Official Club Stuff Notice of General Meeting - Tuesday 17 August 2021 at 6:30pm

[slashin_velvet]

The 2 person for a quorum clause seems to have been in there already, and seems pursuant to delivering an outcome in the event that repeated attempts to have sufficient numbers/discourse fails.

eg. they re-organise the AGM a few times.

The rest of this seems to be about equality and diversity, at the slight expense of giving presidents 4 years uncontested.

There is one part where the Independent Nominations Committee has been granted the power to install someone onto the board who hasn't been a voting member for at least 2 years, but that doesn't seem like a bad thing?

You're right about the quorum - thats not a change like I thought (I think change in headline format got me there)

as per drunkill - the president things does look like a Sayers specific change, but largely due to his tenure on the board. Not sure I agree a constitutional change mandating a minimum term for presidents is the right way to fix this as opposed to allowing the maximum term on the board to be extended by up to 4 years for a sitting president.

 

[Wickzki]

What's the point of installing a president who can only go five years tops?

Let's say Sayers comes in, the club transforms itself on and off-field, becomes a dynasty football team, we've won at least our seventeenth premiership and still going strong at the end of year five why would you want to replace that president?

I know the argument is so that it avoids a dictatorship, etc. However, 5-years isn't a long time. For example,

• Frank Costa's fifth year as Geelong president was 2003. In those years they finished 12-11-5-12-9. It wasn't until Costa's ninth season that they won the premiership. Had he been forced to leave his position Geelong may never have achieved what they did.
• Eddie McGuire's fifth year was their first grand final against Brisbane. Obviously, they lost again in his sixth. It wasn't until his 13th season as president that they finally won a premiership.
• Peggy O'Neal's fifth season as president was 2017, Richmond's first premiership in 35+ years. Should she have been forced to stand down her out before 2019 and 2020?

IF a president is not doing a capable job of stewarding and leading a football club then surely he wouldn't survive re-election.

In my opinion, all this does is create long-term insecurity. You know that the president is going to be forced out regardless of how well the football club is performing.

Why?

 

[Dramoth]

What's the point of installing a president who can only go five years tops?

Let's say Sayers comes in, the club transforms itself on and off-field, becomes a dynasty football team, we've won at least our seventeenth premiership and still going strong at the end of year five why would you want to replace that president?

I know the argument is so that it avoids a dictatorship, etc. However, 5-years isn't a long time. For example,

• Frank Costa's fifth year as Geelong president was 2003. In those years they finished 12-11-5-12-9. It wasn't until Costa's ninth season that they won the premiership. Had he been forced to leave his position Geelong may never have achieved what they did.
• Eddie McGuire's fifth year was their first grand final against Brisbane. Obviously, they lost again in his sixth. It wasn't until his 13th season as president that they finally won a premiership.
• Peggy O'Neal's fifth season as president was 2017, Richmond's first premiership in 35+ years. Should she have been forced to stand down her out before 2019 and 2020?

IF a president is not doing a capable job of stewarding and leading a football club then surely he wouldn't survive re-election.

In my opinion, all this does is create long-term insecurity. You know that the president is going to be forced out regardless of how well the football club is performing.

Why?

Because we’re trying to prevent another John Elliott situation. We don’t want the president to become so entrenched that they think they can get away with anything.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Because we’re trying to prevent another John Elliott situation. We don’t want the president to become so entrenched that they think they can get away with anything.

This is why the independent nominations committee doesn't make a tonne of sense. If you have a bad board/president, the members have less power to do anything about it as any candidate needs to be vetted by the members of the committee (which are appointed by the board). The fact that MLG is on the committee that decides if anyone can nominate for the board, means it would be impossible to challenge his position as president.

Someone tell me I've got this all arse about....

 

[gab213]

This is why the independent nominations committee doesn't make a tonne of sense. If you have a bad board/president, the members have less power to do anything about it as any candidate needs to be vetted by the members of the committee (which are appointed by the board). The fact that MLG is on the committee that decides if anyone can nominate for the board, means it would be impossible to challenge his position as president.

Someone tell me I've got this all arse about....

You've got it wrong, MLG faced a challenge to being a board member at the last AGM. That challenger was approved by the nominations committee. That committee only makes its decision based on the candidates eligibility under the club's constitution or statutory requirements.

 

[slashin_velvet]

You've got it wrong, MLG faced a challenge to being a board member at the last AGM. That challenger was approved by the nominations committee. That committee only makes its decision based on the candidates eligibility under the club's constitution or statutory requirements.

OK, that's reassuring. Looks like the same two nominations for the last few years John Hollingsworth and Steve Khatib

 

[Wickzki]

Because we’re trying to prevent another John Elliott situation. We don’t want the president to become so entrenched that they think they can get away with anything.

Again, I stated in my original post that I understand the club is trying to avoid a dictatorship (e.g. Elliott).

You do that by enforcing consistent standards and practices.

You don't do that by running scared.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding excellence as long as the appropriate checks and balances are in place.

 

[Jimmae]

What's the point of installing a president who can only go five years tops?

Let's say Sayers comes in, the club transforms itself on and off-field, becomes a dynasty football team, we've won at least our seventeenth premiership and still going strong at the end of year five why would you want to replace that president?

I know the argument is so that it avoids a dictatorship, etc. However, 5-years isn't a long time. For example,

• Frank Costa's fifth year as Geelong president was 2003. In those years they finished 12-11-5-12-9. It wasn't until Costa's ninth season that they won the premiership. Had he been forced to leave his position Geelong may never have achieved what they did.
• Eddie McGuire's fifth year was their first grand final against Brisbane. Obviously, they lost again in his sixth. It wasn't until his 13th season as president that they finally won a premiership.
• Peggy O'Neal's fifth season as president was 2017, Richmond's first premiership in 35+ years. Should she have been forced to stand down her out before 2019 and 2020?

IF a president is not doing a capable job of stewarding and leading a football club then surely he wouldn't survive re-election.

In my opinion, all this does is create long-term insecurity. You know that the president is going to be forced out regardless of how well the football club is performing.

Why?

Again, I stated in my original post that I understand the club is trying to avoid a dictatorship (e.g. Elliott).

You do that by enforcing consistent standards and practices.

You don't do that by running scared.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding excellence as long as the appropriate checks and balances are in place.

Checks and balances won't do much against rampant populism if the incumbent controls the messaging.

I presume that in these circumstances, the president can still sit on the board if re-elected.

 

[Wickzki]

Checks and balances won't do much against rampant populism if the incumbent controls the messaging.

I presume that in these circumstances, the president can still sit on the board if re-elected.

If that's the case then I have less concern. Just seems a little foolish that regardless of success achieved that a president would have to step aside after an arbitrary number.

 

[Dramoth]

This is why the independent nominations committee doesn't make a tonne of sense. If you have a bad board/president, the members have less power to do anything about it as any candidate needs to be vetted by the members of the committee (which are appointed by the board). The fact that MLG is on the committee that decides if anyone can nominate for the board, means it would be impossible to challenge his position as president.

Someone tell me I've got this all arse about....

A 5 year term for the president would also tie in with my general review of the club. The nominated board of review will be able to get into everything. If, as Jimmae mentioed, the president invokes a wave of populism to retain control and create another Elliott environment, then the review panel can sort things out. The results of the club review can be mailed out to all ordinary members ahead of the clubs AGM. If they include a very good summary of all the areas of the review for those who won't want to read 2-300 pages of review findings, it will get the members more involved with the club.

 

[Burgers45]

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

heraldsun.com.au

AFL 2021: Blues life member accuses ‘power drunk’ Carlton board of deceptively changing constitution. He says the club has been “hijacked” by a “power drunk board that has gotten completely out of control”

Vince Loccisano, a Blues life member and long-time president of the powerful “Carltonians” coterie group, has accused the club of “cleverly and deceptively” introducing a series of constitutional changes that makes it harder for members to call an extraordinary general meeting.

In tomorrow's HUN. Journalist.. Michael Warner.

 

[Jimmae]

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

heraldsun.com.au

AFL 2021: Blues life member accuses ‘power drunk’ Carlton board of deceptively changing constitution. He says the club has been “hijacked” by a “power drunk board that has gotten completely out of control”

Vince Loccisano, a Blues life member and long-time president of the powerful “Carltonians” coterie group, has accused the club of “cleverly and deceptively” introducing a series of constitutional changes that makes it harder for members to call an extraordinary general meeting.

In tomorrow's HUN. Journalist.. Michael Warner.

Story is live:

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

Plans to increase the number of signatures needed to force a spill of the board from 100 to five per cent of eligible voting members are “hidden away” in a new constitution put to members this week that rightly recognises women and First Nations people, Loccisano says.


The changes — to be put to a vote at a special general meeting on August 17 — will also:

ALLOW incoming president Luke Sayers to serve longer in the top job,

WAIVE a requirement for a Blues director to have been a club member for at least two years before joining the board and,

REDUCE the annual rotation of club directors seeking re-election from three down to two.

“It’s arrogance and audacity on steroids,” Loccisano said.

The comments from Loccisano continue to spiral after that.

Is the number of signatures required for an EGM likely to go up 10-15 times? Yes.

Was it fair that it was still set at 100? No.

 

[jpfalvo]

Is this what we want the board focused on.
Constitutional change to increase tenure, remove requirement to be a member to join board etc.

This clearly is about ensuring Sayers gets a longer term. 9yrs on the board, would have to leave in 3.

Max board limit now is 12yrs. Its the only reason why MLG is stepping down, because he is forced to. Go back to earlier in the year when he wanted to stay on...

People are looking at this in isolation as the term of the President, being max 5yrs, yes thats fine.

What they are not realising is that its their time on the board that is the concern... giving the same individual extra tenure, is a problem.

So Sayers instead of stepping down, stays for a total 14yr tenure, on a 8 person board.

People do realise on a 8 person board, 4 of them have been there long than 9yrs (since 2012 in Sayers case) and presided over some poor decision making.

Shouldn't they be more focused on the outcomes of the review and taking corrective actions, than this

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[gab213]

Is this what we want the board focused on.
Constitutional change to increase tenure, remove requirement to be a member to join board etc.

This clearly is about ensuring Sayers gets a longer term. 9yrs on the board, would have to leave in 3.

Max board limit now is 12yrs. Its the only reason why MLG is stepping down, because he is forced to. Go back to earlier in the year when he wanted to stay on...

People are looking at this in isolation as the term of the President, being max 5yrs, yes thats fine.

What they are not realising is that its their time on the board that is the concern... giving the same individual extra tenure, is a problem.

So Sayers instead of stepping down, stays for a total 14yr tenure, on a 8 person board.

People do realise on a 8 person board, 4 of them have been there long than 9yrs (since 2012 in Sayers case) and presided over some poor decision making.

Shouldn't they be more focused on the outcomes of the review and taking corrective actions, than this

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

What a garbage article. I originally replied to this in another thread but will delete it there and reply here as it seems more appropriate here.



These changes are hardly a matter of 'tinkering'. A process like this is most likely the result of a couple of years of work, this is not an either/or situation. You don't say spend your time doing something else. Working on this doesn't take from doing anything else, these are all matters that Boards actually have to be continually looking at. The Board's focus is always broad, it's on everything to do with running the club, as it should be.


You keep dismissing the off-field achievements but without that, there's a chance we don't have a football club at all to worry about. You can't do the core business without strength off the field as well, not very well anyway.


There are no changes here that generally are giving anybody more time at all. All that is happening is that if the person becoming President is in his/her 11th year then they will be able to serve a full 5 years as President which totally makes sense. You have also picked the outlier situation in all of this, how many actually members of the board ever become President? The actual probability of this very same circumstance presenting itself is actually very low, I'd say this is to make sure that Sayers is able to serve a full term. Knowing from now that he has a maximum of 5 years allows for proper planning at some point for the next person. These tenure changes IMO, will make the club's governance better.

The AFL members who have Carlton club support packages are now eligible to vote as they should've already.


By the way, when you refer to 'this group' you're not entirely genuine as the composition of the board changes. Also, they are hardly a voting block. Therefore, there are different people with input along the way who are making the decisions.

I know there's this tendency to bash the club by some people over everything and anything due to our football team's performance but you really need to examine each different issue separately.


If you have great objections to these amendments, vote against them, simple. but as far as I'm concerned they are very positive changes which improve the club.

I'm especially happy with a 5 year cap on the Presidency. I also think that rotating two members annually instead of 3 is a good thing where you have an 8 member board, I'd imagine the 3 rotations is a hangover from when we had a 12 member board when rotating 3 out didn't destabilise the board so much. You need to maintain a semblance of continuity and experience. The funny thing is people complain about it, they will struggle to even find 2 per year to join the board.

 

[Pixelshooter]

Vince Loccisano says "Carlton members need to wake up". Seriously...the moment you read those words, you know exactly what type of character they are.

 

[gab213]

Vince Loccisano says "Carlton members need to wake up". Seriously...the moment you read those words, you know exactly what type of character they are.

Let the Coteries run the club, they know better ........

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

Strong 'Unofficial Selection Committee' vibes, remember those knobs

 

[Ald Gardiner]

Loccisano is a windbag, it’s a pity it was left to him to deliver a message that actually has some gravitas

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Vince Loccisano says "Carlton members need to wake up". Seriously...the moment you read those words, you know exactly what type of character they are.

Does your perception of his character matter here?

Whatever anyone thinks of Vince is totally irrelevant to the points he is trying to make.

There's no doubt they're disguising some motives here... I mean it's about time women and indigenous people are recognised equally that absolutely has to happen.

But to pass a new constitution that will allow that without reading the fine print is dangerous because the fabric of any club is outlined in its constitution... they've done a great job of hiding some of these things under the covers...

As members, we should have the right to challenge the board when it does not perform. Regardless of the fact that off field we're in a great spot now, there may be a time in future when that isn't the case (or they continuously fail to bring in the right people to run the football department) and to call for 5% of voting members to sign so they can be held accountable... not sure how many people want to get behind that...

Would be nice for them to be more transparent about that rather than just promote what they want to knowing that there might be a good portion of members who will either not spend the time to read through all the proposed changes or understand them fully...

 

[cookie monster]

Why not allow members to vote each of the motions separately?
Why do we only have 3 weeks between issue of notice and meeting? And why couldn't this wait until a post-season AGM (can anybody remember an in-season AGM?)
Hard not to question the board's motives to rushing these changes through. Whatever you think of Vince Loccisano, his points are valid

 

[cookie monster]

What's the point of installing a president who can only go five years tops?

Let's say Sayers comes in, the club transforms itself on and off-field, becomes a dynasty football team, we've won at least our seventeenth premiership and still going strong at the end of year five why would you want to replace that president?

I know the argument is so that it avoids a dictatorship, etc. However, 5-years isn't a long time. For example,

• Frank Costa's fifth year as Geelong president was 2003. In those years they finished 12-11-5-12-9. It wasn't until Costa's ninth season that they won the premiership. Had he been forced to leave his position Geelong may never have achieved what they did.
• Eddie McGuire's fifth year was their first grand final against Brisbane. Obviously, they lost again in his sixth. It wasn't until his 13th season as president that they finally won a premiership.
• Peggy O'Neal's fifth season as president was 2017, Richmond's first premiership in 35+ years. Should she have been forced to stand down her out before 2019 and 2020?

IF a president is not doing a capable job of stewarding and leading a football club then surely he wouldn't survive re-election.

In my opinion, all this does is create long-term insecurity. You know that the president is going to be forced out regardless of how well the football club is performing.

Why?

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

 

[Aphrodite]

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

Do the 17 other Clubs Members vote on their President?

 

[AceAndy]

What a cool way to celebrate my birthday

August really is the best month to have a birthday

 

[gab213]

When was the last time Carlton members got to vote on a club president?

You know it doesn't work that way, members vote board members in, board members select the President. This is common practice with boards and committees and all comply with statutory requirements and regulations.

 

[gab213]

Do the 17 other Clubs Members vote on their president?

It'd be interesting to see how many actually get to vote their boards in at all, I know that with Adelaide the members don't have a vote, its all by appointment. I think final approval rests with the AFL.