Wojee wrote:
I also think that getting a vote is a very good reason to become a "member", otherwise we should just rename it to "ticketholder". It is after all a club that you're supposedly joining when you stump up your cash.
As members of a club we should have some say in how the club is being run, and people being appointed to the board rather than being elected is setting a dangerous precedent IMO.
I like the way that sentence is framed. The only reason it is classed as 'member' is that if the Club is wound up while the applicant is an Ordinary member or within one year after the applicant or person ceases to be an Ordinary member, the 'member' is liable to contribute up to $50.00 to the assets of the Club.
That wouldn't be the case if you were classed as a ticketholder which is a more common term for sporting organisations that have an ownership structure. That the club abides by a constitution and formally reports to members is similar to that of a registered company and its shareholders. But in very recent times, company shareholders rights have been strengthened more than they have ever been.
And for the big companies like Rio Tinto and BHP which are dual listed in the UK, new rules require all companies to hold annual vote on the board, and BHP and Rio have to comply.
Our football club is moving further away from strengthening its shareholder (you the member) engagement. The clubs hierarchy - in my eyes - believe that increased exposure through social media will suffice. In the meantime, our rivals on the corner of Olympic Boulevard and Batman Avenue happily advertised their AGM to fans on a regular basis, presented their fans with social media (twitter, facebook) of the event and shared details/highlights of events the very next day. Exactly what I want from a company that I have invested money in. My club advertised the AGM once on the website and once, months before in a newspaper - (it's a legal obligation). There was no press on the clubs website in the weeks leading up to the 2011 AGM, nor was there foresight to communicate an AGM to members (shareholders) via any new media.
Drewgirl wrote:
Why does it always have to be what we get out of the club?
They keep us entertained by watching games, reading about them and debating about them. Also makes for a good conversation at work when it gets boring.
Thats enough value for money for me.
I view the entertainment I get out of the game as part of a dividend I get out (or once did) of the club for my investment. For my continued loyalty - I expect to be treated like a company shareholder.
I would love to be able to say we do that at Carlton, but we don't. I would love to be able to put 'I AM A SHAREHOLDER' on my 'I AM CARLTON' mug - but i don't feel that way. Neither does the club. The corporate world are being forced to acknowledge they are employees of the company's owners, the shareholders. Why shouldn't that same thing work for Carlton?
Unfortunately, we are not going to see change for some time. That much is clear given board numbers, board factions, senior staff contracts and strategic direction set. Hence, my decision not to remain a shareholder or invest in the club by any means, was made a hell of a lot easier.