TAS Will a team go to Tassie

[The Warlord]

If your club had any common sense they'd be enjoying life in the sun on the Gold Coast.

I often have cause to regret donating to Richmond when they were tin rattling.

 

[Senor M]

Rapidly turning marginal, hence the Dogs getting showered with goodies like the Ballarat upgrade and Wifebasher Oval being upgraded hugely.

That's the thing about moving to Tassie.

You get a headcount of 30k at games, but only 15k memberships used.

I thought you demanded an apology earlier today from me because you would "never, ever" write something insulting about another club??

These posts are done literally within minutes of each other. I don't think you're even aware you're doing it-- you just think this type of language is normal and acceptable in the main board. Especially when you refuse to apologise for making an offensive comment about people with mental disabilities.

 

[The Warlord]

Please tell me everything you know about North Melbourne's deal with Docklands.

Won't take long.

 

[Carringbush2010]

An in-principle agreement between boards is not voting "its self out of existence" as you claimed. Unlike the Melbourne - Hawthorn proposed merger, no vote by members of either club was ever taken.

Off topic but question,

In any case of club change like a merge or relocate are clubs required by charter to ask the advice / opinion of their members amid that most clubs are from what I believe member owned?

Also, if any club makes such a proposal for themselves or indeed any other club in the AFL, in addition to the above question is there a 3/4 majority vote required from all clubs?

Further, if that vote succeeds is it then the decision of the AFL or the popularly voted clubs to put the proposal in motion?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Now on thread topic,

I reckon a team will go there as soon as the virus is defeated. At least 4 teams, mostly Hawks and North! And both venues

 

[The Warlord]

if I’m not mistaken north also voted its self out of existence in the mid nineties the merger with Fitzroy was agreed to buy both clubs the only thing that stopped it happing was the other Victorian clubs and the afl !

North members didn't vote on that. Melbourne members did on theirs.

 

[Danger Zone]

If they seriously want a Tassie team, the AFL should probably just say that Coronavirus forced it's hand and it needs to merge the two least financially viable Vic clubs. Then the Tasmanian government rolls in with a generous investment plan for a team there and ta-da, they get to keep the 9 matches a week of TV rights. Honestly, Tassie deserves their own team and should have had one way before the expansion clubs. It would be an abhorrent way for it to happen for the fans of those smaller clubs though.

 

[big_e]

Off topic but question,

In any case of club change like a merge or relocate are clubs required by charter to ask the advice / opinion of their members amid that most clubs are from what I believe member owned?

Also, if any club makes such a proposal for themselves or indeed any other club in the AFL, in addition to the above question is there a 3/4 majority vote required from all clubs?

Further, if that vote succeeds is it then the decision of the AFL or the popularly voted clubs to put the proposal in motion?

I've had a quick look at this before and most club constitutions are silent on it, so theoretically it could be done without member approval. I remember Richmond, for instance, only had a reference to a special majority to change the name, and maybe to change the club colours?

Obviously it's a bigger issue at North Melbourne, so we have something specific about it:


9. APPROVAL OF MERGER OR INTERSTATE RELOCATION
9.1 Definitions
In this Rule 9: “Merger Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose of which is to merge or join the Club, or footballers employed, supported or controlled by the Club with any other club, team or entity (except an entity owned or controlled by the Club).
“Relocation Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which will result in or require the Club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside of the State of Victoria.
9.2 Approval requirements The Club must not approve any Merger Proposal or any Relocation Proposal unless:
(a) the Board has provided Members with full information about the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be); and
(b) the Board has convened a general meeting of the Club at which the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be) is voted on by the Voting Members; and
(c) at least 75% of the total votes cast by Voting Members at the meeting personally or by proxy or attorney acting under power of attorney are in support of the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be).

For the AFL:

24. The Commission may grant an entity the status of a Club and the right to representation on AFL and may:
- relocate the playing, administration or social base of a Club; or
- recognise, implement and adopt the merger of two or more Clubs,
with the consent of the Club or Clubs involved.

27. Any decision of the Commission:
- to grant an entity the status of a Club and the right of representation on AFL or to relocate or recognise, implement and adopt the merger of any Clubs under clause 24 may be reversed at a general meeting of AFL requisitioned by any three Appointees not more than fourteen days after notice of the decision has been circulated to all of the Appointees on a vote of the Appointees provided that the number of Appointees voting in favour of reversing that decision achieves two thirds of all Appointees, being Members on the date of such meeting; and
- to suspend or terminate the right of a Club to representation on AFL under clause 25(a) must be ratified at a general meeting of AFL on a vote by a simple majority of all Appointees, being Members on the date of such meeting.

48. At a general meeting (including any annual general meeting), all resolutions submitted to the meeting will be decided by a simple majority of votes except where a greater majority is required by this Constitution or the Act.


FYI - Appointees are the nominees of the current clubs.

So a club would need to get approval from the AFL Commission to relocate, but that can be overturned by a general meeting of all clubs.

 

[The Warlord]

If they seriously want a Tassie team, the AFL should probably just say that Coronavirus forced it's hand and it needs to merge the two least financially viable Vic clubs. Then the Tasmanian government rolls in with a generous investment plan for a team there and ta-da, they get to keep the 9 matches a week of TV rights. Honestly, Tassie deserves their own team and should have had one way before the expansion clubs. It would be an abhorrent way for it to happen for the fans of those smaller clubs though.

Where's that coming from?

 

[raymond35]

Fitzroy was under the control of the administrator Michael Brennan. He surrendered the licence and Fitzroy left the AFL competition.

Both Fitzroy and North Melbourne were controlled by shareholders. I am one of them. They had to vote to merge the clubs. Dyson Hore-Lacy made it clear at the time that before any final decision was made, he would take the proposal to Fitzroy members.

But North Melbourne didn't make that commitment?
So if the Fitzroy North merger had been approved by the clubs, it would have gone through with the approval of the North shareholders, and the rank and file North members wouldn't have had a say in it?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Rapidly turning marginal, hence the Dogs getting showered with goodies like the Ballarat upgrade and the Whitten Oval upgrade.

Which seat specifically is turning marginal? Ballarat not being in Melbourne at all.

 

[Bjo187]

I've had a quick look at this before and most club constitutions are silent on it, so theoretically it could be done without member approval. I remember Richmond, for instance, only had a reference to a special majority to change the name, and maybe to change the club colours?

Obviously it's a bigger issue at North Melbourne, so we have something specific about it:


9. APPROVAL OF MERGER OR INTERSTATE RELOCATION
9.1 Definitions
In this Rule 9: “Merger Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose of which is to merge or join the Club, or footballers employed, supported or controlled by the Club with any other club, team or entity (except an entity owned or controlled by the Club).
“Relocation Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which will result in or require the Club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside of the State of Victoria.
9.2 Approval requirements The Club must not approve any Merger Proposal or any Relocation Proposal unless:
(a) the Board has provided Members with full information about the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be); and
(b) the Board has convened a general meeting of the Club at which the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be) is voted on by the Voting Members; and
(c) at least 75% of the total votes cast by Voting Members at the meeting personally or by proxy or attorney acting under power of attorney are in support of the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be).

For the AFL:

24. The Commission may grant an entity the status of a Club and the right to representation on AFL and may:
- relocate the playing, administration or social base of a Club; or
- recognise, implement and adopt the merger of two or more Clubs,
with the consent of the Club or Clubs involved.

27. Any decision of the Commission:
- to grant an entity the status of a Club and the right of representation on AFL or to relocate or recognise, implement and adopt the merger of any Clubs under clause 24 may be reversed at a general meeting of AFL requisitioned by any three Appointees not more than fourteen days after notice of the decision has been circulated to all of the Appointees on a vote of the Appointees provided that the number of Appointees voting in favour of reversing that decision achieves two thirds of all Appointees, being Members on the date of such meeting; and
- to suspend or terminate the right of a Club to representation on AFL under clause 25(a) must be ratified at a general meeting of AFL on a vote by a simple majority of all Appointees, being Members on the date of such meeting.

48. At a general meeting (including any annual general meeting), all resolutions submitted to the meeting will be decided by a simple majority of votes except where a greater majority is required by this Constitution or the Act.


FYI - Appointees are the nominees of the current clubs.

So a club would need to get approval from the AFL Commission to relocate, but that can be overturned by a general meeting of all clubs.

I would have thought if the afl thought it for the betterment of the game to relocate a club they'd have all power to do that if it's agreed upon by the majority of the 18 clubs. It happens in u.s sports all the time, look at the rams, raiders etc just recently in the nfl. Not sure why it's seen as such a big deal here.

 

[The Warlord]

Which seat specifically is turning marginal? Ballarat not being in Melbourne at all.

The Victorian Labor party could lose its grip on its western Melbourne heartlands as voters on the city’s fringes are increasingly squeezed out by population growth, a former key ALP strategist has warned.

Traditionally safe seats, including Werribee held by State Treasurer Tim Pallas, will become vulnerable to independent politicians appealing to new residents of the growing outer suburbs who are feeling all the pain of Melbourne’s phenomenal growth but little of its benefits.

Simon Welsh, who led the research effort for Labor’s resounding 2018 victory, says evidence is mounting that the electoral ground is shifting in Labor’s traditionally solid voting base in the west, as the pressure grows on house prices, local services, infrastructure and jobs.

Melbourne's west set to turn its back on the ALP

The Victorian Labor party could lose its grip on its western Melbourne heartlands as voters on the city’s fringes are increasingly squeezed out by population growth, a former key ALP strategist has warned.

www.theage.com.au

 

[The Warlord]

I would have thought if the afl thought it for the betterment of the game to relocate a club they'd have all power to do that if it's agreed upon by the majority of the 18 clubs. It happens in u.s sports all the time, look at the rams, raiders etc just recently in the nfl. Not sure why it's seen as such a big deal here.

Americans also shoot their own children with machine guns.

Not sure why that's seen as a big deal here.

 

[Roylion]

In any case of club change like a merge or relocate are clubs required by charter to ask the advice / opinion of their members amid that most clubs are from what I believe member owned?

Depends on the respective club's constitution. The reason Fitzroy didn't go to Sydney in 1980 was in Frank Bibby's words "the members didn't want to know about it." Fitzroy at that time was a member owned club.

Also, if any club makes such a proposal for themselves or indeed any other club in the AFL, in addition to the above question is there a 3/4 majority vote required from all clubs?

Yes. Because such a move changes the structure of the competition.

Further, if that vote succeeds is it then the decision of the AFL or the popularly voted clubs to put the proposal in motion?

It's up to the participating clubs to decide on the terms of the merger. Name, colours, emblem etc. etc.

 

[Roylion]

So if the Fitzroy North merger had been approved by the clubs, it would have gone through with the approval of the North shareholders, and the rank and file North members wouldn't have had a say in it?

Yep. At that time.

 

[big_e]

I would have thought if the afl thought it for the betterment of the game to relocate a club they'd have all power to do that if it's agreed upon by the majority of the 18 clubs. It happens in u.s sports all the time, look at the rams, raiders etc just recently in the nfl. Not sure why it's seen as such a big deal here.

Good plan. I reckon we could easily get ten votes to get Essendon to * off to Antarctica. It would be for the betterment of the league.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I've had a quick look at this before and most club constitutions are silent on it, so theoretically it could be done without member approval. I remember Richmond, for instance, only had a reference to a special majority to change the name, and maybe to change the club colours?

Obviously it's a bigger issue at North Melbourne, so we have something specific about it:


9. APPROVAL OF MERGER OR INTERSTATE RELOCATION
9.1 Definitions
In this Rule 9: “Merger Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose of which is to merge or join the Club, or footballers employed, supported or controlled by the Club with any other club, team or entity (except an entity owned or controlled by the Club).
“Relocation Proposal” means any actual or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which will result in or require the Club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside of the State of Victoria.
9.2 Approval requirements The Club must not approve any Merger Proposal or any Relocation Proposal unless:
(a) the Board has provided Members with full information about the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be); and
(b) the Board has convened a general meeting of the Club at which the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be) is voted on by the Voting Members; and
(c) at least 75% of the total votes cast by Voting Members at the meeting personally or by proxy or attorney acting under power of attorney are in support of the Merger Proposal or the Relocation Proposal (as the case may be).

For the AFL:

24. The Commission may grant an entity the status of a Club and the right to representation on AFL and may:
- relocate the playing, administration or social base of a Club; or
- recognise, implement and adopt the merger of two or more Clubs,
with the consent of the Club or Clubs involved.

27. Any decision of the Commission:
- to grant an entity the status of a Club and the right of representation on AFL or to relocate or recognise, implement and adopt the merger of any Clubs under clause 24 may be reversed at a general meeting of AFL requisitioned by any three Appointees not more than fourteen days after notice of the decision has been circulated to all of the Appointees on a vote of the Appointees provided that the number of Appointees voting in favour of reversing that decision achieves two thirds of all Appointees, being Members on the date of such meeting; and
- to suspend or terminate the right of a Club to representation on AFL under clause 25(a) must be ratified at a general meeting of AFL on a vote by a simple majority of all Appointees, being Members on the date of such meeting.

48. At a general meeting (including any annual general meeting), all resolutions submitted to the meeting will be decided by a simple majority of votes except where a greater majority is required by this Constitution or the Act.


FYI - Appointees are the nominees of the current clubs.

So a club would need to get approval from the AFL Commission to relocate, but that can be overturned by a general meeting of all clubs.

Well then we could close the thread on that information and on current landscape, no club is likely to relocate on it's own wish.

 

[Roylion]

If they seriously want a Tassie team, the AFL should probably just say that Coronavirus forced it's hand and it needs to merge the two least financially viable Vic clubs.

The AFL cannot just decide to merge two clubs, unless it owns those two clubs.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Melbourne's west set to turn its back on the ALP

The Victorian Labor party could lose its grip on its western Melbourne heartlands as voters on the city’s fringes are increasingly squeezed out by population growth, a former key ALP strategist has warned.

www.theage.com.au

Werribee is 25km from Whitten Oval and Melton is even further, although perhaps both have plenty of Bulldogs fans, I don't know. Also seems odd that Labor would spend money on WO to appeal to these people when their gripes are with contaminated soil storage, jobs and inadequate public transport however. Still, nobody said funding has to make sense, maybe you're right.

 

[Bjo187]

Good plan. I reckon we could easily get ten votes to get Essendon to fu** off to Antarctica. It would be for the betterment of the league.

I'd be all for it if essendon were the smallest club in a saturated market if it meant guaranteeing our longevity by adding new supporters and still getting to go to half a dozen games per year, watch them on tv, same colors, history retained etc.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

I would have thought if the afl thought it for the betterment of the game to relocate a club they'd have all power to do that if it's agreed upon by the majority of the 18 clubs. It happens in u.s sports all the time, look at the rams, raiders etc just recently in the nfl. Not sure why it's seen as such a big deal here.

The nfl is completely different all clubs are privately owned except for Green Bay if a owner can get a better deal in a different city better stadium stuff like they need the majority of owners to agree and they can move a franchise unless a afl club is completely broke and can’t service there debt like Fitzroy the afl can’t force anything the nrl tried doing that with south Sydney they ended up in court and it blew up

 

[Roylion]

unless a afl club is completely broke and can’t service there debt like Fitzroy

Fitzroy wasn't completely broke and was servicing its' debt. They made a profit in 1993, 1994 and 1995. That's not why the administrator was appointed.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Fitzroy wasn't completely broke and was servicing its' debt. They made a profit in 1993, 1994 and 1995. That's not why the administrator was appointed.

Didn’t the bank of naru call on there debt and wanted full payment?

 

[Roylion]

Didn’t the bank of naru call on there debt and wanted full payment?

To put it very simply, when the AFL deiberately (and with North Melboune's connivance) refused to guarantee that Nauru Insurance Company as the only secured creditor of Fitzroy would not be paid $1 million out of the merger monies promised to the merged "North Fitzroy Kangaroos", the Nauru I.C. facing the loss of their loan struck first and appointed an administrator to recover what was owed. All the administrator did then was surrender Fitzroy's licence to compete in the AFL.