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

[Blue_Fusion]

I don't need any others

One post is not indicative of anything. If you had a multitude of posts, then that shows a narrative. If I really wanted to cause a spill, I would have made the efforts to do so by now.

Clutching at straws.

 

[Arr0w]

One post is not indicative of anything. If you had a multitude of posts, then that shows a narrative. If I really wanted to cause a spill, I would have made the efforts to do so by now.

Clutching at straws.

That "emotionally driven post" was back in June and this from today

"This board has overseen the worst on field 10 year period in our history and not a single EGM has been called to hold this board accountable for their poor decisions"

Have you been "emotionally driven" since the 21st of June?

I would say that would be "multiple", so that is a narrative

I don't have to clutch straws, you just keep supplying hay

Time to move on?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

That "emotionally driven post" was back in June and this from today

"This board has overseen the worst on field 10 year period in our history and not a single EGM has been called to hold this board accountable for their poor decisions"

Have you been "emotionally driven" since the 21st of June?

I would say that would be "multiple", so that is a narrative

I don't have to clutch straws, you just keep supplying hay

Time to move on?

Today is used as an example to call out your ridiculous notion that Carlton members will petition for an EGM for frivolous reasons...

You've got one post to cling to... act like you've never said anything out of anger before all you like, the fact is everyone does it. I've already explained my stance on the board.

 

[TENACIOUS]

Enjoyed reading the vigorous debate here last night kudos to all involved...

 

[Michael Jezz]

A simple question, if members are concerned with our current position, why have they not obtained a mere 100 signatures to force an EGM?

Are people fearful they can't get 100 signatures if they truly believed the situation was dire?

This might explain it better

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

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. One that is probably more passionate about the club than some of those who sit on the board.

www.bigfooty.com

A simple question, if members are concerned with our current position, why have they not obtained a mere 100 signatures to force an EGM?

Are people fearful they can't get 100 signatures if they truly believed the situation was dire?

This might explain it better

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

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. One that is probably more passionate about the club than some of those who sit on the board.

www.bigfooty.com

Just because a power has not been used often does not justify its dilution. The low EGM thresh hold protects the members and is a latent power to be used to express their rights. The more pertinent question is why is it so important for the board to further enshrine its tenure at the expense of the membership? Why is the board fearful? I would of thought a board member should embrace standing on their record infront of the membership rather than shy away from facing those they are supposed to serve.

 

[Arr0w]

Just because a power has not been used often does not justify its dilution. The low EGM thresh hold protects the members and is a latent power to be used to express their rights. The more pertinent question is why is it so important for the board to further enshrine its tenure at the expense of the membership? Why is the board fearful? I would of thought a board member should embrace standing on their record infront of the membership rather than shy away from facing those they are supposed to serve.

Where has it been suggested that any board member is fearful?

People have had ample time to gather 100 signatures if they were concerned with any situation during our rebuild and nothing has happened.

It seems people who are generally frustrated, will voice their concerns in places like this, but never act on it

Changing it to a percentage of members, shouldn't be reason for concern and if something was to arise that at least 5% of members had concern with, they have the opportunity to put pen to paper

 

[Wickzki]

Why are people frightened or scared about 5%?

You do realize that if you want change to happen you're going to need far more than 5%, right?

If you can't get 5% then you won't get your foot in the door regardless and an EGM would be almost meaningless and drag the club through the mud.

If it's a matter that demands and requires change then getting 5% will be simple.


And no, none of my contacts are current Carlton board members nor will they be.

 

[Michael Jezz]

Where has it been suggested that any board member is fearful?

People have had ample time to gather 100 signatures if they were concerned with any situation during our rebuild and nothing has happened.

It seems people who are generally frustrated, will voice their concerns in places like this, but never act on it

Changing it to a percentage of members, shouldn't be reason for concern and if something was to arise that at least 5% of members had concern with, they have the opportunity to put pen to paper

The motion to increase the threshold to call an egm by 3900 % iindicates the board is fearul of a challenge otherwise why care about the threshold

Also note in the recent Collinwood call for an egm, the challenger facing what I assume was a high threshold was not given the membership records by the encumbent board to justify the egm. If the threshold is only 100 signatures and say 500 are collected, it makes it hard to use that under handed tactic to stop an egm

 

[Arr0w]

The motion to increase the threshold to call an egm by between 3900 % iindicates the board is fearul of a challenge otherwise why care about the threshold

Also note in the recent Collinwood call for an egm, the challenger facing what I assume was a high threshold was not given the membership records to justify the egm. If the threshold is only 100 signatures and say 500 are collected, it makes it hard to use that under handed tactic to stop an egm

Again, people keep going on about EGM's but they are rare. The amount of signatures required would not stifle a motion if the situation was dire

 

[bigblueboy]

The changes will be approved at the general meeting. There's nothing too sinister involved and very little that will worry most rank and file members.

That's not to say I don't disagree that some members will be upset, just don't think it deserve back page coverage.

On the board - it is not perfect but honestly a world improved on what we were 20 years ago.

Two areas I'd like to see it focus: 1. stronger processes on appointments to key football leadership roles; 2. stronger processes on salary cap management.

 

[Wickzki]

The changes will be approved at the general meeting. There's nothing too sinister involved and very little that will worry most rank and file members.

That's not to say I don't disagree that some members will be upset, just don't think it deserve back page coverage.

On the board - it is not perfect but honestly a world improved on what we were 20 years ago.

Two areas I'd like to see it focus: 1. stronger processes on appointments to key football leadership roles; 2. stronger processes on salary cap management.

Sticky this. Best post in the thread - and there's been some beauts.

 

[Michael Jezz]

Again, people keep going on about EGM's but they are rare. The amount of signatures required would not stifle a motion if the situation was dire

If the number of signatures will not stifle a motion why is it so important to raise the signatures required exponentially?. If the signature numbers do not impede the motion to hold an egm- why was the collingwood egm stifled a few weeks ago?

 

[Arr0w]

If the number of signatures will not stifle a motion why is it so important to raise the signatures required exponentially?. If the signature numbers do not impede the motion to hold an egm- why was the collingwood egm stifled a few weeks ago?

The Pies EGM may not have reached the threshold of signatures required

This comes down to people not liking change, rather than the contents of the proposal

The contents of the proposal, namely the number of signatures required or removing the timeframe to be a member before serving on the board, will not effect the club or supporters poorly, IMHO

 

[Michael Jezz]

The changes will be approved at the general meeting. There's nothing too sinister involved and very little that will worry most rank and file members.

That's not to say I don't disagree that some members will be upset, just don't think it deserve back page coverage.

On the board - it is not perfect but honestly a world improved on what we were 20 years ago.

Two areas I'd like to see it focus: 1. stronger processes on appointments to key football leadership roles; 2. stronger processes on salary cap management.

You will care if Mike Fitzpatrick wanted to be president and he is required to collect between 2500 to 4000 members, names and signatures before he is even allowed to face a vote against Luke Sayers

 

[Arr0w]

You will care if Mike Fitzpatrick wanted to be president and he is required to collect between 2500 to 4000 members, names and signatures before he is even allowed to face a vote against Luke Sayers

If he couldn't collect the signatures, it would mean that either, the members don't believe the situation at the club was dire, or that what Fitzpatrick was proposing is not a better alternative

 

[agro]

I’d like to know when the constitution was amended to remove the right of AFL Members with Carlton support package membership to vote.

As I had been attending and voting at AGMs with that membership package (pre-Covid) for many years.

 

[Zuribagger]

So quit brushing people off for having these concerns.

That’s my biggest problem with this thread.

 

[Poorman53]

I don't mind Vince's approach and him tackling this issue. The easy thing for him to do is let it go by and be pissed off. He seems to genuinely care and doesn't want the current board to sneak anything through. Giving the minimum amount of time to digest the new amendments and putting it all on the one vote is a sly move.

I haven't looked to deeply into it but I am happy that others are keeping the club to account.

Will be interested in seeing what comes of it.

The Pres probably regrets not responding to that email...

 

[Dramoth]

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

It's ridiculous to the extreme. The fact that 100 disgruntled members can force an EGM because they aren't happy that the club isn't winning more games. That 100 members can damage the club because they aren't happy with the current board, the coach or the fact we aren't currently winning a premiership every year (yes, some of these idiots think that we should be winning the premiership every year).

 

[Arr0w]

That’s my biggest problem with this thread.

Just like people trying to tell others we should be concerned

 

[Dramoth]

Yeah because that's what's been happening isn't it?

This board has overseen the worst on field 10 year period in our history and not a single EGM has been called to hold this board accountable for their poor decisions. But we'll rally the troops for a box of oranges...

What a ridiculous example...

Increasing it to accommodate modern times is logical. 5% is exponential and the added degree of difficulty to meet that mark will put members in a difficult spot to even decide to try and force an EGM. So quit brushing people off for having these concerns.

Pretty certain that 3 wooden spoons in 10 years from 2001-2010 beats the s**t out of 2 wooden spoons from 2011-2020.

It seems to me that you and a bunch of other posters on here have a definite agenda against the board and the club. The changes to the minimum number of votes needed to force a general meeting brings us in line with every other corporation in the country... including, I am guessing, every other football club in the league.

Leaving it at 100 means that 100 idiots can get together every week, and lodge a request for a general meeting, regardless of whether it is needed or not... s**t they could do it every day. Increasing it to 5% means that there needs to be, as currently stated, 2500 signatures on the petition to force a general meeting. Claiming that you are concerned about the number of people required is a furphy.

 

[AceAndy]

Pretty certain that 3 wooden spoons in 10 years from 2001-2010 beats the sh*t out of 2 wooden spoons from 2011-2020.

It seems to me that you and a bunch of other posters on here have a definite agenda against the board and the club. The changes to the minimum number of votes needed to force a general meeting brings us in line with every other corporation in the country... including, I am guessing, every other football club in the league.

Leaving it at 100 means that 100 idiots can get together every week, and lodge a request for a general meeting, regardless of whether it is needed or not... sh*t they could do it every day. Increasing it to 5% means that there needs to be, as currently stated, 2500 signatures on the petition to force a general meeting. Claiming that you are concerned about the number of people required is a furphy.

The reality is it has happened once in 20 years so hardly seems like it is an issue imo.

If it was happening every year then it needs to be looked at but that isnt the case.

 

[Dramoth]

Why are people frightened or scared about 5%?

You do realize that if you want change to happen you're going to need far more than 5%, right?

If you can't get 5% then you won't get your foot in the door regardless and an EGM would be almost meaningless and drag the club through the mud.

If it's a matter that demands and requires change then getting 5% will be simple.


And no, none of my contacts are current Carlton board members nor will they be.

All of this.

A whinger could get 100 of his whinging mates together, create a petition and force an AGM... because we had a setback in 2018 and COVID screwed around with the season in 2020. I'm quite certain that if Tom Elliott and Fraser Brown had been serious at spilling the board, they could have gotten 100 signatures easily and forced an EGM and a vote on the board.

As Wick said, if you can't convince 5% of the voting members of the club that your plan is a good one... you're probably not going to get the 51% needed to enforce the change. Leaving it at 100 leaves the club at the whim of idiot coterie members who have nothing to do with the club and who have more time on their hands than brains.

 

[Dramoth]

The reality is it has happened once in 20 years so hardly seems like it is an issue imo.

If it was happening every year then it needs to be looked at but that isnt the case.

I know... but what happens if muppets who think that they can run the club better than the current lot of muppets decide to start being annoying?

 

[Michael Jezz]

If he couldn't collect the signatures, it would mean that either, the members don't believe the situation at the club was dire, or that what Fitzpatrick was proposing is not a better alternative

Maybe Sayers should have to collect upto 4000 signatures to have the right to face a members vote