WANM SAYS ‘LET MEMBERS DECIDE’

[Limerick]

While this issue has been discussed on another thread (AGM to be a belter) I am seeking a poll on BF poster’s position on the voting, plus having an issue specific thread.

WANM delivered a notice supported by over 100 signatures from 2012 NMFC members, addressed to the Directors of the NMFC, containing a motion that;

“…….. the NMFC Constitution be amended to require a membership vote on any actual or proposed obligation, contract, arrangement or understanding the purpose or outcome of which is to permit, allow or require the Club (whether permanent, temporarily or otherwise) to play or relocate more than 4 home games during any Premiership Season outside of the State of Victoria.”

This motion was drafted in the belief that:

• North Melbourne is a member based Club and any decision that could lead to relocation first requires Member endorsement. Full credit to James Brayshaw, the Board and Senior Administrators for this achievement.
• Relocation in this context would likely involve the death of the club we know and love, to enable the birth of a new interstate franchise club. In this scenario, the assets of the deceased club, (the AFL licence, the Mascot [Kangaroos], the colours and its history), would be used to support the birth of the new club.
• “No more than 4 games” was chosen following the success of the Hawthorn – Launceston model.
• The Constitution requires a member vote on a proposed merger. Logically therefore, relocation issues should be treated in a similar fashion.
• The Constitution has as its main objective “to maintain, provide, support and field a team or teams of footballers bearing the name of North Melbourne Football club to compete in the AFL”. Any move away from this without endorsement of the membership would, in our opinion, be unconstitutional.

Discussions have been held with various club representatives, and we understand that it was discussed at the last club Board meeting. We have been informed that the motion will be on the Agenda of the AGM - which is to be held on 19th March 2013 - and that the NMFC Board will not support this motion i.e. the Board will seek that members vote against it. Therefore, any proxy vote directed to James Brayshaw will be a NO vote against the motion.

While James Brayshaw has indicated that he supports the Club being Melbourne based and is not seeking to relocate the Club, he wants the current and future Boards to have unrestricted freedom to play an unspecified number of games interstate in return for revenue. We see this as a very risky strategy, and one which would place the club on a slippery slope towards relocation.

 

[Grogg]

Unrestricted freedom, eh?

Yeah sorry Jim but it was unrestricted freedom that got us in the shit in the first place.

 

[rooboy75]

I won't be attending, but how do I proxy vote for this change.

Also Limerick, you mentioned that Brayshaws paroxysm will vote no, do we have any idea what that number might be?

 

[King Corey]

Fully support Limerick and WANM's excellent work on this.

Who is running for the board who would favour this amendment?

 

[shinboner spiggs]

with the rise in crowds last year i wouldnt be moving too far. i think 4 is the absolute maximum of games we should have to play anywhere else, and if we play more than as limerick said we are on the slippery slope to relocation.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Play more than 4 (home) games away from Melbourne and we start pissing in the face of our biggest supporter base.

Again.

 

[muttley45]

Unrestricted freedom, eh?

Yeah sorry Jim but it was unrestricted freedom that got us in the shit in the first place.

i second that thought grogg, we are, and always should be a member based club, therefore, the members should not be giving unrestricted freedom to the board IMO

 

[Tas]

Not that it means much, we are the minority, JB would get the numbers to kill the club if he so chose because a lot of supporters place too much faith in him. I respect him and have all the time in the world for him, however, on this topic I do not have the faith that he would make the right decision given what he was prepared to offer previously.

 

[True North]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Limerick]

I won't be attending, but how do I proxy vote for this change.
Also Limerick, you mentioned that Brayshaws paroxysm will vote no, do we have any idea what that number might be?

The NMFC has around 25,000 members (2012 adult members) who can vote on this. Typically only around 3,000 members vote for Directors who in recent years have been able to vote online. This will largely be a paper based proxy vote. If the NO camp can gather 1,500 votes the motion could be defeated (6% of the eligible votes). Sitting Directors have been re selected with between 1,200 and 1,600 votes (I think).

WANM needs to gather well in excess of 2,500 YES votes to have any chance of success. The issue of the AGM Agenda will/should explain how to complete the proxy voting form. I see apathy as the greatest concern here. The NMFC community needs to come out and vote in numbers for both the Yes and No votes. It must be a resounding statement by the members irrespective of the outcome.

I accept that BF cannot be assessed as an unbiased group but at this point its the only one we (WANM) have. I believe that this is a very important issue for the future of the Club and that setting the bar at 4 is very reasonable, many want less. The WANM challenge is to get this fully explained to the broader NMFC community. We are awaiting the issue of the Agenda.

 

[Dutton Peabody]

I will be casting 4 family members votes for the change to the constitution.

 

[trevagreene]

4 coming my way

 

[Arden]

Unrestricted freedom, eh?

The sort of unrestricted freedom that only a mankini can provide.

Sorry Jim Bob, ain't going to happen. This is our club, not yours.

 

[tazaa]

3 is my vote.

That 7 game proposal even if it was just talk was bullshit.

When Hawthorns deal with Launny expires again, if Tassie wants to see more than 3 games a year again, create their own team or sign up again.

 

[roo beleaver]

Got my vote lads. This stuff scares the crap out of me

 

[roosmad]

i seriously can't believe at OUR general meeting we are discussing a motion that has the word"relocation" in it...
I also have utmost faith in the current board as I have for several years now, but **** me why would this be on the table, playing games interstate or at a venue to increase our supporter base i fully understand, ****ing relocation is a completely different thing all together......

Would love some one from the club get on here and explain this shit to us../.....

 

[Shagga is all Class]

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?

 

[Bigeasy]

i seriously can't believe at OUR general meeting we are discussing a motion that has the word"relocation" in it...
I also have utmost faith in the current board as I have for several years now, but **** me why would this be on the table, playing games interstate or at a venue to increase our supporter base i fully understand, ******* relocation is a completely different thing all together......

Would love some one from the club get on here and explain this shit to us../.....

It's called crossing your "t's" and dotting your "I's". I will also be voting in favour of this change as its not about today. Who knows what board we may have in 10 years time?

One question on the proxies to JB. Will he also get the proxy if members do not vote? What's in the constitution regarding how non votes are handled?

 

[scooby1279]

here we go again.... Unrestricted whoring ourselves off again. Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, Tasmania. Its like life repeating itself at the NMFC. Sorry James this club is owned by the members.

 

[Limerick]

It's called crossing your "t's" and dotting your "I's". I will also be voting in favour of this change as its not about today. Who knows what board we may have in 10 years time?

One question on the proxies to JB. Will he also get the proxy if members do not vote? What's in the constitution regarding how non votes are handled?

A non vote simply doesn't count. Its all about the Yes total versus the No total.

 

[Limerick]

i seriously can't believe at OUR general meeting we are discussing a motion that has the word "relocation" in it...
I also have utmost faith in the current board as I have for several years now, but **** me why would this be on the table, playing games interstate or at a venue to increase our supporter base i fully understand, ******* relocation is a completely different thing all together......

Would love some one from the club get on here and explain this shit to us../.....

The AGM is Our meeting for ALL members. The Constitution has a MERGER clause but is silent on RELOCATION. Both of these could be issues for the Club to deal with in the medium to long term. By my calculation JB has a maximum of 3 years left. Can we guarantee that future Presidents and Boards will deserve the trust that we have with JB? I am concerned with any Board that OKs more than 4 interstate home games.

 

[Zondor]

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 North Melbourne Football Club.

 

[Pykie]

If the club doesn't have an agenda (doubtful) they would give this airtime on the website and facebook page as a discussion point.

If it's being brought in front of an AGM for the purpose of a vote that could potentially change the constitution of the club, then it deserves to be marketed by the club to its average joe members.

As for the vote itself, I think its a fantastic idea Limerick, everyone understands the club needs the ability to generate extra revenue, and Hobart is a fantastic initiative that brings in alot of money to the club, but 4 games is enough, any more cuts too deeply into the clubs traditional home games.

 

[muttley45]

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 ?

 

[roosmad]

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?

completely agree with this.....