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

[Francois Jackson]

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.

[Harry]

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.

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

[WilliamPowell]

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

[one-eyed]

Bump.

A reminder that the AGM is this Wednesday night.

[one-eyed]

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

[one-eyed]

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

[WilliamPowell]

Fiery is a good description

I thought it got quite heated at times

It was an interesting evening

[Harry]

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. 

[Francois Jackson]

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.

[one-eyed]

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

[WilliamPowell]

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 

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.

[Harry]

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. 

[WilliamPowell]

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.

[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.

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. 

[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.

Bit hard to answer question when some people were making statements and giving opinions not actually asking a question 

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.