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

[gab213]

Dont forget the removal of the requirement for a board member to have 2yrs of membership, prior to being eligible.

Or allowing a board member in their final year of tenure (max 12yrs), if they are appointed president being allowed to stay for another 5yrs...

Sayers, 9yrs now... can leave board at his 14th year

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

None of that diminishes our voting rights. It doesn't hurt the club and it doesn't hurt us.

 

[Gavstar]

They may be able to get 100 signatures but can they get enough people to vote for them?

I think they would be able to generate a ticket that might look radically different than the look of the current board, who would the average member vote for successful ex-players or those aligned with Cardboard and Pokie kings who have failed abysmally in the only KPI fans care about?

 

[gab213]

I think they would be able to generate a ticket that might look radically different than the look of the current board, who would the average member vote for successful ex-players or those aligned with Cardboard and Pokie kings who have failed abysmally in the only KPI fans care about?

It depends I guess but I don't see any value in having ex-players on our board and specifically can't think of any who would be any good. You are painting the current board in a way that's not accurate, You could have made that accusation ten years ago, it's a little late for that now.

When you speak of fans you mean some fans as there are plenty of us who acknowledge that if you don't have the finances in check you can't operate as a successful professional club in this area, you will always be able to field a team as the AFL keeps you dependant on them for survival and makes all the decisions at your club for you....if that's what you'd be happy with.

 

[jpfalvo]

I’m guessing the Carltonians can raise 100 signatures for an EGM in quick time.

Those laughing at the shambles of Pies board challenge are now eating humble pie. I was afraid of this hopefully it doesn’t allow Elliot faction back in

Mathieson faction been superb have they?

Unelected Bruce senior pulling the strings from the Gold Coast.

There is rumblings behind the scenes, whether people in this echo chamber like it or not.

Carltonians are a key part of the club, as is the Spirit of Carlton, both represent its fabric, history and culture.

Its the members right to have fresh ideas to consider, and participate in their football club if they choose via a democratic right to vote.

A number of these board members have had there time and presided over a number of football related decisions.

Lets see what eventuates... at worst it drives accountability, at best a challenging of ideas, makes us more robust as a footy club

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[gab213]

Mathieson faction been superb have they?

Unelected Bruce senior pulling the strings from the Gold Coast.

There is rumblings behind the scenes, whether people in this echo chamber like it or not.

Carltonians are a key part of the club, as is the Spirit of Carlton, both represent its fabric, history and culture.

Its the members right to have fresh ideas to consider, and participate in their football club if they choose via a democratic right to vote.

A number of these board members have had there time and presided over a number of football related decisions.

Lets see what eventuates... at worst it drives accountability, at best a challenging of ideas, makes us more robust as a footy club

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

Of course members should have the right to vote but do you think that a challenge based on overturning the whole of the board would be a good thing for the football club?

I can go along with a renewal of the board over time, a couple this year, a couple the next but tipping the whole thing on its head would be an absolute disaster. I'm all in favour of having people come onto the board with fresh ideas. Present people in the normal course of events and have them stand for election. There's no need for an EGM to do that.


The Carltonians and Spirit of Carlton don't represent anyone but their own members. They aren't the Club.

 

[Gavstar]

I’m guessing if MLG/Sayers wish to avoid the potential EMG they would separate the contentious from the non-contentious parts of the changes of the constitution.

Pretty easy to do and could save the club from the less than ideal outcomes that may flow from an EMG.

To quote the great man “Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that”

 

[gab213]

I’m guessing if MLG/Sayers wish to avoid the potential EMG they would separate the contentious from the non-contentious parts of the changes of the constitution.

Pretty easy to do and could save the club from the less than ideal outcomes that may flow from an EMG.

To quote the great man “Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that”

What on earth is there in that proposal is there that is contentious?, I'm not seeing it.

 

[mjonc43]

I’m guessing if MLG/Sayers wish to avoid the potential EMG they would separate the contentious from the non-contentious parts of the changes of the constitution.

Pretty easy to do and could save the club from the less than ideal outcomes that may flow from an EMG.

To quote the great man “Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that”

Shanks. We can do with a Shankly in our club.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gavstar]

What on earth is there in that proposal is there that is contentious?, I'm not seeing it.

Are the current board willing to have a contested EGM and the risk it poses for the club because of their unwillingness to consider what the other side sees as contentious?

What’s in the best interests of the Club an EGM or a separate vote at the AGM? Surely the latter?

 

[slashin_velvet]

If you don't attend the meeting or select a proxy, does your proxy go to the chairman?

If so, the expansion of members to include other categories IS a dilution of current voters rights......but, as it's not a shareholding - 1 member = 1 vote = No one individual has any influence anyway.

 

[gab213]

Are the current board willing to have a contested EGM and the risk it poses for the club because of their unwillingness to consider what the other side sees as contentious?

What’s in the best interests of the Club an EGM or a separate vote at the AGM? Surely the latter?

I'd just like to know what is considered as contentious? It seems people are willing to claim there are areas of contention or concern but nobody's willing to actually elaborate on what those things are.

I'm just asking simply what it is that is contentious?


Also, as far as what's better for the club goes. The Board is following proper procedure in calling for consideration of this matter at a General Meeting, not at an AGM. This allows the time you need for proper discussion of such an important matter without impacting upon the time spent on other important matters at an AGM. Constitutional changes are always best considered at a meeting called for that sole purpose.

 

[AceAndy]

I'd just like to know what is considered as contentious? It seems people are willing to claim there are areas of contention or concern but nobody's willing to actually elaborate on what those things are.

I'm just asking simply what it is that is contentious?


Also, as far as what's better for the club goes. The Board is following proper procedure in calling for consideration of this matter at a General Meeting, not at an AGM. This allows the time you need for proper discussion of such an important matter without impacting upon the time spent on other important matters at an AGM. Constitutional changes are always best considered at a meeting called for that sole purpose.

I think the contentious issues are the change to the 100 signatures requirement to be a percentage of the members (i think the proposal is 5% ?).

Also, i think the terms for the President may be being extended

 

[gab213]

I think the contentious issues are the change to the 100 signatures requirement to be a percentage of the members (i think the proposal is 5% ?).

Also, i think the terms for the President may be being extended

Ok, interesting, thanks for that, I can't see how either of those things impact adversely on anything
but fair enough.

I Would like to hear from the ones who are so emphatic that there are contentious issues though, don't want to make assumptions but it seems none of them are willing to elaborate past 'there are contentious issues'.

 

[Stamos]

I'm surprised that anyone would think that you should be able to force an EGM with only 100 signatures.

 

[AceAndy]

I'm surprised that anyone would think that you should be able to force an EGM with only 100 signatures.

It does seem to be quiet a low threshold. I wonder how many EGMs have been called in the last 20 or so years ?

 

[gab213]

It does seem to be quiet a low threshold. I wonder how many EGMs have been called in the last 20 or so years ?

Technically I would say none as there is no such thing as an EGM under our club's constitution, there are General Meetings and there are Annual General Meetings

 

[Blue_Fusion]

I'm surprised that anyone would think that you should be able to force an EGM with only 100 signatures.

What on earth is there in that proposal is there that is contentious?, I'm not seeing it.

With the increase, definitely 100 signatures is outdated. But 5%... that will grow exponentially and make it monumentally more difficult.

There's a bit of "in it for themselves" that I reckon doesn't sit well with people. I don't for one second believe their intention for removing the 2 year requirement is so they can bring in the best people. That's head in the clouds stuff imo...

Another problem is the fact that it either passes as a whole or it doesn't. Why can't they allow us to agree/disagree with each change individually?

 

[Stamos]

With the increase, definitely 100 signatures is outdated. But 5%... that will grow exponentially and make it monumentally more difficult.

Sure the total number goes up, but 5% still is a small proportion of voting members. If the situation is truly worth calling an EGM, you should be able to get 1 in 20 to sign the petition, surely?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Sure the total number goes up, but 5% still is a small proportion of voting members. If the situation is truly worth calling an EGM, you should be able to get 1 in 20 to sign the petition, surely?

Look, I'm not going to pretend I know how easy/difficult it actually is to get X amount of signatures. But 5% is deceptive. Remember, there will be an increase in voting members and that number can easily grow from 100 to over 1000, potentially even 4 or 5k like I said earlier.

It's not like they've had to call for EGMs every couple of years. Increase it, but not by percentage I reckon.

 

[gab213]

With the increase, definitely 100 signatures is outdated. But 5%... that will grow exponentially and make it monumentally more difficult.

There's a bit of "in it for themselves" that I reckon doesn't sit well with people. I don't for one second believe their intention for removing the 2 year requirement is so they can bring in the best people. That's head in the clouds stuff imo...

Another problem is the fact that it either passes as a whole or it doesn't. Why can't they allow us to agree/disagree with each change individually?

The percentage of 5% isn't over the top as you said. It is meant to be difficult to call a general meeting to stop them being called for all the time for frivolous reasons. If you're going to go to the trouble of getting that many signatures it has to be a serious concern. It's not like 80,000 club members means 80,000 eligible to vote either, take away junior members, take away interstate members, take away 3 game members, your'probably at 50-60% of your 'members' who are eligible to vote.

As far as the two year requirement goes I don't see any issue with removing that requirement, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean what's the difference between whether a person that has been a member for 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years? How does it actually make you more qualified to sit on a board?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that last question but every time I've been involved in constitutional change at an organisation it's always been presented as one complete package. I need to dig around the CAV site for an answer as I'm looking to overhaul the constitution of an association that I'm President of. It was last done 10 years ago, I get a headache thinking about it. I put it off last year hoping somebody would have taken my place this year but no such luck

Usually, you need 75% of members present to vote in favour of a constitutional change, I assume that this also applies here. If there is any significant concern, it won't pass. It will be interesting to see what happens but as most have said already, most supporters don't care about this stuff so I don't see there being this huge groundswell of discontent.-

 

[Blue_Fusion]

The percentage of 5% isn't over the top as you said. It is meant to be difficult to call a general meeting to stop them being called for all the time for frivolous reasons. If you're going to go to the trouble of getting that many signatures it has to be a serious concern. It's not like 80,000 club members means 80,000 eligible to vote either, take away junior members, take away interstate members, take away 3 game members, your'probably at 50-60% of your 'members' who are eligible to vote.

As far as the two year requirement goes I don't see any issue with removing that requirement, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean what's the difference between whether a person that has been a member for 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 5 years? How does it actually make you more qualified to sit on a board?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that last question but every time I've been involved in constitutional change at an organisation it's always been presented as one complete package. I need to dig around the CAV site for an answer as I'm looking to overhaul the constitution of an association that I'm President of. It was last done 10 years ago, I get a headache thinking about it. I put it off last year hoping somebody would have taken my place this year but no such luck

Usually, you need 75% of members present to vote in favour of a constitutional change, I assume that this also applies here. If there is any significant concern, it won't pass. It will be interesting to see what happens but as most have said already, most supporters don't care about this stuff so I don't see there being this huge groundswell of discontent.-

As for EGMs, we've had a 100 sig requirement for a very long time and we're yet to see them being called for frivolous reasons. It's like I said earlier, if they were then I could fully understand it, but the fact that our last was 19 years ago and rightfully so, I don't see the issue with just increasing it to say 200. 5% of 40000 is 2000. Thinking ahead in future if the members ever wanted to call for an EGM obtaining that many and potentially more signatures I think makes it very difficult.

 

[gab213]

As for EGMs, we've had a 100 sig requirement for a very long time and we're yet to see them being called for frivolous reasons. It's like I said earlier, if they were then I could fully understand it, but the fact that our last was 19 years ago and rightfully so, I don't see the issue with just increasing it to say 200. 5% of 40000 is 2000. Thinking ahead in future if the members ever wanted to call for an EGM obtaining that many and potentially more signatures I think makes it very difficult.

Here's something I did find;

Responding to shareholders’ requests to call meetings

Key issues: Shareholder activism has seen a sharp rise in recent months, with particular shareholders requesting that public companies convene meetings to remove the members of the board of directors. The method in which a shareholder requests ...

www.hopgoodganim.com.au

Section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) provides that directors of a company must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting.

I'm guessing that a lawyer preparing this document has looked at things such as this in determining a figure seeing as any changes made have to be approved by a statutory body as well.

 

[Gavstar]

I'd just like to know what is considered as contentious? It seems people are willing to claim there are areas of contention or concern but nobody's willing to actually elaborate on what those things are.

I'm just asking simply what it is that is contentious?


Also, as far as what's better for the club goes. The Board is following proper procedure in calling for consideration of this matter at a General Meeting, not at an AGM. This allows the time you need for proper discussion of such an important matter without impacting upon the time spent on other important matters at an AGM. Constitutional changes are always best considered at a meeting called for that sole purpose.

Read the 7news article it points out the issues Loccisano sees as of concern

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Read the 7news article it points out the issues Loccisano sees as of concern

He's been dirty on the board for a while now.

He makes some good points but the language he uses is a bit over the top I reckon.

 

[Michael Jezz]

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?

Sayers is not only claiming the right to extend his term perenially but is virtually making it impossible to call a meeting to remove him by raising the number of signatures required to 5% of the membership or 4000 signatures. Very difficult to organise 4000 signatures. This is sold to the members under the cover of women and indigenous recognition.

Shouldn't a President be confident enough in his plan for the club, trust the judgement of the voting members. Sayers does not and is scared he and the board will be rolled


The only