Graeme Yeats' Mullet

Can anyone tell me if I missed the Directors election? I received the email to vote on special resolution... but the notice of AGM says... "As there are three Board vacancies and five candidates, an election of directors has been conducted in accordance with the Constitution. As required by rule 3.4(f) of the Constitution, the results of the ballot will be received at this Annual General Meeting" Has been conducted.... When? I don't recall a notification, and didn't receive letter? This was first chance to use electronic voting as per Constitution changes

I take your point But the membership had an opportunity to vote on a set of changes to the constitution that strengthened the Board's control over the shape of the Board, and while 17% or so voted against (a significant signal, but not enough to stop) the membership supported it - either the membership broadly agreed, or were hoodwinked by the window dressing changes that accompanied the substance... ?? I like the member resolution because it's simple and focused. But I doubt there's going to be significant support against the Board

Going to be fun to watch... The new board member replacing John Trotter 3 months out from election is a clever but obvious ploy by Board to have a new board member stand for election as existing board member rather than open up a position to be contested by a new candidate or multiple in an enev contest The members resolution appears to have little consequence (?? from my quick overview) other than send a message and a little procedure - be intersting to see how the numbers pan out on that

I got it!! 🤣 Nice one!

An Umpire, wow 😳

They are both consistent aren't they? Article states AFL Club Support member Club note states AFL members not eligible Actually, the article is poorly written and confuses Barry Cassidy opinion with example of the specific Member, and the 15k/85k number doesn't seem right given Melbourne has a 42k/23k ratio with similar categories and some similarity in rules Melbourne has MCC/ MFC (basic/premium) - for a long time the only difference really was a Vote, then they threw in some steak knifes

Oh OK It was the last guy.... Therefore, no one will ever stretch the bounds again... Thank God for that! I guess I'm fine then making it harder for individuals to nominate for the Board, and strengthening the Board powers through Nominations sub committee 🙄 (to solve a problem that doesn't exist)

That's the point When it was 2, there was no deterrence required. If the above poster is correct (no contest since 2003), then why... ?

Refer the email signed by the Chairman dated 14 Jan 2021

Absolutely they should They now just need 10x as many members to support them as they did last week, and as most other similar clubs require (to avoid the problem of frivolous nominations - which we don't have) And they can be limited to write a 250 word pitch and be prepared to be campaigned against by the Board using club resources

Did you hear it? As I've said many times I think and have thought very highly of her, and that she's done a great job to date. I think she presents very well and quite down to earth But it was a distasteful comment at the wrong time, and appeared to be an attempt at humour based on Moe, not Joe Blow Sounded ordinary, others have agreed above

Assuming you are a member... then, You are a member of the club, not a customer of a business You signed up and agreed to what it means to be a member. Having your details on the member roll, and those details being available in relation to the business of the club is part of that...

This is what's being missed by many The requirements for increasing member support on Nominations, and I suspect also a consequence of formalising the Nominations subcommittee, are aimed at reducing likelihood of having contested elections If what you say is true - largely in response to 1 contested election in 20 years.... Where electronic voting reduces costs anyway... And as one person questioned on the night - why different from so many other Clubs

It was Joey from Moe And it was a terrible faux pas from Kate, who up until that point I'd thought was doing a great job Snobbish and unnecessary

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