2005 Agm

[AlecDuncan]

Y'all,
Sorry if this is a bore, but I thought I'd provide a recap on Monday night's AGM as none has appeared in the media.

After the meetings of 2002, I'm beginning to realise that AGMs are generally ugly any year you win a wooden spoon. I'm also realising that a sizeable minority of any footy club's members are loud-mouthed boneheads.

But I got to sit next to Syd Jackson. Happy.

Monday was a long way from the vicious rancor of that first utensil, but spoons tend to make people p1ss and moan about stupid little things when in better years they couldn't give a fig.

Deaths in the family were announced. All before my years on the press box hill but duly noted.

A life membership was awarded to Alec Spencer who has been a member since 1928 and has dedicated his retirement to the club's mail room for over a decade. At least I know what I can do when I retire. A guy like this reminds me of the amazing selfless people who prop up all clubs, and really contrasted with the entitlement syndrome to come. Big Red also got a life membership, now he just needs that McDonalds life membership.

The more articulate (& more often) did manage to ask questions that were beyond the usual "Why hasn't the board made me rich and beautiful" variety, or even "Why is Fevola so crap when he needs surgery?", which is what one tool's efforts amounted to. Oh, and get this, someone effectively abused Michael Malouf for signing Marc Murphy. We should be able to slap people like this once, very hard.

The date of the AGM - 27th March is getting late compared to other clubs. You probably need to buy a 2006 membership to attend the 2005 AGM which really is not done. I'm guessing the real reason to delay the AGM is to allow the pain from the splinters to recede. In any case, it's not good enough. 2005 should be wrapped up by the knell of the calendar, not the week of the new season.

Promotion. Of course it's difficult for any club to control the press it receives, and Sticks knows, we've had some bad. However, lack of promotion seems to be a recurring problem. For instance, the unfortunately rescheduled family day early March. The original day was washed out by storms, and the rescheduling was non-promoted to the point where even your correspondent who was at the Port practice match was completely unaware that an event was scheduled for afterwards. All it took was some posters and sticky tape guys. Hell - butchers paper, a texta and sticky tape.

We got a new director on the board. Marketer Greg Lee replacing former director Chris Pavlou. John Valmorbida squeaked home by 7 votes over Marcus Clarke. Start marketing Greg.

The main business to be resolved was a resolution put to the voting members. It comprised of several indivisible changes to the constitution, mainly charity/sports-club taxation related, which given our recent problems, is very important.

However, it also included a change to the quorum required for the AGM from 200 down to 25. It was enough to arc many up. Hey, they can't hold AGMs in secret. Just attend if you're worried about it. It's not like the die-hards who were in such dismay that night won't be at every meeting anyway. As it happens, I can remember Elliot complaining about insufficient voting members at meetings, so it's not like it's a unique perception among boards.

Voting rights have changed in recent years. Before you had to specially register to vote - separate to buying a membership. Now once you've registered to vote, you stay eligible as long as you're a financial member. This is a huge improvement, but it's amazing how many people forget to do it that one time and then bitch about their "rights" afterwards.

Anyway, the resolution passed.

Two & a quarter hours later we were saved by a precocious 10yo who asked the board if he could sing the club song. Simple really. Song sung. Meeting adjourned.

 

[Napolean]

First of all, as much as I would like to attend these types of meetings I cannot because I am not currently living in Oz at the moment.

This report puts a positive spin on things which I did not get from other reports I read.

General vibe I got from elsewhere was that the board just refused to answer the difficult questions. Most of the board sat facing the stage with their backs to the crowd. This alone projects a very defiant feel to the members. This is the one chance members get all year to grill the board and ALL board members should be ready to answer any questions truthfully to the members.

What was the reason given for changing the quorom limit? What was justification given for ramming this through with all of the other necessary measures? Whats to stop this board in future from holding a meeting where the board and a few allies attend, as they are the only ones told, to pass measures they know the general members will accept. The justifications given for this and the way it was rammed through lead me to believe the boards motives for it to pass are sinister.

More and more this board is sounding like it is reverting to the old authoritarian ways of Elliot. Happy to hear Lee got in but dissapointed Clarke did not. If things do not change then these guys had better watch next year.

 

[AlecDuncan]

This report puts a positive spin on things which I did not get from other reports I read.
​

That's because this club AGM was full of sound and fury.. signifying nothing.

Things aren't great, but everyone knows the reasons why. We don't have enough revenue, we have too much debt, too many ongoing liabilities, and tired facilities. It's very difficult for the board to juggle commercial arrangements still in negotiation and keep members informed of exactly what remedies are in train. Sometimes we're just going to have to wait for announcements. We all know the AFL is moving towards supporting the costs of Princes Park. We all know the state & local governements and the AFL are looking at redevelopment of the facility into a local recreational asset, including better training facilities for us. We all know the social club is stuffed by the move to TD. We all know the Victory Room is a poor substitute for the old social club.

Fact: We ain't coming back to Princes Park. There's no point expecting the club to magically turn around the social club and turn it into the Palladium Room when it's struggling to put the stuff above in order first. One day, if we have a vibrant, popular local facility, we can then do something about the social club (as Essendon apparently has with Windy Hill).

I'm confident that the current board is a million times more likely to solve these problems than its predecessor, and is making progress. However, the board can't say much about those things until they're sealed, and it's going to deal with the big priorities first. That's business.

BTW, expect two more sponsors to be announced in the coming weeks. It must be recognised that the board has improved our sponsorship situation since moving from PP. Telecasts make a world of difference.

General vibe I got from elsewhere was that the board just refused to answer the difficult questions. Most of the board sat facing the stage with their backs to the crowd.
​

The meeting was held in the social club which is not wide enough to have the entire board up the front. No defiance could be inferred from the seating arrangements. Collo and Malouf were very patient and took many questions which were either redundant or going in circles. Everyone had a pretty good go. No, they didn't all get detailed answers, but most questions were more about getting issues on the record, and (hopefully) dealt with later. A board isn't going to solve a club's problems on the run at an AGM.

What was the reason given for changing the quorom limit? What was justification given for ramming this through with all of the other necessary measures?
​

To ensure that resolutions get voted on at AGMs. As I noted, I can clearly remember Elliot making similar complaints about a lack of *voting* members (as opposed to normal members) at meetings. Directors are businessmen. They don't like uncertainty, and they don't like dealing with matters more than once. This is their solution. Yes, they should have separated this item. Yes, they could have made it a less dramatic change. No, it's not important.

Whats to stop this board in future from holding a meeting where the board and a few allies attend, as they are the only ones told, to pass measures they know the general members will accept.
​

The new limit applies ONLY to AGMs. AGMs must be held publicly and all members must be notified. It's corporation law. If you're worried about extraordinary meetings, don't. The new limit doesn't apply to them.