One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on November 01, 2016, 09:02:46 PM
-
132nd Annual General Meeting
richmondfc.com.au
Richmond Football Club Ltd.
A.C.N. 005 563 011
132nd ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
The Annual General Meeting of the Richmond Football Club Ltd (“the Club”) will be held at the Richmond Offices at Punt Road Oval on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 6.00pm to transact the following business:
To receive and consider the Annual Financial Report (comprising the financial statements and notes for the year and the Directors’ Declaration about the statements and notes) and notes and the Directors’ Report and Declaration;
* Declaration of Poll for the Election of two (2) Directors of the Club;
* Proposed Changes to the Club’s Constitution;
* Presentation of Club Award Winners;
* Election of Life Members; and
* To transact any other business which may lawfully be brought forward.
ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS
In accordance with the Constitution of the Club, the positions of Emmett Dunne and Kerry Ryan are to be filled by an election.
Each of these Directors being eligible, may offer themselves for re-election.
Nominations for the position of the two (2) Directors will be accepted at the Club until 6.00pm on Monday, 14 November 2016. All nominees shall be a member of the Club and the nominations shall also be signed by two (2) members of the Club (in accordance with the Constitution of the Club).
Under the Constitution of the Club, the nominee and their proposer and seconder and all members intending to vote must have been a financial member of the Club for the 2016 year by the 31st day of August 2016.
Potential nominees should be aware that due to the obligations upon the Directors, it will be necessary for any new Director to be subjected to a police investigation and any other enquiries necessary to ensure that the Director meets the criteria of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.
Nomination Forms and further information are available by enquiry to the Company Secretary, Michael Stahl at the Club on (03) 9426 4415 or at mstahl@richmondfc.com.au.
Signed: M Stahl
Company Secretary
31 October 2016
-
Well, well
AGM notice says proposed constitutional chnages
Here's everyones chance to put up or shut up if you dont like the changes, rather than accusing the board of pushing things through
;D
-
Well, well
AGM notice says proposed constitutional chnages
Here's everyones chance to put up or shut up if you dont like the changes, rather than accusing the board of pushing things through
;D
The Board are probably going for lifetime terms for any directors they see fit to appoint. :whistle
-
Well, well
AGM notice says proposed constitutional chnages
Here's everyones chance to put up or shut up if you dont like the changes, rather than accusing the board of pushing things through
;D
The Board are probably going for lifetime terms for any directors they see fit to appoint. :whistle
Well here's everyone's chance to make sure it doesn't happen if that's what it is ;D
But in all seriousness one hopes it has something to do with amending the idiotic clause that says only 100 odd signatures are need to call an EGM. With 70k members it should be much higher than that
-
Why is it the board is run on far right facist principles yet operates in the public arena like SJW's.
-
some changes happening and to be announced prior to the agm. No doubt a big suck job to butter up the members ahead of the agm.
-
Well, well
AGM notice says proposed constitutional chnages
Here's everyones chance to put up or shut up if you dont like the changes, rather than accusing the board of pushing things through
;D
The Board are probably going for lifetime terms for any directors they see fit to appoint. :whistle
Well here's everyone's chance to make sure it doesn't happen if that's what it is ;D
But in all seriousness one hopes it has something to do with amending the idiotic clause that says only 100 odd signatures are need to call an EGM. With 70k members it should be much higher than that
You call the 100 signatures an idiotic clause.
At the last constitutional change motion in 2011 you (and I) voted against the changes.
We were just two of 190 members who voted on the motion to allow one third of directors to be APPOINTED and a staff member to be a voting director.
Even more pertinent is that in that voting there were only 7 votes against.
If less than 200 members bothered to vote on such radical changes why do you think half that number should not be able to call the board to account?
If there were only 7 dissident votes, why is 100 not a high threshold for an EGM?
-
The other important points in that notice are that only Dunne and Ryan are listed for re-election.
Therefore the President, Peggy O'Neal, has been APPOINTED to her second consecutive term of three more years.
As usual, there is no public announcement about this APPOINTMENT.
Nominations are called for by November 14.
At some point after that there will be an election notification.
Presumably with that stuff there will be clarification of the proposed constitutional changes.
If there is no election material, there were no challengers to Dunne and Ryan and they will be elected unopposed.
If that happens one can then expect that two further directors (Wallace and one of the Malvern Hotel crew) will be APPOINTED after the AGM to complete the terms of the two directors reportedly ready to resign.
At least it's a variation on resignations months before the AGM to have them months after the AGM.
-
Personally I think it should be either 2000 signatures or 5% of toal members whichever is greater.
So at least 2000, WP.
Ten times the amount that voted on the changes in 2011.
-
So the 2 will get elected unopposed, the 2 set to retire will do so after the agm and will be replaced by 2 handpicked by the board, and the constitution changes put forward by benny and the board will be voted in as the majority attending will vote for anything put forward by the board. Business as usual at RFC.
-
Deckchairs...Titanic....
-
So the 2 will get elected unopposed, the 2 set to retire will do so after the agm and will be replaced by 2 handpicked by the board, and the constitution changes put forward by benny and the board will be voted in as the majority attending will vote for anything put forward by the board. Business as usual at RFC.
If every person who posts on social media complaining about the board pushing changes actaully botherd to show up and vote, then the "majority" would deliver a very different outcome.
Don't complain if you're not going to bother showing up to vote.
-
Personally I think it should be either 2000 signatures or 5% of toal members whichever is greater.
So at least 2000, WP.
Ten times the amount that voted on the changes in 2011.
So everyone revoke your memberships.
-
See the Age has apologised to Russo for getting it wrong. Wonder if he'll put his hand up.
-
See the Age has apologised to Russo for getting it wrong. Wonder if he'll put his hand up.
Hahaha. That's because he was going to sue the **** out of them.
-
See the Age has apologised to Russo for getting it wrong. Wonder if he'll put his hand up.
would think there were a few more people other than the age who went the early crow on this one. :shh
-
See the Age has apologised to Russo for getting it wrong. Wonder if he'll put his hand up.
would think there were a few more people other than the age who went the early crow on this one. :shh
Yep. Caro and her little lap dog journalist got it all wrong it seems. Hopefully Russo can get on the board somehow and bring along his best mate John to shake things up lol
-
Full details will be sent to all members but from an article on the club web-site by the President
The proposed Constitutional changes involved fixed terms for directors
"In other Board news, the Club’s Governance Committee recently recommended that term limits be introduced into the Club constitution. This has been under consideration for more than 12 months and various models were investigated. The Board accepted the recommendations. A member vote is required to amend the constitution and full information about the proposed changes will be sent to members so they can vote at the Annual General Meeting on 14 December."
From:
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2016-11-04/presidents-column-november-2016
-
Bump.
A reminder that the AGM is this Wednesday night.
-
From Rhett Bartlett's twitter:
@rhettrospective: "Side note: Board felt 100 signatures for EGM isn't reflective of membership. Yet is 4,600 acceptable for constitution change."
@rhettrospective: "Actually, I'm waiting on confirmation but it appears that the proposed changes to the 100 signatures EGM was REJECTED!"
@wildebeestz: "can confirm. Also the vote count for directors is what they announced at the AGM"
@rhettrospective: "I think the term limits passed , correct?"
@wildebeestz: "Everything else passed. I thought #6 would lose but somehow got passed. Lots of proxies on hand tonight."
@rhettrospective: "I cant remember what 6 was."
@wildebeestz: "Among other things instead of 14 days notice for motions you now need 2 months apparently."
https://twitter.com/rhettrospective/status/808979403925377025
-
Tigers members question directors at fiery AGM
Nathan Schmook
afl.com.au
December 14, 2016 9:55 PM
RICHMOND members have voted to limit the terms of directors at a fiery annual general meeting on Wednesday night.
Roughly 150 members turned out for the club's AGM at Punt Road Oval, questioning the club's directors after a failed season on-field and financial loss off it.
The Tigers' board has faced significant scrutiny in 2016 and recently underwent its second election in the past seven years when Peter Casey and Simon Wallace chose to contest the vacant positions.
Both campaigned for term limits for directors and a motion was passed on Wednesday night to limit board service to three separate terms.
The members also voted to maintain their right to call an extraordinary general meeting with only 100 signatures, rejecting a proposed change to increase that number to five per cent of voting members.
That would have required roughly 2500 signatures to call an EGM in 2016.
The issue of 100 members being able to call an EGM became a talking point in 2016 when rebel group Focus on Footy threatened such action to cause a spill of the board.
Members of the failed ticket attended Wednesday night's AGM.
When asked if another poor season would prompt another challenge from Focus on Footy, Richmond president Peggy O'Neal replied: "I don't know but bring them on".
Incumbent board members Kerry Ryan and Emmett Dunne had their re-election confirmed on Wednesday night after 4686 members exercised their right to vote.
Dunne earned 71 per cent of the vote, followed by Ryan (47 per cent), Wallace (44) and Casey (35).
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-14/tigers-members-question-directors-at-fiery-agm
-
Fiery is a good description
I thought it got quite heated at times
It was an interesting evening
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
-
Thats the best thing to come out of the night. Outside of that it seems like business as usual at that joint.
Board dodging questions, well what a surprise that is.
-
Board terms limited at AGM
richmondfc.com.au
15 December 2016
Richmond members have voted to limit the terms of directors at Wednesday night's Annual General Meeting.
Members voted to support a constitutional amendment that would limit directors to three, three-year elected terms.
The members also voted to maintain their right to call an extraordinary general meeting with only 100 signatures, rejecting a proposed change to increase that number to five per cent of voting members, which would have brought the Club into line with the current corporations act.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2016-12-15/board-terms-limited-at-agm
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
Bit hard to answer question when some people were making statements and giving opinions not actually asking a question :thumbsup
And I thought it was heated at times. And in some cases a lack of respect directed at Mal Speed when he was doing the resolutions was extremely poor
As for 100 Sigs required to trigger an EGM, well each to their own I suppose. I would think the 75% majority on constitutional resolutions being required is what sunk that.
And yes i have a problem with 100 people being able to dictate and supposedly offering themselves as the voice of over 45k people
But votes in, Except and move on.
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
And yes i have a problem with 100 people being able to dictate and supposedly offering themselves as the voice of over 45k people
Raise it to 3000 and you'll have no voice. What's the big deal with an EGM anyway? According to Stahl it'll cost approx 10k or so and when was the last time we had one? Disrupt the board and the club? Pfffft.
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
And yes i have a problem with 100 people being able to dictate and supposedly offering themselves as the voice of over 45k people
Raise it to 3000 and you'll have no voice. What's the big deal with an EGM anyway? According to Stahl it'll cost approx 10k or so and when was the last time we had one? Disrupt the board and the club? Pfffft.
We're you sitting down the back Harry?
He said 10's of thousands for an EGM not 10k
And in this day and age of social media it aint hard to collect signatures
And I note the AFL fans group had no problem gathering of 20k signatures at 3 games at the MCG a few years back.
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
While "we keep our right to make the board accountable", within Resolution 6 is a change explained in the mail out to members (under 6.1.2) that changes members ability to offer resolutions.
It WAS 10 members on a 14 day notice.
It is NOW, according to the Corporations Act, 5% or 100 members on a 2 month notice.
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
Bit hard to answer question when some people were making statements and giving opinions not actually asking a question :thumbsup
And I thought it was heated at times. And in some cases a lack of respect directed at Mal Speed when he was doing the resolutions was extremely poor
As for 100 Sigs required to trigger an EGM, well each to their own I suppose. I would think the 75% majority on constitutional resolutions being required is what sunk that.
And yes i have a problem with 100 people being able to dictate and supposedly offering themselves as the voice of over 45k people
But votes in, Except and move on.
You fundamentally misunderstand.
When Harry talks about questioning "them" he is talking about the resolutions.
When a vote is called for a motion it is the right of members to "make statements" arguing the merits of motions.
If board members or anyone else wants to rebut those statements that is also fair and reasonable.
Speed was quite right and correct in his handling in saying the motions would be put and seconded before a debate could ensue, followed by a vote.
It was also very fair, even classy, for Speed to say there had been a handout and asked if anybody wanted one.
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
Cheerleading , because its an opposing opinion to yourself , yeah right
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
Cheerleading , because its an opposing opinion to yourself , yeah right
There were two members who got up at the end and congratulated the board on the great job they were doing and they were both met with applause and hear, hears.
I would say that's cheerleading, wouldn't you.
I agree with your implication that Harry may be showing his bias but there was cheerleading as I've exampled.
It's over.
It's only a footy club, it's not life and death.
We differ, we go forward having resolved differences.
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
Cheerleading , because its an opposing opinion to yourself , yeah right
There were two members who got up at the end and congratulated the board on the great job they were doing and they were both met with applause and hear, hears.
I would say that's cheerleading, wouldn't you.
I agree with your implication that Harry may be showing his bias but there was cheerleading as I've exampled.
It's over.
It's only a footy club, it's not life and death.
We differ, we go forward having resolved differences.
There were also 2 members who asked some questions of the board that were cheered & clapped by their supporters , is that too cheerleading
-
Fiery? Not at all. It was mainly cheer leading for the board with only really 2 people questioning them. Well done to Peter for asking some good questions which the board avoided to answer. Main outcome is we keep our right to make the board accountable with 100 signatures.
Cheerleading , because its an opposing opinion to yourself , yeah right
There were two members who got up at the end and congratulated the board on the great job they were doing and they were both met with applause and hear, hears.
I would say that's cheerleading, wouldn't you.
I agree with your implication that Harry may be showing his bias but there was cheerleading as I've exampled.
It's over.
It's only a footy club, it's not life and death.
We differ, we go forward having resolved differences.
There were also 2 members who asked some questions of the board that were cheered & clapped by their supporters , is that too cheerleading
Probably, but there's a bit of difference between asking questions and giving testimonials thanking the board.
-
You fundamentally misunderstand.
When Harry talks about questioning "them" he is talking about the resolutions.
When a vote is called for a motion it is the right of members to "make statements" arguing the merits of motions.
If board members or anyone else wants to rebut those statements that is also fair and reasonable.
Speed was quite right and correct in his handling in saying the motions would be put and seconded before a debate could ensue, followed by a vote.
It was also very fair, even classy, for Speed to say there had been a handout and asked if anybody wanted one.
I certainly didn't misunderstand at all.
I am quite aware that people are allowed to make statements. But when some says I have question and then proceeds to make a statement and not actually ask a question then it is very difficult for anyone to answer a question because there simply isn't one. That was my point
Yes Speed was right in how he handle things, thought he was super impressive.
But the tone of some in the room was disrespectful. Throw in people yelling out and make statements over other members and it was poor. That's not offering a rebuttal.
Some people refused to follow the requirements of how things were supposed to be run. That's is disrespectful.
Agree Speed was classy, extremely so.
-
I certainly didn't misunderstand at all.
I am quite aware that people are allowed to make statements. But when some says I have question and then proceeds to make a statement and not actually ask a question then it is very difficult for anyone to answer a question because there simply isn't one. That was my point
Yes Speed was right in how he handle things, thought he was super impressive.
But the tone of some in the room was disrespectful. Throw in people yelling out and make statements over other members and it was poor. That's not offering a rebuttal.
Some people refused to follow the requirements of how things were supposed to be run. That's is disrespectful.
Agree Speed was classy, extremely so.
And one of the people interjecting was the president.
I can remember a couple of times when she interjected over Speed to put her point, using the microphone in front of him.
-
So how did our esteemed coaches speech go?
-
So how did our esteemed coaches speech go?
Larfs and giggles mostly. We are all hurting and we look to improve. Everyone is training the house down
-
Good outcome on Wednesday.
Nice to keep some semblance of accountability.
The director's election also showed there are a fair number of members who want better. Status quo directors got about 60% of the vote and alternatives around 40%. I hope the board do the right thing and appoint Wallace to the vacated position.
On the 100 members to trigger an EGM:
(a) on the basis of less than 5000 members voting, 100 members represents more than 2% of engaged members;
(b) I cant remember the last time members called an EGM;
(c) the 5% comparison with lets say for profit companies limited by shares is a false equivalence because shareholders have the option to sell their shares and support another company, an outcome not realistic for football tragics;
(d) the trigger does not usurp the right of members; if the EGM propsed a constitutional change it would still need a 75% majority to succeed;
(e) I'd suggest the cost of tens of thousands would be dwarfed by the mooted Hardwick payout or the drop in sponsorship monies this year. Most of the costs of an EGM would come from mailout of notices. If all notices were made electronic a lot of money could be saved. If the meeting is held at Punt Road, cost overall should not be a factor when factored against accountability and the fact that the EGM 'trigger' has not been pulled as far as I can remember. .
-
Good post. 5% of engaged members ie 250 would be the right number
-
you want the number of votes required to trigger an EGM raised?