SaveEssendons first meeting

Post by **boncer34** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:29 pm

Sam's just counted 23 people turned up out of this so called "power" faction. Hutcho says about 50-60, looks like they were in a grade 2 classroom. Board is really worried now.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:35 pm

A resounding vote of no confidence

You could hear the crickets chirping in the background.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:45 pm

As one suspected.

A veritable hodge-podge of vagrant vomit with the collective intellect of George Bush who wouldn't be out of place picking their arseholes and smelling their fingers with the baboons at Melbourne Zoo.

Post by **Megan** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:45 pm

Even Hirdy was laughing.

No cred. I am rapt that there are Essendon supporters so passionate about their club but...

Why spill one of the best boards in the AFL? I know some in here have their complaints, and I'm not exactly the best educated on these matters but from what I can see, esp compared to clubs like the Saints and Hawks we have a pretty good board.

Post by **boncer34** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:48 pm

According to Sam in all fairness they struggled for numbers because the save the rare yellow titted humming bird group was next door.

paddyl90 · Post by **paddyl90** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:44 pm

What an embarrassment for Essendon what the hell was that meeting of a "strong" force pushin for board spill, bloody hell, why can't people just face it an move on? far out. All i can say is embarrassing

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:00 am

I think I might have to change my stance on democratic rights. lol.

F111 · Post by **F111** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:10 am

JumboPaddy wrote:What an embarrassment for Essendon what the hell was that meeting of a "strong" force pushin for board spill, bloody hell, why can't people just face it an move on? far out. All i can say is embarrassing

No, not embarassing at all.
The overwhelming majority of voting EFC members chose not to show up. Solidarity at EFC continues.

grassy1 · Post by **grassy1** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:21 am

Does that mean,we are just as INSULAR, DEFENSIVE and HEAD IN THE SAND as the WEST COAST OSTRICHES whose Board is ACCOUNTABLE to NO ONE,when they f*** UP?

F111 · Post by **F111** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:23 am

grassy1 wrote:Does that mean,we are just as INSULAR, DEFENSIVE and HEAD IN THE SAND as the WEST COAST OSTRICHES whose Board is ACCOUNTABLE to NO ONE,when they f*** UP?

If you think they f***** up, then yes.

Otherwise, no.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:39 am

F111 wrote:
JumboPaddy wrote:What an embarrassment for Essendon what the hell was that meeting of a "strong" force pushin for board spill, bloody hell, why can't people just face it an move on? far out. All i can say is embarrassing
No, not embarassing at all.
The overwhelming majority of voting EFC members chose not to show up. Solidarity at EFC continues.

That's a very good point. 32, 556 members decided to accept the board's decision and anticipate a new era while 23 members show up for a meeting to spill the board. It's comforting to know that we only have 23 odd fools amongst our lot - some 0.07% of us.

BERT · Post by **BERT** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:58 am

Why can't the club change the constitution to make it 20% of the members have to sign for an EGM?

100 members out of over 30,000 is just way to small.

rockhole · Post by **rockhole** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:45 am

I think that we have more people on the bench for Sunday's game than turned up to this so called meeting.

Agree that constitution should change minimum number to at least 250

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:49 am

BERT wrote:Why can't the club change the constitution to make it 20% of the members have to sign for an EGM?

100 members out of over 30,000 is just way to small.

rockhole wrote:I think that we have more people on the bench for Sunday's game than turned up to this so called meeting.

Agree that constitution should change minimum number to at least 250

http://www.bombertalk4.com/viewtopic.php?t=3761

I'm way ahead of you guys.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:08 am

F111 wrote:
JumboPaddy wrote:What an embarrassment for Essendon what the hell was that meeting of a "strong" force pushin for board spill, bloody hell, why can't people just face it an move on? far out. All i can say is embarrassing
No, not embarassing at all.
The overwhelming majority of voting EFC members chose not to show up. Solidarity at EFC continues.

Agreed. Many had their little cry, but at the end of the day, no one is bigger than the club.

billyduckworth · Post by **billyduckworth** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:13 am

Gee, 23 turned up. I'm amazed there were that many (sarcastic shake of head).

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:32 pm

j-mac wrote:
BERT wrote:Why can't the club change the constitution to make it 20% of the members have to sign for an EGM?

100 members out of over 30,000 is just way to small.

rockhole wrote:I think that we have more people on the bench for Sunday's game than turned up to this so called meeting.

Agree that constitution should change minimum number to at least 250
http://www.bombertalk4.com/viewtopic.php?t=3761

I'm way ahead of you guys.

100 members is the legislative standard number of members required for an EGM to be called. It's nothing unusual; in fact, it's the norm, even in large companies. It's not some random number plucked from thin air.

ZRS · Post by **ZRS** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:46 pm

grassy1 wrote:Does that mean,we are just as INSULAR, DEFENSIVE and HEAD IN THE SAND as the WEST COAST OSTRICHES whose Board is ACCOUNTABLE to NO ONE,when they f*** UP?

Grassy,

I don't think holding the board unaccountable is what has happened, it is a matter of weighing up the pro's and con's of the decision, even to most disapointed in the board would see that to spill and replace like this would be overwhelming negative for the club.
If members have specific concerns or doubts about some board members then they will exorcise there rights at the next oportunity when that board member comes up for re-election.

I would suggest that Ray is in his last term.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:56 pm

grassy1 wrote:Does that mean,we are just as INSULAR, DEFENSIVE and HEAD IN THE SAND as the WEST COAST OSTRICHES whose Board is ACCOUNTABLE to NO ONE,when they f*** UP?

Just out of interest, what exactly has the West Coast Board f***** up? They won the flag last year or am I mistaken?

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:06 pm

BenDoolan wrote:
grassy1 wrote:Does that mean,we are just as INSULAR, DEFENSIVE and HEAD IN THE SAND as the WEST COAST OSTRICHES whose Board is ACCOUNTABLE to NO ONE,when they f*** UP?
Just out of interest, what exactly has the West Coast Board f***** up? They won the flag last year or am I mistaken?

Where do I start?

They buried their heads in the sand re the Cousins situation (just about everyone in Perth knew Cousins was dabbling in "substances") even though they were aware as early as July last year of his problems...but they won a flag so who cares?

They took no action of any merit on any of the occasions that Kerr was arrested for beating up on various members of the public

They suggested to Cousins and Gardiner that they stop associating with known "persons of interest to the police" and then did nothing when they were ignored.