One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on November 21, 2017, 12:26:20 AM
-
Constitution amendments for 11 December 2017 AGM
Resolution One:
(A) That existing Clause 6.4.1 is deleted and replaced with new Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 below and that existing Clause 6.4.2 is re-numbered Clause 6.4.4; and
(B) That existing Clause 3.3.2(b) and Clause 3.3.2(c) is deleted and replaced with new Clause 3.3.2(b).
(A) Existing Clause 6.4.1 (to be deleted)
Subject to section 249D of the Act, on a requisition in writing signed by at least one hundred Ordinary Members with their addresses and their Membership Ticket numbers, being delivered to the Company Secretary, the Company Secretary shall within twenty-one days from receiving such requisition call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the Club by giving fourteen days notice of the same by advertisement in a daily newspaper. The requisition must state precisely the objects of the Meeting including any resolution to be proposed and such objects shall appear in the advertisement in the same or a more abbreviated form.
New Clauses 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 (to be inserted)
6.4.1 The Club must call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the members of the Club as required by the Act.
6.4.2 The Extraordinary General Meeting must be held within the time limits permitted by the Act.
6.4.3 Notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting must be given to each member entitled to vote at the Meeting and in the form and within the time limits set out in the Act and must be given in a manner authorised by Clause 6.1.3 and the Act.
Explanation Before 2015, section 249D of the Corporations Act provided that an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) could be called upon the request of the lesser of (1) 5% of voting members or (2) 100 voting members. In 2015, section 249D was amended to remove the reference to 100 members. However, the Club's Constitution still allows 100 members to call an EGM.
The proposed amendment would bring the Constitution into line with the Corporations Act. The Board also notes that an EGM has never been called in the history of the Club.
Reasons advanced for the change to the Corporations Act were:
• 100 members was too low a threshold; and
• calling an EGM is expensive for the company.
The removal of the 100 member rule does not diminish the existing right of 100 members to raise concerns about the Club by requesting that a resolution be placed on the agenda for the Club's annual general meeting.
When the Club has more than 50,000 voting members, allowing 100 members to call an EGM means that a small group can cause Club funds to be spent to hold a meeting even when it is unlikely that any resolution at the meeting will be passed. On the other hand, 5% of members will more properly represent a fair cross section of the Club's membership and be indicative of the wish of members to have Club funds spent in holding and conducting such a meeting.
The Board is aware that an argument has been advanced that the only way that directors can be removed is through an EGM and that removing the 100 member provision will entrench directors. That is not correct and a resolution regarding directors can be put by members to the annual general meeting. The only difference is one of timing. As its name suggests, an 'extraordinary' general meeting should be held only when a matter is so 'extraordinary' that it cannot wait until the annual general meeting.
(B) Existing Clauses 3.3.2(b) and (c) (to be deleted)
(b) a VFL/AFL multiple premiership player; or
(c) a single VFL/AFL premiership player who has played a minimum of 100 senior VFL/AFL matches for the Club; or
New Clause 3.3.2(b) (to be inserted)
(b) a VFL/AFL premiership player; or
(c) [deliberately left blank]
Explanation The Board proposes that all premiership players be made Life Members of the Club. While existing Clause 3.3.2(f) gives the Board wide ranging discretion as to who can be made a Life Member, it is preferable to have premiership players mentioned specifically so that the high esteem in which they are held is properly expressed.
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Richmond/Images/RFCAGMpages.pdf?camefrom=EMCL_1967524_80108751
-
Hmmm
-
Wouldn't it be easier if they just made it 1000 members which IMHO is a fair number?
-
I will be voting "NO" to these changes and appeal for proxy votes in support.
Members can PM me if they are willing to grant me their proxies.
Resolution1 (A)
The board reasoning for this change are that:
1) 100 members is too low a threshold, and
2) calling an EGM is expensive for the company.
1) With this change over 2,500 will be required for an EGM.
To repeat what I wrote last year:
Resolution 1
It is proposed that the requirement to call an EGM be raised from 100 members to 5% of members in line with 249D of the Corporations Act.
Comparisons to other public companies are misleading.
Richmond as a member-based entity gives each member one vote (in fact multiple membership may only allow one vote).
In a public company, shareholders with 5% the shares can requisition an EGM. Thus a single investor, company or institution can call an EGM.
In terms of comparison:
A quorum for an AGM is 100 members.
A quorum for an EGM is 200 members.
The TOTAL votes on the 2011 Constitutional changes was 190 votes.
2) Note that even the board has admitted that an EGM has NEVER, in 133 years, been called under the 100 member threshold.
So it follows that the claimed expense of an EGM has NEVER been incurred in 133 years.
The closest we got to an EGM was in 2004 when a serious resolution to spill the board at an EGM was proposed.
At that time (IIRC) President Clinton Casey saw the writing on the wall and spilled the board for an election at the AGM, effectively having an AGM replace the mooted EGM.
In regards to the argument that a member resolution at the AGM can result in a director being removed.
Last year, Resolution 6 changed this ability of members to place resolutions on the AGM agenda.
As I wrote at the time:
Resolution 6
This largely performs some “housekeeping” on phraseology in the Constitution.
It does however, significantly alter the rights of members to receive notice or place resolutions on the AGM agenda.
Currently a resolution can be placed on the agenda by 10 members with 14 days notice.
This will be expanded (under Corporation Act 249N) to require 5% or 100 members with 2 months notice.
249O further says, the resolution is to be considered at the next general meeting that occurs more than 2 months after the notice is given.
"The only difference is one of timing" indeed.
Note that the Corporations Act requires 5% OR 100 members for member resolutions.
Presumably the next change will be to make the threshold 5% in line with EGM requirements.
It is interesting to note that the club has called Richmond Football Club a "company", rather than a "club" in it's reasoning.
Resolution 1 (B)
Section (b) of this clause entitles single VFL/AFL premiership players to Life Membership rather than the previous "multiple premierships".
This means that, if Lennon had kicked the goal and won a VFL premiership this year, a number of players would have become Life Members including Beasley, Darley, Ballard, Coffield, Silvestro and Wood.
I do not understand but surely the board did not intend to include VFL premierships.
Why they didn't simply change the "VFL/AFL" to simply AFL while redrafting I do not understand.
Section (c) of this clause removes the entitlement of VFL/AFL players who have played over 100 senior VFL/AFL matches to Life Membership.
Since it was 37 years between AFL premierships, this means that players like Maurice Rioli, Free, Knights, Gale (!), Naish, Campbell, Richardson and Deledio would NOT be entitled to automatic Life Membership.
Rather a glaring change and a slap in the face when you compare them to the above mentioned Beasley, Ballard etc.
As said above I will be voting "NO" and appeal for proxies in support.
Bask in the joy of the premiership but be aware of ALL that is happening around the club.
Particularly in relation to permanent changes to the Constitution enacted in this brief, but hopefully longer, premiership glow.
-
My issue with the EGM is very simple
It was put forward last year, it could heavily defeated. Therefore, IMHO it is done and dusted
I voted for the change last year as (again just my view) that 100 signatures is too low when you have 70k members
However, last year the debate was heated (Redan Tiger can vouch for it), a vote was taken and as I said it was heavily defeated
It should not be raised again 12 months later.
Re the life membership one. My understanding it says VFL/AFL because our previous GF wins were in the VFL era and to capture the likes of say Freame, Mount it needs to read VFL as well
-
However, last year the debate was heated (Redan Tiger can vouch for it), a vote was taken and as I said it was heavily defeated
Re the life membership one. My understanding it says VFL/AFL because our previous GF wins were in the VFL era and to capture the likes of say Freame, Mount it needs to read VFL as well
I don't know if I would say "it was heavily defeated".
We were only told by Malcolm Speed, as the acting chair, that Resolution 1 failed.
Do you have other info WP?
I understand the VFL/AFL in that context but it does seem all premiership players will be Life Members.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-08-24/life-honour-for-wa-tigers
If we are granting Life Memberships to former VFL premiership players then why have it in the constitution?
Simply cover off the old VFL players as they're doing and write only AFL going forward.
The way this is worded IMO means VFL AND AFL players will get them for premierships going forwards.
The insult (IMO) to Rioli, Free, Richardson, Knights, Deledio etc still holds true with the deletion of the 100 games clause.
IMO this is another example (multiple proxy forms, By-Laws etc) of the sloppiness displayed by senior administration in performing their most important role.
-
I don't know if I would say "it was heavily defeated".
We were only told by Malcolm Speed, as the acting chair, that Resolution 1 failed.
Do you have other info WP?
No other info I thought they read out the numbers???
Though my recollection of the night was there weren't many hands in the air when they said "all those in favour"
But it doesn't really matter; I still think it is poor of them to raise it again 12 months after it got defeated. No need for it
-
Yep.
To quote the Age today this "looks overly opportunistic" when Richmond has won it's first premiership in 37 years.
Suppose it's a regular part of the entire political scene nowadays, worldwide.
Was thinking last night that after following Richmond for over fifty years I had the glorious bliss of enjoying winning the big prize, sitting back basking in the afterglow, and then Broad and the Board just pee all over it.
Jerks.
-
Sorry but if either of those things were enough to ruin the flag in your eyes then I can only laugh at you....
-
Tigers to sink teeth into constitution changes
afl.com.au
23 November 2017
RICHMOND will seek to remove a clause in its constitution that allows 100 members to call an extraordinary general meeting 12 months after staring down an unsuccessful board challenge.
Members last year voted to maintain their right to call an EGM with only 100 signatures, rejecting a proposed change to increase that number to five per cent of voting members.
The Tigers will put the proposal to members again at the annual general meeting on December 11, which promises to be a more festive event following a remarkable premiership season.
In a letter to members, the board argued 100 signatures was too low a threshold and calling an EGM was an expensive exercise.
"The removal of the 100 member rule does not diminish the existing right of 100 members to raise concerns about the club by requesting that a resolution be placed on the agenda for the club's annual general meeting," the club wrote.
"Five per cent of members will more properly represent a fair cross section of the club's membership and be indicative of the wish of members to have club funds spent in holding and conducting such a meeting.
"As its name suggests, an 'extraordinary' general meeting should be held only when a matter is so 'extraordinary' that it cannot wait until the annual general meeting."
Under the proposed change, more than 3,700 eligible members would have been required to force an EGM, with the Tigers' membership now at a record 75,777.
The board will also propose that all premiership players – regardless of games played with the club – be made life members.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-23/tigers-to-sink-teeth-into-constitution-changes
-
Sorry but if either of those things were enough to ruin the flag in your eyes then I can only laugh at you....
Beat me to it
-
Sneaky seppo is trying again!
We already knocked this back last year they have no stuffen mandate to go again.
Me thinks someone is getting delusions of grandeur
-
I'm not sure I understand what this is all about.
100 members being able to call and EGM does seem an extraordinarily low number when you are looking at a membership base the size of ours. I have no idea what an appropriate number would be, although the idea of a percentage seems reasonable enough to account for fluctuations in membership. I am not suggesting it should be 5%, it might be .1% or 1% or whatever. But I think it should be more than 100 people.
With regard to the life membership for players, I support the club's sentiment that premiership players should be specifically mentioned in the constitution for the reason outlined. I get the concern raised about why include specific mention of the VFL premiership in this, but to leave that term out is a bit denigrating to our VFL premiership players of years gone by in my opinion. The wording of the clause seems pretty clumsy, but I assume (or maybe hope) they have had a legal expert draft it to ensure it achieves the desired result.
BTW, I am not a lawyer, a bush lawyer, or a doctor.
-
With regard to the life membership for players, I support the club's sentiment that premiership players should be specifically mentioned in the constitution for the reason outlined. I get the concern raised about why include specific mention of the VFL premiership in this, but to leave that term out is a bit denigrating to our VFL premiership players of years gone by in my opinion. The wording of the clause seems pretty clumsy, but I assume (or maybe hope) they have had a legal expert draft it to ensure it achieves the desired result.
BTW, I am not a lawyer, a bush lawyer, or a doctor.
I also agree with the sentiment to reward single premiership players and for past (VFL) winners this is being done without this change as the link in my previous post shows.
You have not mentioned removing the Life Membership rights of players like Rioli, Knights, Campbell, Richardson and Deledio for over 100 games.
-
Hilarious
-
I don't oppose the change from 100 to 5% of members but it isn't new for the club to try and enact constitutional change straight after a positive season on-field which creates a happy/agreeable/apathetic membership. It was how they got 'appointed' directors passed ::). This time last year however, after the onfield disaster of 2016, the view of a number of supporters was the board seemed more interested in protecting who was on the board. So no wonder the motion failed.
-
You have not mentioned removing the Life Membership rights of players like Rioli, Knights, Campbell, Richardson and Deledio for over 100 games.
That is cause I don't understand what that clause means.
I thought life membership for players was automatic at 150 games.
-
That is cause I don't understand what that clause means.
I thought life membership for players was automatic at 150 games.
Nope.
Currently 100.
Non-premiership players will only be granted Life Membership at the board's discretion.
See the opening post or the Constitution under the "club" tab on the club website.
-
I apologize for the fact that I have screwed up the argument against the Life Membership changes.
This change only affects Life Membership for premiership players.
Currently players are only entitled to Life Membership for MULTIPLE premierships or a SINGLE premiership if they have over 100 games.
It is proposed that this will be changed to entitle every premiership player to Life Membership.
In looking at the constitution some points need to be made.
The board has "absolute discretion" to grant or deny Life Membership.
Players who have served for ten years or 150 games are entitled to Life Membership.
The new clause says "a VFL/AFL premiership player" will be entitled.
My concerns still exist around the words "VFL/AFL".
It is important to note that the VFL and AFL have existed as separate competitions since 1996.
The question to be asked is whether Life Memberships are to be granted to both VFL and AFL players in the future?
If the reasoning is that "VFL/AFL" only exists to cover past VFL players then I think it's redundant.
Currently the board has been granting Life Membership to past single premiership players with less than 100 games, as they are allowed. These were of course VFL players.
If the reasoning is that only AFL players GOING FORWARD are granted Life Membership then why not change this to "AFL" players.
I apologize for any confusion I caused by mis-reading the clause changes in relation to the current constitution.
-
Rhett Bartlett @rhettrospective twitter:
"The club secretary has confirmed to me that at the AGM your vote covers BOTH issues (5% + life membership) in the resolution.
So you can't vote yes for one, and no for the other (or vice versa).
Your Yes or No vote covers both issues."
https://twitter.com/rhettrospective/status/938168741925306368
-
Rhett Bartlett @rhettrospective twitter:
"The club secretary has confirmed to me that at the AGM your vote covers BOTH issues (5% + life membership) in the resolution.
So you can't vote yes for one, and no for the other (or vice versa).
Your Yes or No vote covers both issues."
https://twitter.com/rhettrospective/status/938168741925306368
Gee talk about being rail roaded. These should be seperate issues. These guys are arseholes, they didnt have to do that, i'm sure both would have passed anyway on there own merits, but they haven't allowed us that choice, its an attempt to dictate the outcome on our respect for the players validation. stuffed.
-
:thumbsdown
Peggy Sue and her merry bunch of Yes men can GAGF’d
-
Wow
They win us a premiership, and now we want to get stuck in to them for making a couple of changes to the constitution.
Seriously?
-
Wow
They win us a premiership, and now we want to get stuck in to them for making a couple of changes to the constitution.
Seriously?
Its not about that Slipper, its about the way they are going about it using our natural inclination to reward the players with life membership so they can push there EGM agenda over the line, because that is what they are doing its cowidice and wrong. Winning a premiership doesnt give them license to treat the membership with disrespect.
-
Winning a premiership doesnt give them license to treat the membership with disrespect.
Maybe not, but it buys them a hell of a lot of brownie points.
On my understanding of things, I don't have a problem with the proposed changes. I get that some people might want one change and not the other, so it could be handled better by splitting them. And I agree with your earlier post that commons sense would suggest both motions would pass on their own merits if voted on separately.
But that aside, I am not sure I get the angst, and I certainly don't get the somewhat derogatory attacks on a board (or certain individuals) that showed a lot of leadership in getting us to a flag.
And to be honest, I don't feel disrespected by what they are doing. Singapore has done pretty well under the benevolent dictator model.
-
Winning a premiership doesnt give them license to treat the membership with disrespect.
Maybe not, but it buys them a hell of a lot of brownie points.
On my understanding of things, I don't have a problem with the proposed changes. I get that some people might want one change and not the other, so it could be handled better by splitting them. And I agree with your earlier post that commons sense would suggest both motions would pass on their own merits if voted on separately.
But that aside, I am not sure I get the angst, and I certainly don't get the somewhat derogatory attacks on a board (or certain individuals) that showed a lot of leadership in getting us to a flag.
And to be honest, I don't feel disrespected by what they are doing. Singapore has done pretty well under the benevolent dictator model.
I'd argue that both wouldn't pass on their own merits
12 months ago the EGM motion was defeated.
I said right back on page 1, that I have a real issue with them putting it forward again 12 months after it was defeated. I voted in favour of it last year because I believe that needing 100 signatures for an EGM was far too low when you have 50+ members. However (again as I said on page 1), putting it up again 12 months later is poor on the part of the board. They are refusing to accept the will of their membership; that's disrespectful
I voted in favour of it last year. But this year in good conscience I can't support it because to try and push it through 12 months later reeks of desperation
Clearly, they are using the premiership to get it over the line and while I understand it; it doesn't make it right. It makes it mischievous at best
Now to find out that the motions won't be put forward separately but together is in my view extremely disrespectful to the members.
Again IMV, they are holding the membership to ransom.
Why? Because they are saying to allow premiership players to be awarded life membership you must accept the change to 100 signatures. That's not how it should be... legally I am sure they are allowed to do what they are doing but that doesn't make ethically right... It isn't
Yet again it appears that they don't seem to be willing to trust the membership to make well considered decisions on each point
I've been a huge supporter of this board but in this one they are so wrong with what they are doing and more importantly HOW they are doing it that they deserve every single whack they receive
-
Wow
They win us a premiership, and now we want to get stuck in to them for making a couple of changes to the constitution.
Seriously?
They didn't win us a premiership, the players won the premiership. This mob on the board have done an ordinary job when looking at their performance over the entirety of their tenure. Peggy has been on the board for 10 years, 1 flag in 10 years is ordinary for mine.
Vote No to the changes.
-
Winning a premiership doesnt give them license to treat the membership with disrespect.
Maybe not, but it buys them a hell of a lot of brownie points.
On my understanding of things, I don't have a problem with the proposed changes. I get that some people might want one change and not the other, so it could be handled better by splitting them. And I agree with your earlier post that commons sense would suggest both motions would pass on their own merits if voted on separately.
But that aside, I am not sure I get the angst, and I certainly don't get the somewhat derogatory attacks on a board (or certain individuals) that showed a lot of leadership in getting us to a flag.
And to be honest, I don't feel disrespected by what they are doing. Singapore has done pretty well under the benevolent dictator model.
I'd argue that both wouldn't pass on their own merits
12 months ago the EGM motion was defeated.
I said right back on page 1, that I have a real issue with them putting it forward again 12 months after it was defeated. I voted in favour of it last year because I believe that needing 100 signatures for an EGM was far too low when you have 50+ members. However (again as I said on page 1), putting it up again 12 months later is poor on the part of the board. They are refusing to accept the will of their membership; that's disrespectful
I voted in favour of it last year. But this year in good conscience I can't support it because to try and push it through 12 months later reeks of desperation
Clearly, they are using the premiership to get it over the line and while I understand it; it doesn't make it right. It makes it mischievous at best
Now to find out that the motions won't be put forward separately but together is in my view extremely disrespectful to the members.
Again IMV, they are holding the membership to ransom.
Why? Because they are saying to allow premiership players to be awarded life membership you must accept the change to 100 signatures. That's not how it should be... legally I am sure they are allowed to do what they are doing but that doesn't make ethically right... It isn't
Yet again it appears that they don't seem to be willing to trust the membership to make well considered decisions on each point
I've been a huge supporter of this board but in this one they are so wrong with what they are doing and more importantly HOW they are doing it that they deserve every single whack they receive
I see where you are coming from WP, but you are falling into the same trap as what you are arguing against.
Last year the vote was made in the midst of bitter emotions due to the fact we performed so poorly. Not a good way to make a balanced decision.
This year the vote will be made in the midst of elation. Again, not a good way of making a decision.
I think if we take all emotions out of the debate, we would all agree that 100 signatures with 75K plus members is ridiculous. It should be argued that a more sensible number should be required.
-
101
-
101
:lol
-
Wow
They win us a premiership, and now we want to get stuck in to them for making a couple of changes to the constitution.
Seriously?
They didn't win us a premiership, the players won the premiership. This mob on the board have done an ordinary job when looking at their performance over the entirety of their tenure. Peggy has been on the board for 10 years, 1 flag in 10 years is ordinary for mine.
Vote No to the changes.
You can call it dumb luck, but this board stuck with Hardwick and the rest is history.
You could argue we might have won more than one flag if we had a different board, or a different coach over that time.
But good luck with that.
-
This board has a history of trying to take away members rights, they got away with being able to install whoever they like, now they
want to make it harder to have an EGM. In 10 years time don't complain if you as a member have no rights.
-
This board has a history of trying to take away members rights, they got away with being able to install whoever they like, now they
want to make it harder to have an EGM. In 10 years time don't complain if you as a member have no rights.
Under the changes voted in last year, members resolutions require 100 members OR 5% signatures for the AGM.
If they get the EGM through this year it means that to have any input will require above 2500 members.
And this is only to get the membership to vote on a motion.
-
Now onto the Resolution. Peggy says "we've never had an EGM in the modern history of the club". I note she inserted the word modern into her presentation, after I made them aware they had one in 1911. Peggy stating her case to make a EGM 5%
Now Member asking why you cant vote separately on the resolution.
Peggy says last years EGM was voted down by 11 votes. Says some members didnt know they could vote proxy. Peggy also says it can be destablising. (Audience applauds).
Another member now says that the proposal of 5% is too high. He raises 3 points against the EGM proposal...
Another member speaking in favour of the EGM resolution. "Things dont have to be broken for it to be changed"
Another member is concerned about 5% percentage resolution
EGM amendment has passed.
284 yes
30 no
https://twitter.com/rhettrospective/status/940129437378535424
-
I note on your twitter that you say there were about 200 present.
Minor thing but I think that's a bit high. I counted about 140 and that is born out by the vote.
314 total less 190 proxies leaves about 124 voters present.
Of course some may have abstained but I don't think it would be many.
-
Richmond’s decision to award life membership to all premiership players slammed by former Hawks
Ben Waterworth
December 13, 2017 1:43pm
FOX SPORTS
TRIPLE premiership Hawk Brian Lake says he would’ve “cheated” his way to Hawthorn life membership if it had been offered to him just for being a premiership player, cheekily comparing the hypothetical rushed process to dating app Tinder.
The comments come after Richmond altered its constitution to allow every premiership-winning Tiger to become eligible for life membership of the club. Previously, only Tigers with one flag and 100 games, or multiple premierships, to their name were eligible to be life members, before a vote at Richmond’s AGM on Monday night altered the rule.
That means five-gamer Jack Graham, who was Richmond’s youngest premiership player earlier this year, could soon be in line to be a life member of the Tigers.
Lake is a life member of the Western Bulldogs but not of Hawthorn, despite winning three flags and a Norm Smith medal with the Hawks. To be considered for life membership at Hawthorn, a player must have played at least 150 games or given the club at least 10 years of service.
And Lake has no issue with that criteria, saying players should be rewarded for long-term service to the club.
“I’d be reasonably embarrassed walking into a life membership function and saying, ‘yeah I’ve won three flags’,” he told SEN Breakfast.
“I’m a life member of the Bulldogs. I was there for 10 years and I played 197 games there. I rode the waves of a lot of things at that football club … you feel like you earn that a lot more.
“Whereas you look at myself at the Hawks, I was just at the right place at the right time. You still worked hard for it, but … I’d feel like I cheated my way to be a life member of the Hawthorn footy club.
Lake had a cheeky comparison for the Tigers’ recent decision.
“I look at it and you could relate it to Tinder these days. That is just your easy way of getting to you-know-what,” Lake laughed.
“How much more do you enjoy it when you’ve had to go to the pub, you’ve had to have a few beers, you get the courage to go up and speak to her, and you have to do the hard work?
“You enjoy that more, don’t you, than just cheating your way to the final prize.
“I still feel part of the Hawthorn footy club. I am a premiership player, yes, but I don’t categorise myself as a life member because I didn’t go through the heartache of what they’ve had to experience.”
Premiership Hawk Campbell Brown, who is a life member at the Hawks, also disagreed with the Tigers’ constitutional change, claiming it “really diminishes the significance of what a life membership is to the players who already have it”.
“Life membership is earned by a significant contribution over a long period of time.
“You go back to Bill James in 1920, who played one game of football for Richmond, is now a life member, the same as Francis Bourke who played 300 games and won multiple premierships. It doesn’t sit well with me.
“I’m not having any go at the guys who are now inducted, but think Jack Graham or Jacob Townsend, who are in the infancy of their careers, are now going to be life members.
Brown also pointed out former long-serving Tigers like Kane Johnson and Chris Naish as non-life members despite giving their all to the club.
“Could you imagine contributing to a footy club for 30 to 40 to 50 years and a guy who has played one game for Richmond being put on par as the same contribution?” Brown said.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/richmonds-decision-to-award-life-membership-to-all-premiership-players-slammed-by-former-hawks/news-story/5aef821d43256c811ee9f8543c7df008
-
“You go back to Bill James in 1920, who played one game of football for Richmond, is now a life member, the same as Francis Bourke who played 300 games and won multiple premierships. It doesn’t sit well with me.
“I’m not having any go at the guys who are now inducted, but think Jack Graham or Jacob Townsend, who are in the infancy of their careers, are now going to be life members.
Brown also pointed out former long-serving Tigers like Kane Johnson and Chris Naish as non-life members despite giving their all to the club.
“Could you imagine contributing to a footy club for 30 to 40 to 50 years and a guy who has played one game for Richmond being put on par as the same contribution?” Brown said.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/richmonds-decision-to-award-life-membership-to-all-premiership-players-slammed-by-former-hawks/news-story/5aef821d43256c811ee9f8543c7df008
I might be wrong but I thought if you served 20+ years off-field (eg: as a trainer or boot-studder) you were eventually awarded life membership?
Bill James infamously shot himself in the foot while hunting. That's why he never played again after that 1920 premiership.
ps. I would go further and award players who played a certain number of games during the season but missed the GF (say due to injury) a premiership medallion. It takes more than the 22 players on GF day to achieve the ultimate success across a season. That's what they do in other sports such as Soccer.