Constitutional Review

[dazzledavey36 54,817]

42 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

I don't agree with @george_on_the_outer about this topic but was still starstruck by seeing him live. 

Which one was he?

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

5 minutes ago, BDA said:

84% is pretty comprehensive. Hopefully no more board related distraction for a while. The focus should be on our teams

Genuinely interested if others agree?

I tipped 83% yesterday above, but also thought they'd get more votes in total

I would say 16% is a significant number against, as I'd expect this type of vote would typically have low participation and very high support and sail through as a formality (like 98%)

[Guest]

Not even 4,000 people voted. Surprising considering the amount of debate that’s been had. 

[BDA 22,742]

5 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Genuinely interested if others agree?

I tipped 83% yesterday above, but also thought they'd get more votes in total

I would say 16% is a significant number against, as I'd expect this type of vote would typically have low participation and very high support and sail through as a formality (like 98%)

In an open election there is never 98% one way. Not even Putin gets 98% 

I thought the vote would be carried but didn't really have a sense by how much other than thinking it was unlikely to get more than 90% in favour

I think there are always contrarians who will vote against. And to be fair there have been some valid concerns raised by dissenters in this thread. Some of their points I would agree with but not enough for me to vote against. I don't think 16% against is significant or is anywhere close enough to suggest a general lack of faith in the board. Or enough to undermine or de-stabilise. 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

3 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Not even 4,000 people voted. Surprising considering the amount of debate that’s been had. 

I thought low, my estimate was 20% of my guess of voting members (thought 45k)

Turm out was less than 10%, so very low

Hence the publicity as with active dissenters, need turn out to get the numbers over to pass

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

3 minutes ago, BDA said:

In an open election there is never 98% one way. Not even Putin gets 98% 

I thought the vote would be carried but didn't really have a sense by how much other than thinking it was unlikely to get more than 90% in favour

I think there are always contrarians who will vote against. And to be fair there have been some valid concerns raised by dissenters in this thread. Some of their points I would agree with but not enough for me to vote against. I don't think 16% against is significant or is anywhere close enough to suggest a general lack of faith in the board. Or enough to undermine or de-stabilise. 

That's my point

These sorts of things are usually formalities, rather than contested on a point of contention

Without the Nominations amendments, my guess is there'd have hardly been any resistance at all

[daisycutter 29,612]

46 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

 

I would say 16% is a significant number against, as I'd expect this type of vote would typically have low participation and very high support and sail through as a formality (like 98%)

well 16% of about 10% is really only about 1.6%

this assumes the other 90% weren't dissenters or they would have voted. So the 90% were either happy with the proposal and assumed it would be passed or were just disinterested

[rpfc 28,373]

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well 16% of about 10% is really only about 1.6%

this assumes the other 90% weren't dissenters or they would have voted. So the 90% were either happy with the proposal and assumed it would be passed or were just disinterested

Yes, I was not going to bother until this blokes nonsense again made it to the news and on here. Otherwise, what is there to get riled up against? Convincing 20 members? ‘Preamble No! I want an amble?’ Term limits? Not relying on postal voting?

SNORE!

[Its Time for Another 4,208]

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 

I found it very interesting that out of 66,000 members only 42,000 were eligible to vote. So wonder if Lawrence only got his hands on the 42,000 or the whole 66,000. I wonder what type of memberships make up the other 24,000.

Also interesting that slightly less than 10% were interested enough to vote. I wonder what the percentage is for normal Board elections. 

[DeeZone 9,808]

Glad that our two Proxy votes were of value but a bit surprised that there were only 4,000in total then again we have a lot more free time on our hands.😁🤘✅

[daisycutter 29,612]

44 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

I found it very interesting that out of 66,000 members only 42,000 were eligible to vote. So wonder if Lawrence only got his hands on the 42,000 or the whole 66,000. I wonder what type of memberships make up the other 24,000.

Also interesting that slightly less than 10% were interested enough to vote. I wonder what the percentage is for normal Board elections. 

pretty sure junior and below members would be too young to vote

many (all?) of these are probably lumped under someone else's email (my grand kids certainly are)

there would also be members who are registered under their partners email (the one who pays)

additionally there's probably a small number who either don't have an email address or haven't registered it with the club  

Edited October 26, 2022 by daisycutter

[Palace Dees 2,311]

47 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

I found it very interesting that out of 66,000 members only 42,000 were eligible to vote. So wonder if Lawrence only got his hands on the 42,000 or the whole 66,000. I wonder what type of memberships make up the other 24,000.

Also interesting that slightly less than 10% were interested enough to vote. I wonder what the percentage is for normal Board elections. 

I'm pretty sure you had to be an adult (and probably full) member

* Hope my Melb Cup bet doesn't get pipped at the post like I just was by daisycutter  🤣

Edited October 26, 2022 by Palace Dees

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,367]

66k was the mens team membership. Did any stand alone members of our womens team also get a vote on our amended constitution I wonder? 

[Palace Dees 2,311]

4 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Which one was he?

I'm guessing it was the articulate, good looking young man wearing glasses. Just oozed Demonlander.

Oh, and introducing himself as George helped.  😉

[Ugottobekidding 1,184]

There is a message to the board, most people are only interested in football, not your politics.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

66k was the mens team membership. Did any stand alone members of our womens team also get a vote on our amended constitution I wonder? 

This is a good question. I’m thinking the answer is no. I’ve bought AFLW membership for my sons and the only one who received emails is the one who also has membership for the men’s. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

9 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

I found it very interesting that out of 66,000 members only 42,000 were eligible to vote.

 

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

pretty sure junior and below members would be too young to vote

 

8 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

I'm pretty sure you had to be an adult (and probably full) member

I believe when you purchase your membership initially one of the things it lists is "Club voting rights (if over 18)".

[Lord Nev 13,512]

15 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This is a good question. I’m thinking the answer is no. I’ve bought AFLW membership for my sons and the only one who received emails is the one who also has membership for the men’s. 

Is your son under 18 by any chance WCW? It could be that? Going by this below, it at least looks like AFLW members would get to vote.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Is your son under 18 by any chance WCW? It could be that? Going by this below, it at least looks like AFLW members would get to vote.

Of the two who have only AFLW membership, one is over 18 and the other is 17. But neither received anything.

edit: my eldest just told me he has since changed his email and that’s why he wouldn’t have received anything. Mystery solved. 🙂

Edited October 26, 2022 by WalkingCivilWar

[mo64 5,874]

I have little to no time for politics in sporting organizations. Because 99% of the time it's ego driven, rather than what's best for the club.

I only started reading this thread last week, and read about the court case. The only reason I chose to vote was because Deemocracy had the temerity to seek access to my personal details. I actual thought that the Deemocracy correspondence came from the club. The email went to Spam, and the mail went straight into the recycle bin. I didn't read either. Deemocracy's court challenge also wasted the club's money in fighting the case. How can anyone think that they have the club's interests at heart?

I'm sure I'm like 90% of supporters and ignored any correspondence they received, hence the low voting numbers. 

 

[demon3165 2,717]

12 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Not even 4,000 people voted. Surprising considering the amount of debate that’s been had. 

After being on a board of a club I can tell you people ore only interested to be involved unless it affects them, for instance if the club were to merge etc otherwise it is something that they enjoy for 6 months of the year and thats it.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,542]

11 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

I found it very interesting that out of 66,000 members only 42,000 were eligible to vote. So wonder if Lawrence only got his hands on the 42,000 or the whole 66,000. I wonder what type of memberships make up the other 24,000.

Also interesting that slightly less than 10% were interested enough to vote. I wonder what the percentage is for normal Board elections. 

Under 18s. Plus there are some memberships (armchair, etc) that don't have voting rights

Edited October 26, 2022 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,542]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This is a good question. I’m thinking the answer is no. I’ve bought AFLW membership for my sons and the only one who received emails is the one who also has membership for the men’s. 

AFLW members have voting rights.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,542]

13 hours ago, Matt Demon said:

Anything mentioned about a home base / training facility?

No, it was an SGM where the only agenda item was the resolution on the constitution.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,542]

13 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

All the questions from the floor were good I thought. Didn't count numbers, but would say 7-8 people

With maybe 4-5 specifically focussed on the Nominations 20+ number, 1 around the presence of the preamble, 1 on electioneering, 1 on all/nothing vs options, 1 on voting procedure

I was surprised to hear the working group added the Nominations amendments after member input - would love to know some stats as to how many gave feedback in either direction as thats clearly the divisive point... My gut tells me they heard what they wanted to hear

I was someone who had the opportunity to participate in some of the Zoom meetings.  In one of them, the Demon Army one, we had a lengthy discussion about the powers to suspend/expel members, and as a result of that discussion, the entire section 2.4 was included in the new constitution.  I had a chat last night with David Rennick regarding that, and he said he really enjoyed the robust discussion in the Demon Army Zoom consultancy and a lot of our concerns were taken into account.  So yes, we were listened to.  

One thing to remember, there are 66,000 members.  Not all suggestions of all the members consulted could possibly be accommodated.  Kate said there were things she wanted included but weren't.  That's the purpose of consultancy - to take on board suggestions as a whole, which one would work within the structure of the club, and which ones the members are happy with.  David Rennick and John Trotter (another board member who I spoke to at length last night) had met several times with Peter Lawrence and tried to meet with him half way.  I should also point out that on principle Peter was in agreeance with many of the amendments.  It wasn't feasible or appropriate for one member to take a "my way or the highway" approach - that isn't good governance.

I was at the meeting last night.  I thought it interesting that one conspicuous absence was Peter Lawrence.....