Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting thread................ but my head hurts now :confused:

Two things I took from all of this:

1: We all love our club immensely, with so many passionate and loyal supporters...... our future is strong!

2: I'm over Ron Joseph...... personal opinion
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bigeasy said:
I'm sick of these former administrators still trying to have an influence at the club. They dislike Brayshaw because he watered down their influence and power and they dont like it. People like PDR and RJ keep talking about a boys club at the club now but from what I remember when they were running the club, members didn't have much of a voice, if at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Joseph, DeRauch, Aylett et al have had their go now let JB and his team have theirs. While I initially agreed with the WANM proposal, like HtB, I have changed my mind.

These former administrators don't have the club's interest at heart, they have their own and I'm over all the public posturing they like to engage in. They should shut up and support the club or approach JB privately and give him the respect he deserves or they can all get stuffed.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my feeling - just sour losers who a self centred
 
berniemccarthy said:
HTB you are exhausting. Everyone is explicitly aware of your opinions on this matter. Limerick is politely responding to people's questions or points and you just can't help yourself but lash out with another tiresome insult. Do us all a favour and have lie down.
Click to expand...

Speaking in behalf of everybody again.

Typical WANM arrogance.
 
Hard_to_Beat said:
Speaking in behalf of everybody again.

Typical WANM arrogance.
Click to expand...
You give me far too much credit. I have nothing at all to do with WANM. I am just sick to death of you trying to dominate other people's opinions. You have made your point any number of times. Time to give it a rest. The people on this forum are so few compared to the number of members available to vote the arguments going on here are of little overall consequence.

There are those for an those against. We all love NMFC. You should learn to accept that instead of decrying those that disagree with you as morons and infidels.
 
Mascot Greggo said:
With berniemccarthy making such an inciteful assessment, I'm more than happy for him to speak on my behalf.

He's a WANM member to boot is he? Well good on him.

Anyone else agree with berniemccarthy??
Click to expand...

The use of names was taking it too far but htb is rightfully allowed to have his say.
Voting against the motion does not mean I'm for relocation - it just means I'm backing the blokes in to continue to grow and make my club secure. They are doing a good enough job for my liking and deserve our unconditional support.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ArjenTheGreat said:
The use of names was taking it too far but htb is rightfully allowed to have his say.
Voting against the motion does not mean I'm for relocation - it just means I'm backing the blokes in to continue to grow and make my club secure. They are doing a good enough job for my liking and deserve our unconditional support.
Click to expand...
HTB needs to learn to play the issue, not the man.

Also ATG, do you place unconditional faith in unknown members of future boards? Because that's what the WANM proposal is all about - protection in the future. (Leaving aside the fact that the current board has already tried to move 7 home games to Tassie!!!!)
 
Saintly31 said:
I aknowledged Kangalovers support and work towards the club.

However Horace, both are irrelevant with regard to the issue at hand and the posters stance and the claims made which are explicit for all to see. Above 4 games (or was it even 2 as per current, who knows?) and she doesn't support the club - that is a very disappointing stance and in my view simple mindedness to the issue we face as a club.

In your own words you may support otherwise - so which is it, as you appear to be having "an each way bet"? I thank you for maintaining a respectful approach unlike some others.
Click to expand...

Sorry Saintly31 but you used the words "simple mindedness" in an effort to dismiss the validity of the points made by Kangalover. The term simple mindedness questions intellectual capacity, is derogatry and of a humiliating nature. It is out of line and if you choose to use terms like this then it is relevant to the thread irrespective of whether it is relevant to the topic.

I don't think I am having "an each way bet". I am simply stating how I would view the two different possibilities that the success or otherwise of the motion at the AGM might one day deliver to us.

This is what I wrote:

For the record, if hypothetically the board came to us as members, with a proposal to play say 6 home games in Tasmania, next year, and are able to argue cogently that such an arrangement is in the best long term interests of the club, I may not like it, but on balance of probability I would support it.

On the other hand if the board just unilaterally hoisted such a move on to the members, without any chance for us to have any input, then on balance of probability I would withdraw my membership from the club.

What I am saying is that as individual members we have a democratic right to vote one way or the other depending on how we are treated by the organisation. Include us, consult with us and involve us in the decision and the chances are that we will back you.

But if you insult us, take us for granted, make decisions without proper explanation beforehand, then we lose trust. Why then should we continue to support an orgainsation that doesn't respect us in the first instance. Trust and respect are two way streets.

This was one of the problems with the 1996 takeover of Fitzroy by Brisbane. The board at Fitzroy provided us with comprehensive and regular information about our negotiations with the NMFC to form the North Fitzroy Kangaroos. But the club was put into administration, the board was was ousted and the AFL forced through a merger with Brisbane.

Such was the anger at member level at how shabbily we were treated, the merger was doomed from the word go insofar as having any chance to have a solid level of support from many old Royboys. We couldn't believe that our club was just taken away from us without having any say at all. To make matters worse, the then Brisbane chief, Noel Gordon sneered at us on the Footy show the night of the merger announcement and turned even more away.

We were taken for granted and felt powerless. We had just one power left to us and that was to not join as members of the Brisbane Lions. And many exercised that power.

And that is how I see the current situation. If the board has the power to just change/increase the number of games played interstate without giving us a chance to know why and have a say then they are in my view repeating the mistakes of the past albeit made by a different entity, being the Brisbane Lions. They will like the Lions, be taking us for granted and many of us will, just like so many old Royboys, make a decision not to continue with our memberships or at best maybe downgrade our memberships.

I think that the NMFC, if it chooses to act in this way at some time in the future, despite all of the good work it has done since 2007, will be acting at its peril.
 
Not sure how this is relevant to the thread but whenever 'relocating' and 'North' are in the same sentence, I love looking at this clip.

Aic2b8a.gif
 
I normally feel pride that any person has put the jumper on and gone out to battle representing the club, he is one of the very few exceptions.
 
There is no reason for the current board not to back this amendment, it is not overly restrictive as no other team has ever played more than 4 home games interstate (with the exception of South Melbourne).
(It still allows them to sell more than we currently do and does not prevent them from also sending games to Ballarat at the same time)


I'm starting to think that the board aren't supporting this because the AFL have made it known to them that they do not want this change to occur.
 
Horace said:
This was one of the problems with the 1996 takeover of Fitzroy by Brisbane. The board at Fitzroy provided us with comprehensive and regular information about our negotiations with the NMFC to form the North Fitzroy Kangaroos. But the club was put into administration, the board was was ousted and the AFL forced through a merger with Brisbane.

Such was the anger at member level at how shabbily we were treated, the merger was doomed from the word go insofar as having any chance to have a solid level of support from many old Royboys. We couldn't believe that our club was just taken away from us without having any say at all. To make matters worse, the then Brisbane chief, Noel Gordon sneered at us on the Footy show the night of the merger announcement and turned even more away.
Click to expand...


As you bring up the Fitzroy situation, I'd be interested to hear a legal interpretation as to whether a resolution like the one WANM is proposing would have blocked the administrator from forcing the Brisbane merger. Surely once a club is regarded as insolvent and is placed in administration, any constitutional safeguards are no longer enforceable, especially when an offer is available to allow the club to avoid bankruptcy and repay outstanding debts.
 
Shinboner Schem said:
There is no reason for the current board not to back this amendment, it is not overly restrictive as no other team has ever played more than 4 home games interstate (with the exception of South Melbourne).
(It still allows them to sell more than we currently do and does not prevent them from also sending games to Ballarat at the same time)


I'm starting to think that the board aren't supporting this because the AFL have made it known to them that they do not want this change to occur.
Click to expand...


You're going a bit tinfoil hat on us with that last comment. Honestly guys, I like the idea of the proposal and what you are hoping to achieve, but the faux naif argument over why the board does not support you is starting to wear thin. You are too intelligent to get away with pretending you don't understand the board's position.
 
LT Smash said:
As you bring up the Fitzroy situation, I'd be interested to hear a legal interpretation as to whether a resolution like the one WANM is proposing would have blocked the administrator from forcing the Brisbane merger. Surely once a club is regarded as insolvent and is placed in administration, any constitutional safeguards are no longer enforceable, especially when an offer is available to allow the club to avoid bankruptcy and repay outstanding debts.
Click to expand...

Once a Club went into liquidation then I would suspect the the Merger clause wouldn't have any effect if the Administrator had such an offerto merge and the AFL supported it.

My understanding of the Fitzroy situation is that the AFL licence was handed back to the AFL, the club effectively wound up and the licence used to bring in Port Adelaide. The merger of Fitzroy with the Brisbane Bears was a PR exercise.
 
I was shocked when the original 3 game Hobart deal went to 7 for the state and was glad to see it get pulled . Maybe because I live over here and don't go to any games or just because I am a Sepo I am seeing this from a different angle (bare with me here) I saw it as just a contract renegotiation between TAS and the Hawks . when JB and the board brought up the idea of the 3 game deal Not sure if it was a HUN or an a age article there was a quote or a link from a tassy newspaper article with someone from Tas saying they didn't like the deal they already had with Hawks . In comes our 7 game deal for the state with ( AFL money added in the sweeten the deal kinda like the GWS Marketing money going to Buddy if he decides to sign with GWS). Tas and the Hawks come to an agreement JB and the board remind the we are happy to keep the original deal on the table and worked to get done. end of story ... until the end of last year and they want to renegotiate the contract with us I thought here we go again .

I get the reason for having Constitution protections in place against Merger (we have) relocation , and a limit on relocation home games . the motion as I see it is 3 issues rapped up in one . Would it have been better if the Constitution wording read Merger or Relocation . and the Home games relocation #s whether permanently temporary or otherwise be a separate issue allowing the club the flexibility it needs within reason ? Is a temporary relocation of games reasonable for the betterment of the club ? we are doing that now. is the permanent relocation of games reasonable I say no way
JB has said“The reason I don’t agree with it Bill, is that I think the wording is very restrictive for future administrations because you’ve got to be able to run the business and you’ve got to be able to grow the business and you can’t do that if you have things like this in your Constitution stopping you when opportunities arise.”

JB and the board don't agree with the wording of the change isn't this why we chose to at the time re-elect William T Houghton QC over a less experienced attorney last AGM
to flesh out things like this out for the board. But hang on Euge is attorney and he is for the motion ( ex-club people's possible sour grapes against the current board aside ) what these guys do for a living is argue 2 different sides of the same text. anyone remember Bill Clinton arguing over the definition of the word "IS" he was an attorney that's what they do. What is the Buddy Rule or a Natural Arc ? an interpretation of text . Maybe that is why it was presented to the board and us members the way it was, At 1st glace it seems completely reasonable to agree with it and make anyone who disagree with it seem unreasonable maybe that was on purpose .
but this is what they and we were given

4. Notice of Motion – Constitution amendments
Pursuant to Section 249D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001, on the request of:
(a) Members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at the General Meeting; or
(b) at least 100 Members who are entitled to vote at the General Meeting;
the Board of the NMFC must call a General Meeting to consider and vote upon any motion described in such request. .
along with the rest of the motion
and we have to vote on it as it is written

To me that doesn't mean anyone that is against the motion is for relocation but just agrees with the boards assessment of the motion as it was put to club.

So now we vote on the motion we have been given .

I completely agree we as members wanting to keep This great club based at Arden Street insure our future at Arden Street and and insure that the footy department has the tools it needs to be competitive and to protect it from Co-location / Relocation by the AFL and others . but is this motion going to allow this board or the next accomplish it ?

As the title on on of the other said this AGM is going to be a Belter . I realize my lack of knowledge of how AGM's work how much discussion time is given for motion before the motion is put for a vote ? are members allowed to voice specific parts of the motion or why we would want a simmilar motion added to the constitution to have certain protections put in place while allowing the board some flexibility to do what they were elected by us to do at a future AGM ? How long is the current Tassie deal in place for ? 2 more years ?


As KB would that's my view .

sorry for the wonky text from the copy and pasting














 
LT Smash said:
As you bring up the Fitzroy situation, I'd be interested to hear a legal interpretation as to whether a resolution like the one WANM is proposing would have blocked the administrator from forcing the Brisbane merger. Surely once a club is regarded as insolvent and is placed in administration, any constitutional safeguards are no longer enforceable, especially when an offer is available to allow the club to avoid bankruptcy and repay outstanding debts.
Click to expand...

Well far be it for me to provide a legal interpretation but the answer is NO, it would not have altered anything. All the resolution will do is compel the board to put any proposal to increase the number of home games (beyond 4) to be played interstate to the members.

If a club becomes insolvent or is placed into insolvency by shall we say “questionable” tactics – read the AFL, Nauru and the Administrator – then all bets are off.

Any club, not just North, with a debt problem and maybe a “difficult” balance sheet, should always be aware that things can happen very quickly where the AFL is concerned. The best advice there is to never trust the b*******.

In such a situation the board loses all control; the members have no say; it is entirely up to the Administrator and the AFL to negotiate and decide what happens to the club and its assets.

It is a very good point that you raise LT Smash because if there is one that frightens the directors of football clubs (or any organisation) more than anything, it is the prospect of being unable to satisfy its creditors and as a consequence having one of them taking steps to wind the club up.

I would imagine that the club may well argue that this is one of the reasons why they do not want this amendment and while I have a lot of sympathy for their position, I would also argue that keeping us properly and regularly informed and asking us to buy into any solution to such a potential problem as that, is the best way forward.

Your question LT Smash is one that might well be classed as a “leading” question or, if we were in parliament, a “Dorothy Dixer”. I wonder if maybe you are a little closer to some of the people on the board, but then again maybe I’m just a suspicious person. I hope that the question is just one out of idle curiosity rather than maybe pointing to something else that maybe many of us do not know yet.
 
WatooRoo said:
To me that doesn't mean anyone that is against the motion is for relocation but just agrees with the boards assessment of the motion as it was put to club (1).

So now we vote on the motion we have been given .

I completely agree we as members wanting to keep This great club based at Arden Street insure our future at Arden Street and and insure that the footy department has the tools it needs to be competitive and to protect it from Co-location / Relocation by the AFL and others . but is this motion going to allow this board or the next accomplish it ? (2)

As the title on on of the other said this AGM is going to be a Belter . I realize my lack of knowledge of how AGM's work how much discussion time is given for motion before the motion is put for a vote ? (3) are members allowed to voice specific parts of the motion or why we would want a simmilar motion added to the constitution to have certain protections put in place while allowing the board some flexibility to do what they were elected by us to do at a future AGM ? (4) How long is the current Tassie deal in place for ? 2 more years ? (5)

As KB would that's my view . sorry for the wonky text from the copy and pasting
Click to expand...

Hi WR, I'll try and respond to your questions.

1. Agree that you can vote against the motion and not be pro relocation. You are essentially putting your trust in future Boards.

2. Does the motion allow future Boards to "insure that the footy department has the tools it needs to be competitive and to protect it from Co-location / Relocation by the AFL and others".I believe that it does by allowing, without requiring any vote, to play up to 4 home games interstate for as long as any Board feels the need.


3. Voting has commenced in that members are now able to cast proxy votes to others, primarilary to James Brayshaw who will vote against the motion and John Raleigh (me) who will vote for the motion. Other people can also be proxies. Using the previous board member election results as a guide, up to 75% (that magic figure again) of votes will be cast via proxy and therefore before the AGM.

4. Will the issue be be debated at the AGM and can the motion be modified. My understanding is No.

5. The current Tasmanian 2 game pa deal is for 3 years (2012-14). This isn't to say that it can't be modified to 3 or more games during this period. The comments by JB seem to indicate that 3 will be the next deal or perhaps renegotiated within the current deal.

The typical voter outturn for director elections is around 2,000 out of a possible 23,000 - 25,000 (adult game attending memberships). Multiple membership holders can only vote once if those memberships are in their name.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

Similar threads

giantroo
News Two new additions to the club's Board of Directors
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Gasometer
Gasometer
D
2023 Season Pressure Rating
Replies
7
Views
545
Horizons_00
Horizons_00
SnowRoo
The one question I want the club to answer
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
sruss
sruss
R
This club is genuinely cursed
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
ChairmanZia
ChairmanZia
K
Recruits from other clubs
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
WesternRoo
W
Gasometer
Game Day 2024 Brownlow - AFL & Nmfc
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
503
Views
10K
Gasometer
Gasometer
M
VFL/AFL Reserves 2025 and beyond
Replies
0
Views
204
Mr north man
M

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top