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

[cookie monster]

Talk about hogwash & being incorrect.

You seem to twist things around to suit your agenda.

The response from gab was directly to your post below which he responded to, specifically in regards to Club Members voting on the President.

That's right...
His response stated members voted the board members in. They don't
Thanks for proving me correct

 

[cookie monster]

I'm guessing that you know that you can't at an AGM, standard practice once again. You would need to satisfy the requirements to call a General Meeting, signatures required to call such meeting, notice of what business you want to transact at the meeting, etc. AGMs are always for the presentation of specific reports and Board Elections.

Calling of general meeting when requested by members

5.2. (a) Directors must call meetings The Directors of the Club must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of:

(i) Ordinary members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at the general meeting; or
(ii) at least 100 Ordinary members who are entitled to vote at the general meeting;

(b) Request Constitution of Carlton Football Club 10 The request must:
(i) be in writing; and
(ii) state any resolution to be proposed at the meeting; and
(iii) be signed by the Ordinary members making the request; and
(iv) contain the addresses and membership ticket numbers of the Ordinary members making the request; and
(v) be given to the Club. Notice period

5.3. Subject to the Act, the Club must give 21 days’ notice of general meetings and annual general meetings.

So we are agreeing that the only platform that members have to meaningfully voice grievances is indeed an EGM.
Thank you

 

[gab213]

So we are agreeing that the only platform that members have to meaningfully voice grievances is indeed an EGM.
Thank you

I certainly never said any different, but outside of sending emails yes, that is the way to do it if you have concrete proposals to effect change. You need to call a General Meeting. Once again, that's the same for any organisation. None of this is a 'Carlton thing'. It's how all groups are constituted under the law.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

I have grave concerns about Sayers and his so called amendments to the club's constitution.

 

[Aphrodite]

That's right...
His response stated members voted the board members in. They don't
Thanks for proving me correct

Again twisting things to suit your own agenda.

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

/the end

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Please don't post things based on assumptions without thinking them through...

First of all, we haven't called for an EGM in 19 years and that one was obviously necessary and successful. So there's no unrest and instability to speak of.

But to say it's not a particularly high bar to jump is pure nonsense. It is an exponential increase. With this constitution there will be a vastly larger pool of voting members and to obtain 5% of that would be a monumental task... people are generally very reluctant to consign their names, membership numbers, addresses etc to sign a petition. But the jump could realistically go from 100 to over 1000 or potentially even 4 or 5 thousand. Increasing it is fine, but make it a fixed amount and not a near impossible hurdle like they're trying to do.

Also they want to allow people who haven't been members for at least 2 years to join the board... what's the reason for that requirement? So they can bring their mates in? Hahahaha yeah, this club is a club for the people, not for a pack of suits to monopolise it...

The fact that they've given us the bare minimum amount of time to decide upon this is also very glaring...

Think about these things. This will give them the power to bring in their mates to run the show and when they constantly make poor decisions on and/or off field we will have a steep mountain to climb to make them accountable.

There should be motivates we can choose to approve or disprove of, not either pass or reject it as a whole.

I was there that night at Mooney Valley, man was that surreal.

As much as it was great to get rid of Elliott/Lofts and their cronies, we didn't do much better afterwards with Collo and then Smorgon as President/Chairman and their boards.

Absolute shemozzle until Richard Pratt saved us from ourselves, quite frankly

 

[gab213]

I have grave concerns about Sayers and his so called amendments to the club's constitution.

They aren't Sayers' amendments. They are the changes that have been worked on over quite a long period of time, which would have been in league with club lawyers, and which the board presents for adoption.

I don't see what in those changes you could have grave concerns with but each to their own I guess.

If you're concerned vote against them, it's not like members don't have the opportunity to do so.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

They aren't Sayers' amendments. They are the changes that have been worked on over quite a long period of time, which would have been in league with club lawyers, and which the board presents for adoption.

I don't see what in those changes you could have grave concerns with but each to their own I guess.

If you're concerned vote against them, it's not like members don't have the opportunity to do so.

Problem is, in many instances (like we have seen at Collingwood now, the alternative ticket a lot worse)

Remember these clowns who ran for Richmond's board in 2016 ?

In hindsight, I really wish they gotten up and won..

 

[gab213]

That's right...
His response stated members voted the board members in. They don't
Thanks for proving me correct

You're being contrary for the sake of it. It's a stupid statement to make when you know it's untrue. I answered the question about electing the President, which is the function of the board after the board members are elected by the membership. To say they aren't is just ridiculous based on the exception of the filling of a casual vacancy.

You're incorrect and just talking rubbish for the sake of it.

 

[gab213]

Problem is, in many instances (like we have seen at Collingwood now, the alternative ticket a lot worse)

Remember these clowns who ran for Richmond's board in 2016 ?

In hindsight, I really wish they gotten up and won..

There is no alternative ticket here, it's some changes to the constitution which aren't even major in nature This isn't an attempted coup.

 

[cookie monster]

You're being contrary for the sake of it. It's a stupid statement to make when you know it's untrue. I answered the question about electing the President, which is the function of the board after the board members are elected by the membership. To say they aren't is just ridiculous based on the exception of the filling of a casual vacancy.

You're incorrect and just talking rubbish for the sake of it.

The board members are not voted in by members mate, that is a fact. You need to move on from that one

 

[gab213]

The board members are not voted in by members mate, that is a fact. You need to move on from that one

Keep doubling down, no worries. Whatever floats your boat. Continually stating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

 

[Arr0w]

* there some political and agenda light weights in here

 

[Arr0w]

How are any of the proposed changes going to impact the club or supporters poorly.

List them just for the shits and giggles

 

[Wickzki]

How are any of the proposed changes going to impact the club or supporters poorly.

List them just for the shits and giggles

 

[Bic]

Well, all I will say on this, is that my younger sisters godparents are next door neighbours to Vince Loccisano.

Cheers

 

[Jade]

Little help...

Some context; Essendon proposed Constitutional changes a couple years back that, in effect, diluted the membership vote. I vehemently opposed the changes, but as is the way in club land, our members are a bunch of ******* idiots (generalizing of course) and passed the changes because the club told them to.

When I saw the news highlights on this change to yours, my first thought was 'here we go, another club trying to remove its memberships influence'.

But then I've seen comments here along the lines of not voting for Directors - do you guys and girls not vote for your Directors?

 

[gab213]

Little help...

Some context; Essendon proposed Constitutional changes a couple years back that, in effect, diluted the membership vote. I vehemently opposed the changes, but as is the way in club land, our members are a bunch of ******* idiots (generalizing of course) and passed the changes because the club told them to.

When I saw the news highlights on this change to yours, my first thought was 'here we go, another club trying to remove its memberships influence'.

But then I've seen comments here along the lines of not voting for Directors - do you guys and girls not vote for your Directors?

Yes, we do vote for our directors and there's no dilution of members' voting rights in our proposal, in fact they will expand voting rights by allowing afl club support members to vote.

 

[Jade]

Yes, we do vote for our directors and there's no dilution of members' voting rights in our proposal, in fact they will expand voting rights by allowing afl club support members to vote.

When was the last member vote?

(Just looking at some of the above discussion suggesting it doesn't happen)

 

[gab213]

When was the last member vote?

(Just looking at some of the above discussion suggesting it doesn't happen)

It was earlier this year, there were two challenges, both failed. The year before there were 3 elections. 5 out of 8 of our board members faced elections in the past two years but nah, we never get to vote

 

[Jade]

there's no dilution of members' voting rights in our proposal

Doesn't the reduction from a third to a quarter (number of directors required to vacate and resubmit) do exactly that?

 

[gab213]

Doesn't the reduction from a third to a quarter (number of directors required to vacate and resubmit) do exactly that?

No, the 3 was a hangover from the days where we had 12 board member. I think it makes sense to limit the changes on an 8 person board to 2 per year, that's enough turnover at any one time. It promotes stability. It's actually an adjustment that takes it back to the 25% that it was.

 

[Gavstar]

I’m guessing the Carltonians can raise 100 signatures for an EGM in quick time.

Those laughing at the shambles of Pies board challenge are now eating humble pie. I was afraid of this hopefully it doesn’t allow Elliot faction back in

 

[jpfalvo]

Dont forget the removal of the requirement for a board member to have 2yrs of membership, prior to being eligible.

Or allowing a board member in their final year of tenure (max 12yrs), if they are appointed president being allowed to stay for another 5yrs...

Sayers, 9yrs now... can leave board at his 14th year

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[gab213]

I’m guessing the Carltonians can raise 100 signatures for an EGM in quick time.

Those laughing at the shambles of Pies board challenge are now eating humble pie. I was afraid of this hopefully it doesn’t allow Elliot faction back in

They may be able to get 100 signatures (although that is a more difficult task than it sounds like) but can they get enough people to vote for them? The most likely result is that they fail but in the meantime destabilise the club.