Official Club Stuff Notice of General Meeting - Tuesday 17 August 2021 at 6:30pm

[Arr0w]

Maybe Sayers should have to collect upto 4000 signatures to have the right to face a members vote

If you arent happy, vote against the proposal and or start a petition to stop it going ahead

Personally, it will have no effect to the on field

 

[gab213]

If you arent happy, vote against the proposal and or start a petition to stop it going ahead

Personally, it will have no effect to the on field

Everyone is pretty much ignoring that they can vote against the proposal and only need to get 25% of those voting to agree with them and they can stop the changes. Not bad odds, only needs 1 in 4 people voting against it to stop it.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Pretty certain that 3 wooden spoons in 10 years from 2001-2010 beats the sh*t out of 2 wooden spoons from 2011-2020.

It seems to me that you and a bunch of other posters on here have a definite agenda against the board and the club. The changes to the minimum number of votes needed to force a general meeting brings us in line with every other corporation in the country... including, I am guessing, every other football club in the league.

Leaving it at 100 means that 100 idiots can get together every week, and lodge a request for a general meeting, regardless of whether it is needed or not... sh*t they could do it every day. Increasing it to 5% means that there needs to be, as currently stated, 2500 signatures on the petition to force a general meeting. Claiming that you are concerned about the number of people required is a furphy.

Have another read..

Particularly the part where I said increasing it is logical...

You're arguing semantics over that 10 year period. 2001 - 2010 has more finals appearances than 2012 - 2021. What's your point?

The only people on an agenda here are guys like you who only read what they want then try and act like a hero on here...

If I don't like the 5% requirement, that's my right. Deal with it. Just like your partner in crime over there, making a ridiculous point that people will call for EGMs every year over rubbish reasons... hasn't ever happened and never will...

 

[Blue_Fusion]

All of this.

A whinger could get 100 of his whinging mates together, create a petition and force an AGM... because we had a setback in 2018 and COVID screwed around with the season in 2020. I'm quite certain that if Tom Elliott and Fraser Brown had been serious at spilling the board, they could have gotten 100 signatures easily and forced an EGM and a vote on the board.

As Wick said, if you can't convince 5% of the voting members of the club that your plan is a good one... you're probably not going to get the 51% needed to enforce the change. Leaving it at 100 leaves the club at the whim of idiot coterie members who have nothing to do with the club and who have more time on their hands than brains.

Stop with this "a whinger could get 100 idiots and will force an EGM" it's embarrassing that this is the depth to your argument...

You do realise that 100 signatures has been the requirement for a very long time right? How many EGMs have these "idiots and whingers" called for?

 

[Zuribagger]

Just like people trying to tell others we should be concerned

Differing opinions are what makes bigfooty an interesting forum. People are not trying to tell you how to think! They are merely expressing their opinions for others to consider. No need for you to change your mind or take it personally and get into endless arguments with countless posters.

 

[gab213]

Differing opinions are what makes bigfooty an interesting forum. People are not trying to tell you how to think! They are merely expressing their opinions for others to consider. No need for you to change your mind or take it personally and get into endless arguments with countless posters.

You are one of the people who came in here and started to make it personal. There was a discussion happening here where people were doing exactly that, you know , exchanging opinions. You then proceed to make it personal and now you want to pretend you're being persecuted? Spare me. You came in shit stirring, you achieved what you set out to do.

 

[Arr0w]

Everyone is pretty much ignoring that they can vote against the proposal and only need to get 25% of those voting to agree with them and they can stop the changes. Not bad odds, only needs 1 in 4 people voting against it to stop it.

Exactly

 

[Arr0w]

Differing opinions are what makes bigfooty an interesting forum. People are not trying to tell you how to think! They are merely expressing their opinions for others to consider. No need for you to change your mind or take it personally and get into endless arguments with countless posters.

So your telling me what to think and how to post?

Arguing? No, just pointing out people's contradictions

 

[Bostonian]

They are changing it simply to solidify their power. There's no need to change it but they are.

 

[Zuribagger]

You are one of the people who came in here and started to make it personal. There was a discussion happening here where people were doing exactly that, you know , exchanging opinions. You then proceed to make it personal and now you want to pretend you're being persecuted? Spare me. You came in sh*t stirring, you achieved what you set out to do.

I expressed my opinion on your posting being very board favorable - an observation made over years. Perhaps I should have kept it to myself. Apologies.

Me persecuted? definitely not. Don’t embellish please.

 

[cookie monster]

It's ridiculous to the extreme. The fact that 100 disgruntled members can force an EGM because they aren't happy that the club isn't winning more games. That 100 members can damage the club because they aren't happy with the current board, the coach or the fact we aren't currently winning a premiership every year (yes, some of these idiots think that we should be winning the premiership every year).

Fair way to sensationalize how people with different opinions to yours think.

By any measure the club has underperformed over the last decade. Many existing board members underly that. It's completely natural that there's going to be some disgruntlement.

I'm interested to see what the alternate ticket is going to look like. Hopefully it sees some highly motivated, professional figures in the community put their hands up

 

[cookie monster]

Pretty certain that 3 wooden spoons in 10 years from 2001-2010 beats the sh*t out of 2 wooden spoons from 2011-2020.

It seems to me that you and a bunch of other posters on here have a definite agenda against the board and the club. The changes to the minimum number of votes needed to force a general meeting brings us in line with every other corporation in the country... including, I am guessing, every other football club in the league.

Leaving it at 100 means that 100 idiots can get together every week, and lodge a request for a general meeting, regardless of whether it is needed or not... sh*t they could do it every day. Increasing it to 5% means that there needs to be, as currently stated, 2500 signatures on the petition to force a general meeting. Claiming that you are concerned about the number of people required is a furphy.

In 2001-2010 we finished in the top 8 3 times.

2011-2020 we finished in the top 8 once.

2011-2020 has been worse despite the one less wooden spoon.

 

[Michael Jezz]

The changes to the constitution masked behind indigenous and gender recognition which members can not vote on separately
1) increase the member threshold from 100 to 4000 signstures to call an EGM
2) Extend the Presidency to a 12 year maximum
3) Reduce the election for board members to 2 positions a year
4) Give the right of the board to nominate whoever they want including a non carlton member

What do members think of this?

 

[Arr0w]

The changes to the constitution masked behind indigenous and gender recognition which members can not vote on separately
1) increase the member threshold from 100 to 4000 signstures to call an EGM
2) Extend the Presidency to a 12 year maximum
3) Reduce the election for board members to 2 positions a year
4) Give the right of the board to nominate whoever they want including a non carlton member

What do members think of this?

And how does this effect the club, members or supporters poorly?

 

[AceAndy]

The changes to the constitution masked behind indigenous and gender recognition which members can not vote on separately
1) increase the member threshold from 100 to 4000 signstures to call an EGM
2) Extend the Presidency to a 12 year maximum
3) Reduce the election for board members to 2 positions a year
4) Give the right of the board to nominate whoever they want including a non carlton member

What do members think of this?

I would say point 4 would be a concern, the others not so much.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

And how does this effect the club, members or supporters poorly?

The word 'poorly' wasn't mentioned in the post you quoted. Feel free to respond to the post as written.

 

[Blue and Blue]

The changes to the constitution masked behind indigenous and gender recognition which members can not vote on separately
1) increase the member threshold from 100 to 4000 signstures to call an EGM
2) Extend the Presidency to a 12 year maximum
3) Reduce the election for board members to 2 positions a year
4) Give the right of the board to nominate whoever they want including a non carlton member

What do members think of this?

I think if your worried about that trivial stuff you should be worried that your worried.

 

[Arr0w]

The word 'poorly' wasn't mentioned in the post you quoted. Feel free to respond to the post as written.

I was responding, I would like to know why people think these proposed changes would effect the club, members and or supporters poorly

Especially given people are willing to sign petitions and or believing some supporters are board apologists

 

[RAPPA]

 

[jpfalvo]

I don't mind Vince's approach and him tackling this issue. The easy thing for him to do is let it go by and be pissed off. He seems to genuinely care and doesn't want the current board to sneak anything through. Giving the minimum amount of time to digest the new amendments and putting it all on the one vote is a sly move.

I haven't looked to deeply into it but I am happy that others are keeping the club to account.

Will be interested in seeing what comes of it.

The Pres probably regrets not responding to that email...

It is arrogant by MLG frankly to not address or respond, to the leader of the clubs biggest coterie group of which he was once a member of, let alone personal connected to as far as I am aware.

President is representative of the members, and shouldnt be afraid to engage such members, particularly on key issues such as constitutional change.

Certain posters here dont rate the ancillary groups like Carltonians, YCP, or Spirit of Carlton (ex players). I guess they dont fully understand how much they contribute in funds, time and effort in keeping the fabric of the football club together...

This actually contributes to culture. Carlton culture... its astonishing that some on here, believe that is not the case... if you truly believe that club culture is not the players that have donned the jumper and its most loyal of supporter bases, but 8 wealthy suits, then little wonder why we have issues permeating through princess park.

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[Michael Jezz]

I think if your worried about that trivial stuff you should be worried that your worried.

If it is so trivial then why is it so important to Sayers and his board?

 

[BigFrizz36]

It is arrogant by MLG frankly to not address or respond, to the leader of the clubs biggest coterie group of which he was once a member of, let alone personal connected to as far as I am aware.

President is representative of the members, and shouldnt be afraid to engage such members, particularly on key issues such as constitutional change.

Certain posters here dont rate the ancillary groups like Carltonians, YCP, or Spirit of Carlton (ex players). I guess they dont fully understand how much they contribute in funds, time and effort in keeping the fabric of the football club together...

This actually contributes to culture. Carlton culture... its astonishing that some on here, believe that is not the case... if you truly believe that club culture is not the players that have donned the jumper and its most loyal of supporter bases, but 8 wealthy suits, then little wonder why we have issues permeating through princess park.

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

Where us this princess park that you speak about?
Are Beatrice and Euginie there?

 

[gab213]

It is arrogant by MLG frankly to not address or respond, to the leader of the clubs biggest coterie group of which he was once a member of, let alone personal connected to as far as I am aware.

President is representative of the members, and shouldnt be afraid to engage such members, particularly on key issues such as constitutional change.

Certain posters here dont rate the ancillary groups like Carltonians, YCP, or Spirit of Carlton (ex players). I guess they dont fully understand how much they contribute in funds, time and effort in keeping the fabric of the football club together...

This actually contributes to culture. Carlton culture... its astonishing that some on here, believe that is not the case... if you truly believe that club culture is not the players that have donned the jumper and its most loyal of supporter bases, but 8 wealthy suits, then little wonder why we have issues permeating through princess park.

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

The only one of those ancillary groups that you mentioned that I rate is the Spirit of Carlton as far as it keeps ex-players together as part of the club goes. I rate neither the Carltonians nor YCP, just my opinion but as far back as 25-30 years ago I found the Carltonians to be an elitist and exclusionary group and refused to join when I was approached.

I still found ways to support the Club without being involved with them. Those groups don't represent the interests of the rank and file members in my opinion. They are the 'suits' that you're dismissive of.

By the way don't let Aph catch you calling it princess park

 

[jpfalvo]

If it is so trivial then why is it so important to Sayers and his board?

I dont understand why Sayers needs a full.
5yr term. He has been there since 2012...plenty of time for his input.

3yrs as President coming up and off he goes... at 12yr max term. Thats within current constitution and more than acceptable

Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk

 

[gab213]

Can you please provide the extract of "government corporate law" that necessitates these changes?

Genuinely interested

Section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) provides that directors of a company must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting.