Caro still bitter about Casey

[one-eyed]

Vic clubs pay price for people power
Caroline Wilson | June 10, 2007 | The Age

SEVERAL weeks ago during a round-table discussion about the relatively poor performances of Victorian clubs in recent years, one administrator suggested that teams from the former VFL were still hamstrung by their membership structures.

Non-Victorian clubs, went the argument, were largely controlled by their state commissions or, like Sydney, had resisted for years members playing any meaningful role in deciding the fate of presidents by allowing them to vote for directors.

But, by and large, club members outside Victoria have very little say in the make-up of their boards which takes away the passion and the emotion of so many tough decisions. At the time, the round-table argument reeked of AFL arrogance but after the events of this past week [Butterss-Thomas] I am not so sure.

Clinton Casey held back Richmond by lingering for all the wrong reasons, and after plunging the club into debt lured Greg Miller to the board simply to last an extra year for the sake of his own credibility. The Tigers are still paying for that.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/vic-clubs-pay-price-for-people-power/2007/06/09/1181089394243.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[Fishfinger]

I'd love Caro to provide evidence of how Casey lingering was for all the wrong reasons seeing he was elected.  ???

I reckon Caro would be best to stfu about that club election, particularly the lead up to the vote, because her personal gripes seem more important to her than facts or the well-being of the RFC.

Although St Kilda has thrived off-field he has now been forced to fend off two challenges — one from a shirtmaker and one from a comedian who only needs 100 signatures to force a spill of board positions.

I'm pretty sure the Federal Government put through legislation to change this to 5% so that large corporations weren't forced to do this by a potentially tiny minority from within.

Aren't AFL clubs corporations? If so, I'd be thinking something closer to 1500 signatures would be required.

I can't find evidence that the legislation was enacted, only that it was tabled in 2005.
I think Richmond have altered their constitution. I doubt they would have done so unless Corporate Law allowed it.

[mightytiges]

I think it's now 5% but like you FF I can't find a definite answer on that in the Corporations Act. The copy on the Federal Government still has both 5% or 100 signatures  .

5% of 30000 members is 1500.

As for Caro, we did have a election and the ticket she gave support to in her articles lost convincingly . Caro often gets the scoops but as far as Richmond goes it's often scoops from the faceless few who have been nothing but destructive influences on our club for two decades.