroos, at best".
 
Like most here I am so over this annual media debate on how many games we will play where. no wonder none of our past efforts have had any long term result. I suppose we will always be a little vulnerable to this type of speculation. I just worry more when it is clearly a discussion that is AFL lead. We need a better PR strategy to lock in the positive messages, assuming we are not seriously considering 7 games in Tassy - we have in the past.
 
TwentyNine said:
Well that's disappointing. I'm surprised it would struggle to get votes - you'd think most every member would be in support. I don't think we're at any risk of relocation but it would be nice to have it in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Why's that exactly? It clearly that wasn't the case last time, and I don't think it will be the case in future.

JB and the Board should be able to run the club as they see fit, not have it's hands tied and be dictated to by a minority group.
 
longlivenmfc said:
You know what gives me the shits about these ever-repeating threads? After one day we're 120 posts in and post after post of enthusiastic JB bashing and conspiracy theories. But a month or so ago I went to the AGM to vote on a clause entrenching a member vote on any proposed relocation. We are now the only Club in the AFL that has any clause that deals with member approval for a relocation. No other club in the AFL has the level of protection that we do, thanks to an amendment proposed and supported by JB. And yet you come on here and it reads as though JB has an evil plan and wants nothing more than to move the club to Tasmania because ... well, because he's a mate of the next AFL CEO? Really?

I was one of about 70 people at the AGM (yep, 70 out of over 35,000 members), and there were only 20-odd proxies received. And so the clause was added to the constitution by the votes of less than 100 members. So when it matters, either our members don't give a toss about the issue or, perhaps more likely, they trust this administration and specifically JB. But when you only get 90-odd members caring enough to actually vote on the issue, and yet we get hundreds of posts on this forum dealing with JB's sinister plans, one wonders whether this topic on this board merely reflects a very vocal but boringly predictable minority.
Click to expand...

Great post LLNM . As long as we get 11 home games in melbourne were based in melbourne and no changing our identity i dont see what it matters where we play the other 11 games.
 
King Corey said:
Dont' see what's wrong with the current north/south Tas split? It's the way the Tasmanians themselves (correct if i'm wrong apple islers) seem to run their lives anyway so having 2 teams follow that pattern seems logical.

Didn't the TFL fall over initially because of the great tas divide?
Click to expand...

The North v South thing barely exists. The Hobart Hurricanes have huge support up here in the north. I didn't even the North/South split even existed until I came on BigFooty and saw interstate people talking about. Seriously, no one down here gives a s**t.
 
Engimal said:
The North v South thing barely exists. The Hobart Hurricanes have huge support up here in the north. I didn't even the North/South split even existed until I came on BigFooty and saw interstate people talking about. Seriously, no one down here gives a s**t.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've definitely heard it from locals but maybe you're more representative of the greater opinion.
 
From what I read, and heard yesterday morning there is a huge rivalry between the north (hawthorn fans) and the South (North Melbourne fans). I believe that this can be utilised and taken advantage of.
Hawthorn are committed to playing 4 games in Launceston
North Melbourne are committed to playing 2 games in Hobart but it is widely tipped that this will increase to 3.
What if instead of playing these games against low crowd pulling interstate opposition we committed to playing one of our home games against Hawthorn, and in turn Hawthorn committed to playing one of their home games against us?
The AFL schedule is already compromised as is evidenced by Anzac Day, state co-habitants always playing twice, and blockbusters, so another compromise would not be adversely received.
The upside of this is the following:
North Melbourne and Hawthorn members have the opportunity to attend an away game in their state and see their team play live in an extra game.
The rivalry between the two would increase exponentially, bringing with it higher ticket sales, and nationwide interest.
To further this idea, and I will need you to bare with me because this is a but radical...
What if we borrowed an idea from Major League Baseball and turned these two games into a series? For example in the first term school holidays. Hawthorn could host North Melbourne in Launceston on weekend one, and North Melbourne could host Hawthorn in Hobart in weekend two. Families from Melbourne could incorporate a week away to Tasmania to travel, eat, drink, explore, and see their teams play twice!!! The teams could remain in their chosen "heartlands" to promote the game and brand for the week. The Tasmanian government would love it, the clubs would benefit, Victorian members would benefit by getting value from going on a trip, Tasmanian members would benefit by seeing their clubs for an extra week each year, and having "access" to their clubs for an entire week during the season.
It is a way of in a way increasing our clubs presence in Tasmania, without taking away from our Victorian members current allocation of home games.
The "series" could be incorporated with a carnival atmosphere and a TASMANIAN CUP, that can only be won back from the holder if the "challenger" wins both games in a calendar year??

Is this ridiculous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gokangas
Toast Age article on Sonja and Jen
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Mav
Mav
Engimal v3
HEY CARO
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
koshari
koshari

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top