Some clarification on calling the EGM.

[The Peanut]

Nick, I'm assuming what you posted was either a 'press release' from SFF or a news article?

Either way it contains an absolute untruth in paragraph 2.

I have heard RB twice, yesterday on SEN and today on 927 make the offer for NB and AT TO BE ELECTED UNOPPOSED at his proposed AGM on November 26.
At no time did he ask them to join his ticket.
He expressly said that all Board positions were to be spilled, including his own, and that only NB nad AT should be elected unopposed. He further said that the members should decide the makeup of all other board positions.

To claim/infer that the offer being rejected by NB and AT is to join RB's existing board is, IMO, mischievious. They are in fact rejecting his offer to be elected unopposed to the Board that will be elected by the members.

Whilst paragraphs 3 and 4 are factually correct it appears to me that this 'media release' is designed to do exactly what SFF is accusing Rb of doing - conveying a false impression of what the offer was.

IMO the reason is so that NB and AT can deflect any forthcoming criticism for not accepting being elected by the members on a board that may not be made up entirely of SFF people.

Does this mean that RB gets 2 members on his board without any competition regarding vote numbers - how does this work? - is this a cunning ploy?

[4theluvoftheclub]

WoM, it will be guaranteed to lead to a lack of unity at board level...which is why NB and AT rejected it and spoke of the need for one group or the other

[Mr Magic]

Nick, I'm assuming what you posted was either a 'press release' from SFF or a news article?

Either way it contains an absolute untruth in paragraph 2.

I have heard RB twice, yesterday on SEN and today on 927 make the offer for NB and AT TO BE ELECTED UNOPPOSED at his proposed AGM on November 26.
At no time did he ask them to join his ticket.
He expressly said that all Board positions were to be spilled, including his own, and that only NB nad AT should be elected unopposed. He further said that the members should decide the makeup of all other board positions.

To claim/infer that the offer being rejected by NB and AT is to join RB's existing board is, IMO, mischievious. They are in fact rejecting his offer to be elected unopposed to the Board that will be elected by the members.

Whilst paragraphs 3 and 4 are factually correct it appears to me that this 'media release' is designed to do exactly what SFF is accusing Rb of doing - conveying a false impression of what the offer was.

IMO the reason is so that NB and AT can deflect any forthcoming criticism for not accepting being elected by the members on a board that may not be made up entirely of SFF people.

Does this mean that RB gets 2 members on his board without any competition regarding vote numbers - how does this work? - is this a cunning ploy?

As I read it, and if I take RB's comments at face value, come the EGM on November 26 there are only 2 certain Board members - NB and AT. The members would then vote whichever 5 they want from those that are standing.

That may well be the other 3 SFF, Gdanski and Levine or it could mean the 5 incumbents and not Gdanski/Levine. Or it could be any combination from the 10 people putting their names forward (3 SFF, Gdanski, Levine and the 5 incumbents). Or there may be others who decide to 'run'?

The point is it would be totally left up to the members to vote who they want to join RB and AT,

At this stage NB and AT have rejected this totally saying they will not join RB's Board. Well, that is not what was offered to them. It may have been a clever piece of politicking by RB but the offer has been made publicly, so it is pretty difficult to avoid it.

IMO NB nad AT should jump at the offer, wait for the November 26 AGM and if they have the right policies (9000 proxies would suggest they do!) and have their SFF group join them by being elected. Yes there is a chance that they may not all get up, but I think it is a pretty small one.

[The Peanut]

Nick, I'm assuming what you posted was either a 'press release' from SFF or a news article?

Either way it contains an absolute untruth in paragraph 2.

I have heard RB twice, yesterday on SEN and today on 927 make the offer for NB and AT TO BE ELECTED UNOPPOSED at his proposed AGM on November 26.
At no time did he ask them to join his ticket.
He expressly said that all Board positions were to be spilled, including his own, and that only NB nad AT should be elected unopposed. He further said that the members should decide the makeup of all other board positions.

To claim/infer that the offer being rejected by NB and AT is to join RB's existing board is, IMO, mischievious. They are in fact rejecting his offer to be elected unopposed to the Board that will be elected by the members.

Whilst paragraphs 3 and 4 are factually correct it appears to me that this 'media release' is designed to do exactly what SFF is accusing Rb of doing - conveying a false impression of what the offer was.

IMO the reason is so that NB and AT can deflect any forthcoming criticism for not accepting being elected by the members on a board that may not be made up entirely of SFF people.

Does this mean that RB gets 2 members on his board without any competition regarding vote numbers - how does this work? - is this a cunning ploy?

As I read it, and if I take RB's comments at face value, come the EGM on November 26 there are only 2 certain Board members - NB and AT. The members would then vote whichever 5 they want from those that are standing.

That may well be the other 3 SFF, Gdanski and Levine or it could mean the 5 incumbents and not Gdanski/Levine. Or it could be any combination from the 10 people putting their names forward (3 SFF, Gdanski, Levine and the 5 incumbents). Or there may be others who decide to 'run'?

The point is it would be totally left up to the members to vote who they want to join RB and AT,

At this stage NB and AT have rejected this totally saying they will not join RB's Board. Well, that is not what was offered to them. It may have been a clever piece of politicking by RB but the offer has been made publicly, so it is pretty difficult to avoid it.

IMO NB nad AT should jump at the offer, wait for the November 26 AGM and if they have the right policies (9000 proxies would suggest they do!) and have their SFF group join them by being elected. Yes there is a chance that they may not all get up, but I think it is a pretty small one.

So am I reading this right . . . does this mean that RB is certain to get back in as we know that he would have about 15 - 20% of the vote at least - and the rest of his team will probably get dumped.

[Mr Magic]

Where does he have 15-20% of the vote from?

I don't think he has anything other than his own vote as he has not even asked for proxies from us members?

If the AGM goes ahead on November 26 there is nothing stopping SFF mailing out a new 'proxy form' to members asking for their proxy. I would suspect that is exactly what they'll do and then turn up to the AGM and vote those proxies in favour of themselves.
In that case the Board would consisit of NB, AT SFF(3), Gdanski and Levine.

Given the current feelings I cannot imagine how RB will garner enough votes to get re-elected.

If my reading of this is correct, I don't understand what NB and AT have got to lose by not accepting the offer? If they did they would appear to all Saints members as putting themselves up for election to the Board in the interests of St Kilda first.

[The Peanut]

Yeah but their reason given is that AT and NB see themselves as 'team' members of the SKFF ticket - I guess its a stance they want to stick with and they don't see themselves having any effect on an RB board, clean slate so to speak - and I doubt any other combination would work - would be sure to cause problems IMO - to me there must be one team or the other and nay in between.

Edit: Although I guess RB hasn't got a united team as two want out - so its just one team for them.

[stinger]

Now dont start using logic MM. It has no place when it comes to the emotive cheersquading on Saintsational.

Remember everything the current board does is wrong, but when the SFF use the exact same tactic, they have every right to.

Fair Dinkum, the hypocricy is astounding. And this is why I am enjoying holding a mirror up to the Westaway Cheersquad, and probably why I am copping such a vitroilic response.

People dont like to see the truth portrayed I suppose.

Oh my it is difficult to be the moral compass of the forum, but somebody has to do it

flower me...it's a democratic process...majority rules...and sff have a majority of the likely voters...gawd you go on with crap sometimes jb.....

[Mr Magic]

Yeah but their reason given is that AT and NB see themselves as 'team' members of the SKFF ticket - I guess its a stance they want to stick with and they don't see themselves having any effect on an RB board, clean slate so to speak - and I doubt any other combination would work - would be sure to cause problems IMO - to me there must be one team or the other and nay in between.

Edit: Although I guess RB hasn't got a united team as two want out - so its just one team for them.

But, the only way they wouldn't be elected as a 'team' is if we the members didn't vote all their team in. And that would seem very unlikely at this stage.

ATM it appears that their 'team' is more important than the Club. An 'If our whole team is not elected then we won't serve' attitude.

RB's tactic seems to be to replace Gdanski and Levine with NB and AT. That would be an absolute best case scenario for him but I reckon he's got as much chance of that as a snowball surviving in hell!

[stinger]

anyone on here care to honestly answer this question in the affirmative........

would you buy a used car from rod butterss...................


...i'll wait......

......

[Mr Magic]

anyone on here care to honestly answer this question in the affirmative........

would you buy a used car from rod butterss...................


...i'll wait......

......

Yep, if I had it independantly checked out by my mechanic, which is what I would do with any used car from anyone.

[joffaboy]

flower me...it's a democratic process...majority rules...and sff have a majority of the likely voters...gawd you go on with crap sometimes jb.....

7,000 proxies of 23,000 eligible voting members is not a majority, last time i looked

When they get a majority at a meeting will be when they win the vote, not when you say so.

[Eastern]

The last time there was an election at St Kilda FC there were less than 2,000 members who bothered to vote. When you consider that most non-compulsory votes in this country attract around 40% of eligable voters, 9,000 of a possible 23,000 is around 39%. Even your suggestion that there are only 7,000 proxies equates to 30%You don't have to be a mathematician (or an accountant ) to work out the likely result !!

[Mr Magic]

The last time there was an election at St Kilda FC there were less than 2,000 members who bothered to vote. When you consider that most non-compulsory votes in this country attract around 40% of eligable voters, 9,000 of a possible 23,000 is around 39%. Even your suggestion that there are only 7,000 proxies equates to 30%You don't have to be a mathematician (or an accountant ) to work out the likely result !!

Eastern, what you say makes sense.

But it would seem that the incumbent Board want to take it to a vote of teh members at the AGM and it would appear (legal challenge notwithstanding) that they are entitled to do so.

I just don't understand why it is such a huge problem for SFF to have the vote on November 26?

All that will happen is that they will be voted in then and not on October 23 when they wanted it to occur.

[Eastern]

The SFF group want to do things the way they have gone about it because they want THEIR GROUP ONLY & THEIR COMPLETE GROUP on the Board. A complete spill would most probably mean that a COMPISITE board would end up in place. The likely outcome being that we end up with a fractured, dysfunctional board like we have at the moment.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME !!

[Mr Magic]

The SFF group want to do things the way they have gone about it because they want THEIR GROUP ONLY & THEIR COMPLETE GROUP on the Board. A complete spill would most probably mean that a COMPISITE board would end up in place. The likely outcome being that we end up with a fractured, dysfunctional board like we have at the moment.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME !!

Eastern, if they currently have 7000-9000 proxies then I'm pretty sure they can get them again and I would have thought that producing those 7000-9000 proxies on November 26 at the AGM would ensure that those they want will be voted on to the Board?

Surely the current argument is only over the date? The result looks to be a foregone conclusion whichever date is eventually used.

[Shaggy]

Eastern, if they currently have 7000-9000 proxies then I'm pretty sure they can get them again and I would have thought that producing those 7000-9000 proxies on November 26 at the AGM would ensure that those they want will be voted on to the Board?

Surely the current argument is only over the date? The result looks to be a foregone conclusion whichever date is eventually used.

There is no argument over the date. Pursuant to the club's laws the EGM has to be held in October unless it was improperly called which isn't being alledged. The Board needs to send out the requisite voting forms giving us 21 days notice in the next week or they need to be thrown out for blatantly breaching the Saints by laws.

The question is whether having held the meeting in October we still need to vote on spilling the new Board in November ... Lol.

Which I suspect we do as both meetings appear properly called which means we get to vote 1 month later as well.

The bonus for all of us is that Sceptic's Saintsational Board can be put up for RB's 2nd meeting - the question remains whether we should allow Thommo and NB on the Board as our football guru's or rely on our own TTT (Norwood premiership) and Joffa Burns (more operations than Sammy) .... MSG is barred given that his team only won one or two games last year (according to his draft profile posted last year ... not sure MSG was the reason why his team always lost but like most Saintsationalists we should assume the worst ).

[stinger]

flower me...it's a democratic process...majority rules...and sff have a majority of the likely voters...gawd you go on with crap sometimes jb.....

7,000 proxies of 23,000 eligible voting members is not a majority, last time i looked

When they get a majority at a meeting will be when they win the vote, not when you say so.

...on the day you would be lucky to get 1500..to 2000 to vote...i think 7500 is more than a majority of the likely voters......but go ahead keep that head in the sand.....

[Eastern]

The SFF group want to do things the way they have gone about it because they want THEIR GROUP ONLY & THEIR COMPLETE GROUP on the Board. A complete spill would most probably mean that a COMPISITE board would end up in place. The likely outcome being that we end up with a fractured, dysfunctional board like we have at the moment.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME !!

Eastern, if they currently have 7000-9000 proxies then I'm pretty sure they can get them again and I would have thought that producing those 7000-9000 proxies on November 26 at the AGM would ensure that those they want will be voted on to the Board?

Surely the current argument is only over the date? The result looks to be a foregone conclusion whichever date is eventually used.

Mr Magic !!

The easiest way to describe this is

(1) Gdansky, as a director has called for an EGM on his resolution that 5 members of the board be removed and replaced by the Footy First Group. That is what all the proxies are about. He is required to give 21 days notice

(2) Buttetrss has called for a spill of all board positions for 1 month later at an EGM. He is required to give 60 days notice.

The Gdansky resolution (and proxies) cannot be transfered over to the 2nd EGM as they are seperate issues. This would then cause the need for a 2nd vote at the 2nd EGM

Can you see how messy this is becoming !!

[Shaggy]

Eastern that is 100% correct.

I have never known a Board to ignore its articles.

There is an EGM called for in October and it must happen unless it was an improper call (mind you I am not sure how one director can call it but that hasn't been refuted ... it depends on the Saints AAs).

We will therefore vote in October and most already have through proxy.

Its irrelevant whether people think we should have only one voting meeting ... this is not about what makes commercial sense but what is law ... and its governed by the Saints aritcles and whats gone on with the Board.

Currently we will have 2 voting meetings ... LOL ... because RB knows he has lost the first one.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The Gdansky resolution (and proxies) cannot be transfered over to the 2nd EGM as they are seperate issues. This would then cause the need for a 2nd vote at the 2nd EGM

Are you sure about that?

from the proxy forms :

I, [please insert name]of [please insert address] St Kilda Membership number [please insert 2007 membership number] being a member of St Kilda Saints Football Club Ltd (the “Clubâ€

[Dis Believer]

Question - assuming a new board after October 23rd, can the new boeard then abort the vote called for in November ?

[joffaboy]

...on the day you would be lucky to get 1500..to 2000 to vote...i think 7500 is more than a majority of the likely voters......but go ahead keep that head in the sand.....

listen, I have just about had enough of your insults and abuse. if you cant post once without personal abuse dont post at all.So cut it out i am sick and tired of your aggression and abuse of everyone on this forum

Well if the FFs has the support it reckons its supporters will turn up at the meeting in droves and vote them in wont they?

What is the problem?

[Shaggy]

Question - assuming a new board after October 23rd, can the new boeard then abort the vote called for in November ?

The lawyers will be making lots of money. It depends upon the articles and I assume the articles deal with the calling of the meeting and vote but not the cancellation ...lol.

It really seems like a high level CFS effort by RB when in fact he should be touring the country meeting Saints supporters if he wants to win back grass roots support. Advisors cannot win him this one ... it must be RB.

[Mr Magic]

The SFF group want to do things the way they have gone about it because they want THEIR GROUP ONLY & THEIR COMPLETE GROUP on the Board. A complete spill would most probably mean that a COMPISITE board would end up in place. The likely outcome being that we end up with a fractured, dysfunctional board like we have at the moment.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME !!

Eastern, if they currently have 7000-9000 proxies then I'm pretty sure they can get them again and I would have thought that producing those 7000-9000 proxies on November 26 at the AGM would ensure that those they want will be voted on to the Board?

Surely the current argument is only over the date? The result looks to be a foregone conclusion whichever date is eventually used.

Mr Magic !!

The easiest way to describe this is

(1) Gdansky, as a director has called for an EGM on his resolution that 5 members of the board be removed and replaced by the Footy First Group. That is what all the proxies are about. He is required to give 21 days notice

(2) Buttetrss has called for a spill of all board positions for 1 month later at an EGM. He is required to give 60 days notice.

The Gdansky resolution (and proxies) cannot be transfered over to the 2nd EGM as they are seperate issues. This would then cause the need for a 2nd vote at the 2nd EGM

Can you see how messy this is becoming !!

I agree with your analysis Eastern.

All I was trying to say, probably badly, was that SFF will just need to send out another mailout asking for our proxy again and in all likeliehood they will receive the vast majority again. They then take those new proxies to the AGM and use them to vote for themselves.

Therefore they win the election and the only difference is that it takes place on November 26 instead of their preferred date of October 23. The result almost certainly will be the same.

Why bother spending the money on legal action and risk having to have another meeting a month later when they could just accept the meeting on Novemeber 23 and get on with planning what they will do when they do eventually take over?

Does anybody from the AFL down to the average Saints supporter seriously think that RB is going to be re-elected? Of course not so where is the real harm in giving the current board their pyrhic victory in this? They have obviously decided that they want to be voted out by the members, so let it happen.

Is it so important that they be 'tarred and feathered' before thrown out of the gates of Moorabbin?

[saintspremiers]

...on the day you would be lucky to get 1500..to 2000 to vote...i think 7500 is more than a majority of the likely voters......but go ahead keep that head in the sand.....

listen, I have just about had enough of your insults and abuse. if you cant post once without personal abuse dont post at all.So cut it out i am sick and tired of your aggression and abuse of everyone on this forum

Well if the FFs has the support it reckons its supporters will turn up at the meeting in droves and vote them in wont they?

What is the problem?

Stinger aint abusing you IMO, just calling a spade a spade.....can anyone realistically think more than 8,000 pro-RB supporters will either turn up at the meeting or send in proxies in advance? Unless a select few in coterie have 1,000 memberships each, I can't see it happening.

Can one person buy 1,000 memberships and therefore have 1,000 votes???