Notice of special general meeting

As posted on the WAFC website.

http://westadelaidefc.com.au/2018/11/30/notice-of-special-general-meeting/

You will see 2 links to click on to read all about it.

Very interesting.

Wonder how the board truly feels about this

brodlach wrote:Very interesting.

Wonder how the board truly feels about this

I know of at least one who is in favour of it. It's just my opinion, but this sounds good to me, I'm fairly sure Sturt and possibly one other club might have already gone down a similar route and it worked out well for them.
As i said, it's just my opinion and others can make up their own mind.

brodlach wrote:Very interesting.

Wonder how the board truly feels about this

Very good question.

The Club seems to be going much better lately, so why the need for such a massive change?

Mockingjay wrote:

brodlach wrote:Very interesting.

Wonder how the board truly feels about this

Very good question.  

The Club seems to be going much better lately, so why the need for such a massive change?

According to communications from the club , the current board unanimously support this.

I'd also like to say, the board must be confident that the new changes will be implemented. In an email sent to members from the current President, The removal or not renewing David Grenvold's contract as CEO shows that they are confident that a yes vote will be successful.

Here is a part copy of the email sent to members.

Update on the position of CEO

Further to this independent review, it was also agreed by the current Board that the role of CEO should be considered in any restructure of operations and, because of this, we have not extended the current contract of CEO David Grenvold. As we embark on implementing change, SANFL Executive staff member Ben Hopkins will step in as interim Club CEO for a period of six months, by which time we expect to have completed the Board restructure process and have a clear direction on future Club executive roles.

David has enjoyed the experience of being back in the SANFL environment and his efforts in recruiting strongly over the past few months will no doubt stand the Bloods in good stead for season 2019. David will depart in early December and we wish him and his family all the very best.

As a valued Club member, we thank you for your ongoing support and hope you can appreciate the need for this Board review and transitioning process.

Yours sincerely

Lee Harradine

WAFC President

whispy wrote:

Mockingjay wrote:

brodlach wrote:Very interesting.

Wonder how the board truly feels about this

Very good question.  

The Club seems to be going much better lately, so why the need for such a massive change?

According to communications from the club , the current board unanimously support this.

That’s why I said ‘truly’. Some/many will lose their positions at the club

In the end the SANFL always get what they want

Mockingjay wrote:

brodlach wrote:Very interesting.

Wonder how the board truly feels about this

Very good question.  

The Club seems to be going much better lately, so why the need for such a massive change?

Yet the board is happy to give David Grenvold the DCM. Puzzling

Has to be a yes vote a few people in power think it's all about them
We are in need of a change

So you will vote no then bundy

brodlach wrote:

That’s why I said ‘truly’. Some/many will lose their positions at the club

In the end the SANFL always get what they want

Only if members don't realise that and vote for it?

I smell a rat mockingbird.

When you read it thoroughly & look at the supporting explanations I don’t think there is any need to be suspicious.

A natural advancement with modern governance practices.

The recommending sub-committee couldn’t be more West Adelaide & includes our Board solicitor.

Don’t be afraid!!!

Well I can't believe this is being embraced so warmly when we are giving up control of our club. The Nominations Committee may be made up of good West Adelaide people now, but who's to say that will be the case in 2 or 3 years time? Since the Board will appoint the Nominations Committee and then the Nominations Committee will effectively appoint the (majority of the) Board, isn't this a recipe for a small cabal of people (whose intentions for the club may not align with the members' intentions) to control the club with the members helpless to do anything about it? e.g. The Nominations Committee nominate a couple of directors to the Board who aren't connected to the Club but have the desired 'skill set'; this Board then, in turn, appoints people to the Nominations Committee who are similarly not 'westies first' people, and pretty soon you have the club being run by people who probably aren't going to have the passion to fight tooth and nail for the club when required.

And why should the Nominations Committee, not elected by members, have the overwhelming majority of Directors on the Board? Why isn't it 50/50, or even weighted in favour of member-elected Directors? It seems like a token gesture to have 2 member-elected Directors, neither of whom is allowed to be President.

And what are the actual powers of the Governance Committee? They seem to sit above the Board and are even more removed from the members.

I also think clause 14.2.2.2 is misleading because it seems to suggest the members will elect the Nominations Committee Nominees when it's made quite clear elsewhere that the members have no say in the appointment of those 5 Directors.

These changes take away members' control of our club. There are undoubtedly improvements that can be made in our administrative structure, but can't many of these ideas be implemented without this drastic over-reach? If this goes through I hope everyone likes the Board we have every year, because if you don't you're not going to be able to do anything about it. I will be voting against this proposal.

I have witnessed the farce at the Adelaide Football Club where control is with appoint persons not  with the members.

As a life member i will not support any proposal that takes control of the club from the members to appointed person not necessarily member .

I do not care how many or how few is on the board but will not support any proposal or model  that has fewer member elected board members votes than appointed votes

An amendment should/shall? Be moved to reverse the proposed  numbers in dot point 2.3 and 2.4 to 5 member appointed and 2 nomination committee appointments and/or a  clear statement that at all times member appointed board member must comprise a minimun of 60%.

I will not support the different terms of office contained within dot points 2.4 and 2.5 and will move for amendment that all serve a maximun of 2 years then must be reelected or nominated similarly an appointed board member will have to retire after the same time period as the members appointed board members eg 4 terms of 2 years

Whilst i have no objections to the proposed initial members of the nomination committee as they are all quality men i have the greatest objection to these persons having any vote or part within the board structure as this directly effect the balance away from members elected board members

GIVEN MY STRONG OBJECTIONS TO THIS ATTEMPT TO TAKE POWER AWAY FROM MEMBER I WILL VOTE AGAINST ALL AMENDMENT PROPOSED AND CALL ON ALL MEMBERS TO GIVE DEEPEST CONSIDERATION TO DOING THE SAME

I have two question and that is what golden carrot or potential withholding of rights or cash or other penalties has the SANFL has inferred may be placed on the the club if it is not accepted by the members.

Second question or request is to be provided with the process under the existing constitution to move an amendment to these proposed changes in line with the above.

More than happy for any member of the board or management team to ring me on my mobile to discuss and try to change my mind --- perhaps even try and explain how taking control from members is in the best interest of the club.

Can anyone tell me why, Lee or mockingjay, if the club is against this model why was David Grenvold not kept on? Seems to me if this is blocked by members that a new CEO will need to be found when we had a very good one.

brodlach wrote:Can anyone tell me why, Lee or mockingjay, if the club is against this model why was David Grenvold not kept on? Seems to me if this is blocked by members that a new CEO will need to be found when we had a very good one.

Good question brodlach, if the club is doing so well as claimed, why sack Grenvold?  It's obvious that there's more to this that's not being told.

Perhaps Genvold was in favour of this new change, and the hierarchy didn't agree and was shown the door.

I feel that we are trying to treat several separate issues as one and as such making the situation very muddled  ---- each issue needs to be sepafrately discussed or clarified and then members make thier decisions imo. My perceptions (right or wrong) on some of these issues as i see them is  based on very limited information but with some phone digging of contacts external to the club are as follows. If the club or any board member feel i am wrong then please respond to this post so all may be aware of the correct facts

THE PRIMARY ISSUE IS ONE OF MEMBERS LOSING ANY CONTROL OF THIER CLUB

IF THIS GETS THROUGH THEN THERE WILL BE NO MEMBERS PARTICIPATION LIKE HAPPENNING NOW RATHER MEMBER WILL BE TOLD OF CHANGE WITH NO REDRESS IN ANY MANner EXCEPT TO BE TOLD BAD LUCK ANDTO KEEP PAYING THIER MEMBERSHIP

LOOK AT THE CROWS AND HOW THIER MEMBERS ARE TREATED AND EXCLUDED FROM IMVOLVEMENT EXCEPT FOR MONEY IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME

Reference the CEO --- Give normal legal and business confidentiality rules then it is unlikely the members will ever get the full story on this matter but it does seem to me as a personal opinion it is perhaps be a separate issue and needs to be discussed as such.

In reguard to some confusion reference the club supporting this then it is clear that placing this matter to the members has the support of the board ---- it needs to be noted that normal board conventions and rule are that any decision of the board is announced as unaminous with any board member who finds the decision objectionable and cannot/will not support should normally resign ----- the internal board vote numbers which members quite rightly IMO will never know may have on be won by 1 vote or may in fact be actually unaminous ---- is irelevant in big picture IMO ----- therefore clearly the board unaminously supported this matter being placed before the members for thier consideration and vote on the issue. The board has acted in both both legal and ethical manner.

Another matter for me is that whilst it is no secret that this being driven by the SANFL has the SANFL made any suggestions of penalising the club in any manner if the members vote this down ------ my contacts from a range of areas external to west adelaide all seem to suggest there is some truth to this concern  ---- members need all information to make thier judgements so i call on the club to make a clear statement by the end of this week if this concern is true and if true a clear statement of what any proposed Sanfl actions, sanctions or withholding of funds is

At this time i have not  contacted any board member of the west adelaide football club however it is my intention in the next day or so to do so if they will talk to me NOTE, i will not be seeking any confidential informati0n . I strongly suggest that any member concerned with this matter do so.

I encourage all member to attend said meeting or if unavailable to use the proxy vote system available.

Just to finish on a bit of dark humour and conspiracy theory--- i wonder how many totally  new member we gain in the next couple of weeks ---- another 100 or so members is allways welcome LOL

Oldfella wrote:I have witnessed the farce at the Adelaide Football Club where control is with appoint persons not  with the members.

As a life member i will not support any proposal that takes control of the club from the members to appointed person not necessarily member .

I do not care how many or how few is on the board but will not support any proposal or model  that has fewer member elected board members votes than appointed votes

An amendment should/shall? Be moved to reverse the proposed  numbers in dot point 2.3 and 2.4 to 5 member appointed and 2 nomination committee appointments and/or a  clear statement that at all times member appointed board member must comprise a minimun of 60%.

I will not support the different terms of office contained within dot points 2.4 and 2.5 and will move for amendment that all serve a maximun of 2 years then must be reelected or nominated similarly an appointed board member will have to retire after the same time period as the members appointed board members eg 4 terms of 2 years

Whilst i have no objections to the proposed initial members of the nomination committee as they are all quality men i have the greatest objection to these persons having any vote or part within the board structure as this directly effect the balance away from members elected board members

GIVEN MY STRONG OBJECTIONS TO THIS ATTEMPT TO TAKE POWER AWAY FROM MEMBER I WILL VOTE AGAINST ALL AMENDMENT PROPOSED AND CALL ON ALL MEMBERS TO GIVE DEEPEST CONSIDERATION TO DOING THE SAME

I have two question and that is what golden carrot or potential withholding of rights or cash or other penalties has the SANFL has inferred may be placed on the the club if it is not accepted by the members.

Second question or request is to be provided with the process under the existing constitution to move an amendment to these proposed changes in line with the above.

More than happy for any member of the board or management team to ring me on my mobile to discuss and try to change my mind --- perhaps even try and explain how taking control from members is in the best interest of the club.

Very well said, oldfella.

Please note that this thread is about the Special General Meeting, where posters are free to discuss whatever they wish.

We ask posters not to speculate on club personnel matters, given the legal standards that all forums must abide by.

aldo russian wrote:Well I can't believe this is being embraced so warmly when we are giving up control of our club. The Nominations Committee may be made up of good West Adelaide people now, but who's to say that will be the case in 2 or 3 years time? Since the Board will appoint the Nominations Committee and then the Nominations Committee will effectively appoint the (majority of the) Board, isn't this a recipe for a small cabal of people (whose intentions for the club may not align with the members' intentions) to control the club with the members helpless to do anything about it? e.g. The Nominations Committee nominate a couple of directors to the Board who aren't connected to the Club but have the desired 'skill set'; this Board then, in turn, appoints people to the Nominations Committee who are similarly not 'westies first' people, and pretty soon you have the club being run by people who probably aren't going to have the passion to fight tooth and nail for the club when required.

And why should the Nominations Committee, not elected by members, have the overwhelming majority of Directors on the Board? Why isn't it 50/50, or even weighted in favour of member-elected Directors? It seems like a token gesture to have 2 member-elected Directors, neither of whom is allowed to be President.

And what are the actual powers of the Governance Committee? They seem to sit above the Board and are even more removed from the members.

I also think clause 14.2.2.2 is misleading because it seems to suggest the members will elect the Nominations Committee Nominees when it's made quite clear elsewhere that the members have no say in the appointment of those 5 Directors.

These changes take away members' control of our club. There are undoubtedly improvements that can be made in our administrative structure, but can't many of these ideas be implemented without this drastic over-reach? If this goes through I hope everyone likes the Board we have every year, because if you don't you're not going to be able to do anything about it. I will be voting against this proposal.

I couldn't agree more, aldo russian. Like you, I am very concerned at losing my voting rights.

The WAFC needs your help to make the changes needed for our club to survive and strengthen for many years to come.

We need to spread the load so we can attract good young professional West Adelaide Club Members to the board to improve our skill base that is required to run our club. It is important that we spread the load over more members to be part of the running of the day to day operations with the confidence of clear direction.

As you all know the club has been struggling financially for many years and we as members need to consider the clubs direction and viability.

It is important that we have a strong, capable, dedicated board with the skills base to lead us through the next few years but also for the future of our wonderful club.

I think that is very important that all members get to understand the changes to constitution being put forward by the board on the 17th of December 2018 Special General Meeting.

The club has gone through many changes in the past 10 years but continues to struggle financially. That is why we need to fine a way to attract capable young professional people to help guide the club. If we can create an environment that provides an opportunity for these young professionals with clear commitment guide lines that understands the pressures of today's society and family pressure.

Having in place a capable dedicated board providing that critical direction to the club provides more opportunity for members to be more involved with the day to day operations and that all important passion for the club.

My current understanding is that the board want to have right to elect key roles in the club so that we can attract quality capable skills based personal to guide the club going forward.

WAFC football club needs skills based board members for our key roles in the club to provide the strength of leadership and guidance moving forward.

Please attend the SGM and have your say, vote yes for the changes.

Bill clinton,

I respect and will fight for your right to express your views but equally i will do the same for myself or others that have different views ---- at all times over my long service to the club i have placed the club first but remember the club is and has allways beeen about the members first.

All you talk about can be done within the existing constitution including creating targetted subcommittees which members can be appointed too including young professionals. If you think its all about young professional i suggest you read comment in this thread on for education or have you a vested interest

THIS PROPOSAL IS A THINLY DISGUSED TAKE OVER OF THE CLUB AT THE EXPENSE OF MEMBER HAVING ANY CONTROL OF THE CLUB NOTHING MORE

To say it facilitates the introduction of young professionals i feel is misleading and selective  ----  The truth of the proposal is as follows

Board of 7 with 5 being appointed by selection committee and 2 being elected by members ---- clear members have no control.

Neither of the two board members elected by the members can be appointed president or vice president --- members have no control

The selection committee is not elected by members rather appointed by the board dominated by non member elected officials.

look at the crows members and how they have no say in the running of the club --- do you realy want that ---- how will finances look when members become pissed of and leave the club