WANM SAYS ‘LET MEMBERS DECIDE’

[Deep We11s 1]

Good work Lim, it's always wise to revisit any constitution on a regular basis to identify and close any loopholes that may appear from time to time.

I think the only reason the board will vote no is because they see 4 as limiting (The AFL wouldn't like it either). However, I don't think it would be the end of the world if we got a good deal to play 6 games in Hobart with replacement Melbourne games and limited other interstate travel.

Then there's Ballarat .....

 

[Tas]

I don't think this will get through this year due to the number of rubber stamp proxies the board receives, however, it is probably worth having this issue raised and highlighted. Our best bet will be when voting eventually migrates to online voting.

Best of luck though, our board needs to be aware that there are limitations in terms of what we find acceptable.

 

[chrissy]

For years and years I have just paid my membership and not really given much thought to the inner workings of the club . 4 games has to be the maximum and I would rather them be played at Ballarat - some pay for a reserved seat which doesn't include the Hobart games .
- The membership price doesn't reduce because the club assumes we have deep pockets and can click our fingers and shuffle of to the Hobart games .

If we were to play 7 games a year in Hobart then in time the loyal fans will no longer feel a part of the club which will have no real home .

My vote is to cap it at 4

 

[Limerick]

Agree that we should not be discussing a motion with relocation in it.
In my view the motion should be along the lines of replacement games and guaranteed debt reduction per games sold.
Unless the members believe JB will go on a huge spending spree how exactly will North get into a relocation scenario?

The motion could have been constructed with a title "Limitation of Replacement games" or similar placing the limitation at 4 games but the impact is the same i.e. we are seeking to have a member vote if the Club wishes to relocate more than 4 home games.

A guaranteed debt reduction per games sold is a management or policy decision and doesn't sit in a Constitution.

 

[Limerick]

Q, i remember agreeing to the voting online option some time ago, will this vote be available online or do you have to attend the AGM to cast a vote ?

Voting will be by Proxy or in Person.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

A guaranteed debt reduction per games sold is a management or policy decision and doesn't sit in a Constitution.

So in other words you want to dictate management and policy decision of people who were already voted in.

 

[Only Forwards]

So in other words you want to dictate management and policy decision of people who were already voted in.

How do you get to that point?

The way I read this amendment is that it is a safeguard that the club is then bound to so no board can ever put relocation on the agenda ever again.

The change is so as a collective the supporters don't need to revisit 2007 to kill the movement of the club, they can just vote against it.

7 games in a location that is not Melbourne is a step towards relocation.

 

[Limerick]

So in other words you want to dictate management and policy decision of people who were already voted in.

Relocation is the death of one club (North Melbourne Football Club) to enable the birth of a new (AFL franchise) club.

Relocation should never be a management decision. Management is there to run the Club not kill it off.

Relocation would never be placed on a director candidates election platform i.e. it wouldn't become official policy.

No current Board member has presented themselves to the electorate stating that they would consider relocation.

JB still states that he is anti relocation BUT is prepared to gamble on playing more than 4 homes games outside of Victora. This is where he and WANM differ.

Relocation would never be in a Board's published Policy. They would be voted out at an EGM if it were so.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Inserting a clause that requires management to seek approval from membership before negotiating playing more than 4 games interstate?

**** yeah.

The day 'management' see the membership as a hindrance to their desired direction of the club is the day they no longer speak for the membership, nor the club. This clause would put in place a process by which the membership can call the management to account over what is core to the NMFC. This is not a business. It is significantly more than that.

 

[Event Horizon]

I would fully support such a motion with my two votes. I am still not sure however, as to how to do so.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

Good work Lim, it's always wise to revisit any constitution on a regular basis to identify and close any loopholes that may appear from time to time.

I think the only reason the board will vote no is because they see 4 as limiting (The AFL wouldn't like it either). However, I don't think it would be the end of the world if we got a good deal to play 6 games in Hobart with replacement Melbourne games and limited other interstate travel.

Then there's Ballarat .....

The motion says "outside of Victoria", so the board would still have the freedom to move 4 to Hobart as well as 2 to Ballarat for example.


regarding a deal that includes "limited other interstate travel", let me remind everyone that when the Brisbane-Lions merger went through, as part of the deal the AFL were to ensure a minimum 6 games played in Victoria per year. It took less than a decade for them to fail that.

 

[Limerick]

I would fully support such a motion with my two votes. I am still not sure however, as to how to do so.

I'll post the details once the Club issues the Agenda.

 

[Only Forwards]

Hey Limerick is there a provision for WANM to contact the broader membership base to inform them of the proposed amendments?

Similar to what PDR did but not obtaining the names and addresses through the back door.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

JB still states that he is anti relocation BUT is prepared to gamble on playing more than 4 homes games outside of Victora. This is where he and WANM differ."

Well JB did vote no to relocation and return the NMFC to a member based club and was voted back in, so no I do not feel the need to question his management now.

Nor do I need to equate selling Victorian games = relocation/death. I actually believe it is the opposite with Tasmania.

NMFC board have done exactly what they said they would do, base themsleves in Melbourne and seek a Hawthorn type arrangement with replacement games.[/quote]

 

[GarnerSmash]

Well JB did vote no to relocation and return the NMFC to a member based club and was voted back in, so no I do not feel the need to question his management now.

Nor do I need to equate selling Victorian games = relocation/death. I actually believe it is the opposite with Tasmania.

NMFC board have done exactly what they said they would do, base themsleves in Melbourne and seek a Hawthorn type arrangement with replacement games.

[/quote]
Then they should have no problem in allowing the members to have a say if they wish to relocate more than 4 home games away from Victoria.

 

[Tas]

Well JB did vote no to relocation and return the NMFC to a member based club and was voted back in, so no I do not feel the need to question his management now.

After saying no he offered co-location to the AFL, which would have resulted in our death. I am not in favour of a slow death over a quick death. We live free or die trying.

Nor do I need to equate selling Victorian games = relocation/death. I actually believe it is the opposite with Tasmania.

If our local support drops off significantly enough we will be in a very vulnerable position. Our supporter attendance habits are very poor as it is, it suggests our grip on our local supporter base is loose as it is.

NMFC board have done exactly what they said they would do, base themsleves in Melbourne and seek a Hawthorn type arrangement with replacement games.

The goal posts have changed though. AFL isn't hostile with us and we are given the resources and time to expand our market share here and have access to a strong growth corridor to promote the club. Tasmania want their own team, it is dangerous to weaken our base and rely on them. They will come at us like Gold Coast did if we are weak enough. Does anyone want to go through he GC thing again?

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Tasmania want their own team, it is dangerous to weaken our base and rely on them. They will come at us like Gold Coast did if we are weak enough. Does anyone want to go through he GC thing again?

Hobart is the best thing to happen to North since JB spilled the board and perhaps even better than the great job the Waverley Park curator did in 1993.

So what are our membership or voting demographics - a third interstate? Our recent growth both in revenue and members appears to be driven by interstate not Victoria.

North have embraced Hobart and Hawthorn Launceston and they might as well be in 2 different states.

Clean stadium of similar dimensions to Etihad with free upgrades thanks to cricket, revenue and membership growth.

Relocation is driven by financial turmoil within a club, an AFL agenda where they think they will get growth and TV rights and a united group that wants a team. Tasmania does not fit that profile and they get real football from 2 teams. There is no "they" coming at us.

Unless you think the board and a KPMG partner are financially inept with additional revenue, members and sponsors from selling games why do we need to vote 3 times?

 

[Tas]

Hobart is the best thing to happen to North since JB spilled the board and perhaps even better than the great job the Waverley Park curator did in 1993.

JB didn't do anything about Hobart, it was Brendan Gale. AFL just wouldn't let Richmond play there. We are there because the AFL wanted us there. AFL wanted us on the GC previously. That gives me cause to worry. While the AFL is not hostile with us, if they think they can move us and retain the valuable Melbourne ratings and prop the team up with Melbourne support then I wouldn't put it past them to try again.

So what are our membership or voting demographics - a third interstate? Our recent growth both in revenue and members appears to be driven by interstate not Victoria.

Where are you getting this from?

North have embraced Hobart and Hawthorn Launceston and they might as well be in 2 different states.

Tasmania still want their own team though, each time Hawthorn's contract comes around for discussion we will be in the middle of a political games and we fell for it last time and made to look stupid. I like JB, respect him for what he has achieved but he has made two decisions which I would vote against if I had the opportunity to and I am not convinced there wont be any more in the future.

I take it that you are happy with everything he does, power to you and people like you. You would still have the ability to vote in support. This proposal just means it would need member approval to shift a material number of games, which I find to be reasonable.

Clean stadium of similar dimensions to Etihad with free upgrades thanks to cricket, revenue and membership growth.

It is a great place to play footy from, but Tasmania is not our home, no matter how many people from Hobart support the club. It never will be, unless we make bad decisions.

Relocation is driven by financial turmoil within a club, an AFL agenda where they think they will get growth and TV rights and a united group that wants a team. Tasmania does not fit that profile and they get real football from 2 teams. There is no "they" coming at us.

We weren't in financial turmoil during the GC debacle and we almost lost our club.

Unless you think the board and a KPMG partner are financially inept with additional revenue, members and sponsors from selling games why do we need to vote 3 times?

They don't have to be inept, they just have to be lured by a financially attractive idea. They wouldn't have a clue how our members and supporters feel about the big decisions because they don't engage us ahead of making these decisions.

To be honest, I would rather us flog pokies than kill our club. I am not sure why we would pass on a significant chunk of revenue if that decision puts our club in harms way. I'd rather we didn't get involved in pokies, but I don't like that they are off the table and a possibility of having less than half of our home games in Melbourne is a possibility that they want to do without our approval.

 

[LT Smash]

After saying no he offered co-location to the AFL

Are you talking about the Gold Coast here? Because it's not quite accurate to say JB offered the co-location. He was just one of 8 board members at that time and it was a compromise agreement within a dysfunctional and split board but carried certain stipulations that those opposed to relocation knew the AFL would never agree to. In other words, it was an ambit claim. You can't really hang that one on JB. If on the other hand you are talking about Tasmania, then by all means, fire away.

 

[King Corey]

To be honest, I would rather us flog pokies than kill our club. I am not sure why we would pass on a significant chunk of revenue if that decision puts our club in harms way. I'd rather we didn't get involved in pokies, but I don't like that they are off the table and a possibility of having less than half of our home games in Melbourne is a possibility that they want to do without our approval.

Completely agree with this.

So taking the pointless high moral ground leads the board to resist capping interstate games? Get rid of.

 

[LT Smash]

Completely agree with this.

So taking the pointless high moral ground leads the board to resist capping interstate games? Get rid of.

Aside from the moral bankruptcy of pillaging the most vulnerable members of society, poker machines have been a black hole for the NMFC in the past. Forget poker machines. The issue of selling games interstate needs to be considered in its own right. I am happy to agree to this proposal of WANM, I don't want to allow relocation by stealth, but if you are going to introduce polarising and irrelevant issues like poker machines as an alternative, then I would change my vote. You derail the argument onto another issue and you divide support for the original premise.

 

[Saintly31]

What a President!

Repeat after me James. "Gobble, Gobble, Gobble".

Yeah so who is going to blindly follow this Turkey and Vote No? 4 off you thus far. In all seriousness. Think!

Vote Yes. It is the right thing to do. We, the members are the football club. We should have a right to vote on such important decisions as playing more than say 4 home games interstate. Our Primary Market is Melbourne. It should remain that way. After all we are the Victorian North Melbourne Football Club.

EFA based on the proposal.

I don't disagree otherwise in the slightest, its an excellent motion in terms of intention to stop relocation.

Its a no from me as we are a North Melbourne Kangaroos, and anything other than Melbourne would mean relocation no different to Tasmania.

 

[LT Smash]

EFA based on the proposal.

I don't disagree otherwise in the slightest, its an excellent motion just a shame about the wording.

Its a no from me as we are a North Melbourne Kangaroos and anything other than Melbourne would mean relocation no different to Tasmania.

This reminds me of the republic referendum where John Howard managed to drive a wedge between the republicans by forcing them to choose between 2 models rather than simply pitting the monarchy against a republic with details to be advised. The popular vote republicans refused to support the parliamentary republican position so the referendum was defeated by the monarchists, despite having less than 35% support overall. If people like Saintly 31 sell the club out to Tasmania because they can't be shagged getting off their arse and catching a train to Ballarat, I will spew.

 

[Limerick]

Well JB did vote no to relocation and return the NMFC to a member based club and was voted back in, so no I do not feel the need to question his management now.
Nor do I need to equate selling Victorian games = relocation/death. I actually believe it is the opposite with Tasmania.
NMFC board have done exactly what they said they would do, base themsleves in Melbourne and seek a Hawthorn type arrangement with replacement games.

[/quote]

This motion allows for a Hawthorn type arrangement without any need to go to members.

Have you considered the possible scenario where over the next couple of years the AFL seeks to have Hawthorn back in Melbourne (remember 2010) and have North play 3 games in both Launceston and Hobart i.e. 6 home away games. If this were to happen we are gone. I don't care if the Tasmanian club plays in the Blue & White and is called the Kangaroos, it won't be NORTH MELBOURNE!

 

[Mr Reliable]

The motion says "outside of Victoria", so the board would still have the freedom to move 4 to Hobart as well as 2 to Ballarat for example.


regarding a deal that includes "limited other interstate travel", let me remind everyone that when the Brisbane-Lions merger went through, as part of the deal the AFL were to ensure a minimum 6 games played in Victoria per year. It took less than a decade for them to fail that.

Exactly. They wouldn't need a vote for that.

They could also agree to an AFL Tasmania offer of $10 zillion to play all home games in Hobart, subject to satisying the motion. If that's the way the members want the club to go, nobody's stopping them.

All it does is give some say to the members who can be stuffed voting.

IIRC, this was mooted during the Duffman era and most people saw it as a deficiency in the current constitution. Well, that was years ago and it hasn't been fixed.

So, for God's sake vote ''yes''.

We're talking about a potential relocation people, not about interfering with the day to day management of the club. Sheesh!