Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[GarnerSmash]

The Club issues a public financial statement annually. Membership and attendance totals are public knowledge. What the members would be seeking in the above scenario would be what is the strategy behind requesting a 5th or more interstate or international home games.

Do WANM envisage that this public discussion of explicit club strategy will attract any negative press? I ask as financial reports tell us some general things, a public discussion of matters such as this tell us much, much more and in greater detail.

 

[Limerick]

Do WANM envisage that this public discussion of explicit club strategy will attract any negative press? I ask as financial reports tell us some general things, a public discussion of matters such as this tell us much, much more and in greater detail.

Firstly public discussions don't actually tell us much in terms of detail. Look at the Federal & State politics at the moment, also the Tanking and Performance enhancing drugs issues.

I would simply want to see a strategy that went beyond whoring the Club around for quick buck a la the last decade.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I get what you are saying Lim, I just fear that if the club really want to engage with the supporters, and provide them with a solid rationale as to why they want to sell games that they will need to disclose more than just the benefits or an overall strategy. It is likely that many will want to know why, in a fiscal sense, we are selling more games, which will lead for a call for clarity around the books. Without reasonable disclosure of info I can't see any such request from the club getting up, and with reasonable disclosure I can see certain sections of the media getting stuck in. Devil's advocate etc.

 

[Limerick]

I get what you are saying Lim, I just fear that if the club really want to engage with the supporters, and provide them with a solid rationale as to why they want to sell games that they will need to disclose more than just the benefits or an overall strategy. It is likely that many will want to know why, in a fiscal sense, we are selling more games, which will lead for a call for clarity around the books. Without reasonable disclosure of info I can't see any such request from the club getting up, and with reasonable disclosure I can see certain sections of the media getting stuck in. Devil's advocate etc.

Yes, it would be a delicate balance, but I see it as a better alternative to treating members like mushrooms.

 

[Limerick]

WANM is receiving a number of requests for information as to how to complete the proxy form and has been responding with the text below.

We Are North Melbourne (WANM) was established in Nov 2007 with the objective of supporting efforts to return the club back to its members and to actively present the interests of the ordinary members of the Club to the Board, the AFL and the general public.

In line with this objective WANM has a motion before the NMFC 2012 Annual General Meeting on 19 March 2013 to ensure members have the right to determine if more than
4 home games a season are played outside Victoria.

WANM believes that playing more than 4 home games interstate could significantly weaken the Club in Victoria.

WANM’s concerns are primarily with future unknown Boards and circumstances.

WANM acknowledges the good work and achievements of the James Brayshaw administration over the 2007 -2012 period.

WANM is urging all 2012 Adult members to VOTE by visiting the NMFC website www.nmfc.com.au.

(a) Click on THE CLUB,
(b) Under EVENTS CALENDAR click on ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
(c) Click on download proxy form at the bottom of the page.

If you can’t locate the link to the Proxy Form, or need any help, then e-mail us at wanm@bigpond.com

TO VOTE FOR THIS MOTION

To complete the Proxy form you are required to;

Ø Enter your member name (as shown on your membership card) and address (as used by the NMFC to send mail to you) on page 1,
Repeat step 1 on page 2,
If you are notifying the Club of a new address mark the box with an X and write your new address to the left of this.
Ø Step 1
Ø If you are voting For the motion print John Raleigh in the box provided
Ø If you are voting Against the motion mark the “Chairman” box with an X

Ø Step 2
ØResolution 3. & Resolution 4. Here you have 2 options
1. Leave the boxes blank and let the Proxy vote according to their wish, or
2. Print your choice and then have the Proxy vote according to your choice.

Send it to votingservices@computershare.com.au. WANM is asking that those who vote For the motion also cc to wanm@bigpond.com

You can also mail the completed form to;
Computershare Investor Services P.L., GPO Box 2062, Melbourne VIC 8060

OR fax the form to (03) 9473 2145

 

[Shinboner Schem]

B tron, in the scenario you talk about, the club can divulge any level of detail they want, it doesn't have to be financial details, but if they wanted it to pass a member vote, they'd need to give reason (although many on here seem happy to vote against this motion simply because the board don't support it, so maybe the don't need to)

 

[GarnerSmash]

B tron, in the scenario you talk about, the club can divulge any level of detail they want, it doesn't have to be financial details, but if they wanted it to pass a member vote, they'd need to give reason (although many on here seem happy to vote against this motion simply because the board don't support it, so maybe the don't need to)

I understand that, but as a member I like to make an informed decision. A generic reason will not suffice for me. I would like to know the basis for the reason which opens the clubs activities for all to see if sufficient detail is given. If people are happy to vote yes or no based upon simple rationale rather than a fully explained one I see no point in asking for a vote in the first place. It basically then becomes a popularity contest between those who want to sell games and those who don't. The future of the club is too important for the decisions made on selling games to be made from a base level. Unfortunately I see no alternative.

 

[Saintly31]

B tron, in the scenario you talk about, the club can divulge any level of detail they want, it doesn't have to be financial details, but if they wanted it to pass a member vote, they'd need to give reason (although many on here seem happy to vote against this motion simply because the board don't support it, so maybe the don't need to)

Thats interesting, because I dont think ive read one post where its against the WANM proposal 'simply because the board don't support it'.

I have however, read quite a few posts where the rationale for being against the proposal aligns with clubs reasoning, which is obviously not the same thing.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

I understand that, but as a member I like to make an informed decision. A generic reason will not suffice for me. I would like to know the basis for the reason which opens the clubs activities for all to see if sufficient detail is given. If people are happy to vote yes or no based upon simple rationale rather than a fully explained one I see no point in asking for a vote in the first place. It basically then becomes a popularity contest between those who want to sell games and those who don't. The future of the club is too important for the decisions made on selling games to be made from a base level. Unfortunately I see no alternative.

I'm with you in that i'd like the detail. If the club wants to provide that, then good.
If they think that people will vote based on little info, then that's their perogitive.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

Thats interesting, because I dont think ive read one post where its against the WANM proposal 'simply because the board don't support it'.

I have however, read quite a few posts where the rationale for being against the proposal aligns with clubs reasoning, which is obviously not the same thing.

Ok, not specifically the boar don't support it, more that RJ & EA have supported it and they supposedly have an axe to grind.

Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania
"They should shut up and support the club"

 

[Uncle_Leo]

WANM is receiving a number of requests for information as to how to complete the proxy form and has been responding with the text below.

Might be an idea to try and post this on the North facebook page or anywhere else to try and get word out

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Yes, it would be a delicate balance, but I see it as a better alternative to treating members like mushrooms.

A "delicate balance" that would appear to be beyond the psychological boundaries of some who post on this board.

 

[Limerick]

A "delicate balance" that would appear to be beyond the psychological boundaries of some who post on this board.

I think that you will be able to cope HTB.

 

[jacko57]

WANM is receiving a number of requests for information as to how to complete the proxy form and has been responding with the text below.

[etc etc]
OR fax the form to (03) 9473 2145

Needs to be done by when?

 

[Limerick]

Needs to be done by when?

For your vote to be effective it must be received by 7.00 pm Sunday 17 March 2013.

If mailing, I'd have it in the post by Wednesday 13th.

I seem to recall that there was trouble with faxing a year or so back.

 

[Johnny99]

What happens if I dont vote ? Will I be giving my vote to the Board. And as they dont support the Relocation ammendment, then it would be a vote against adding the ammendment ?

 

[Limerick]

What happens if I dont vote ? Will I be giving my vote to the Board. And as they dont support the Relocation ammendment, then it would be a vote against adding the ammendment ?

No, only actual votes count. There are up to 25k potential voters. This, being guided by Director voting plus the turnout at Dallas Brooks Hall, will likely be decided by between 2k - 3k votes. Irrespective as to te result I would lie to see the voter turnout being much higher.

 

[drew]

How much power does the board have in stopping the amendment? How many votes do you think they control?

 

[Limerick]

How much power does the board have in stopping the amendment? How many votes do you think they control?

Hard to estimate but Directors standing for re-election get around 1100 - 1,600 from memory. The highest unsuccessful Director candidate got around 1,200s I think.
No doubt that unless a significant number of members, who don't usually vote for Directors, come out and vote it will be difficult to get this through.

 

[LT Smash]

Hard to estimate but Directors standing for re-election get around 1100 - 1,600 from memory. The highest unsuccessful Director candidate got around 1,200s I think.
No doubt that unless a significant number of members, who don't usually vote for Directors, come out and vote it will be difficult to get this through.

With no opposition to the standing directors, there is no election this time around and so so there will not be the usual 1100 - 1600 lodging their proxies with the Chairman. Therefore, the only people turning out to vote at all are those motivated few with an opinion on this motion. I reject the suggestion that the motion is doomed before it begins on account of the blue rinse set doing whatever JB asks. The only ones who vote will be those who have a genuine interest in this matter. Whether the motion succeeds or fails, it will come down to whether those voting actually agree with the motion or not.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

With no opposition to the standing directors, there is no election this time around and so so there will not be the usual 1100 - 1600 lodging their proxies with the Chairman. Therefore, the only people turning out to vote at all are those motivated few with an opinion on this motion.

That is what I thought from the get go.

I also thought that WANM was putting the club in the hands of some screeching fishwife on level 2 with the "just kick it" mentality.

At the end of the day the CBA doesn't stop operations to ask shareholders or account holders if they can close 2 branches in Melbourne And open 2 in Bundaberg.

 

[Limerick]

That is what I thought from the get go.

I also thought that WANM was putting the club in the hands of some screeching fishwife on level 2 with the "just kick it" mentality.

At the end of the day the CBA doesn't stop operations to ask shareholders or account holders if they can close 2 branches in Melbourne And open 2 in Bundaberg.

If a Commercial Business pisses off its shareholders they simply sell their shares and move on. Victorian NMFC members want home games in Melbourne, so it the Company (Board) closes down 5 or more of the 11 home games (branches) in Melbourne many Victorian members will move on. Look at the 2000-2007 experience.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

If a Commercial Business pisses off its shareholders they simply sell their shares and move on. Victorian NMFC members want home games in Melbourne, so it the Company (Board) closes down 5 or more of the 11 home games (branches) in Melbourne many Victorian members will move on. Look at the 2000-2007 experience.

Since when do people sell shares when they are winning?

The 2009-2011 experience does not support your argument that all 11 games in Melbourne is the be all and end all of the NMFC universe.

The 2012 experience when the membership went up by 11% also does not support your claim.

2000-2007 were ordinary teams on the back of some old champs and a rubbish admin. And before you waffle on about Laidley 14 wins got 4th and last year it was 8th.

 

[Bigeasy]

Since when do people sell shares when they are winning?

The 2009-2011 experience does not support your argument that all 11 games in Melbourne is the be all and end all of the NMFC universe.

The 2012 experience when the membership went up by 11% also does not support your claim.

2000-2007 were ordinary teams on the back of some old champs and a rubbish admin. And before you waffle on about Laidley 14 wins got 4th and last year it was 8th.

If that team had the opportunity to
play GWS and GCS twice then I'd reckon we would have had more than 14 wins.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Since when do people sell shares when they are winning?

The 2009-2011 experience does not support your argument that all 11 games in Melbourne is the be all and end all of the NMFC universe.

The 2012 experience when the membership went up by 11% also does not support your claim.

2000-2007 were ordinary teams on the back of some old champs and a rubbish admin. And before you waffle on about Laidley 14 wins got 4th and last year it was 8th.

Not sure if you're misreading deliberately or not, but the point was not about 11 home games, but about moving to 6 or fewer home games in Victoria. And it was primarily to say that a football club is not a business in which we make rational investments, and members are not like shareholders. We do not assess the returns and shift our investment accordingly - we have emotional ties and clubs cannot afford to damage those ties without significant ramifications. A football club moving to co-location, as with relocation, is a fundamental change, and it seems logical to me that the constitution wold have similar limitations on a board's capacity to unilaterally decide to go down either path. Obviously members can and will disagree about whether such a limitation is essential or desirable, or about whether his resolution is he right way to approach the issue, but at least we should stick to the basic tenets of the argument.