132nd RFC Annual General Meeting --- Wed. Dec. 14 @ 6pm

[taztiger4]

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

[RedanTiger]

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.

[taztiger4]

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

[RedanTiger]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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.

[RedanTiger]

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.

[MintOnLamb]

So how did our esteemed coaches speech go?

[Harry]

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

[The Glove]

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. .

[Harry]

Good post.  5% of engaged members ie 250 would be the right number

[Penelope]

you want the number of votes required to trigger an EGM raised?