Mosquito Fleet wrote:
If you bother to read my post on October 24 around 7.40 Carlton's problem is a constitutional problem, hence your opinion that is is not in the top 10 of the clubs problems...
Oh I read it! It was hilarious. I wasn't sure if you were serious though.
And why would I attempt to be hilarious on such an important matter?Mosquito Fleet wrote:
The Constitution objectives does not consider or even acknowledge the existence of its Members and in fact is silent as to benefiting its Members.
What are you talking about? See Section 3 - Members.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/staticfile/ ... tution.pdfTotally Incorrect - see clause 2 Objects
2.1. The Club exists for the benefit of its supporters and the community. It seeks to serve this purpose by
undertaking the following:
(a) In playing the game of AFL football, to provide its supporters with enjoyment, engagement,
fulfilment and hope of success;
(b) By promoting the playing of AFL football in general;
(c) Through promoting the playing of AFL football by maintaining, providing, supporting and
controlling a team or teams of Players bearing the name of the Carlton Football Club, or
affiliating with another entity for the purposes of playing AFL football in the Victorian Football
League, in any competition with other clubs primarily within Australia, but if necessary or
desirable in the opinion of the Board, in any other part of the world;
(d) Through the playing and promotion of AFL football, to encourage participation by its supporters
and the community generally in the sport of AFL football to improve health, fitness and well
being;
(e) To promote health and fitness generally in the community by:
(i) being positive role models;
(ii) ensuring Players attend clinics within schools and at community events;
Constitution of Carlton Football Club
5
(iii) providing access to the Club’s facilities for organised community groups;
(f) Making available the Club’s facilities to charitable, community, sporting, social and educational
groups;
(g) By being actively involved in multi-cultural programs and introducing community groups of
diverse backgrounds to the sport of AFL football and the positive benefits that it brings;
(h) To promote and actively support worthwhile causes including charitable organisations which
can benefit from an association with, and assistance from, the Club;
(i) To promote environmental sustainability awareness and education to school groups and
interested parties;
(j) Through striving for success on a sustainable basis including the pursuit of premierships; and
(k) Any other activities that will provide benefit to the community to ensure that the Club can fulfil
its purpose.
There is no reference to "Members" as provided in clause 3 to which you refer.
Mosquito Fleet wrote:
One possible option (of a plurality of options) is to fix the Board to 7 Directors at all times. Further, each Director could have specific functions and powers: Say for example, Football Director, AFL Stakeholder Director, Media Director, Finance Director, Membership Director, Coterie/Sponsor Director and Administration Director (for example).
The first point I'd agree with you on - except my preferred number is 9. As for the rest...Directors do have specific functions. They all sit on sub-committees. But some of the aforementioned roles you name are for suitably qualified staff members. Do you seriously want to put Media and Membership Director in the hands of a board member? That's laughable.
It appears everything is laughable if the idea was not generated by you 
. Given that the media are the largest financial stakeholder in the AFL, a media Director on the Board would be an asset to the ClubMosquito Fleet wrote:
There has to be a power for Members to clean the entire Board in one sweep as this provides accountability to its Members. Carving off parts of the Board through a small number of annual director elections, when other parts stay like the half Senate elections in the Commonwealth Parliament is not really helpful. In fact, there can be a full Senate election, so why not a full Carlton Board election?
It works better if you have rolling elections. The lack of voting given to members during Kernahan's reign hasn't been impressive.
Does not address my point. Rolling elections keeps existing Directors in power when, in the correct circumstance, should be removed by all Members by way of a full Board electionMosquito Fleet wrote:
The Club cannot have it both ways: if Members do not have rights to remove the Board, don't make them liable to pay $50 upon dissolution of the Club, but let the Directors who made the financial decisions in the first place to be personally responsible for that cost..
If most members are like you - then they have little knowledge of constitution, board process or the Corporations Act. That's why I've advocated for greater transparency. That way - more members won't rely on rumor, innuendo or media for their news. Yesterday, SEN reported that Stephen Kernahan would be stepping down after 2014. Facebook is rife with people criticizing the club for the bad decision in not letting Sticks move on. It's difficult communicating to the great unwashed - but it needs to happen because people just don't get it.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
...hasn't your Modus operandi over the past few years been to get football back to Princes Park...something that would be detrimental to the footy club, but you and Surrey continue to run with it? I think you and I have differing views on what the clubs problems are and where they've got things right.
