Sorry mate can't agree, an 11 game membership to vote seems a bit excessive for those who can't get to many games, but want to feel part of the club and have a say in decisions.

Hmmm ... possibly a misguided move in fear of possible election stacking???

I remember David McKay wanting the removal of the obstructive registration process way back in 2003, it has only taken the Club 9 years to get such an elementary democratic change through.

Would like to see their reasoning for the second poart of this change hopefully there is information around somewhere. Being overseas for the last 2 seasons, but still holding full AFL Club Support, it doesn't really affect me, but I want to know why. Have I missed any paperwork from the Club foreshadowing this change???

Doesn't seem so long ago when there was serious discussion on talkback radio about the pros and cons of relocating to what is essentially now GWS, given the support we have up there.

I don't think any other club (other than maybe Richmond for some reason) has as much solidified support in each state or territory as we do. Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot like this? What brand directive or initiative, what marketing guru could possibly tell us that such a move is to the greater benefit of the CFC?

Admittedly, after reading about Geoff Lord screwing over Hawthorn, suppose it does go some way to harm minimization, should such a thing ever occur here (and we've narrowly avoided some EGMs in recent years too..)

_________________
BLUES 2010: PAV AND JUDD = FLAGS. DOING IT FOR THE LOVE OF DICK PRATT.

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?

Considering some of the things that have outraged posters in the past, I am surprised that this issue hasn't had more of a run. What's the deal with all the changes being included together as one item to vote for or against. Surely it wasn't that hard to seperate them, so that we could vote on each issue.

It's certainly a way of lessening the power of the internet as I imagine that that is where a number of interstate members get their info from (admittedly not always a good thing ). Which again puzzles me as to why the forums aren't up in arms.

As others have mentioned "I Am Carlton" does have a hollow ring to it now.

I also have a couple of friends who won't be renewing in the future if this gets up and I don't blame them. It is fine to take their money and include them in the membership tally, but not to have a say.

I doubt that this has anything to do with a marketing guru Rhino, it seems very political to me.

Sounds simple doesn't it, but look at how the voting forms are set up to help the proposal get up. I've agreed with you on a number of issues Dane, but I don't think that you are seeing what they are doing here. Frankly this sucks and they have been very cynical with the way that they have done it.

Well we here at TC can start a grass roots campaign to reach out to the wider membership base.

Should we e-mail/twitter major news outlets and see what we get?

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

It certainly wouldn't hurt This seems to be the only board where it has rated a mention.

I joined the Carlton Social Club as a junior in 1971. Even though the Social Club itself no longer exists I have rejoined every year since. The club sent a certificate this year acknowledging 41 (consecutive) years of membership.
Even though I left Melbourne and moved back to my home patch many years ago, and can get to fewer games, I still cough up annually to be a ''Captain's Club'' member. I also weigh in for 4 junior memberships for family members as Christmas presents.

I haven't read through the thread thoroughly,but does this mean because I live in Echuca, I'm less of a member than someone who lives in Coburg ? If so why am I shelling out around $700 annually ?

Never mind I AM CARLTON. AM I (STILL) CARLTON ?

_________________
The problem with Socialism is, you eventually run out of other people's money.

Perhaps getting someone from the club to come on-line to explain the changes would be an idea or have we burned our bridges with some of the antics by a few forum members? If there are good reasons then it could lessen any angst.

Any 11 game membership will qualify you as an ordinary member and still allow you to vote.

That's probably fair

On further investigation I agree with you.

_________________
dane's trolling again

Why do you think it is fair Andy? Loyal Carlton members are being asked to buy 11 game memberships that many won't be able to use just to vote. They are already getting a lesser benefit from their memberships now and the club have decided to increase that inequity. Members who are contributing money to the club with little chance of seeing many games live should be rewarded, not punished because they live in certain areas of the country or overseas.

It's pretty sad really.

Yeah. It probably seems like a good move in a board room.
Bad move in reality.

3 game I understand.

_________________
dane's trolling again

Yep much more reasonable given the few games, if any, many of these members will be able to get to. They are also still counted as members by the AFL at that level as well, with all the bragging rights and benefits that brings to the club. I just don't understand the logic behind it or even whether they have totally thought it through. If as much thought had been put into the proposal as was put into making sure it succeeds I doubt we would be voting on it at all, I hope so anyway. Hopefully it is one of those unforseen consequences situations rather than anything a little more sinister.

Given a member with voting rights has a $50 liability should the club be wound up, you'd reckon setting the bar at an 11 game membership shouldn't be too much to ask.

I've been an 11 game member for 10 years+ and I don't think I've used my membership once to get to a game. For me, it's not about that. Go back to Dirko's rationale.

As it is I only get to 1 or 2 games a year, which by virtue of scheduling and my visits to Melbourne/Sydney can often be away games. Living almost 700km away kinda makes it tricky to go every week.

I'm not trying to discredit your stance, but merely making the point that if you want voting rights then I believe it is reasonable that a minimum level of membership be required.

Ability to get value for money for that membership, in the context of seeking voting rights, is largely irrelevant, I believe. They're two separate issues in some ways, as anyone who lives interstate may well attest.

Perhaps a more equitable approach would be to add a voting rights option fee, which could be added to any membership level. I realise that's a bit of crass way to approach it, but at least those wanting that level of involvement would be doing so consciously (not by accident) and then they can still choose the level of membership that best suits their needs.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

At the AGM last night, I spoke to the motion to approve the amended version of the Constitution. I have also followed this thread but it was not appropriate to comment until after the AGM.

The Audit, Risk, Governance and HR committee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Constitution which was well outdated and deficient in a number of areas.

In relation to voting rights, the system under the old Constitution meant that less than 7,000 of our 22,000 plus adult members were entitled to vote because they had signed the acknowledgement by which they agreed to be liable for $50 in the event of a wind up.

The committee (comprising myself, Greg Lee, Ari Suss, Marcus Clarke and Jason Reddick) was of the view that the procedure was far too restrictive and not representative of the overall membership of the Club. We agreed that more members should have the right to vote. A discussion took place as to whether there should be any restrictions at all. We were of the view that we should require a level of membership that was at least an 11 home game package because these members were more "invested" in the Club than say 3 game members and indeed the new "armchair" membership now available. Not only "invested" more from a financial sense but also in terms of attending games.

Unfortunately, we inadvertently failed to consider long distance members. There was no conspiracy I can assure you. It was simply an oversight.

On behalf of the Board, I apologise to those long distance members who have lost their voting rights. Consideration was given to whether we could make a late change to the amended Constitution forwarded to members along with the notice of the AGM. Legal advice indicated that it was too late. Again, I am very sorry.

The Board will re-consider this next year and further changes can be made at next year's AGM.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Regards

Stephen M

Thanks for clarifying for this in detail Stephen, and for your work in reviewing the constitution

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010