News 2017 AGM

[theflea]

I most likely will be at the agm, so while it will be much quieter than last years, if anyone has q's they would like asked, post here or pm me

I think telsor suggest this notion but I also want to know why it appears we lost more than Million with the sports centre deals, and want to know if this is to do with one off costs associated with set ups.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Won't see this.

 

[Portland Tigers]

I actually dont mind the flag exception, we play for flags and have only won 11 in 110 years, so its not like its raining with them. We fight for the pinnacle, and those that get us there deserve that recognition IMO


FWIW I already thought it was the case

I agree with you rfctiger74...37 years in the wilderness is a horrible life sentence. If a one, two game player/s plays in a premiership side for the tigers he/they are legends and deserve to RFC life members.

 

[KiwiTiger]

I agree with you rfctiger74...37 years in the wilderness is a horrible life sentence. If a one, two game player/s plays in a premiership side for the tigers he/they are legends and deserve to RFC life members.

Witnessed Daryl Freame’s Life Member presentation in Perth. Believe he may have played 15-20 games in his RFC career. He was overcome with emotion.

Haere Ra

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I most likely will be at the agm, so while it will be much quieter than last years, if anyone has q's they would like asked, post here or pm me

aside from martin which other players contracts are being paid by a sponsor ?

 

[Tigersman]

You never know where player recruitment might end up. Mid season drafts, free agency etc.

We could end up with a system that allows clubs to buy in guns for hire that end up on our list for a handful of games before chasing the next paycheque the very next season. For me that is not worthy of being a life member.

That title should require some loyalty and contribution to the club over a period of time. Life membership of a club should be extremely hard to achieve. Even more rare an honour than winning a premiership.

 

[Nobby]

That title should require some loyalty and contribution to the club over a period of time. Life membership of a club should be extremely hard to achieve. Even more rare an honour than winning a premiership.

Loyalty works both ways and the contribution in the effort of achieving a flag is surely quite worthy.
While I do agree with your statement, it would be pretty rare for this scenario to eventuate where a player would come in for a short period to 'gap fill'

 

[telsor]

On the poll, 100 is to few, but 5% too high.

We want it to be a significant hurdle, but 5% is practically impossible to achieve. 1 or 2% would be adequate.

 

[shaky]

On the poll, 100 is to few, but 5% too high.

We want it to be a significant hurdle, but 5% is practically impossible to achieve. 1 or 2% would be adequate.

That’s what the proposed change to the constitution is and why it didn’t succeed last, especially given the discontent at the end of last year.
They are probably hoping they can get it through on the back of the premiership euphoria!

I agree, no way can I see anyway you could get 3,500+ signatures together, but then again, under what circumstances would we need and extraordinary AGM??? What can’t wait until the normal AGM.

We had FOF last year nearly derail the club with their discontent at one bad season. Imagine where we would be now if they had had their way.

Football has moved past the years of being run as a backyard set up (let’s leave that to some of the other clubs now). It a professionally run business.

The AGM is the time to hold the board to account if needed.
As I read it 100, members can still get an item raised at the AGM if they want to.

 

[Muddiemoose]

aside from martin which other players contracts are being paid by a sponsor ?

You’ll probably find most are
At the start of the year when the puma store opened at Melbourne central I think we had 5 - 6 players there you’ll find all of them would have contracts with puma (incl Rioli and Lloyd I can’t remember the others)
I’m pretty sure Cotch and Jack are on Nikes books hence why whenever they do non club related interviews they will have Nike gear on

Pretty much all the consistent best 22 players will have sponsorship deals at the very least boots

 

[telsor]

That’s what the proposed change to the constitution is and why it didn’t succeed last, especially given the discontent at the end of last year.
They are probably hoping they can get it through on the back of the premiership euphoria!

I agree, no way can I see anyway you could get 3,500+ signatures together, but then again, under what circumstances would we need and extraordinary AGM??? What can’t wait until the normal AGM.

We had FOF last year nearly derail the club with their discontent at one bad season. Imagine where we would be now if they had had their way.

Football has moved past the years of being run as a backyard set up (let’s leave that to some of the other clubs now). It a professionally run business.

The AGM is the time to hold the board to account if needed.
As I read it 100, members can still get an item raised at the AGM if they want to.

If they keep saying 5%, it should keep getting rejected.

Reject 5% and they might propose a more reasonable figure next year, accept 5% and it'll never go down again.

 

[shaky]

If they keep saying 5%, it should keep getting rejected.

Reject 5% and they might propose a more reasonable figure next year, accept 5% and it'll never go down again.

I actually sent an email to Peggy to that effect, funny thing I never got a reply to that!
The other thing is, what is it 5% of?
The total membership base which is made up of juniors, interstate members, corporate members etc?
Or is it 5% of the members eligible to vote and in that case what is the number?
At least 100 is a clear cut number, but a percentage does move with the number of member, up or down.

 

[telsor]

I actually sent an email to Peggy to that effect, funny thing I never got a reply to that!
The other thing is, what is it 5% of?
The total membership base which is made up of juniors, interstate members, corporate members etc?
Or is it 5% of the members eligible to vote and in that case what is the number?
At least 100 is a clear cut number, but a percentage does move with the number of member, up or down.

Presumably it would be of those eligible to vote.

and yeah, changes by those in power have a marked tendency to support those in power.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I actually sent an email to Peggy to that effect, funny thing I never got a reply to that!
The other thing is, what is it 5% of?
The total membership base which is made up of juniors, interstate members, corporate members etc?
Or is it 5% of the members eligible to vote and in that case what is the number?
At least 100 is a clear cut number, but a percentage does move with the number of member, up or down.

its 5% of members who are able to vote.

and a percentage makes sense. 100 made sense when the club had 3000 members, it doesnt now

Presumably it would be of those eligible to vote.

and yeah, changes by those in power have a marked tendency to support those in power.

you are aware Peggy is in her final term? what benefit does she get driving this change through?

 

[telsor]

its 5% of members who are able to vote.

and a percentage makes sense. 100 made sense when the club had 3000 members, it doesnt now

you are aware Peggy is in her final term? what benefit does she get driving this change through?

I'm also aware she's not the entire board.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm also aware she's not the entire board.

so who is the cartel trying to keep power from the members? name names

 

[Keilor Tiger]

its 5% of members who are able to vote.

and a percentage makes sense. 100 made sense when the club had 3000 members, it doesnt now
Good post. Many constitutions are drafted for the time but these may be 100 years old. They need to be changed to be relevant for new times but due to general apathy, lack of understanding and trust in the proposing heirachy, voters don’t agree to changes. Not a specific RFC members comment but a general comment on voters based on historical results not to change.

100 members probably was 5% when it was first drafted but not now - hence needs to be a set % not a set number



you are aware Peggy is in her final term? what benefit does she get driving this change through?

 

[Punt rd end]

again, thats my read of it. id want to dig into the history before being 100% certain, but we have had a vfl side for how many seasons? how long has this been in the constitution? if it predates the vfl side, its about the old days. if newer, i may be a mental moron who is wrong again

I think the VFL is about the old days not now, that's my take

 

[Punt rd end]

On the poll, 100 is to few, but 5% too high.

We want it to be a significant hurdle, but 5% is practically impossible to achieve. 1 or 2% would be adequate.

For eg. the premiership photo with Dimma and Cotch has been getting over 2000 likes everyday since the GF so for the right reason social media could drum up the numbers easily.

 

[Punt rd end]

If you want a proxy vote form here are the details

There is one resolution to be voted on at the Annual General Meeting. If you are unable to attend the
meeting and wish to vote on this item of business you need to obtain a proxy form. Proxy forms are
available on request. To obtain a Proxy Form please contact Nicki Crivari by
• email ncrivari@richmondfc.com.au; or
• (03) 9426 4411

 

[TigerImposter]

I’m agreeing with the group saying 100 being too low and 5% being too high.
I’m not sure how many EAGM have been called in our 132 year history and I reckon it would be less than the fingers on a hand. The only thing the 5% motion could actually do is create kaos and a hard to remove group if an incompetent lot take reign in years to come. I’m dubious to this change as it removes power from the members not bc they don’t have it , but bc they’re reluctant to vote when elections come up.
I think it should be a 1000 , but it’s a useless motion as imo EAGM have been rare for us and this could do more harm to us in the future than good. People are now voting on their current hyped up emotions and not looking into this long term. Voters beware.

 

[HumanMeatball]

I’m agreeing with the group saying 100 being too low and 5% being too high.
I’m not sure how many EAGM have been called in our 132 year history and I reckon it would be less than the fingers on a hand. The only thing the 5% motion could actually do is create kaos and a hard to remove group if an incompetent lot take reign in years to come. I’m dubious to this change as it removes power from the members not bc they don’t have it , but bc they’re reluctant to vote when elections come up.
I think it should be a 1000 , but it’s a useless motion as imo EAGM have been rare for us and this could do more harm to us in the future than good. People are now voting on their current hyped up emotions and not looking into this long term. Voters beware.

What’s your take on the second part. Do you reckon it means vfl players who aren’t senior listed players would be eligible for life membership in the case of a vfl flag?

 

[TigerImposter]

What’s your take on the second part. Do you reckon it means vfl players who aren’t senior listed players would be eligible for life membership in the case of a vfl flag?

I took it as being afl flags, but I can see it’s unclear there. I believe vfl players
shouldn’t be eligible bc for one the team is topped up with non Tigers and the rest are on the List in the goal to become afl premiership players.

 

[rbartlett]

I interpret the clause regarding the premiership players = life membership proposal; as relating to Senior premierships. I base that on the fact we've never discussed reserve players receiving Senior Life Membership in my time associated with Richmond history.
I sense the wording VFL/AFL is a bit outdated for this clause. They should have said 'a Senior premiership player of the club'

So it technically refers to VFA 1902 1905, VFL 1920 1921 1932 1934 1943 1967 1969 1973 1974 1980, AFL 2017 (and any future Senior premierships).
However the VFA and VFL players have already been announced as receiving their life memberships. So in reality this proposal relates to current premiers and futures of the AFL.

 

[rbartlett]

The Board also notes that an EGM has never been called in the history of the Club.

This was a peculiar sentence in the letter sent out to members.
There was an EGM on Feb 27 1911, triggered by 100 members (see notice attached)
There was also a Special Meeting on Feb 5 1930 triggered by the committee itself, and again on Jan 19 1944 triggered by the committee.