News Price Cut: Axe Hovers Over Bulldogs Icon

[wendog33]

From memory the Constitution requires that in order to be nominated for a Board position you have to be a voting member.

Go Dogs

That explains then why we have such a small lot of talent to choose from as far as high flyers like Bouris goes.

Anyway around that, that you can see?

 

[Teddybear]

We have dinkum available, yours truly and many others on here who are pretty sound

That explains then why we have such a small lot of talent to choose from as far as high flyers like Bouris goes.

Anyway around that, that you can see?

 

[KiwiDog7]

Mark Bouris aint coming to Canterbury.

Keep Dreaming

Coincidentally I’ve been reading his book this week [emoji23]

 

[enoughsaid]

He got injured the week before in the prelim and didn't play GF

that's right
the article is wrong

 

[wendog33]

We have dinkum available, yours truly and many others on here who are pretty sound

Pfffttt

 

[tomisbester]

If Price is gone then it is honestly one of the best days for the club in recent memory. His arrogance has set this once great club back so far. Bring on 2021 with administration who understand business and the workplace. Not just ex footballs who abandoned the club and came back when it was convenient to them. As far as I’m concerned Prices name should always have an asterisk next to it when it comes to any involvement with Cantebury.

 

[Dogtime]

I never got a phone call, nor did any of my 20 or so mates. I will reach out to Dunn who I know through a friend as to why they went quietly. As Ive said numerous times, pick any company on ASX I'm certain you could find at least 10% of the members wanting to overthrow the Board due to differences of opinion on corporate governance matters. Its no big deal. Its almost a case for me that if these 3 are too weak to fight for their right to complete their tenure having been duly elected then they were right to resign.
Can you image Trump resigning because 10% of people didn't like him?

 

[TwinTurbo]

I never got a phone call, nor did any of my 20 or so mates. I will reach out to Dunn who I know through a friend as to why they went quietly. As Ive said numerous times, pick any company on ASX I'm certain you could find at least 10% of the members wanting to overthrow the Board due to differences of opinion on corporate governance matters. Its no big deal. Its almost a case for me that if these 3 are too weak to fight for their right to complete their tenure having been duly elected then they were right to resign.
Can you image Trump resigning because 10% of people didn't like him?

Neither did I or anyone I know. Obviously there are things in play that we don’t know about. Possibly it’s the names on the 116 list, maybe a bunch of high profile, well known and influential people that could swing votes. Because on the surface I seriously doubt that there would have been remotely close to the numbers required at an EGM to remove the 3 targeted board members. Even with a level of member dissatisfaction it doesn’t make a lot of sense to ask for us to vote based on non confidence in the board and then leave 4 out of the 7 alone. There’s no logic that I can see.

Go Dogs

 

[Natboy]

Neither did I or anyone I know. Obviously there are things in play that we don’t know about. Possibly it’s the names on the 116 list, maybe a bunch of high profile, well known and influential people that could swing votes. Because on the surface I seriously doubt that there would have been remotely close to the numbers required at an EGM to remove the 3 targeted board members.

I know there was a few no ones who think they are important for running shitty businesses on the list but you are right. Hardly anyone got called and it’s all secret squirrel bullshit

 

[Nasheed]

For those who question my oil. What you going to say when he's gone by the end of October ?

'Nasheed you just got lucky AGAIN for the 5th time in a row'

 

[Chris Harding]

That explains then why we have such a small lot of talent to choose from as far as high flyers like Bouris goes.

Anyway around that, that you can see?

Easy enough to sign someone up as a member, then elect them. Politics does it all the time.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Easy enough to sign someone up as a member, then elect them. Politics does it all the time.

After waiting 3 years.

Go Dogs

 

[youoboys]

For those who question my oil. What you going to say when he's gone by the end of October ?

'Nasheed you just got lucky AGAIN for the 5th time in a row'

Bulldogs fan here: if only you were lucky with women..........

 

[wendog33]

Easy enough to sign someone up as a member, then elect them. Politics does it all the time.

Yes of course.

But I suggested 2 years may encourage more members to join not instant membership.

Also, if TT correct, Board members can only be appointed if they have voting rights and waited 3 years.

That certainly narrows down the pool of candidates to ex players and fans. I'd suggest there aren't many high flyers to choose from in those 1200 so the club appears to stay in this never ending circle of factional in fighting.

Thread called 'Why Vote' so I just thought to discuss solutions rather than keep going round in circles.

Lynne would probably still be there if it was 10% of 2K-3,000 voting members. And if it just stays the same by-law then there'll probably always be a very small % who bother to join. 3 year wait would be one factor.

The club don't agree, thats fine. It's a suggestion to get more members and a better quality of Director from a very small pool.

 

[Alan79]

I always supported Lynn. I think she and the board were slowly getting the club back in the right direction. But just as a new era was about to begin in 2021 a group of power hungry people take the opportunity to pounce and now I feel we are going to slide back into the pile of shit. It all stinks.

Kind of suspect that it might be Coorey and his cronies that started this. In which case it's a shit sandwich. If he didn't abuse his position to make lewd comments etc, he'd not have had to fear an investigation. If all of this crap started because he wanted to protect his job, I hope that he's voted out at the next AGM. Might be wrong on this, but he made the threat to oust those three and it played out very messily for the club at a time when stability was pretty important.

Yes of course.

But I suggested 2 years may encourage more members to join not instant membership.

Also, if TT correct, Board members can only be appointed if they have voting rights and waited 3 years.

That certainly narrows down the pool of candidates to ex players and fans. I'd suggest there aren't many high flyers to choose from in those 1200 so the club appears to stay in this never ending circle of factional in fighting.

Thread called 'Why Vote' so I just thought to discuss solutions rather than keep going round in circles.

Lynne would probably still be there if it was 10% of 2K-3,000 voting members. And if it just stays the same by-law then there'll probably always be a very small % who bother to join. 3 year wait would be one factor.

The club don't agree, thats fine. It's a suggestion to get more members and a better quality of Director from a very small pool.

I'm honestly not sure if it's 10% or 100 people required to petition for an EGM anyway. But for someone that's likely earning $200k or more a year, paying for 100 memberships for close friends and family at $15 each for three years isn't a bad return if it helps net you a $200k job. $4.5k is pretty cheap to buy a safety net.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I'm honestly not sure if it's 10% or 100 people required to petition for an EGM anyway. But for someone that's likely earning $200k or more a year, paying for 100 memberships for close friends and family at $15 each for three years isn't a bad return if it helps net you a $200k job. $4.5k is pretty cheap to buy a safety net.

It's 10% which with ~1100 voting members works out at around 110, hence the 116.

Go Dogs

 

[Spoonman84]

I'm honestly not sure if it's 10% or 100 people required to petition for an EGM anyway. But for someone that's likely earning $200k or more a year, paying for 100 memberships for close friends and family at $15 each for three years isn't a bad return if it helps net you a $200k job. $4.5k is pretty cheap to buy a safety net.

The chairperson or board don't even get a salary let alone $200k.

The club has operated under these by laws for decades and even if they buy 100 memberships they still have to go to a EGM.

What happened this past week is very much the exception rather then the norm so I wouldn't be changing too much.

Maybe change the percentage of signatures to force a EGM to 20%-25% but that would be about it.

 

[wendog33]

The chairperson or board don't even get a salary let alone $200k.

The club has operated under these by laws for decades and even if they buy 100 memberships they still have to go to a EGM.

What happened this past week is very much the exception rather then the norm so I wouldn't be changing too much.

Maybe change the percentage of signatures to force a EGM to 20%-25% but that would be about it.

I am more interested in fixing the fact that we only have 1100 voting members and of those 1100, and from that small pool, 7 Directors are chosen.

If someone wanted to game the system as it presently stands, they can.

Say a whole bunch of Dib supporters were upset about the 2018 election, they wereb't members then but joined up ready for the 2022 election.

Say Anderson supporters are upset, so they get a heap to join up now, they're ready to vote 2024 election.

Or God forbid, before then either gang call another EGM asap their 3 years up.

In fact this may well have happened now if those extra Dib supporters joined before the AGM in 2018, in a whole block.

These manipulations can happen at any time.

The fact that 7 directors are chosen from 1100 voting members greatly reduces the quality of applicants to chose from...primarily old ex players and numpty fans like all of us lol.

That should be looked at.

Increasing to 25% of 1100 will only encourage more rorting and branch stacking. Cheaters always find a way around rules.

They'll just get Bellamy in to find a way lol

 

[Spoonman84]

I am more interested in fixing the fact that we only have 1100 voting members and of those 1100, and from that small pool, 7 Directors are chosen.

If someone wanted to game the system as it presently stands, they can.

Say a whole bunch of Dib supporters were upset about the 2018 election, they wereb't members then but joined up ready for the 2022 election.

Say Anderson supporters are upset, so they get a heap to join up now, they're ready to vote 2024 election.

Or God forbid, before then either gang call another EGM asap their 3 years up.

In fact this may well have happened now if those extra Dib supporters joined before the AGM in 2018, in a whole block.

These manipulations can happen at any time.

The fact that 7 directors are chosen from 1100 voting members greatly reduces the quality of applicants to chose from...primarily old ex players and numpty fans like all of us lol.

That should be looked at.

Increasing to 25% of 1100 will only encourage more rorting and branch stacking. Cheaters always find a way around rules.

They'll just get Bellamy in to find a way lol

Of course all that is possible but its not probable. If the board that is in power is running a successful club its all a moot point because they will be retained no matter how many mates someone has gotten to sign up.

I guess there is only 1100 voting members because they are the ones the really wanted to be there. Yes it could be a easier process to become a voting member but it's not impossible if someone is really invested in the club they will do it.

I wouldn't be against allowing non-voting members to be on the board as I agree you don't want any road blocks stopping you getting the best person for the job.

 

[wendog33]

Of course all that is possible but its not probable. If the board that is in power is running a successful club its all a moot point because they will be retained no matter how many mates someone has gotten to sign up.

I guess there is only 1100 voting members because they are the ones the really wanted to be there. Yes it could be a easier process to become a voting member but it's not impossible if someone is really invested in the club they will do it.

I wouldn't be against allowing non-voting members to be on the board as I agree you don't want any road blocks stopping you getting the best person for the job.

I agree ...but the principle of having non voting directors parachuting into the position goes against the 3 year rule that everyone is so anxious to maintain.

It's a tough one to sort out. But we probably should be looking at other sporting clubs etc, or bring in experts, to try and find a better way to both protect the club and still get the best people available.