How many votes to carry the resolution??

[saintsRrising]

Ok..now leaving aside the politics of whether vote yes or no..

How many votes to carry the resolution??

What are the mechanics of it?

1/ I assume it is only adult that can vote? And if so is this 16 and above (ie as per when you start having to pay for adult membership..or 18 and above).

I ask this in part as FF has mailed proxy forms to my children.

2/ with the vote.....how many votes would carry the resolution?

ie is it?
a/ more than 50% of eligible voters (ie adults)

****or is there another % higher than 50% required as constitutions can some require more than 50% for some issues.

b/ more than 50% of eligible votes ACTUALLY made (ie many people may not vote)


If it is a/ it will be harder for FF to be successful....as lethargy and indecision would probably see many votes not made.

If it is b/ then it is probably going to be easier for FF to get up


If someone knows the EXACT mechanics of the process then that would be appreciated. Thanks.

[saintsRrising]

So looks like no one actually knows...?????

[Oh When the Saints]

I posted something in another thread sRr ...

I can't find St Kilda's Constitution online, but I did find Hawthorn's.

Based on theirs (which should be similar):

- Only Full Adult Members can vote

- A candidate for the position of director must receive the highest number of the votes cast (first-past-the-post voting) to win. So if there are 2 candidates for the position, then one candidate requires 50% of the votes cast to win. If there are 3 candidates, then one requires 33% to win.

- Assuming it is Footy First vs. Current Board and no other candidates, then SFF would need 50% of the votes of those who bother to vote.

- A member is considered 'present' at an EGM if they send in a proxy; those holding the proxy on their behalf can use the proxy to vote accordingly.


So of those Full Adult Members who actually vote, SFF need 50%, presuming their are only two candidates contesting each position.

[Oh When the Saints]

Now that's according to the Hawks ... St Kilda might operate differently, but I doubt it.


How many people will turn up to the EGM?

My guess is around 500 (based on Eastern in other thread). Can't see it as many more than that.

So if you split those votes 50/50 between the incumbent and the challenger, it will come down to proxies.

Now ... if SFF can recevie say 2-3000 proxies, it would mean Butterss would have to find the same number again who vote for him ... which would be difficult as most of those who can be bothered (and support a change) would have voted.

[saintsRrising]

OWTS...thanks.

This is however nota normal election.

FF are moving a Resolution that removes Directors....



So we need to know what numbers are needed....and as it is about Directors there may be special provsions....

[Mr Magic]

So would that mean that the EGM is being callled just to put the motion of SFF to remove 5 of the existing 7 directors?

If so, does it mean that a positive vote would lead to the removal of those 5 and not electing the SFF mooted Board Members? We would then have a Board of 2 - Gdanski and Levin who could 'appoint' the SFF nominees?

I only ask because maybe, there are some members who might want to get rid of RB, Casey and King (for example) but keep Kellet and Bassat but cannot because the EGM is not acctually an election?

[saintsRrising]

[quote="Mr Magic"]So would that mean that the EGM is being callled just to put the motion of SFF to remove 5 of the existing 7 directors?

?[/quoe]

MM...looks like you did not get your FF letter.

They have 3 resolutions.
1/ to remove 5 named Directors
2/ to remove any other new Directors named since the challenge was announced
3/ to appoint 5 new Directors

[Mr Magic]

So would that mean that the EGM is being callled just to put the motion of SFF to remove 5 of the existing 7 directors?

?[/quoe]

MM...looks like you did not get your FF letter.

They have 3 resolutions.
1/ to remove 5 named Directors
2/ to remove any other new Directors named since the challenge was announced
3/ to appoint 5 new Directors

Thanks sRr
I won't get it until tomorrow.

[Eastern]

The problem is that we can only GUESS as to how many of those who are entitled to vote actually cast a vote (either at the EGM or by proxy).

The resolution that receives more than 50% of the votes(whatever that number is) will be declared the status to go forward with.

I'll stick with my guess that 3,000 votes/proxys will get up !!

[saintsRrising]

The resolution that receives more than 50% of the votes(whatever that number is) will be declared the status to go forward with.

Eastern...do you know this to be the case...or are you assuming it to be so?


I find it interesting that FF are putting it about that they almost have enough proxies already...and that it wil be over by middle of next week.


If you are correct Eastern the level required to KNOW that the resolutions wil be carried is 50.1% of the adult members.

Now for almost 50% of ALL adult members to have already given their proxy to FF I would find remarkable given the normal inertia of most people. ie Even if MOST members were going to give their proxy to FF eventually to have acted so swiftly in replying would be quite stunning.


Or are FF to put a kind spin on it "playing plotics" and exagerating the response ?

[Eastern]

The resolution that receives more than 50% of the votes(whatever that number is) will be declared the status to go forward with.

Eastern...do you know this to be the case...or are you assuming it to be so?

Assuming !!

It would be nice to be able to get a copy of the club's constitution (it should be on the website but it isn't), then we would all know for sure what is going on.

Most shareholder/member organisations use the "Majority Rules" system and I am basing my opinions on that !!

[saintbrat]

wasn't everyone surprised when the essendon challeng group only needed ? several hundred/ no more than 2,000 members to cause a spill?

because the number was set when memberships were much smaller- instead of making it a percentage- Would the Saints be in a similar position?

[ausfatcat]

never heard that saintbrat, could you elaborate? Or do you mean the amount they need to call a EGM which 100 members (same as saints).

[saintbrat]

never heard that saintbrat, could you elaborate? Or do you mean the amount they need to call a EGM which 100 members (same as saints).

It may have been that ausfatcat- I will hunt the info
but pbviously I wouldn't be the only whose tried to google saints contitution.
tunrs up interesting info But no document yet.

[saintbrat]

Originally Posted by blumfieldisback

well im no member and havnt been for 8 years, the club made the right decision, didnt the same mebers vote the board members in the first place??? and our constitution needs to be changed, we now have 30,000 members yet we only need 100 signatures to get a EGM, rediculous to the miculous. if they could only get 108 signatures i'd be surprised if they will overhaul the board, the only thing they will do is cost the club money.

just get on with it, silly people

Is this a matter of your constitution or the Corporations Act? Because under the act I think only 5% of voting members (you may only have 2,000 voting members, but I doubt it) is needed to call a meeting.

so Corporations act says 5%. to call meeting, ?

found this interesting bit also- re the mailoutas far as Essendon are concerned-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymin
Got my letter today. I've got no problem with what Jackson and Horsborugh say in their letters.

Are we going to get any material from the Save Essendon Group? How does that work? They don't have access to the membership database so i gather that we have to listen to them on the night? Is that how it works?

If they had someone standing against PJ and big Ray they are allowed to have a letter from them in the mail out but currently there are no such people hence no info. They have called the EGM to throw Ray and PJ out and replace them with someone in the AGM elections.

so thier nboard has sent letters But not the challengers,

[Oh When the Saints]

Any director can call an EGM without the need for signatures (as far as I am aware). Hence if Gdanski wishes to call one he can.

If an ordinary voting member wishes to call an EGM then I believe there is a signature requirement; but each club's constitution would specify exact numbers (outside of the Corporations Act).

[snoopygirl]

Pretty sure a few years back when someone mounted a challenge against the Richmond board they were canvassing at the G one day to get the 100 signatures required. Would be interesting to know what is required from some of the newer clubs as their m/ship base would have been much higher at the inception of the club than any of the Vic based teams.