Misled at AGM?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Misled at AGM?
At the AGM, director Levin said the AFL can expand competition unless 12 teams veto. But in the Australian today it says
"The AFL requires the support of 12 of 16 clubs to issue two new licenses."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html
18 clubs would be a huge mistake and our club shouldn't support it.
"The AFL requires the support of 12 of 16 clubs to issue two new licenses."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html
18 clubs would be a huge mistake and our club shouldn't support it.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005 1:40am
- Location: Hampton/Gold Coast
- Been thanked: 7 times
I'll back Ross Levin over Chip Le Grand.
AFL rules provide that a decision of the AFL Commission to admit new clubs can be reversed by a two-thirds majority of clubs at a meeting called within 14 days of the formal notification to the existing clubs by the AFL Commission of its decision to admit a new club/s.
AFL rules provide that a decision of the AFL Commission to admit new clubs can be reversed by a two-thirds majority of clubs at a meeting called within 14 days of the formal notification to the existing clubs by the AFL Commission of its decision to admit a new club/s.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Fri 04 Jan 2008 8:09pm
- Location: Skye
- Been thanked: 3 times
Semantics
Isn't saying 'the AFL needs the support of 12 to 16 clubs' the same as saying 'the AFL can expand the comp unless 12 teams veto it'. To me this reads the same - one says it must have 12 teams voting for it - the other says it cant have 12 teams voting against it!!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005 1:40am
- Location: Hampton/Gold Coast
- Been thanked: 7 times
Yes it is saying the same thing, but it's based on a wrong premise in respect of the first point. Using the 12-4 figures which are being quoted, the AFL doesn't need the support of 12+ clubs, but the opposition of 12+ clubs is fatal. The AFL Commission's decision proceeds unless a required number of clubs oppose it (there's nothing to do with getting endorsement of the decision).Sainter_Boy wrote:Isn't saying 'the AFL needs the support of 12 to 16 clubs' the same as saying 'the AFL can expand the comp unless 12 teams veto it'. To me this reads the same - one says it must have 12 teams voting for it - the other says it cant have 12 teams voting against it!!
Anyway, it only needs the support of 6. That will mean that if the other 10 oppose the admission of new clubs, those clubs will not have the two-thirds majority (which is 10.66 of 16) ie it needs 11 to oppose it.
- B W and R all over
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2220
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 3:14pm
- Location: Northcote
- bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Interesting point.B W and R all over wrote:You know the best way of supporting it?saintly wrote:i think the club should support it.
Let Nick Riewoldt, David Armitage and Sam Gilbert return to to play for the Gold Coast based club.
Still want to support it?
I obviously wouldn't want them to gain access to 3 of our players, yet I do support the idea of expansion.
If the AFL wants a team on the Gold Coast desperately enough they will get a team on the Gold Coast whether we want it or not.
Supporting the AFL is the right decision by our club, it is the best way to ensure that we aren't pillaged horribly by the new clubs.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3644 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=40676
already a thread on this and if you feel strongly about this issue (either way) please vote.
already a thread on this and if you feel strongly about this issue (either way) please vote.