Football > Richmond Rant
Casey gone
Tiger Spirit:
--- Quote from: froars on September 28, 2004, 04:06:28 PM ---Does it make sense - not really, because this will be a completely new board if 9 stand down - who decides who's taking over from whom?
--- End quote ---
Too complicated for me froars. I guess if they have nominations they would do it in the order of nominations received.
--- Quote from: froars on September 28, 2004, 04:06:28 PM ---But i tell you what else doesn't make sense, is the fact that if Schwab and Welsh had have stayed put and not resigned, they still could have had their campaign while on the board, and if there was such a rush of support for them, three new members could have been elected - and they would have had a majority on the board anyway. Then a vote of no-confidence in Casey and whammo. And if that's the case, doesn't seem too smart to me by Schwab to stand down, because if there is some legal reason why a spill can't happen, then it would go to a normal AGM and only 3 positions up for grabs - and we could be left with the situation of having Welsh and Schwab voted back on. A bit of a farce scenario IMO.
--- End quote ---
They haven’t known what they were doing all along and they expect us to want them to be in charge of our footy club. :banghead
mightytiges:
If there is an election I hope everyone just gets on with it and there's no further challenge in the months afterwards. If we have a situation where Turner and Matthies are on the outer with Casey and 3 people from the alternative are elected then combined the 5 could hold a bare majority. We don't need further political upheaval to drag into and through 2005 :-\.
mightytiges:
--- Quote from: froars on September 28, 2004, 03:00:05 PM ---In general chit-chat, Don said he was looking forward to the election - by that, i'm not sure if he meant that he was one of the three who would stand down, or just the election in general.
--- End quote ---
On the RFC site under directors, they have Don listed as appointed to the board in Oct 2001. So he might be up for re-election.
--- Quote from: froars on September 28, 2004, 03:00:05 PM ---I don't see how this is workable based on the fact that there will be a spill of the whole board. The complex part comes in when after nine members are elected, who is going to stand down for re-election the following year, as all members are entitled to a three-year term?
--- End quote ---
From the RFC constitution:
8.1.1 ... The members of the Board to retire each year shall be those longest in current office since their last election; as between members elected on the same day, those to retire shall be determined by agreement amongst themselves or, failing such agreement, by lot. Any casual vacancy occurring on the Board may be filled by it, but the person so chosen shall be subject to retirement at the same time as if he had become a member of the Board on the day on which the other member of the Board in whose place he has appointed or was last elected to the Board.
8.1.2 Subject to these Articles, each member shall be elected for a term of three (3) years and shall then be eligible for re-election.
------
So it might mean the whole new nine board members agree to who takes over from which previous board member or it comes down to a "lucky dip" scenario (or clutching at straws lol). The 3 say shortest straws take over the positions of those who were up for re-election in late 2005 will only serve initially one year. The next 3 for 2 years and the last 3 get a full term. Maybe that's how it'll work ???
Tiger Spirit:
--- Quote from: mightytiges on September 29, 2004, 01:54:36 AM ---From the RFC constitution:
8.1.1 ... The members of the Board to retire each year shall be those longest in current office since their last election; as between members elected on the same day, those to retire shall be determined by agreement amongst themselves or, failing such agreement, by lot. Any casual vacancy occurring on the Board may be filled by it, but the person so chosen shall be subject to retirement at the same time as if he had become a member of the Board on the day on which the other member of the Board in whose place he has appointed or was last elected to the Board.
8.1.2 Subject to these Articles, each member shall be elected for a term of three (3) years and shall then be eligible for re-election.
------
So it might mean the whole new nine board members agree to who takes over from which previous board member or it comes down to a "lucky dip" scenario (or clutching at straws lol). The 3 say shortest straws take over the positions of those who were up for re-election in late 2005 will only serve initially one year. The next 3 for 2 years and the last 3 get a full term. Maybe that's how it'll work ???
--- End quote ---
And here's me thinking it's complicated. :-\ :help :P ;D :rollin
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version