Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[longlivenmfc]

I personally would be happy with 51% if the requirement was for 51% to get the motion approved.

This is a daft response Lim.

The 75% requirement to amend the constitution is prescribed by the Corporations Act, so you're stuck with that. However, you could have put up a motion that allowed for more than 4 games outside of Victoria with 51% of member approval. Instead, you chose to submit a higher threshold of 75% notwithstanding that you could have proposed a lower threshold. What I think Bob Ansett is saying is that you stuffed up that part of the motion and the threshold ought to have been a simple majority of more than 50% to approve any additional games, rather than the 75% you've set it at. So the question is, do you agree with Ansett that you stuffed that up and went in too high?

Following Bob's concern through, let me use an example. If a once only, 5th home game against GWS in, say, Auckland was offered and the Club was to make $2m out of it (and our replacement home game was, say, v Carlton at the MCG), and an EGM was called and 72% of members approved it, the Club would be unable to do that deal because of your motion. Correct?

Personally, if the above example eventuated and we miss out on a once off corker of an opportunity that was supported by a healthy majority of members, I'll be pissed. And that, I suspect, is what JB is talking about when he references flexibility for the administration to grow the business.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

This is a daft response Lim.

The 75% requirement to amend the constitution is prescribed by the Corporations Act, so you're stuck with that. However, you could have put up a motion that allowed for more than 4 games outside of Victoria with 51% of member approval. Instead, you chose to submit a higher threshold of 75% notwithstanding that you could have proposed a lower threshold. What I think Bob Ansett is saying is that you stuffed up that part of the motion and the threshold ought to have been a simple majority of more than 50% to approve any additional games, rather than the 75% you've set it at. So the question is, do you agree with Ansett that you stuffed that up and went in too high?

Following Bob's concern through, let me use an example. If a once only, 5th home game against GWS in, say, Auckland was offered and the Club was to make $2m out of it (and our replacement home game was, say, v Carlton at the MCG), and an EGM was called and 72% of members approved it, the Club would be unable to do that deal because of your motion. Correct?

Personally, if the above example eventuated and we miss out on a once off corker of an opportunity that was supported by a healthy majority of members, I'll be pissed. And that, I suspect, is what JB is talking about when he references flexibility for the administration to grow the business.

This is the great danger. I fear the chicken little clique would writhe around in agony if we were offered 5 million for a match.

How professional does it look for the president to turn around to a sponsor and tell them they have to wait for a club vote on the matter?

We are as safe as houses whilst we are only focused on Tassie. They will be getting their own side when the time comes.

 

[numchuks]

Not sure if anyone has said it yet, but Longlivenmfc sounds a lot like a board member of the club or a possible relation/close contact of a North Melbourne board member.

Just sayin'.

 

[Saintly31]

Yep, Brayshaw has knocked it out of the park there.......

Balanced, intelligent and understanding of reality, yet solely directed to the best interests of the NMFC.

Pity others still live in 2007, or some other timeframe not relevant to 2013. As such it seems they can't have a clear and responsible vision about rebuilding to become a strong club and what we might need to do to get there.

 

[kangalover]

Not sure if anyone has said it yet, but Longlivenmfc sounds a lot like a board member of the club or a possible relation/close contact of a North Melbourne board member.

Just sayin'.

amazing how they come out of the woodwork when they want things to go their way!

 

[Saintly31]

amazing how they come out of the woodwork when they want things to go their way!

Amazing how a select minority can't cope with the reality when a NMFC administration does something they don't agree with for whatever reasons, very much including self-interest I suspect.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Not sure if anyone has said it yet, but Longlivenmfc sounds a lot like a board member of the club or a possible relation/close contact of a North Melbourne board member.

Just sayin'.

What a poster on this thread makes perfect sense and appears balanced and informed?

Points stand. NMFC may miss out on a one off money spinner in another location. Other parties may simply go to another club easier to deal with. It may not even go to a vote.

Same with Hobart.

 

[Tas]

I think people are missing the point.

If there is no hidden agenda to have more than 5 "home" games interstate then why not this amendment be made? What reason is there not to have it in there?

Once we cross the line of more than half our home games being interstate, we are now a club based in another state.

Should we end up with only 4 home games in Melbourne membership numbers will plummet.

Because the only point we will know if the administration commits to this is when the deal is already done and beyond our ability to fix.

JB had offered a deal to the Tasmanian government to play 7 home games there, long-term. We would not have been able to stop that had the Tasmanian government accepted the deal. The AFL was desperate for it to get done before it became public, to the extent that they had offered to pay Hawthorn off to have it done.

We are meant to put blind faith in an administration that a drop of a hat offers 3/4 of our home games to the highest bidder? It would kill our club. We aren't afraid of an attempt to relocate, we are afraid we will fall victim to an attempt to relocate us by stealth and if we go down the dangerous path once the pendulum swings, there is nothing we can do with out constitution to stop it.

The safeguard proposed would prevents this being done without member consent. It may still happen, but if it does happen and our members rubber stamped it then we deserve whatever we cop.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Not sure if anyone has said it yet, but Longlivenmfc sounds a lot like a board member of the club or a possible relation/close contact of a North Melbourne board member.

Just sayin'.

Thanks Caro.

 

[kangalover]

Amazing how a select minority can't cope with the reality when a NMFC administration does something they don't agree with for whatever reasons, very much including self-interest I suspect.

If you call trying to protect my football club from playing more than 4 games in tassie, "self interest" well goodness me you must be correct!!

Because heaven knows what other self interest I could possibly have in this matter? If you have any suggestions please let me know.

As far as I am concerned I am sick of defending, supporting and fighting for this club and if down the line "future administrations" see fit to increase games in tassie I will no longer support the club, end of story.


Tas your points are excellent and spot on.

 

[Arden]

Yet when it goes to vote, especially as you need 75% agreeance let alone 50% and a huge majority live in Melb, knock it back (most likely because too many games outside Melb, for those simple minded types who will have a whinge and moan that they cant see as much of NM as they used to). Tas/Hobart then immediately offer the same deal to WB and Melb instead considering the infrastructure is ready to go, contract stays as first planned, the AFL are happy, Tas still gets AFL footy without any notion of relocation, and it's snapped up - and i'm sure it would be, especially by the Dogs.

What's with the insults? This is still to an extent a local football club, propped up by those people who live close enough to attend matches on a regular basis. If those people would be upset that they had less access to their football club than they used to, I would hardly call it simple mindedness.

 

[Saintly31]

If you call trying to protect my football club from playing more than 4 games in tassie, "self interest" well goodness me you must be correct!!

Because heaven knows what other self interest I could possibly have in this matter? If you have any suggestions please let me know.

As far as I am concerned I am sick of defending, supporting and fighting for this club and if down the line "future administrations" see fit to increase games in tassie I will no longer support the club, end of story.

As I suspected after all.

A supporter who (despite whatever claims you make otherwise, and the effort you obviously put in) is only happy when you agree with administration......despite the best interests of the club and long term survival of a Melb based club.

I'm glad JB is running the club not you that's for sure, at least JB gives us some chance of survival and even better, becoming a strong and healthy club.

 

[kangalover]

As I suspected after all.

A supporter who (despite whatever claims you make otherwise, and the effort you might put in) is only happy when you agree with administration......despite the best interests of the club and long term survival of a Melb based club.

I'm glad JB is running the club not you that's for sure, at least JB gives us some chance of survival and even better, becoming a strong and healthy club.

I truly feel sorry for you.

 

[Grogg]

Is this guy serious?

 

[Saintly31]

What's with the insults? This is still to an extent a local football club, propped up by those people who live close enough to attend matches on a regular basis. If those people would be upset that they had less access to their football club than they used to, I would hardly call it simple mindedness.

It's not an insult to point out reality.

It is simple mindedness to think we can survive in Melb alone at the current time regardless of your local club mentality. As such negotiations with secondary markets are paramount - such amendments limit these negotiations, and accordingly only simple minded people would be unable to realise that IMO.

 

[Saintly31]

I truly feel sorry for you.

Well, don't be. I agree with our President, and you are.....well, just you.

No worries. I am entitled to my opinion.

 

[longlivenmfc]

Not sure if anyone has said it yet, but Longlivenmfc sounds a lot like a board member of the club or a possible relation/close contact of a North Melbourne board member.

Just sayin'.

Not sure whether to take that as a compliment or not ...

I certainly support the Board, no doubt. Mainly because I ponder where we are now as a club when compared to where we were in 2007, and take the view that this administration has earned our trust. So I'll choose to give that trust. Others won't, and that's a matter for them.

As for coming out of the woodwork, I'll try and add a few helpful and productive "How bad is our disposal?!" posts to some game day threads, just to balance things up for you.

 

[Limerick]

Considering all the discussion centres around hypotheticals, Limerick, Horace, Kangalover etc please answer this hypothetical for me. I'll try and put my view a different way.

At the end of the current agreement with Hobart, its agreed that a 5 game deal in Tas (whether just in Hobart, split Nth/Sth, whatever as who knows what the Hawks do in future) is the way forward. The board think it is appropriate and in the best interests of the club, its a financial windfall looking at the figures, AFL back it with replacement games for Melb fans, etc etc. Happy days one would suspect.

Yet when it goes to vote, especially as you need 75% agreeance let alone 50% and a huge majority live in Melb, knock it back (most likely because too many games outside Melb, for those simple minded types who will have a whinge and moan that they cant see as much of NM as they used to). Tas/Hobart then immediately offer the same deal to WB and Melb instead considering the infrastructure is ready to go, contract stays as first planned, the AFL are happy, Tas still gets AFL footy without any notion of relocation, and it's snapped up - and i'm sure it would be, especially by the Dogs.

At that time we don't have Ballarat ready to go as a replacement, AFL go out of their way to make life even more difficult for us considering our refusal to do what we promised and to grow as a club, and we're basically screwed financially.

I appreciate its very (very) much only a hypothetical, but also is the rationaile to why the proposal needs to be implemented "for safety reasons" because "who knows the current or future board will do".

Is this the kind of result you would be happy with by implementing the proposal? Would you have any regrets if such a situation played out that way even if it was very detrimental to the future and long term health of the NMFC?

So the hypothetical is;
1. The NMFC is presented with an offer to play 5 home games games in Tasmania.
2. The AFL agrees, in writing, to provide 5 replacement games in Victoria.

My questions would be;
1. What is the length of this agreement. Is it for 5 years, 10 years or forever?
2. Where is Hawthorn in this deal? Are they being sent back to Melbourne with support of the AFL. If yes I would become very suspicious.
3. Assuming Hawthorn are still in Launceston, will the AFL fund this if Tasmania pulls out? My reasoning here is that if the Tasmanian Govt pulls out, do we come back to Melbourne with our tails between our legs, a weak home base and an even greater reputation as a Club that whores itself around.
4. Is the AFL or the NMFC funding the replacement games.

If the answers to these questions indicate that its a solid honest proposal then it should go to the members. If they vote yes then OK.

 

[Limerick]

This is a daft response Lim.

The 75% requirement to amend the constitution is prescribed by the Corporations Act, so you're stuck with that. However, you could have put up a motion that allowed for more than 4 games outside of Victoria with 51% of member approval. Instead, you chose to submit a higher threshold of 75% notwithstanding that you could have proposed a lower threshold. What I think Bob Ansett is saying is that you stuffed up that part of the motion and the threshold ought to have been a simple majority of more than 50% to approve any additional games, rather than the 75% you've set it at. So the question is, do you agree with Ansett that you stuffed that up and went in too high?

Following Bob's concern through, let me use an example. If a once only, 5th home game against GWS in, say, Auckland was offered and the Club was to make $2m out of it (and our replacement home game was, say, v Carlton at the MCG), and an EGM was called and 72% of members approved it, the Club would be unable to do that deal because of your motion. Correct?

Personally, if the above example eventuated and we miss out on a once off corker of an opportunity that was supported by a healthy majority of members, I'll be pissed. And that, I suspect, is what JB is talking about when he references flexibility for the administration to grow the business.

1. Accept that the 75% is prescribed for a change to the Constitution.

2. If the motion gets up then 75% of the voting members have approved it.

3. Therefore its logical that 75% of the voters can ask for 75% to approve playing more than 4 home games interstate.

4. The Constitution currently requires a 75% vote to approve a Merger.

My initial answer indicating 51% to both was on the basis of eveness responding to a question following the comment by Bob Ansett.

 

[Horace]

What's with the insults? This is still to an extent a local football club, propped up by those people who live close enough to attend matches on a regular basis. If those people would be upset that they had less access to their football club than they used to, I would hardly call it simple mindedness.

Correct Arden. To have a differing view to someone else is hardly an example of "simple mindedness". We are all entitled to our views and inevitably in a matter as contentious as this there will be significant differences of opinion.

To label this against someone like Kangalover, who does such terrific work for the club, as evidenced by her work with the Big Footy Player Sponsorships, and is one of the most passionate people I have ever run into as a supporter of this club, is disappointing and highly insulting. By all means if Saintly31 wants to level that status against me then go ahead. I couldn't care less, but hey, not against Kangalover, who has argued her view logically and well and without need to "play the man rather than the ball".

The aspect of this that I do not understand and those who are opposed to the amendment to the constitution being approved have not in my view successfully argued, is what are their fears in having this amendment in place?

In itself it will not prevent the club from playing more games outside Victoria, simply it will ensure that any proposal to play more games outside Victoria is properly scrutinised, properly subject to due diligience, which for a member based club is surely paramount.

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 amy 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.

Many would say who cares, if I made such a move. And they would be right. But what if many others who share the concerns that I do about this situation, also march with their feet, I suspcet the who cares response may be less palatable to the club.

All organisations are much more likely to successfully implement change whenever they properly inform the people who will be affected by this change and provide them with input and ownership in the decision to make this change.

 

[Saintly31]

Correct Arden. To have a differing view to someone else is hardly an example of "simple mindedness". We are all entitled to our views and inevitably in a matter as contentious as this there will be significant differences of opinion.

To label this against someone like Kangalover, who does such terrific work for the club, as evidenced by her work with the Big Footy Player Sponsorships, and is one of the most passionate people I have ever run into as a supporter of this club, is disappointing and highly insulting. By all means if Saintly31 wants to level that status against me then go ahead. I couldn't care less, but hey, not against Kangalover, who has argued her view logically and well and without need to "attack the player rather than the ball".

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.

 

[Limerick]

As I suspected after all.

A supporter who (despite whatever claims you make otherwise, and the effort you might put in) is only happy when you agree with administration......despite the best interests of the club and long term survival of a Melb based club.

I'm glad JB is running the club not you that's for sure, at least JB gives us some chance of survival and even better, becoming a strong and healthy club.

This is an issue that I am having trouble with. Some of the Against vote supporters seem to be saying that a long term 10-20 years plus co-location model is OK. If this is true I wish you would simply say so. While I may not agree with it, I can accept that logic and would stop having a futile discussion.

For mine, and I accept that these people won't agree with this, is that this is a path to relocation which would be achieved without any Member vote.

 

[berniemccarthy]

Good. Write a letter or send an email like the rest of us.



You're not the president. No one requires your permission.

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.

 

[Saintly31]

1. This is an issue that I am having trouble with. Some of the Against vote supporters seem to be saying that a long term 10-20 years plus co-location model is OK. If this is true I wish you would simply say so. While I may not agree with it, I can accept that logic and would stop having a futile discussion.

2. For mine, and I accept that these people won't agree with this, is that this is a path to relocation which would be achieved without any Member vote.

1. Yes, that is exactly my view and I believe it is also the clubs (and its best interest). Discussion can end there if you wish.

2. You are entitled to that view, but IMO it without basis with all facts considered at hand. 2007 is in the past, and 2013 and beyond is an entirely different scenario for a number of reasons.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

The aspect of this that I do not understand and those who are opposed to the amendment to the constitution being approved have not in my view successfully argued, is what are their fears in having this amendment in place?

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.

Those wanting a change need 3 out 4 votes. If that argument for change is sound enough it should get up.

So, the JB proposal for 18 games in two states (11 Vic) may have seen you withdraw your membership?

Well that is definitely voting.