AGM 2011 - now Wed Dec 21st not Dec 14th

[Penelope]

vote yes

[gerkin greg]

YES!

[JVT]

Yes 

[WilliamPowell]

Nah 

[Smokey]

Yeah.

Because I don't care how the best people get to our Board, just that they get there.  We can only be the best by being the best in all facets of the club.

[WilliamPowell]

Yeah.

Because I don't care how the best people get to our Board, just that they get there.  We can only be the best by being the best in all facets of the club.

You making the assumption smokey that those appointed are definitely going to be the best people  , no doubt they got it right in Oct/Nov with Speed & and the other bloke but what happens if the next lot aren't of that calibre ?

And doesn't it concern you just a little that quality people have supposedly been "gin shy" about joining the board because they were afraid of facing an election 

[Penelope]

appointed directors still must get a vote of approval at the next AGM though billy.

I don't believe that unopposed elected directors do?

[WilliamPowell]

appointed directors still must get a vote of approval at the next AGM though billy.

I don't believe that unopposed elected directors do?

That's not how I read it al, appointed directors get a fixed 2 year term is how I read it

[Penelope]

Public company—confirmation by next AGM

             (3)  If a person is appointed by the other directors as a director of a public company, the company must confirm the appointment by resolution at the company’s next AGM. If the appointment is not confirmed, the person ceases to be a director of the company at the end of the AGM.

Members themselves can also vote out any director, appointed or elected, if and when they see fit.

[gerkin greg]

So does anyone know if any of the other clubs with similar board structures:

(a) have had any problems with it
(b) have won a grand final/s in the last 15 years
(c) have any debt

thanks,
gg

[Smokey]

Yeah.

Because I don't care how the best people get to our Board, just that they get there.  We can only be the best by being the best in all facets of the club.

You making the assumption smokey that those appointed are definitely going to be the best people  , no doubt they got it right in Oct/Nov with Speed & and the other bloke but what happens if the next lot aren't of that calibre ?

And doesn't it concern you just a little that quality people have supposedly been "gin shy" about joining the board because they were afraid of facing an election 

I'm not making that assumption WP but I believe I am increasing the chances of a win for the club if a candidate for the board has been head-hunted for a particular skillset and subjected to a thorough review of his/her credentials by the board itself.  An argument was thrown up on another forum that if this option had been available when Clinton Casey was President then it could have made a bad situation worse and while I concede that this could have been a possibility I look at it this way - to the best of my knowledge Casey was elected via our current method so there is no glowing endorsement there and we retain the right to vote any of the appointed board members out as soon as they are up for re-election (which they must be exposed to according to the proposed constitutional changes).  I just think that from a risk management perspective it stands up.  A mate of mine (GP Doctor) who posts on another forum said that a board of which he has been a long standing member (at least the 8 years I've known him) has this capacity and it functions very well for them.  It allows the board to be the best it can be by seeking out the skills it requires or is deficient in and obtaining them.  I would rather a wide cross-section of skills, experiences and ideas from the board members than run the risk of a board containing too many of the same types of people.  And it doesn't worry me that they might be "gun shy" as it's the club chasing them, not them chasing a board position so why would they bother going through all the election crap?  I fully support them being up for re-election at the first available opportunity as we do need them to be accountable to us members but not for the initial appointment.

To be honest it's not a war-winner for me and won't worry me too much which way the vote goes but I believe it's a step forward for the club and so will vote for the change.

[The Big Richo]

Just pee the entire board and all staff off and hand the club over to me.

Guaranteed Dynasty, with emphasis on Nasty.

[WilliamPowell]

So does anyone know if any of the other clubs with similar board structures:

(a) have had any problems with it
(b) have won a grand final/s in the last 15 years
(c) have any debt

thanks,
gg

Yes Essendon has the format we are proposing but it's only been in the last 3 years

Peter Jackson was made a voting Director and then used his vote to extend Knights contract

But using essendon as example the answers to your questions

(a) Depends on how you view the Knights appointment and how that hapened
(b) Yes they won a flag  but not while they had this system
(c) No debt

[WilliamPowell]

To be honest it's not a war-winner for me and won't worry me too much which way the vote goes but I believe it's a step forward for the club and so will vote for the change.

Are you flying in for the AGM smokey 

[gerkin greg]

Yes Essendon has the format we are proposing but it's only been in the last 3 years

who are the other nuffers?