...But I'm sure those with that viewpoint can vote on issues directly pertaining to long distance members because they can on the other hand understand those issues

I admire your support Camelboy and I'm sure that like myself and others you have poured thousands into the club over the years , but I'm not sure others for various reasons are able to do the same.

I don't have a problem with a minimum level of membership being a criteria for eligibility, it is just at what level that kicks in. I would have thought an easier and fairer option would be to go with what the AFL considers to be a membership that counts towards a membership tally. Those memberships are used by the club and the AFL in various ways to their benefit so quid pro quo. Not sure of the relevence of the $50 mate, as it is unlikely to happen, but that could be your membership fee if you feel we have to have it and a sign of "investment" in the club...meaningless as it is

I'm not sure how you have equated this issue to value for money mate, its not like the complaints are about taking away a cap or the like (although the outrage would probably have been louder ) Long distance memberships are never value for money, but some do like to vote and are not happy with being forced to up their donation to do so.

I actually do like the idea of a voting rights option on your membership form each year but without the fee

disclaimer. I move around a bit (Vic S.A Tassie) and have had various membership categories, so I have been both a long distance member and one of the chosen and at the moment this doesn't actually affect me, but it does for a number of my family and friends to varying degrees. It will also probably have an impact in the future when I move back home, as I'm not a native Vic. It's the bloody principle of the thing. The fact that I won't be renewing over it (it was supposed to be my christmas present to myself, but I held off to see what happened) will shock many who know how one eyed I am, but if you don't stick to your values what is the point of having them. It will make it difficult taking the kiddies to games, but I don't think it would be fair to impose my view on them as silly as it obviously seems to some

So we've improved the process for many Josh and unfortunately shafted quite a few in the process?
Personally, I dont find that a satisfying outcome. Yes, I appreciate the hard work of our board members but I also expect quality outcomes when they initiate change.
As we've seen recently, there's quality people on the periphery waiting for their opportunity to contribute.

Personally, I believe this is symptomatic of why Collingwood have 70K+ members and we're lagging 30K behind. The club can talk inclusiveness as much as they want but their actions are often contrary to that claim. When we were getting flogged in the early 2000s, it was the hardcore members that kept the club afloat. Corporately, financially and from a membership and manpower perspective.
They seem to be the ones who are being trod upon now. The Spirit of Carlton, reserved seat holders on level 2, playing in front of and valuing our interstate members, using security guards to throw supporters out of training sessions. The smart clubs embrace the new ago supporters but not at the expense of the old and hardcore supporter. No one has taken their hardcore members more for granted over the years than us.


We talk the talk well but we fail to walk the walk.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Beautifully put.

In regards to "investment in the club", how can it possibly be claimed that long distance members somehow have less "investment" in the club because they don't have the potential to attend as many matches? If you take more than a moment to think about it, long distance members who don't attend home matches actually have arguably more "investment" in the club, due to their membership money, and in many cases several lots of it in the family, effectively being donated to the club year after year. And then we get served all forms of twaddle and excuses for not playing matches in Sydney because of member numbers in the area.

The restriction of voting rights is one thing, and I can live with that, but the perpetuation of the "I'm a better supporter than you" mentality is something that shouldn't even enter the thinking of the club, let alone be part of the decision making process.

I for one expect far better from a club which is supposed to be acting professionally in a cut-throat sports market in Australia.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

I thought love for the club was supposed to be unconditional - except as far as recruitment is concerned.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

After the mess left behind by John Elliott, anyone who gives unconditionally to the club deserves the mediocrity they're leaving themselves open to.
Apathy sees us playing a large chunk of games at Etihad and being second class citizens at the MCG. We play Collingwood at the G in Round 3 and they get better facilities than we do for OUR home game. I would have thought you'd be the first one to acknowledge that Agro.

Unconditional my arse.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Edited for accuracy.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

But seriously speaking to your point about apathy Blue Vain - there were probably less than 300 people at Wednesday's AGM.

As they say in politics you get the representation that you deserve.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

I don't mind continuing to exclude 3-game memberships based on the assumption they wouldn't stump up the required $50, but no member should be excluded based on perceived voting rights.

If the interstate members held sway in a vote, then by rights they would be the majority party and the club would be fool-hardy not to take interest. As it stands, I don't see that happening any time soon so it makes no difference to include them on most - if not, all - issues.

Silly points being made by Surrey and others in that regard.

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

As an interstate member who lives in Darwin it is extremely disappointing to be be losing voting rights. Interstate members fork out every year and get little in return. I will continue to be a member as I love the club and believe in putting my money where my mouth is. But this decision makes me feel like a second class citizen.

_________________
Hooked on The Blues

AFAIAC - the AFL/VFL and most of the clubs have traded on the unconditional passion and love that most supporters have for their clubs - but the Silent Generation & Baby Boomers are slowly dying out.

As a customer service type organization with products to sell if the AFL and Clubs dont get more in touch and connect with Generation X, Y & Z - there may not be an AFL in a generation or so.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Kudos to Stephen M for being open and honest about their 'oversight' but really it's a bit of a moment

Which is a valid point that you have made, as long distance members have allowed themselves to lose their voting rights, but considering the numbers who actually voted it isn't exactly a ringing endorsment of the changes either.

It just seems a bit strange. Stephen said in is post that they wanted more members to be able to vote and thus made it easier to do so, but at the same time took away the voting rights of some members who were already eligible.

It just would have been better if they had consulted members about the changes and explained why they were made in detail. It would also have been better if they had broken up the changes into sections rather than having to vote on everything proposed as a bloc. I'm sure the rationale for some would have been, well I'm not sure about this bit, but I like the rest so I'll vote in favour of the proposal.

It would also have made it easier for them to actually communicate to their members that well we didn't think this through properly, so could you please vote for everything else, but vote no to the new eligibility rules so we can have a think about it and come back with a better proposal next year, sorry for the inconvenience...but they could only do that if they had seperate sections.

Couple that with the possibility that all the AFL's broadcast partners may find the rights they have bought aren't financially viable and who knows what will happen. GWS will certainly be a money drain and a few clubs are struggling now, the reliance on gambling revenues probably isn't healthy either. Changes to pokies law will impact on bottom lines as just one example, as will any future changes that bar gambling entities from sponsoring sport.

Somehow I dont think "The Spew" will have to worry about whether the AFL can deliver 9 games every weekend to the Television Networks in 2017.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

I imagine you are right Agro probably off counting his loot in some tax haven