2017 AGM - 8th of March 2017

[Orange Peanut]

Could you expand (and expand, and expand) upon that?

Oh hell yeah. With heaps of insults thrown in during each self indulgent, patronising, never ending paragraph. Just in case my intellectual superiority over you isn't already obvious.

 

[Arden]

IANAL.

 

[True North]

I like it:

1 Brayshaw as the Board rep
James Brayshaw and wife as the independents.

KPI 1 to stand for the Board in 2018 is that your surname begin with B and end with W.
KPI 2 You must have an established abbreviated Christian name somewhere within your surname.

Works as well as the Hawks version of this rule:

You must be a Solicitor.
You must have worked for XXXX.

 

[Firestarter]

I like it:

1 Brayshaw as the Board rep
James Brayshaw and wife as the independents.

KPI 1 to stand for the Board in 2018 is that your surname begin with B and end with W.
KPI 2 You must have an established abbreviated Christian name somewhere within your surname.

Works as well as the Hawks version of this rule:

You must be a Solicitor.
You must have worked for XXXX.

The beer company?

 

[True North]

The beer company?

They don't sell beer. They sell mid-strength sunshine water to the Northern hoards that can't handle a beer. It's why the Suns are all Christian teetotaling snorters.

 

[shintemaster]

Works as well as the Hawks version of this rule:

You must be a Solicitor.
You must have worked for XXXX.

Hawks: Must be the son of a prominent podiatrist?

Or the Essendon version where you have to have a severe allergy to the truth.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

... however, they have already given legal grounds to get the amendment voided due to inaccurately claiming that it was to be independent, and it is not. They have gifted anyone who wants to run the legal avenue to challenge it's legality.

This is where it started. What you have posted above is categorically incorrect.

Even if it is legal, the vast majority of people are not lawyers and would expect the English definition of words being used to describe something, especially if the details about what you are describing are vague.

Hmmm, I suspect you don't actually believe this. It's extremely common in the commercial world for terms to have contextual and not literal meanings, as you are surely aware.

The issue I have with the posting of this sort of incorrect information is that other people run with it. Some have concluded the sub-committee is illegal and lots of rubbish has been posted about the Board setting up a process for hoodwinking the members. A properly constituted Nominations sub-committee (which this is) brings both expertise and rigour to the process, without absolving the Board of their ultimate duty to make decisions on nominations. There is less chance of cronyism with this sub-committee, not more. It's why the ASX requires them for listed entities.

 

[Tas]

This is where it started. What you have posted above is categorically incorrect.

You haven't proven it is incorrect. You have said I am incorrect and there is a difference.

Hmmm, I suspect you don't actually believe this. It's extremely common in the commercial world for terms to have contextual and not literal meanings, as you are surely aware.

I think in legal terms they try and stick to English definitions of words as much as humanly possible, it is why law is very careful about the vocabulary they use.

You could avoided this senseless repetition by just stating the law which proves me wrong. If it is as simple to find as you claimed, just let me know what specifically you are referring to.

The issue I have with the posting of this sort of incorrect information is that other people run with it. Some have concluded the sub-committee is illegal and lots of rubbish has been posted about the Board setting up a process for hoodwinking the members. A properly constituted Nominations sub-committee (which this is) brings both expertise and rigour to the process, without absolving the Board of their ultimate duty to make decisions on nominations. There is less chance of cronyism with this sub-committee, not more. It's why the ASX requires them for listed entities.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I don't think that this will be abused. However, Ansett set up the previous corporate structure with the intent on helping to safeguard the club from hostile take over due to having a small membership base. It didn't prevent someone after his time attempting to use the mechanism he created in good faith to actually attempt to hoodwink the members. If he was forced to sell off the rest of his North shares in his bankruptcy we would be the Gold Coast Suns. Claiming it is not possible is utterly naive given we have only recently recovered from being on the brink of destruction.

As I said, I trust our board and do not think this will be abused (assuming it can-the details are still vague), however, that doesn't meant it wont at some point in the future if it is able to be abused. I can't predict that we will always have the calibre of people that we currently do. Can you or anyone make that guarantee?

 

[Kimbo]

There is less chance of cronyism with this sub-committee, not more.

Doesn't this depend a bit on what kind of cronies you have? What if your cronies all fit the criteria for suitability, but others that don't fit what could potentially seen as limiting criteria, don't make the cut? My concern is if high quality candidates are excluded because the criteria, whilst aiming to set a 'high standard', have the unintended effect of preventing them from being considered. You don't think it could also be used to keep the gene pool limited?!

I get what you're saying, and appreciate the different take on this LTK. Food for thought, thanks.

 

[True North]

Will the first order handed to the recruiters be "no more best available, we don't want Judd, we want a HBF with pick 1".

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Doesn't this depend a bit on what kind of cronies you have? What if your cronies all fit the criteria for suitability, but others that don't fit what could potentially seen as limiting criteria, don't make the cut? My concern is if high quality candidates are excluded because the criteria, whilst aiming to set a 'high standard', have the unintended effect of preventing them from being considered. You don't think it could also be used to keep the gene pool limited?!

I get what you're saying, and appreciate the different take on this LTK. Food for thought, thanks.

I don't even think that my view is 'a different take'. What has been implemented is good corporate practice and the implications (in general terms, I didn't read the specific materials) are as follows:

No potential board candidates will miss 'the cut' as there will be no new restrictions on nominating for board membership. On this basis, it is unlikely that there will be new criteria attaching to candidates (except perhaps administrative, which I suggest means no 'limiting' criteria).

The difference now is that anyone wishing to nominate for the board must submit their proposal to the Nominations sub-committee rather than to the members en masse, and the sub-committee (which is independent, due to the majority of independent directors) assesses each proposal in terms of what the nominee could bring to the board / club. The sub-committee then makes recommendations to the board, including why they recommend NO in some cases, and the board makes a decision taking into account those recommendations (it is not bound by them).

I suspect people like De Rauch don't like this system because their proposal would be rigorously reviewed by the sub-committee and therefore needs to have substance. He and others prefer the tactic of creating groundswell popularity through an anti-current board sentiment, which is guaranteed to hook a lot of members. It's similar to what goes on in politics - whip up the masses into an anti-incumbents frenzy and ride that wave. Brexit, anyone? Probably wouldn't have happened if a qualified committee examined the pros and cons and made a recommendation. A lot of the British public regret their vote now - they simply didn't understand the issues and implications as they were caught up in the anti-EC sentiment.

PS - De Rauch is a good North man; if he is the right person for a board position, the existence of a Nominations sub-committee would not prevent him from getting one.

PPS - the disinformation has got the the point where some think this will have an impact on recruiting strategy.

 

[gokangas]

I don't even think that my view is 'a different take'. What has been implemented is good corporate practice and the implications (in general terms, I didn't read the specific materials) are as follows:

No potential board candidates will miss 'the cut' as there will be no new restrictions on nominating for board membership . On this basis, it is unlikely that there will be new criteria attaching to candidates (except perhaps administrative, which I suggest means no 'limiting' criteria).

The difference now is that anyone wishing to nominate for the board must submit their proposal to the Nominations sub-committee rather than to the members en masse, and the sub-committee (which is independent, due to the majority of independent directors) assesses each proposal in terms of what the nominee could bring to the board / club. The sub-committee then makes recommendations to the board, including why they recommend NO in some cases, and the board makes a decision taking into account those recommendations (it is not bound by them).

I suspect people like De Rauch don't like this system because their proposal would be rigorously reviewed by the sub-committee and therefore needs to have substance. He and others prefer the tactic of creating groundswell popularity through an anti-current board sentiment, which is guaranteed to hook a lot of members. It's similar to what goes on in politics - whip up the masses into an anti-incumbents frenzy and ride that wave. Brexit, anyone? Probably wouldn't have happened if a qualified committee examined the pros and cons and made a recommendation. A lot of the British public regret their vote now - they simply didn't understand the issues and implications as they were caught up in the anti-EC sentiment.

PS - De Rauch is a good North man; if he is the right person for a board position, the existence of a Nominations sub-committee would not prevent him from getting one.

PPS - the disinformation has got the the point where some think this will have an impact on recruiting strategy.

I can see it both ways. I suppose we will not know how it is working until someone is refused nomination. It can be difficult submitting a nomination/election plan when you are not privy to the inner workings of the club.

 

[joegreen]

VFL team. Footy department putting forward their requests to the board, Buckley didn't want to preempt what the footy department will request but could very well be a request for our own VFL side.

Stay tuned

 

[giantroo]

Stay tuned

Going alone???

 

[King Corey]

Going alone???

Taking off my North hat, what a farce.

1990s AFL Reserves, VFL separate entities
2000s AFL lays its eggs into a rebadged VFL
2010s VFL paralysed irreparably; AFL Reserves maggot emerges

Never change AFL.

 

[joegreen]

Taking off my North hat, what a farce.

1990s AFL Reserves, VFL separate entities
2000s AFL lays its eggs into a rebadged VFL
2010s VFL paralysed irreparably; AFL Reserves maggot emerges

Never change AFL.

Yes quite sad really the VFL/AFL have and continue to do everything to wipe the VFA history off the map. And 6 of our premierships along with it!

 

[joegreen]

Going alone???

That would be a fair assumption.

 

[giantroo]

That would be a fair assumption.

Any news on when it might actually occur?

 

[joegreen]

Any news on when it might actually occur?

Best I can do is watch this space. Cheers.

 

[Orange Peanut]

Taking off my North hat, what a farce.

1990s AFL Reserves, VFL separate entities
2000s AFL lays its eggs into a rebadged VFL
2010s VFL paralysed irreparably; AFL Reserves maggot emerges

Never change AFL.

Some pretty old teams last their identity along the way too. Ex Springvale players I know say their history is now worthless. I don't know about Bullants fans but they are pretty much unrecognisable too. And the Coburg I grew up following through my Grandad would have him rolling in his grave.

 

[SMaturin]

Oh boy.

 

[giantroo]

So the issues that were discussed back in 2017 regarding the INC have come home to roost.

 

[Orange Peanut]

Lesson learnt. Probs too late.

 

[ferball]

Yes well...

 

[Gasometer]

Looks fair enough and means someone like IUB will neverbe on the Board for shits and giggles...or waste everyone's time and money going through noms.

Hmmmmmmmmm