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.

A thankless task the life of a board member sometimes. I'd hate to think of the hours Stephen and the committee spent reviewing the constitution and drafting the proposed amendments.

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Risk, Governance and HR committee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Constitution which was well outdated and deficient in a number of areas.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

It seems to me that if members really cared about the club and wanted to be involved their would be more than 300 attending the AGM (barely that many there last night) and the Club would receive more than the 800 or so proxy votes they received for the motion.


Colourman, Princes Park Whistler and I tried to eat all the sandwiches but the pretty waitress had a helluva time convincing us to polish off all the leftovers.

The poor long distance members now have to stump up the money to get to the AGM and an 11 game membership to be "invested" in the club You are a cruel man Agro

A thankless task the life of a board member sometimes. I'd hate to think of the hours Stephen and the committee spent reviewing the constitution and drafting the proposed amendments.

I, for one, have been a member for well over a decade and never voted because the process in order to vote was both restrictive and time consuming.

The process is no longer restrictive or time consuming.

While long distance members are no longer able to vote, there will be a far larger number of members (like myself) who will freely exercise their voting rights following these amendments.

If the net effect of the amendments is that it leads to a greater number of members voting, the posters sprouting conspiracy theories about "vote stacking" come across as seeming rather foolish.

Doc I have always respected your views.

The club has some way to go in areas such as marketing and membership.

But I feel we're slowly improving in both respects.

Apportioning revenue to account for on field and off field spend is never easy.

It seems to me that if enough long distance members felt so strongly about it - they could have used a number of forums (TC, Big Footy, CSC) to drum up enough support and send enough proxies to the club to defeat the motion.

I believe it's an honest oversight by the Sub-Committee on this issue and we should take Stephen M. at his word to see if it is addressed for the next AGM.

Stephen, that the board even considered a restriction of members voting rights I find problematic to begin with, but for the board to a) not to even consider any members beyond the Melbourne Metropolitan region; and b) feel that members who are paid up to potentially attend matches as being "more invested" in the club is bewildering.

It's easy to be "invested" in a club when you live close. Try living interstate, serviced poorly by television and radio on top of that. And then still forking out not only for your membership, but that of your wife, daughter, 2 nieces, etc. As well as contributing to player sponsorship. And then find that the board has its head so far up its own fundamental orifice that they're conceding massive marketing opportunities to other large clubs who we're supposed to be fighting for hearts and minds across the country.

For the first time in almost 20 years, I'm having to consider the cost of my membership, and frankly, some of the myopic and frankly stupid decisions of the board aren't helping any.

Maybe rather than feeling you know the member base, and supporter base of our great club, you come to some of the regional areas, and other states and meet with some and talk to them. Not only will you be surprised by the "investment" those members and supporters have in the club, you'll also be amazed at what some of those people have to offer the club. Next time the team comes up to Sydney, rather than the perfunctory whistle-stop Eastern Suburbs visits which are the norm, the club could invest in their supporters, and board members like yourself can do some real research, rather than make childish and ridiculous assumptions based on parochial prejudices.

Possibly would have been tough - but the point I was making was the relatively low number of proxy votes (I think about 800 in total) - you would have only needed 25% or more of those to defeat the motion (roughly 200 or so).

Thanks for the explanation Stephen and totally understand what the board tried to do here.
I don't mind the idea of making sure only 11 home game members plus are only allowed to vote either.
For example - long distance members don't appreciate the MCG vs OO vs TD differences. They cannot understand what a "real home" social club means to members week in week out. Just 2 points I will leave this thread with.

ps. I've put my thoughts forward and will try to refrain from replying.

long distance members don't appreciate the MCG vs OO vs TD differences. They cannot understand what a "real home" social club means to members week in week out.

Thanks for the explanation Stephen and totally understand what the board tried to do here.
I don't mind the idea of making sure only 11 home game members plus are only allowed to vote either.
For example - long distance members don't appreciate the MCG vs OO vs TD differences. They cannot understand what a "real home" social club means to members week in week out. Just 2 points I will leave this thread with.

ps. I've put my thoughts forward and will try to refrain from replying.