You quoted the section regarding AFL membership. Try reading 22No, that's pretty plainly wrong. I even quoted and bolded the relevant passage for you already.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You quoted the section regarding AFL membership. Try reading 22No, that's pretty plainly wrong. I even quoted and bolded the relevant passage for you already.
FWIW
I dont think Roo has offered much in his Director of Football role
On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
The development great end date is 2028.You quoted the section regarding AFL membership. Try reading 22
You quoted the section regarding AFL membership. Try reading 22
Yes, that's my reading of it. The membership element of it is just so the AFL can call a meeting during the Grant period (refer quorum conditions).The development great end date is 2028.
That's when the membership types will be changed. However i have no doubt AFL will retain some power.
As it does now having to sign off on 5 of the 7 directors.
Extinguished all rights as a member you moron. Learn to read a bloody legal document.No, I quoted and bolded a clause that extinguishes all rights. It is not qualified in the way that you suggest.
Stop telling people to read things that you yourself cannot read.
The development great end date is 2028.
That's when the membership types will be changed. However i have no doubt AFL will retain some power.
As it does now having to sign off on 5 of the 7 directors.
Extinguished all rights as a member you moron. Learn to read a bloody legal document.
My god you're hilarious. I don't know whether to be flattered, or take out an AVONo, that's a gloss that you've added either because of inability, or insecurity- take your pick.
The words are: 'all of the rights held by the AFL'.
My god you're hilarious. I don't know whether to be flattered, or take out an AVO
Oh nice edit, but too lateNo, that's a gloss that you've added.
The words are: 'all of the rights held by the AFL'. Had the agreement been intending only to extinguish only the rights defined as membership rights, it would have said so.
Oh nice edit, but too late
The words are contained in the Section relating to membership. Hence, the words relate to membership. It's really quite simple.
It seems to be particularly important to you that I should be embarrassed. It's fascinating.Look, squawk around all you want- but you should be embarassed- again.
You came in the thread strutting about your superior knowledge, have demonstrated a pretty plain inability to read and interpret the clauses that you were strutting around based upon your supposedly superior knowledge of, and now you're throwing some of the most trite and ineffectual insults one would ever see.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You know your limits, and more so you know that we know your limits. Why do you think it's going to end any other way? Surely there are still people that buy into your routine that you can find to try to impress?
It seems to be particularly important to you that I should be embarrassed. It's fascinating.
Look, I know you have a fairly elevated sense of self, but you do a lot of projecting on this board. Words such as "embarrassed" and "insecure" are words you use quite often. Then there was the classic "im smarter than you" line the other day. That gave me quite a chuckle. I also enjoyed watching you argue the law with a lawyer a few days ago too. That was some good comedy.
In any case, back to the point. You need to read the clauses contained in the document in the context of the Sections to which they relate. You're referring to conditions associated with the AFL's temporary membership of the AFC. Again, take note of Section 22 as it relates to appointment of directors.
Makes you wonder why Worsfold declined the offer, doesn't it...
I think gary ayres was a good coach. His first season was a disaster, but his 2nd and 3rd were great. he lost the players in the final year
That's a lot of words for someone apparently unaffected. Looks like the only person with a bruised chest in this thread is youIt's of no importance other than being how an reasonable person would react to having behaved as you have. As far as my being smarter than you goes: I'm not smarter than you because I said I was- it's just the reality. I'm sorry that you struggle with it, but rather than over compensating you should try to find a way to come to grips with it. You can't keep acting out because of it, that's not good for your state of mind. This thread is a pretty decent example really of the problems that you're causing yourself.
You've not engaged in attempting to present a counter argument, other than repeating a plainly facile assertion with no real underpinning legal reasoning. This after declaring that I had to learn to read legal documents like you (LOL). Still waiting for that authority. Why you would behave like this, knowing that you don't have the requisite ability, knowledge, or skills base would be baffling, were it not you.
Your reading is wrong for the reasons that I've already described. The clauses quoted are not limited in the way that you suggest. The rights in clause 22 fit within the category of 'all rights' and will be extinguished. There is no basis for reading down the removal clauses in the way that you've suggested, either from the text or from the understandable intention and you've not provided any argument other than the part of the document in which the clause appears, which- as I've already dealt with is not inconsistent with my reading.
Beyond that, it would take only a very cursory understanding to come to the view that your declared interpretation- that is, that the AFL ceases to be a member of the company, but retains the sole power of appointment over directors) would run into some pretty significant difficulties under the Corporations Act.
You got it wrong. I get that its embarrassing having come into the thread chest beating about that, but really the right thing to do is admit it and maybe not come in so full of self importance next time when you're speaking outside your abilities.
I think gary ayres was a good coach. His first season was a disaster, but his 2nd and 3rd were great. he lost the players in the final year
he had a great midfield - that's itNot quite sure I agree with your "good coach" comment.
A 55-52 win/loss record after being gifted the nucleus of a dual premiership winning side by Blighty is not that great.
IMO I also feel he never fully had the playing group from day 1 - they were Blighty's guys and not Gary's. He was in Blighty's shadow at Geelong and he continued in Malcolm's shadow at Adelaide (albeit Malcolm had left).
Pity cause his record at Port Melbourne has been great.
A second go at getting an ex Geelong coach.
I often wonder if having a banker as Chairman has created a completely risk averse cultureI think the interesting take out of that article is that WCE are even more corporatised than we are. No member input at all.
Yet there they sit, a beacon of success that we all aspire to.
So is it the case the corporate management system does work and it’s more about who has the wheel ?
Chapman really isn't a football person. Not in a Maguire sense anyway. Was never really that interested in footy prior to his engagement. His initial appointment probably had something to do with our financiers at the time. Who knows why he's still there, although he does sit on a few boards.I often wonder if having a banker as Chairman has created a completely risk averse culture