News 2017 AGM

[shaky]

All members should have received their notice of the upcoming AGM (Monday 11th December at 5.30pm).
It doesn't look like there were any new nominations for the board (closed on 10th Nov.), so the only items to be discussed will be the two changes to the constitution.

One I'm sure no one will have a problem with is a change so and premiership player, no matter how many games they have played can become life members.

The other item is the one that was defeated last year to change the minimum number of member required to call an Extraordinary AGM from 100 to 5% of members.

I will post the notice of meeting in the next post.

 

[shaky]

Constitution amendments for 11 December 2017 AGM

Resolution One:

(A) That existing Clause 6.4.1 is deleted and replaced with new Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3

below and that existing Clause 6.4.2 is re-numbered Clause 6.4.4; and

(B) That existing Clause 3.3.2(b) and Clause 3.3.2(c) is deleted and replaced with new

Clause 3.3.2(b).

(A) Existing Clause 6.4.1 (to be deleted)

Subject to section 249D of the Act, on a requisition in writing signed by at least one

hundred Ordinary Members with their addresses and their Membership Ticket

numbers, being delivered to the Company Secretary, the Company Secretary shall

within twenty-one days from receiving such requisition call an Extraordinary General

Meeting of the members of the Club by giving fourteen days notice of the same by

advertisement in a daily newspaper. The requisition must state precisely the objects

of the Meeting including any resolution to be proposed and such objects shall appear

in the advertisement in the same or a more abbreviated form.

New Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 (to be inserted)

6.4.1 The Club must call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the

Club as required by the Act.

6.4.2 The Extraordinary General Meeting must be held within the time limits

permitted by the Act.

6.4.3 Notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting must be given to each member

entitled to vote at the Meeting and in the form and within the time limits set

out in the Act and must be given in a manner authorised by Clause 6.1.3

and the Act.

Explanation: Before 2015, section 249D of the Corporations Act provided that an

extraordinary general meeting (EGM) could be called upon the request of the lesser of (1)

5% of voting members or (2) 100 voting members. In 2015, section 249D was amended to

remove the reference to 100 members. However, the Club's Constitution still allows 100

members to call an EGM.

The proposed amendment would bring the Constitution into line with the Corporations Act.

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


Samples/000001/000002/i12

*M00000112Q02*

233609_0215BC

Reasons advanced for the change to the Corporations Act were:

• 100 members was too low a threshold; and

• calling an EGM is expensive for the company.

The removal of the 100 member rule does not diminish the existing right of 100 members to

raise concerns about the Club by requesting that a resolution be placed on the agenda for

the Club's annual general meeting.

When the Club has more than 50,000 voting members, allowing 100 members to call an

EGM means that a small group can cause Club funds to be spent to hold a meeting even

when it is unlikely that any resolution at the meeting will be passed. On the other hand, 5%

of members will more properly represent a fair cross section of the Club's membership and

be indicative of the wish of members to have Club funds spent in holding and conducting

such a meeting.

The Board is aware that an argument has been advanced that the only way that directors

can be removed is through an EGM and that removing the 100 member provision will

entrench directors. That is not correct and a resolution regarding directors can be put by

members to the annual general meeting. The only difference is one of timing. As its name

suggests, an 'extraordinary' general meeting should be held only when a matter is so

'extraordinary' that it cannot wait until the annual general meeting.

(B) Existing Clauses 3.3.2(b) and (c) (to be deleted)

(b) a VFL/AFL multiple premiership player; or

(c) a single VFL/AFL premiership player who has played a minimum of 100

senior VFL/AFL matches for the Club; or

New Clause 3.3.2(b) (to be inserted)

(b) a VFL/AFL premiership player; or

(c) [deliberately left blank]

Explanation: The Board proposes that all premiership players be made Life Members of the

Club. While existing Clause 3.3.2(f) gives the Board wide ranging discretion as to who can

be made a Life Member, it is preferable to have premiership players mentioned specifically

so that the high esteem in which they are held is properly expressed.

 

[Calcium Man]

I will wait for rfctiger74 to drop some knowledge on this thread before I decide because I’m way too lazy to read that and think for myself.

 

[tugga]

I disagree with the notion that a one-game player could potentially be a life member. In my opinion it demeans the sometimes decades of service that a person can give to be awarded life membership.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I disagree with the notion that a one-game player could potentially be a life member. In my opinion it demeans the sometimes decades of service that a person can give to be awarded life membership.

if players need to have decades of service, that means most of our multiple premiership players are ineligable

 

[tugga]

if players need to have decades of service, that means most of our multiple premiership players are ineligable

They don't need decades though.
players need 150 games, which in my opinion, is too little. 200 yes.

 

[Helen Wheels]

I disagree with the notion that a one-game player could potentially be a life member. In my opinion it demeans the sometimes decades of service that a person can give to be awarded life membership.

There is a precedent

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20:1-16

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They don't need decades though.
players need 150 games, which in my opinion, is too little. 200 yes.

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

 

[69vintage]

Jack Graham -Greg Tivendale i know who has given me the most enjoyment and should be a Life member .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

On the 5% proposal, i backed it last year and ill back it again this year

 

[Cevap_Roll]

On the 5% proposal, i backed it last year and ill back it again this year

5% for LOLNORF is less than 100 members.
Pretty sure that's why its set at that figure.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

5% for LOLNORF is less than 100 members.
Pretty sure that's why its set at that figure.

norf dont have agm's technically because they cant get a quorum

 

[Frank Grimes]

I think it should be 5% instead of 100 people to call an EGM. It wouldn't be hard to find 100 members through social media to back almost any whacko idea to call an EGM. Though it should't be made overly hard to call one if there is a legitimate concern or issue with the club. 5% is a reasonable number IMO.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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

 

[shaky]

I think it should be 5% instead of 100 people to call an EGM. It wouldn't be hard to find 100 members through social media to back almost any whacko idea to call an EGM. Though it should't be made overly hard to call one if there is a legitimate concern or issue with the club. 5% is a reasonable number IMO.

I went to the AGM last year, but went in blind not having done any research on the proposed amendments. As such I abstained from the vote.
I agree 100 is far too few and in today’s social media environment it wouldn’t be so hard to find 100 people to get on board.
I had thought 5% was a lot (we are talking 3500 with 70000 members), but the need for an Emergency AGM would have to be pretty huge. Really what would you need one for? If the club went into administration?
If you want to overturn the board do it at the normal AGM. There appears to be facility to do this with the 100 members introducing it on to the AGM agenda.
Perhaps someone more legal mind can confirm or clarify???

 

[HumanMeatball]

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

Puntroadend and one eyed tiger going off about the 5% change. Some nuffy on one eyed tiger rejecting the premiership life member thing as he said it’s insulting players like Beasley and lennon would be entitled to life membership from vfl flags. Ruined the flag for him apparently this and broad. Club jerks he says

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Puntroadend and one eyed tiger going off about the 5% change. Some nuffy on one eyed tiger rejecting the premiership life member thing as he said it’s insulting players like Beasley and lennon would be entitled to life membership from vfl flags. Ruined the flag for him apparently this and broad. Club jerks he says

1) lol it applies to the VFL today, thats just being a dumb ******** goat rooting moron

2) PRE still fap over Pahoof and his minions doing the deal with Macek/Schwab with their petition trigger. even though it wasnt used, the challenge was still overwhelmingly rejected by members. PRE and OER represent the same fans we do, the fanatical hardcore that is not representative of the membership as a whole

 

[HumanMeatball]

1) lol it applies to the VFL today, thats just being a dumb ******** goat rooting moron

2) PRE still fap over Pahoof and his minions doing the deal with Macek/Schwab with their petition trigger. even though it wasnt used, the challenge was still overwhelmingly rejected by members. PRE and OER represent the same fans we do, the fanatical hardcore that is not representative of the membership as a whole

Would vfl players even non afl listed ones who win vfl flags be entitled to life membership?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Would vfl players even non afl listed ones who win vfl flags be entitled to life membership?

this is my bullshit non legaled interpretation

no one before today believe a player who won 2 VFL flags TODAY would get life membership - its referring to the former VFL which became the AFL (not the VFA that became the VFL)

could be wrong, usually am, but thats how i see it

 

[HumanMeatball]

this is my bullshit non legaled interpretation

no one before today believe a player who won 2 VFL flags TODAY would get life membership - its referring to the former VFL which became the AFL (not the VFA that became the VFL)

could be wrong, usually am, but thats how i see it

So basically the change only applies to afl flags and past vfl players when the afl used to be the vfl. If so he is rejecting it for no reason

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So basically the change only applies to afl flags and past vfl players when the afl used to be the vfl. If so he is rejecting it for no reason

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

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

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

Thinking of heading in to see how it all works so I'll call you if I do

 

[HumanMeatball]

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

There you go then

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Thinking of heading in to see how it all works so I'll call you if I do

LOL, tbh its pretty boring and only for those into the technical bullshit

and as for me, ive been more wrong than right in my life, just ask my missus

 

[shaky]

LOL, tbh its pretty boring and only for those into the technical bullshit

and as for me, ive been more wrong than right in my life, just ask my missus

That’s just marriage, your not alone there.

Must admit I wasn’t sure, I first thought that it would have meant the guys could have become life members for winning this years VFL flag, but you may be right (don’t worry, I won’t tell your wife if you are).