Voting for Life Membership - our last chance?

[perfectionist]

I have just received papers for the AGM. In it, we are advised that Item 3 will be a vote on conferring Life Membership on Nick Dal Santo, Justin Koschitzke and Leigh Montagna. All were nominated by the Board in line with "minimum years of service requirements" which I guess is ten.

Item 4 of the agenda will be a vote to change the Constitution so that, in future, the Board and not the AGM will have the sole power to confer Life Membership. The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum advises that this is "consistent with the approach of a number of other clubs", although there is no indication what that number is or what the names of the other clubs are. We are also told that this new process will be "more efficient". Such a view is rather common these days amongst Boards which view the rights of members to have a vote on anything and, therefore, potentially disagree with the Board, as an unnecessary encumbrance. But, at the moment, the issue is still in our hands. The question is, do we care?

[GrumpyOne]

Another sign that the club wants to distance itself from the membership.

I can understand that it would be a good idea for convenience etc, but in every Incorporated Association I have knowledge of, the final decision is in the hands of the members via a vote.

Personally, I would not willingly give up that entitlement, not because my opinion would differ from the club's exec, but that it is the thin edge of a wedge.

[saintbrat]

the criteria for Life Membership seems to vary reatly between clubs- as well as being ten Years at the Saints it is also 175 games- which is why Nick was elevated last year and Kosi not till this year- Kosi was 6 games short


yet at Richmond all they need is 150 games- not ten years.


and sad that the other 3 drafted the same time as Dal and Joey are not still there.... oh well.

[matrix]

i was going to say its not enough
ten years is bugger all in a working environment when you think about it

but on reflection, afl careers are not that long and its prob justified
although 200 games for the one club should/could be the limit imo

congrats to those nominated
god it wasnt that long ago that joey was just a young kid, its gone quick

[saintbrat]

if you wanted 200 then some clubs would have hardly any,

and if it was 150 with no years Dal would have been in years ago.

[Junction Oval]

10 years and 175 games sounds about right to me. It's a long time in footy these days and getting tougher every year.

Good long term efforts should be rewarded, especially with "Club loyalty" starting to slide down the ladder of value.

I am also with GrumpyOne in thinking that handing over Members' voting on Life Membership, is "the thin end of the wedge" in boards absorbing all of the decision making.

[citywest]

the criteria for Life Membership seems to vary reatly between clubs- as well as being ten Years at the Saints it is also 175 games- which is why Nick was elevated last year and Kosi not till this year- Kosi was 6 games short


yet at Richmond all they need is 150 games- not ten years.


and sad that the other 3 drafted the same time as Dal and Joey are not still there.... oh well.

Dal and Joey were not drafted the same year as Riewoldt and Kosi.

[saintbrat]

the criteria for Life Membership seems to vary reatly between clubs- as well as being ten Years at the Saints it is also 175 games- which is why Nick was elevated last year and Kosi not till this year- Kosi was 6 games short


yet at Richmond all they need is 150 games- not ten years.


and sad that the other 3 drafted the same time as Dal and Joey are not still there.... oh well.

Dal and Joey were not drafted the same year as Riewoldt and Kosi.

I realise citywest
but Kosi is just being decreed a Life member this year and Nick was last year- at the Time I wodnered why kosi wasn't also - which Is when I found that the criteria is 10 years and 175 games- Kosi was on 169 games.
hence he is only going in this year.

[citywest]

My opinion is that 10 years and 175 games is perfect. Using that criteria you would expect around 3 or 4 players would qualify each year.

[Eastern]

Another sign that the club wants to distance itself from the membership.

I can understand that it would be a good idea for convenience etc, but in every Incorporated Association I have knowledge of, the final decision is in the hands of the members via a vote.

Personally, I would not willingly give up that entitlement, not because my opinion would differ from the club's exec, but that it is the thin edge of a wedge.

I thought the club set up a sub-committee a few years ago to look at this. I'm pretty sure that Danny Frawley was/is part of this sub-committee. It makes perfect sense to me to have a sub-committee report and make recommendations to the board on matters like this. The awarding of Life Membership to players is pretty easy; set criteria etc, its the awarding of such a huge honour to the volunteers etc that requires a whole lot more thought (as a member of some 20 years, I would not know very much if anything about some of the volunteers and or staff members who might be considered for this honour).

I say; let a sub-committee of distinguished saints do the leg work and pass on their recommendations to the board !!

[plugger66]

Another sign that the club wants to distance itself from the membership.

I can understand that it would be a good idea for convenience etc, but in every Incorporated Association I have knowledge of, the final decision is in the hands of the members via a vote.

Personally, I would not willingly give up that entitlement, not because my opinion would differ from the club's exec, but that it is the thin edge of a wedge.

I am involved in another footy club and the board decides solely on Life Memberships and the members have no say at all. I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea. How embarrassing would it be if the members decided that say for example peter Everitt shouldnt have got life membership because he had the audacity to leave our club.

[GrumpyOne]

I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea.

Top marks for ego Plug.

I reckon it was highly embarrasing as a member to have Spider inducted as a Life Member when he was playing for someone else. Much better to do that after his retirement.

[saintbrat]

Another sign that the club wants to distance itself from the membership.

I can understand that it would be a good idea for convenience etc, but in every Incorporated Association I have knowledge of, the final decision is in the hands of the members via a vote.

Personally, I would not willingly give up that entitlement, not because my opinion would differ from the club's exec, but that it is the thin edge of a wedge.

I thought the club set up a sub-committee a few years ago to look at this. I'm pretty sure that Danny Frawley was/is part of this sub-committee. It makes perfect sense to me to have a sub-committee report and make recommendations to the board on matters like this. The awarding of Life Membership to players is pretty easy; set criteria etc, its the awarding of such a huge honour to the volunteers etc that requires a whole lot more thought (as a member of some 20 years, I would not know very much if anything about some of the volunteers and or staff members who might be considered for this honour).

I say; let a sub-committee of distinguished saints do the leg work and pass on their recommendations to the board !!

or was that hal Of Fame.....

[saintbrat]

I have just received papers for the AGM.

BTW
when is the AGM?

[plugger66]

I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea.

Top marks for ego Plug.

I reckon it was highly embarrasing as a member to have Spider inducted as a Life Member when he was playing for someone else. Much better to do that after his retirement.

So we get him to go to the meeting and then we decide he shouldnt be a life member. That is what I would find embarrassing.

[GrumpyOne]

I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea.

Top marks for ego Plug.

I reckon it was highly embarrasing as a member to have Spider inducted as a Life Member when he was playing for someone else. Much better to do that after his retirement.

So we get him to go to the meeting and then we decide he shouldnt be a life member. That is what I would find embarrassing.

A Board with any nous would not have nominated him.

[plugger66]

I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea.

Top marks for ego Plug.

I reckon it was highly embarrasing as a member to have Spider inducted as a Life Member when he was playing for someone else. Much better to do that after his retirement.

So we get him to go to the meeting and then we decide he shouldnt be a life member. That is what I would find embarrassing.

A Board with any nous would not have nominated him.

But he must have qualified under our set criteria.

[GrumpyOne]

I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea.

Top marks for ego Plug.

I reckon it was highly embarrasing as a member to have Spider inducted as a Life Member when he was playing for someone else. Much better to do that after his retirement.

So we get him to go to the meeting and then we decide he shouldnt be a life member. That is what I would find embarrassing.

A Board with any nous would not have nominated him.

But he must have qualified under our set criteria.

He'd still be qualified after his retirement. Very risky business giving life membership to persons during their playing careers. IMO the rules should be changed to prevent that happening.

[plugger66]

I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea.

Top marks for ego Plug.

I reckon it was highly embarrasing as a member to have Spider inducted as a Life Member when he was playing for someone else. Much better to do that after his retirement.

So we get him to go to the meeting and then we decide he shouldnt be a life member. That is what I would find embarrassing.

A Board with any nous would not have nominated him.

But he must have qualified under our set criteria.

He'd still be qualified after his retirement. Very risky business giving life membership to persons during their playing careers. IMO the rules should be changed to prevent that happening.

So you want honor the likes of Lenny and Rooy after they retire. Surely they deserve that honor whilst still playing if the qualify.

[GrumpyOne]

So you want honor the likes of Lenny and Rooy after they retire. Surely they deserve that honor whilst still playing if the qualify.

I think those players should be honoured whilst they are still playing. But why does it have to be with Life Membership? Surely a form of Long Service Award would be more appropriate. Then there is no embarrasment if they nick off and play for someone else like Spider did. Save the Life Membership for their retirement.

[perfectionist]

...I think that is the way to go so I reckon it is a great idea...

[perfectionist]

...BTW when is the AGM?

Wed 8th Feb 7.00pm Kingston City Hall (near Moorabbin Station).

[bigred]

Club volunteers should get a better go with life membership IMO.

I think its 20+ years before they even get a sniff.

This club would not be here......without so many of them.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Club volunteers should get a better go with life membership IMO.

I think its 20+ years before they even get a sniff.

This club would not be here......without so many of them.

20 years for everyday volunteers ( I would imagine that would be Melbourne based volunteers who help out weekly) 30 years for occasional volunteers ( so interstate volunteers who help out once or twice a year) it's a long time but it's prob fair .. I would say most volunteers get a lot of enjoyment out of their role

[perfectionist]

...and 50 years for ordinary members? A life sentence in anyone's book!
(BTW, this is my 52nd year.)