WANM media release 19th November 2008

[Davo01]

There are plenty of strategic reasons why we keep coming back to a member vote. I'm not getting into all of our strategies on a public forum, but just because there might not seem to be enough time to conduct a vote does not mean we should not demand the right to have one. The thing that resonates most with the public is the aussie notion of fairness and we want joe public to get the message loud and clear that NMFC members are not being given a fair go.

 

[Davo01]

A much greater prospect than many on here might think. Although I'd push the timing out by a year or so

Oh, and then in early 2008 the shareholders join in the party by voluntarily and freely handing over control of ythe club to the members. Hoorah. Fade out. Go home happy.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

A much greater prospect than many on here might think. Although I'd push the timing out by a year or so

So we'd have to go out drinking and singing in triumph TWICE, a year apart?

Oh, ok then.

 

[jont2021]

There are plenty of strategic reasons why we keep coming back to a member vote. The thing that resonates most with the public is the aussie notion of fairness and we want joe public to get the message loud and clear that NMFC members are not being given a fair go.

Yep and we need to make sure that any member vote is done fairly (ie it isn't being organised directly by the AFL or even the club but by a third party).

We want to make sure that all information given to members is accurate and the question is clear.

 

[Limerick]

Yep and we need to make sure that any member vote is done fairly (ie it isn't being organised directly by the AFL or even the club but by a third party).

We want to make sure that all information given to members is accurate and the question is clear.

This will be a very key point.
1. The members must be provided with a clear description of each option. This means that the reader will fully understand that a relocation means a club owned by the AFL.

2. The vote questions must be clear and not slanted e.g.

A. Do you wish the Club to remain in Melbourne as the North Melbourne Football Club,

OR

b. Do you wish the Club to be relocated to the GC and known as the Kangaroos.

 

[Z_K]

The AFL are not going to approve a member vote unless they are sure they can manipulate it enough to get the result they are after. They haven't worked on this as hard as they have to get walloped in a public member vote.

Again, to me, the return of the club to it's members is secondary to the issue that sits right in front of us now, and that is the termination of the footy club.

 

[Kangalicious]

The AFL are not going to approve a member vote unless they are sure they can manipulate it enough to get the result they are after. They haven't worked on this as hard as they have to get walloped in a public member vote.

Again, to me, the return of the club to it's members is secondary to the issue that sits right in front of us now, and that is the termination of the footy club.

And a vote like this would be terribly easy to manipulate.

We need to be very careful what we ask for.

 

[Z_K]

And a vote like this would be terribly easy to manipulate.

We need to be very careful what we ask for.

The neo-cons have pinned the election on the worst US president in the history of mankind on elderly Florida residents successfully, so the AFL could do us in without blinking and make the whole thing look remarkably legit.

It's trouble, IMO.

 

[Kangalicious]

The neo-cons have pinned the election on the worst US president in the history of mankind on elderly Florida residents successfully, so the AFL could do us in without blinking and make the whole thing look remarkably legit.

It's trouble, IMO.

Agree. Don't like it one little bit. This sudden interest in democracy and members' rights ... given that they dont care one little bit about taking the club away from members, I'm wholly suspicious of their sudden interest in what we think.

 

[The Zebra]

I can understand a bit of the concern, but pushing the message WANM having been pushing on member vote could be a strong point of resistance if things do go sour on December 1.

If the AFL did try to use this after a rejection of the offer (say, let the members decide and drag it out) I doubt WANM or anyone else is going to come out in support of them.

Wouldn't the line be that there has been no club altering decision made, we are still North melbourne, so there is nothing to vote on. They could then also just say they will continue to work with the board over the coming year to return power back to the members (which JB said he believes is absolutely necessary).

If we vote to go though, this has to be a massive arguing point. That our club has been killed with out any member say.

WANM's views look like a failsafe to me.

 

[Kangalicious]

I can understand a bit of the concern, but pushing the message WANM having been pushing on member vote could be a strong point of resistance if things do go sour on December 1.

If the AFL did try to use this after a rejection of the offer (say, let the members decide and drag it out) I doubt WANM or anyone else is going to come out in support of them.

Wouldn't the line be that there has been no club altering decision made, we are still North melbourne, so there is nothing to vote on. They could then also just say they will continue to work with the board over the coming year to return power back to the members (which JB said he believes is absolutely necessary).

If we vote to go though, this has to be a massive arguing point. That our club has been killed with out any member say.

WANM's views look like a failsafe to me.

I heard a lot of rumblings today about the decision being delayed so that members could be consulted. Delayed as in three or six months. That will kill the club. All in the name of consultation.

I agree - the AFL couldn't use it as an argument to revisit a decison. But they could easily (as could the GC'ers on the board - which is where this is coming from) use it as an argument to delay a decision. And delay plays right into their sweaty little palms.

 

[Z_K]

I can understand a bit of the concern, but pushing the message WANM having been pushing on member vote could be a strong point of resistance if things do go sour on December 1.

If the AFL did try to use this after a rejection of the offer (say, let the members decide and drag it out) I doubt WANM or anyone else is going to come out in support of them.

Wouldn't the line be that there has been no club altering decision made, we are still North melbourne, so there is nothing to vote on. They could then also just say they will continue to work with the board over the coming year to return power back to the members (which JB said he believes is absolutely necessary).

If we vote to go though, this has to be a massive arguing point. That our club has been killed with out any member say.

WANM's views look like a failsafe to me.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But, IMO, all efforts should be made to ensure that things don't "go sour" on December 1. I don't think it helps to look past this issue. WANM have a committed group and media presence which I think would be best served lobbying the board, the supporters and the shareholders on this one issue to stear it the way we need it to go.
When we win, go nuts. But also remembers that if we do win, the shareholders will have played a big part in the resistance. As archaic and un-democratic as the shareholder set-up is, it might be those few good pro-Melbourne people that save our collective arse.

I just want us to win, and I don't care how it;s done.

 

[pharro]

This will be a very key point.
1. The members must be provided with a clear description of each option. This means that the reader will fully understand that a relocation means a club owned by the AFL.

2. The vote questions must be clear and not slanted e.g.

A. Do you wish the Club to remain in Melbourne as the North Melbourne Football Club,

OR

b. Do you wish the Club to be relocated to the GC and known as the Kangaroos.

So we're basically planning on an AGM or EGM with a Shareholder referendum to change the NMFC constitution to make a member vote in some way valid, hoping that the Shareholders do not block the referendum as they did last December, then after that, debate the wording of a full membership relocation referendum question, then holding the second referendum. Preferably in the next 2 weeks.

 

[Kangalicious]

So we're basically planning on an AGM or EGM with a Shareholder referendum to change the NMFC constitution to make a member vote in some way valid, hoping that the Shareholders do not block the referendum as they did last December, then after that, debate the wording of a full membership relocation referendum question, then holding the second referendum. Preferably in the next 2 weeks.

No - in the next 3-6 months. With a decision delayed accordingly.

 

[Z_K]

And then hope the member vote is not hijacked by the AFL or dodgy North Melbourne people who have the capacity to do so. Jumping at shadows perhaps, but I put nothing past egomaniacs who have no history in acting ethically with plenty to lose and the ability to influence a win.

 

[pharro]

I heard a lot of rumblings today about the decision being delayed so that members could be consulted. Delayed as in three or six months. That will kill the club. All in the name of consultation.

I agree - the AFL couldn't use it as an argument to revisit a decison. But they could easily (as could the GC'ers on the board - which is where this is coming from) use it as an argument to delay a decision. And delay plays right into their sweaty little palms.

That's bloody frightening. Does WANM know they are being used as pawns in the pro-GC lobby push?

 

[The Zebra]

I heard a lot of rumblings today about the decision being delayed so that members could be consulted. Delayed as in three or six months. That will kill the club. All in the name of consultation.

I agree - the AFL couldn't use it as an argument to revisit a decison. But they could easily (as could the GC'ers on the board - which is where this is coming from) use it as an argument to delay a decision. And delay plays right into their sweaty little palms.

Well if that were to happen we are ****ed, but surely not?

That would come down to the board wouldn't it, and it seems JB and others know all to well this has dragged on for too long and wouldn't let that happen.

I just think that the benefit of getting the ball rolling on the issue of member rights just in case, outweighs the risk of another delay on a decision happening.

 

[Z_K]

No - in the next 3-6 months. With a decision delayed accordingly.

In which time we are supposed to run the most important membership campaign in AFL/VFL history and market the footy club to the corporate world and possible benefactors, all with very little staff as is, a CEO who is still an unkown quantity in every possible sense and a board possibly devided up the middle.

Easy.

 

[Z_K]

I just think that the benefit of getting the ball rolling on the issue of member rights just in case, outweighs the risk of another delay on a decision happening.

I respectfully, but vehemently, disagree.

Member voting rights should be the crowning achievement of the new, exciting football club leadership we all hope take the club to the next level. But if we don't get there, it's all a bit futile, isn't it?

 

[Kangalicious]

Well if that were to happen we are ****ed, but surely not?

That would come down to the board wouldn't it, and it seems JB and others know all to well this has dragged on for too long and wouldn't let that happen.

I just think that the benefit of getting the ball rolling on the issue of member rights just in case, outweighs the risk of another delay on a decision happening.

The problem remains with the numbers on the board. Getting the ball rolling requires a majority. Arguing that you are only delaying in the interests of consulting members is pretty compelling, especially when members have been demanding consultation. So, board members who might have reacted badly to the AFL's bully tactics, now see a chance to be open and inclusive and do what the members want.

I am not making this up. This is genuinely up for consideration. Remember, the AFL altered their original statement on the timeline to say that we had 30 within which to remove the GC from consideration, otherwise we could leave it on the table for discussion. And suddenly all of the talk is about the time needed to make the right decision. And suddenly consultation of members is right on the agenda.

Now, I might be seeing a conspiracy theory that isn't there. But you know what? Three months ago a few of us on this board were saying relocation was still well and truly on the agenda, and we were castigated for scaremongering. Personally, I wouldn't put anything past these people - either the AFL, or the GC'ers on the board.

I believe in a members' run club as fervently as WANM, and I love what they have acheived. But I would hate this to be the Trojan horse which is used in the AFL's final assault on the club.

 

[pharro]

Well if that were to happen we are ****ed, but surely not?

That would come down to the board wouldn't it, and it seems JB and others know all to well this has dragged on for too long and wouldn't let that happen.

I just think that the benefit of getting the ball rolling on the issue of member rights just in case, outweighs the risk of another delay on a decision happening.

JB is trying to convince a majority of the board to approve his plan, vote him in as Chairman and elect Arch to take Duff's vacant board position. The pro-GC lobby appears to be blocking all of this. If the pro-GC lobby has decided to play the "democracy" card in order to make JB and co sweat, destroy the membership drive and kill any chance of new sponsors, in order to defeat the last vestige of hope the North Melbourne Football Club has of survival, then there's not a lot JB can do about it. He may have the support of the Shareholders and the Members but his opponents would he holding the club to ransom.

This is one truly horrendous scenario. But if there's no truth to it, why is Arch still not on the board? And why are pro-GC factions and the AFL suddenly so keen on democracy?

 

[FOOOOTY]

AFL's PR machine will go into overdrive if this is delayed to go to the members..

Their puppet journalists will lable JB's plan unfeasible, attack his business skills, talk up things like toomany sides in Melb too survive, their player facilities, football department spending, fractured board and unworkable shareholder structure.

You can absoloutely bet, that any delay of 3 months or so would wind up before the first Footy Show of the year.

No way the AFL will fight this fair, AFL = pr!cks

 

[thenorthernpole]

Agree with everything but the part about buying memberships now.

North supporters SHOULD NOT renew or buy memberships until the Gold Coast idea has been axed

 

[RoyalBlue]

I think we can get what we want without needing the vote, and to be honest, lets nip this in the bud now.

KL is right, there is no pointing dragging this out, get the shareholder and board saying we are staying.

Then **** with the structure of the club - but not before we are staying.

Dont under estimate the AFL's ability to **** with us if this was definiteively put to a member vote, also, dont forget the extent to which the last election this club had, was ****ed with.

Im fearful delaying this for a vote of members will be a protracted and deathly period - lets get this over the line now with the shareholders and board members first, then worry about the next steps after that.

 

[RoyalBlue]

Agree with everything but the part about buying memberships now.

North supporters SHOULD NOT renew or buy memberships until the Gold Coast idea has been axed

No, ****, **** this is amazingly short sighted. My god.