Author Topic: Proposed 2017 RFC Constitution amendments - New EGM & Life membership criteria  (Read 1053 times)

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 46090
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
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.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline Slipper

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
  • For We're From Tigerland
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.

Offline RedanTiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
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.

Offline RedanTiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
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.

 
 

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 62153
    • One-Eyed Richmond
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

Offline Rodgerramjet

  • OER - CONTRIBUTOR
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
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 holes, 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.
Disinformation is 70% letting stupid journalists make the wrong assumptions, repeatedly.

Offline Knighter

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • For We're From Tigerland
 :thumbsdown
Peggy Sue and her merry bunch of Yes men can GAGF’d

Offline Slipper

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
  • For We're From Tigerland
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?

Offline Rodgerramjet

  • OER - CONTRIBUTOR
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
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.
Disinformation is 70% letting stupid journalists make the wrong assumptions, repeatedly.

Offline Slipper

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
  • For We're From Tigerland
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.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 30809
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
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

"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Online Rampsation

  • Jack Dyer medallist
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • For We're From Tigerland
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.

Offline YellowandBlackBlood

  • Long suffering….
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9192
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. 
OER. Calling it as it is since 2004.

Online Rampsation

  • Jack Dyer medallist
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • For We're From Tigerland
101

Offline YellowandBlackBlood

  • Long suffering….
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9192
OER. Calling it as it is since 2004.