New Date for AGM

[RoyalBlue]

Feb 16

Pretty much sweeps aside the unfair advantage of PDR's mailout.

 

[Limerick]

Good move. I hope that the 5 candidate statements go up next week and not approx 7 days prior to the AGM.

The club would like to make clear three members of the current Board are offering themselves up for re-election to fill three available positions. Mr. de Rauch was seeking to take the place of one of those Board members.

PDR IS presenting himself for election to the board as is Dave Wheaton. The three successful candidates then are Board members for 2011 for up to three years. The wording above is poor.

 

[Wrath]

I hate the politics that will envitably hit our club through this election if it hasn't already.

No one ever wins from these scenarios.

Wrath

 

[gokangas]

I hate the politics that will envitably hit our club through this election if it hasn't already.

No one ever wins from these scenarios.

Wrath

Yep. Fair comment.

 

[danj]

I hate the politics that will envitably hit our club through this election if it hasn't already.

No one ever wins from these scenarios.

Wrath

It is an election, someone always wins

 

[Ghostwriter]

I hate the politics that will envitably hit our club through this election if it hasn't already.

No one ever wins from these scenarios.

Wrath

Good to see you back posting, another from the '02 class.

 

[Wrath]

Good to see you back posting, another from the '02 class.

Thanks Jozeph, I'll try not to go missing and post a bit more often.

Wrath

 

[Twinkletoes]

I hate the politics that will envitably hit our club through this election if it hasn't already.

No one ever wins from these scenarios.

Wrath

Hear ye Wrath, and I'll join the chorus and welcome you back too. Good to see you around mate. If elections have one benefit, it's that they tend to educe all manner of posters from their lairs. (unfortunately that's generally balanced out by the not so welcme intruders but still, it's good to have the old posters back on deck).

 

[Wrath]

Thanks Twinkletoes, appreciate your comments.

Wrath

 

[Davo01]

Good move, especially given the time of year. This will give members more time to engage with the election, choose a candidate and (if not attending in person) lodge their proxy.

 

[trueroo]

were the original proxies to be sent to pdr or to the club ?

 

[gokangas]

were the original proxies to be sent to pdr or to the club ?

Both - proxy givers choice.

 

[trueroo]

Both - proxy givers choice.

I wonder if so many proxies were sent to the club it caused the re scheduling ?

 

[gokangas]

I wonder if so many proxies were sent to the club it caused the re scheduling ?

I said both - but I meant either. Proxys could be lodged either way.

 

[The OBSTacle]

February 27.

NORTH Melbourne has set a new date for its annual general meeting in order to "clear the air" after a letter to 20,500 members from former major shareholder and poll candidate, businessman Peter de Rauch.

The announcement that the meeting would now be held on February 16 and not January 27 will intensify the lobbying for the proxies that current chairman and TV personality James Brayshaw and two others need to hold their positions.

The club claims, in a special website message to members, that the way de Rauch received the confidential membership data was "not endorsed or supported by the club".

Former director and club legend Ron Joseph has been accused of releasing the database to de Rauch after his resignation from the board for personal reasons.

Joseph said he intended to attend the AGM at North's revamped Arden St complex.

A decision by North Melbourne not to fill Joseph's seat and reduce the number on the board is expected to heighten the interest in the poll in which Brayshaw, his brother and former Roo Mark Brayshaw and Trevor O'Hoy are standing as a block.

De Rauch has said his intention all along has been to give the members the right to decide who should be on the board.

He spent $20,000 for his mailout to every club member.

Club chief executive Eugene Arocca said yesterday it was anticipated a leading supporter figure in David Wheaton would be a fifth candidate.

In essence, the Kangaroo poll starts again. Any proxies completed for the scrapped AGM on January 27 including those issued through the correspondence of de Rauch will no longer be valid.

Members will receive new proxy forms in a few days.

 

[Davo01]

I agree, seven days is not much time and for that reason I've put my statement up on my campaign blog.

http://northvotes.com/2011/01/18/statemen/

Good move. I hope that the 5 candidate statements go up next week and not approx 7 days prior to the AGM.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Very predictable.

Let's not kid ourselves, you have one policy:

Amending the constitution so any proposal to play more than four home games interstate will require a vote of members.

I actually support this notion, but it is not a big enough issue to break up the enormously productive and harmonious Brayshaw, Brayshaw, O'Hoy team.

There are bigger issues afoot than placating the fears of a handfull of supporters.

 

[Limerick]

Not the way I read it Obst. My reading is that his aims are;
(i) to push to grow the Club in Melbourne and out through the Ballarat corridor thereby (hopefully) removing the need to sell significant games interstate.
(ii) to bring the Club closer to the membership, and
(iii) should the Board come to the conclusion that we need to "co-locate or relocate" that they involve the membership in the process.

While the JB/EA team has achieved much over the last 3 years we have yet to crack the big challenge (revenue/membership & attendance). I want to hear the views of the 5 candidates on this.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Not the way I read it Obst. My reading is that his aims are;
(i) to push to grow the Club in Melbourne and out through the Ballarat corridor thereby (hopefully) removing the need to sell significant games interstate.

The club is already pursuing that policy.

You also claim that this removes the need to sell games interstate. Do you have any facts to support that premise or is this just wishful thinking on your behalf?

(ii) to bring the Club closer to the membership, and

I think this is insulting to the very people that delivered the club back to the members in the first place.

(iii) should the Board come to the conclusion that we need to "co-locate or relocate" that they involve the membership in the process.

I couldn't see such a thing going ahead without the input of rank and file in the first place.

If we are ever were to "co-locate or relocate", it would be because the club was financially gone and the AFL had taken the licence. All the member representation on the commitee in the world couldn't change that.

While the JB/EA team has achieved much over the last 3 years we have yet to crack the big challenge (revenue/membership & attendance).

Success and exposure in new markets are only things that will turn around this situation. The current board have been beyond reproach in speeding up this process.

IMO, Daves platform is primarily focused on one issue and surrounded by unnecessary filler.

I want to hear the views of the 5 candidates on this.

Fair enough.

 

[Limerick]

1. The club is already pursuing that policy. You also claim that this removes the need to sell games interstate. Do you have any facts to support that premise or is this just wishful thinking on your behalf?

2. I think this is insulting to the very people that delivered the club back to the members in the first place.

3. I couldn't see such a thing going ahead without the input of rank and file in the first place. If we are ever were to "co-locate or relocate", it would be because the club was financially gone and the AFL had taken the licence. All the member representation on the commitee in the world couldn't change that.

4. Success and exposure in new markets are only things that will turn around this situation. The current board have been beyond reproach in speeding up this process.

1. The recent Tassie approach has me questioning just how committed we are.

I didn't say that it would remove the need to sell games interstate I said significant games interstate. I would accept up to 4 if the Board was of the view that this was necessary. However I'd want to see this outlined within a long term plan. If the 7 Tassie game deal had been achieved I believe that we would have ended up the Tassie Kangaroos. If this is our future then it needs member input.

2. I am hearing from this from many ordinary members. The Tassie proposal rocked many members and supporters. One work collegue, new to the country, wouldn't take up North as a team because he said "you won't be around within 5 years".

3. Where was the member input into the Tassie proposal

4. Can you elaborate as to what the Board has done to "speed up this process".

I want the best NMFC Board possible. If thats JB,MB & TOH being re-elected fine. But I want to be able to make an informed decision.

 

[The OBSTacle]

3. Where was the member input into the Tassie proposal

The members backed Brayshaw, that is when they had input. If certain cliques want the power to continually second guess an elected board then the situation will eventually become unworkable.

4. Can you elaborate as to what the Board has done to "speed up this process".

Do I need to tell you the obvious?

CEO, facilities, new coach, footy dept expenditure, fast tracking juniors etc.?

As for member numbers, the club sat back and watched for 2 years whilst an expected continued membership surge never eventuated.

Then they moved on to option B and managed to almost pull off revenue raising in not one, but two, new markets.

People that want to sit here in Melbourne and just hope that things will get better are going to be the people that kill this football club. Holding hands together and singing kumbaya is not going to solve the problem and Ballarat is years away at best.

The worst action we could take is to take no action.

I want the best NMFC Board possible. If thats JB,MB & TOH being re-elected fine. But I want to be able to make an informed decision.

Fair enough.

 

[The OBSTacle]

BTW, my offer of free card tables and chairs still stands for anyone that wants to give the membership issue something more than lip service.

 

[Limerick]

1. The members backed Brayshaw, that is when they had input. If certain cliques want the power to continually second guess an elected board then the situation will eventually become unworkable.

2. Do I need to tell you the obvious?
CEO, facilities, new coach, footy dept expenditure, fast tracking juniors etc.?

As for member numbers, the club sat back and watched for 2 years whilst an expected continued membership surge never eventuated.

3. Then they moved on to option B and managed to almost pull off revenue raising in not one, but two, new markets.

1. Agree with this on most issues however a potential Club relocation (any more than 4 games) needs member consultation. I don't support the position that the Board has the power to dramatically change/destroy the Club unless it was a component of their election campaign.

2. The issue here was "While the JB/EA team has achieved much over the last 3 years we have yet to crack the big challenge (revenue/membership & attendance)". Your response doesn't address this.

3. If moving to Plan B is to significantly change its position to "we may not be able to be a Melbourne based Club" then I want to hear the arguement. 7 games in both Launceston & Hobart together with removing Hawthorn from Tassie would be the first step to relocation (read death of NMFC) and be no different to GC proposal.

We have both expressed our views, now lets have the election and both support the outcome.

 

[The OBSTacle]

1. Agree with this on most issues however a potential Club relocation (any more than 4 games) needs member consultation. I don't support the position that the Board has the power to dramatically change/destroy the Club unless it was a component of their election campaign.

Destroy? Your melodramatics are out of tune with the aims of the board.

$8,000,000 a year to a Melbourne based and controlled club can only strengthen a Melbourne based and controlled club.

2. The issue here was "While the JB/EA team has achieved much over the last 3 years we have yet to crack the big challenge (revenue/membership & attendance)". Your response doesn't address this.

My response did address the issue. The club has to look elsewhere to expand membership gring in finances.

3. If moving to Plan B is to significantly change its position to "we may not be able to be a Melbourne based Club" then I want to hear the arguement. 7 games in both Launceston & Hobart together with removing Hawthorn from Tassie would be the first step to relocation (read death of NMFC) and be no different to GC proposal.

Once again, this is your fertile melodramatics at work and nothing else.

Yours is exactly the kind of mindset that would be the death of this football club.

 

[Zondor]

When are you gonna concede The TESTicle?

This 7 home games in Tasmania idea was rot. :stern look

Yep. Brayshaws, for the main part, has done a good job but the idea of 7 HOME games in Tasmania was ****en Idiotic! :stern look

It's one thing to raise finances. It's another to sell your arse to raise those finances. :stern look

Do yah get it?

Nah yah don't.