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).
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.
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.Amending the constitution so any proposal to play more than four home games interstate will require a vote of members.
The club is already pursuing that policy.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.
I think this is insulting to the very people that delivered the club back to the members in the first place.(ii) to bring the Club closer to the membership, and
I couldn't see such a thing going ahead without the input of rank and file 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.
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.While the JB/EA team has achieved much over the last 3 years we have yet to crack the big challenge (revenue/membership & attendance).
Fair enough.I want to hear the views of the 5 candidates on this.
1. The recent Tassie approach has me questioning just how committed we are.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.
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.3. Where was the member input into the Tassie proposal
Do I need to tell you the obvious?4. Can you elaborate as to what the Board has done to "speed up this process".
Fair enough.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.
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.
Destroy? Your melodramatics are out of tune with the aims of the board.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.
My response did address the issue. The club has to look elsewhere to expand membership gring in finances.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.
Once again, this is your fertile melodramatics at work and nothing else.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.