09 DEC 2016 - End of the road.

[Ned_Flanders]

This is a completely left field statement :
Could a company sign off all of its votes by Proxy then send them in as informals? So let's assume BLK has 1000 free memberships for being a sponsor then it sends them back as informal votes?

Memberships need to be attached to a name, and the nameholder holds the voting right

 

[TigerImposter]

Memberships need to be attached to a name, and the nameholder holds the voting right

Yep I thought you would say this.
Yes , but the so called 1000 that belong to a company can be under one name so then all of these corporations could then do a friendly favour and toss these vote for the incumbents in one hit . So if 10000 voted then this is already 10% of the votes .then add on all the other freebies and it could be a large percentage .
Is this plausible or I'm going into it too much ?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'd be surprised if half that voted

Normally its 5-7k, but i wouldnt be shocked with 10k given the media attention

That said, its still less than 15% of members voting yet 50-100 times greater than the numbers who post here

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yep I thought you would say this.
Yes , but the so called 1000 that belong to a company can be under one name so then all of these corporations could then do a friendly favour and toss these vote for the incumbents in one hit . So if 10000 voted then this is already 10% of the votes .then add on all the other freebies and it could be a large percentage .
Is this plausible or I'm going into it too much ?

Way too much. Companies gift these out as rewards and perks, you cant do that if the bosses name is on them.

Even so, i think (havent checked yet) there may be a limiter on how many memberships an individual can own. I read an old doc on nsw clubs having a restriction, and the inference was it was a part of the legal compliance issues. Dont know if its redundant howevwr, or if its state or fed

That being said, as we are a nfp community organization, i believe there are a number of regs to stop this kinda thing. Otherwise clubs could have effectively bought yhe dogs or norf just by buying out the membership. Also this hasnt been done in yhe board war between matheson and pratt, and with both of them having cash and wanting to dominate the board, it was an option viable for them IF your theory is legal.

Fwiw this voting pattern is consistent with every other election weve had, except the result has actually been closer. Most of the time the challengers get crushed, but i think that says more about the poor quality og the past candidates than anything else.

Personally im not surprised, but am looking forward to see the actual votes.

 

[Magic17]

Congrats to the both Emmett and Kerry.

 

[Bojangles17]

If it's true they use the informal for the incumbents then that becomes a massive issue, but then again they are lawyers and accountants who can make anything mean everything

FMD who would write a Constitution like that, president Mugabe

 

[SunshineBoy]

FMD who would write a Constitution like that, president Mugabe

Alexander Putin

 

[Rubber Hips]

Alexander Putin

Or his brother Vladimir

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Exackery. There just seems to be a thought there is a conspiracy behind everything the club does. Its just a protest if they don't get their way imo.

Still comesback to members had the chance to vote.If this highly doubtful process took place then they have themselves to blame.

 

[caroma]

Yep I thought you would say this.
Yes , but the so called 1000 that belong to a company can be under one name so then all of these corporations could then do a friendly favour and toss these vote for the incumbents in one hit . So if 10000 voted then this is already 10% of the votes .then add on all the other freebies and it could be a large percentage .
Is this plausible or I'm going into it too much ?

The Board may, from time to time, determine the terms and conditions upon which a member may be a Multiple Ticket Holder and there may be different terms and conditions determined for different categories of Multiple Ticket Holders including, without limitation:
(a) members of such coterie or supporter groups as exist from time to time;
(b) persons, firms or corporations that are sponsors of the Club; or
(c) directors and employees of the Club.

3.7.3 Nothing in this Constitution shall entitle a Multiple Ticket Holder to exercise more than one vote at any meeting or in any election of the Club.

The result is a complete joke. The votes of everyone who didn't vote went to the incumbents.

It is impossible for anyone that isn't endorced by the board to get on the board.

Its like the Peoples Republic of China. A closed shop .

What a farce .

There is nothing in the Constitution to support this allegation.

5 minutes is all it takes to answer every question in this thread.
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Richmond/Club Promos/Richmond Constitution 2015.pdf

 

[TigerImposter]

The Board may, from time to time, determine the terms and conditions upon which a member may be a Multiple Ticket Holder and there may be different terms and conditions determined for different categories of Multiple Ticket Holders including, without limitation:
(a) members of such coterie or supporter groups as exist from time to time;
(b) persons, firms or corporations that are sponsors of the Club; or
(c) directors and employees of the Club.

3.7.3 Nothing in this Constitution shall entitle a Multiple Ticket Holder to exercise more than one vote at any meeting or in any election of the Club.



There is nothing in the Constitution to support this allegation.

5 minutes is all it takes to answer every question in this thread.
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Richmond/Club Promos/Richmond Constitution 2015.pdf

Thanks for that as I got kindly led to reading section 8 of that document and expected all the answers to be there.

 

[DrMike]

 

[RunningBounce]

Sigh. I read those five pages.

Still, not a total loss. My faith in the intelligence of the Tiger Army was validated. Eventually. Thank you, caroma.

 

[shaky]

Not with standing the question over informal, non cast or sponsor votes, on reflection the result isn't a total surprise.
Dunne was probably always going to top votes. He would have got the votes from those wanting "stability" and those (like myself) that wanted to keep some footy experience on the board.
I'm not surprised it then came down to Wallace and Ryan. I just don't think Casey presented well enough to get a large amount of support other than those that wanted anyone other than the current board.
I think Ryan got in ahead of Wallace due to being an incumbent (again getting votes for stability) and without trying to sound like a misogynistic pig she probably got a lot of the female vote.
There are female coterie groups, the majority of which probably voted I would imagine because you need to be fairly passionate if you pay to be part of a coterie.
If that's why Ryan got in that's fine with me, just as long as it isn't because she got votes from corporate sponsors or non voters.
A question to be clarified at the AGM?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not with standing the question over informal, non cast or sponsor votes, on reflection the result isn't a total surprise.
Dunne was probably always going to top votes. He would have got the votes from those wanting "stability" and those (like myself) that wanted to keep some footy experience on the board.
I'm not surprised it then came down to Wallace and Ryan. I just don't think Casey presented well enough to get a large amount of support other than those that wanted anyone other than the current board.
I think Ryan got in ahead of Wallace due to being an incumbent (again getting votes for stability) and without trying to sound like a misogynistic pig she probably got a lot of the female vote.
There are female coterie groups, the majority of which probably voted I would imagine because you need to be fairly passionate if you pay to be part of a coterie.
If that's why Ryan got in that's fine with me, just as long as it isn't because she got votes from corporate sponsors or non voters.
A question to be clarified at the AGM?

caroma already showed the clause in the club constitution that limits multiple membership holders to one vote only.

Also non voters are not included (if this happened we wouldnt have rex on the board at the expense of the board nominee he replaced, and our votes would be better than the 5-7k we normally get)

 

[Helen Wheels]

Not with standing the question over informal, non cast or sponsor votes, on reflection the result isn't a total surprise.
Dunne was probably always going to top votes. He would have got the votes from those wanting "stability" and those (like myself) that wanted to keep some footy experience on the board.
I'm not surprised it then came down to Wallace and Ryan. I just don't think Casey presented well enough to get a large amount of support other than those that wanted anyone other than the current board.
I think Ryan got in ahead of Wallace due to being an incumbent (again getting votes for stability) and without trying to sound like a misogynistic pig she probably got a lot of the female vote.
There are female coterie groups, the majority of which probably voted I would imagine because you need to be fairly passionate if you pay to be part of a coterie.
If that's why Ryan got in that's fine with me, just as long as it isn't because she got votes from corporate sponsors or non voters.
A question to be clarified at the AGM?

Blokes vote against blokes, too.

 

[shaky]

Blokes vote against blokes, too.

Yes. And don't get me wrong, I would have been more than happy to vote for Kerry, but I wanted an outside voice on the board and felt Simon put up a very good case.
IMO I think the board has done a decent job with the off field side of things and I have been reasonably satisfied with their response to our s**t year.
As other have stated, I just felt it was a bit of a boys club (so to speak), but then I think most boards are.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Emmett Dunne was obvious. I voted for him for multiple reasons.

Was totally split between Kerry and Simon. Went Simon essentially to force some change and show members have a voice. Was close (I understand) so all good.

Proxies are strange really. You can be bothered to vote, but not to choose anyone.

 

[U2tigers]

The RFC still has me feeling dissapointed. so I will #ECO for now, and wait for pre-season Game 1.

Not often I feel this underwhelmed about our club.

Handbrakes - Game plan
The Off field debacle just adds to it.

All good - I will come around early 2017.....................................well if Handbrakes Gameplan doesn't piss me off again.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Just something for people to think on.

Was hardwicks game plan really that bad or were the players just not executing it and he was too stubborn to change it?

 

[U2tigers]

Just something for people to think on.

Was hardwicks game plan really that bad or were the players just not executing it and he was too stubborn to change it?

Either way the coach is at fault.

IMO it was his game plan, but if it was the players and they weren't playing for him then thats just a bigger problem belonging to the coach.

 

[shaky]

Just something for people to think on.

Was hardwicks game plan really that bad or were the players just not executing it and he was too stubborn to change it?

I think this is a question you could analyse for hours and still be no closer to an answer or agreement on it.
Had other teams worked out our games style and come up with ways to stop it we couldn't handle?
How big a part did injuries to the likes of Houli play? I think there was a lack of drive and confidence of half back. (Put the retirement of Newman into this category also?)
Whatever the reason(s) we failed as a playing and coaching group to deal with it.
Hardwick has an off season and new coaching panel to address it. (and some new players).

 

[Punt rd end]

I really would like to know if it is in the constituion that members who didnt vote, get their vote allocated to the incumbants. Thats a big one.

Its not true, he is making it up

 

[TigerImposter]

Just something for people to think on.

Was hardwicks game plan really that bad or were the players just not executing it and he was too stubborn to change it?

I posted my answer to this in the Shai thread.

 

[Lacustrus]

Adolf Balme has the whole board on a leash

And thank f...ing Christ for that too...