The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Carlton One Website
- Thread starter The Old Dark Navy's
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2
Though if the Carlton One consoritium wants publicity on BigFooty, maybe they should pay for it 
Court hears challenge on Blues votes
By Linda Pearce
October 07 2002
Carlton One's challenge to the reign of president John Elliott will take a legal turn today, with the initiation of Supreme Court action to help determine the legitimacy of more than 1000 of the Blues' 5669 registered voters.
The Ian Collins-led reform group has accused the current board of attempting to flood the register with members who do not qualify for voting rights under the Carlton Football Club's constitution. It is seeking an order to gain information so that it may establish member eligibility.
According to Carlton One, articles eight and nine of the constitution require that members pay for their own subscriptions, and that voting members declare that they are not acting as a nominee or trustee for any other person or party.
Vice-president Colin de Lutis, who runs Bradmill Industries, admitted on Friday that he had bought memberships for 40 employees and received about 30 proxy votes in return. While the move was labelled "transparent vote-stacking" by his opponents, de Lutis said it was a legitimate fund-raising exercise and denied any employee had been coerced into supporting the Elliott-headed ticket.
Carlton One sources said yesterday the court action had been necessitated by the club's refusal to provide details of at least 1000 members who would submit proxy voting forms supporting the board by the cut-off time for proxies of 7 tonight.
Barrister Marcus Clarke will represent Carlton One at today's hearing. Law firm Freehills wrote to the club on Friday seeking information, but claims not to have received a response.
Carlton One will seek to have votes declared invalid if they have been cast by members ineligible to participate under the constitution. A motion of no-confidence in the current nine-member board will be put to members at an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday night.
A Carlton One press release yesterday claimed there were concerns that "there may be upwards of 1000 proxy forms that will be lodged by the Elliott camp by tonight that may come from members who are not entitled to vote". "Carlton One understands that most of these members found their way on to the register on 1 October, the last day for voting registration.
"The Carlton Football Club constitution provides that each member, having bought their own membership and registered with the club for voting purposes, has one vote. A member cannot buy votes by acquiring multiple memberships and then nominating others to vote."
The no-confidence motion was instigated by supporter group, the Unofficial Selection Committee.
Spokesman Ross Fiore said yesterday: "We believe that there is some vote-rigging going on, and we just believe it's a desperate measure from a desperate board to cling on to power.
"They should really do the right thing now and just step aside and let the members decide who they want."
Fiore accused the club of withholding details of about 1700 late-registered members.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538846074.html
Court hears challenge on Blues votes
By Linda Pearce
October 07 2002
Carlton One's challenge to the reign of president John Elliott will take a legal turn today, with the initiation of Supreme Court action to help determine the legitimacy of more than 1000 of the Blues' 5669 registered voters.
The Ian Collins-led reform group has accused the current board of attempting to flood the register with members who do not qualify for voting rights under the Carlton Football Club's constitution. It is seeking an order to gain information so that it may establish member eligibility.
According to Carlton One, articles eight and nine of the constitution require that members pay for their own subscriptions, and that voting members declare that they are not acting as a nominee or trustee for any other person or party.
Vice-president Colin de Lutis, who runs Bradmill Industries, admitted on Friday that he had bought memberships for 40 employees and received about 30 proxy votes in return. While the move was labelled "transparent vote-stacking" by his opponents, de Lutis said it was a legitimate fund-raising exercise and denied any employee had been coerced into supporting the Elliott-headed ticket.
Carlton One sources said yesterday the court action had been necessitated by the club's refusal to provide details of at least 1000 members who would submit proxy voting forms supporting the board by the cut-off time for proxies of 7 tonight.
Barrister Marcus Clarke will represent Carlton One at today's hearing. Law firm Freehills wrote to the club on Friday seeking information, but claims not to have received a response.
Carlton One will seek to have votes declared invalid if they have been cast by members ineligible to participate under the constitution. A motion of no-confidence in the current nine-member board will be put to members at an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday night.
A Carlton One press release yesterday claimed there were concerns that "there may be upwards of 1000 proxy forms that will be lodged by the Elliott camp by tonight that may come from members who are not entitled to vote". "Carlton One understands that most of these members found their way on to the register on 1 October, the last day for voting registration.
"The Carlton Football Club constitution provides that each member, having bought their own membership and registered with the club for voting purposes, has one vote. A member cannot buy votes by acquiring multiple memberships and then nominating others to vote."
The no-confidence motion was instigated by supporter group, the Unofficial Selection Committee.
Spokesman Ross Fiore said yesterday: "We believe that there is some vote-rigging going on, and we just believe it's a desperate measure from a desperate board to cling on to power.
"They should really do the right thing now and just step aside and let the members decide who they want."
Fiore accused the club of withholding details of about 1700 late-registered members.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538846074.html
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #4
Maybe so Bluey but I guess it is very relevant to all Blues fans and as the media only give the incumbents any coverage (more likely to say something newsworthy), the challengers have been largely overlooked.
Might be worse to cut and paste everything they write on there, legally. Then again, it is there to gain attention, not hits so maybe they won't care at all.
Might be worse to cut and paste everything they write on there, legally. Then again, it is there to gain attention, not hits so maybe they won't care at all.
Similar threads
![C4[2]Yo`DooR](https://www.bigfootycontent.com/avatars/s/21/21849.jpg?1742370429){kind=avatar}