bungiton wrote:
Precisely so why should Butters be prepared to "walk away" if the AFL says the SFF plan is better than the incumbants?
Umm - resign? Nothing wrong with doing that.
bungiton wrote:The very act of allowing the AFL to decide who is the better party, if in fact they decide on SFF, and thus Butterss walks, how is this not overriding a free and democratic choice?
Allowing the AFL to decide what? All they would have done was analysed the two financial plans.
Constitutionally, they couldn't decide who was running the STKFC, only the members can.
Anyway it is incumbant of the accusers to come up with the proof that RB was going to override the STKFC constitution, and quite possibly break Corporations Law by not allowing the members to have a vote.
Still waiting on the link where Butters said such a thing.
bungiton wrote:Quite simply how can the democratic process of members giving the alternative party their vote, in the form of a proxy, be a matter of taking the vote out of the members hands. Where in the constition of the St Kilda football club state, that in the event of a board challenge, the decision will be made by the AFL selecting the best business model?
pfft - moot and irrelevant point. The issue was that there would be no need for a vote if, as a director, Butters and his board followed their fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of the organisation, and recommend to the members that the FFS had the best financial plan going forward.
The whole inference is that the AFL was going to choose who was the best board for the STKFC and that is patently untrue both factually and legally.
bungiton wrote:Your arguments are simply hot air being recycled to form an argument, the attack on the SFF by trying to win selection based on the wishes of the members as not a democratic process is quite staggering.
No. read what the FFs said. they said they wanted proxies
to pressure the board into resigning and avoid the EGM.
They wanted to get a certain number of proxies and hope the wieght of numbers forced the board into resigning.
Now until the FSS have a majority of the votes of eligable members all they can do is
pressure
Why are they trying to deny the majority a vote? Thye quick answer is they aren't.
You may think it is staggering, but it is the same thing as RB resigning because the FFS had the better financial plan.
Both are legitimate tactics, and both do not constitutionally "deny" the memvership of the vote. What they do is avoid an EGM, the money involved in this, and have an orderly transition like Butters from Plympton.
If any member doesn't like this they can get 100 signatures and call for a spill of the board and we can all have a vote.
The argument that Butters tried to deny the members a vote is ludicrious and legally totally inaccurate and false.
Please show me the section of the Corpns Law that allows this to happen.
For some reason you aren't keen to actually discuss the laws that govern Organisations, but deal in emotion and falsehood.
Why is this?
Q
bungiton wrote:uite simply there are two parties with the desire to govern the course of the club, at least one is trying to do so by advocating that those members that support them give them their vote in the form of a proxy. This proxy is to be then used as these people see fit to vote, be it Westaway or Burke, of course these proxies will be submitted as a vote for SFF.
yes that is correct. What has that got to do with breaches of the Corporations Act as you and others have accused RB of?
bungiton wrote:To call the decision to gain as many proxies as possible undemocratic is quite simply unbelievable.
Yes it is, who said that? They should actually understand the laws that govern an organistion and the rights of members before they say what FFS is doing is undemocratic. What a hide. Agree with you there bungiton.
bungiton wrote: Every proxy holder has the option to submit or not, the pure simple point you are missing is for whatever reason the people who have submitted thus far want the current board removed, and are exercising their rights as voting members to try to ensure the change occcurs.
Yes they are. So what? They have 7000 proxies apparently, that means there are 14,000 eligible members who haven cast their vote.
Why would the FFS, in your world, deny the rest to vote by pressuring the current board to stand down and avoid an EGM?
As I said it is ludicrious to suggest either the FFS or the RB board was attempting to deny the members a right to vote.
Constitutionally they cant. The only people up in arms about it were the propoganda merchants who dont understand Corporations Law and the Common Laws that bind directors and their behaviour.
Neither group attempted to deny us our voting rights, but both wanted to avoid an EGM thus not having to take it to a vote.
Apparently though the pro Westaway lynch mob got there pants pulled down by their own mob when it was revealed that the FFS was trying to get out of the EGM as well
And thats why it is so funny.
bungiton wrote:1975 so far as I recall was not the result of two parties submitting business plans to the queen.
Hmmmmm - the govts business plan was blocked by an opposition who thought they had a better one.
Anyway Australian Constitutional Law is completely different to Corporations Law.
As I said dont like it vote for a Republic.
...a lot better than Brians old mug shot...