Does the Swans constitution...

[Charlie]

... allow for proposals by members to be presented for a vote at General Meetings? Like, for instance, wearing the South Melbourne jumper at some or all Melbourne matches?

I'm assuming we'll have AGMs, seeing as we'll now have directors to elect.

BTW - I'm rapt with the 2 positions open for election. Guarantees stability - and in all likelihood Melbourne representation, while still providing for members' input and supervision of the board. I've favoured the idea of a minority-elected, majority-appointed board for a while.

[j s]

Do the Swans HAVE a constitution?

I think that is the more pertinent question right now!

[Charlie]

Hmm... good point. If not, how exactly do we get one?

[swansrock4eva]

No we don't actually have a constitution, or at least we didn't have one at the end of 2002, when all the Choose Roos stuff was going on. I think we'd have heard if that had changed.

[stellation]

With the membership being heavily Sydney based I am not certain there will be Melbourne representation if there are only 2 positions (bar the voting public). Edit: of course I could be wrong!

Also, to seem like I am on some anti-Melbourne rant (which I'm not), I think that wearing the South Melbourne strip for the Heritage round and maintaining the SMFC on the back of the regular playing jumpers is sufficient.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by stellation
With the membership being heavily Sydney based I am not certain there will be Melbourne representation if there are only 2 positions (bar the voting public).

Hence my pleasure that there will still be appointed board members.

Also, to seem like I am on some anti-Melbourne rant (which I'm not), I think that wearing the South Melbourne strip for the Heritage round and maintaining the SMFC on the back of the regular playing jumpers is sufficient.

At the risk of seeming like I am on some anti-Sydney rant, this is a Sydney-centric statement by a Sydney-centric person, who doesn't have a clue what a Melbourne based supporter would view as sufficient. The heritage round matches have been in Sydney. Don't you think Melbourne fans might like to go to games with the South Melbourne jumper?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
The heritage round matches have been in Sydney. Don't you think Melbourne fans might like to go to games with the South Melbourne jumper?

We played the pies at Colonial for heritage round 2003, so 50/50 so far

[liz]

I would get quite distressed at the idea of one "member rep" for Sydney members and one for Melbourne members. Aren't we one big club?

I suspect my requirements from the club are as different from Des', Bron's, JF's etc as they are from Charlie's, Anne's, Cliff;'s etc. There is no "Sydney" or "Melbourne" about it.

What I desire from board members - whether elected or appointed - is that they have skills to bring to the board to drive the club forward and that they are suitable guardians of the club for future generations/

[Mark]

I will be voting for Uranus Blandis

Anyone who is named after both a planet and a body part is worth my vote any day !

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
No we don't actually have a constitution, or at least we didn't have one at the end of 2002, when all the Choose Roos stuff was going on. I think we'd have heard if that had changed.

The Swans trade as a public company limited by guarantee - which basically means they have no share capital but raise money by fees from members (us). As we are not 'owners' of the company (ie stock holders) we have no right to vote unless the articles of association are so amended such that we can (which seems to be going to be the case). As I understand it (which could well be wrong) the Swans cannot trade, or be registered with ASIC as a company, without a constitution. I think (again, could easily be wrong) that if they do not have one the replaceable rules of the Corporations Act will stand in its place, effectively giving the copmany a constitution.

If you want to know a bit more about this side of the club Charlie some information is available free off the ASIC web site, and also the ABR web site

try this for starters

I don't know if you be able to get a copy of the club's constitution this way. You could always ring Myles and ask him for one. I'm not sure that it would be a very interesting read.

The question that I am interested in seeing answered is who is going to amend the constitution and are members going to get a say in how it is amended. We have no 'right' to influence the amendments, but seeing as they are being initiated for our supposed benefit, it would be nice to think that we get a say in what is changed.

As I've said a couple of times, this is only what I think is the case. If any one is really interested, let me know an when I have some time next week I'll see what I can find out...

[monopoly19]

Originally posted by liz
Aren't we one big club?

Not on this board.



I think that if we're going to divide up the member reps between Sydney and Melbourne, because that would be the fair/right thing to do, we should at least do it in proportion (i.e 3:1/4:1, whatever the figure is). However, seeing as that's not going to happen (there's only 2 spots) the positions should not be based on location, rather, on the person's ability to meet the requirements.

[liz]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
The question that I am interested in seeing answered is who is going to amend the constitution and are members going to get a say in how it is amended. We have no 'right' to influence the amendments, but seeing as they are being initiated for our supposed benefit, it would be nice to think that we get a say in what is changed.

My understanding is that the only 'member' with the right to agree to changes in the constitution is the AFL. Hence their approval is required to provide voting rights to club members.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Mark
We played the pies at Colonial for heritage round 2003, so 50/50 so far

Wrong. That was the Team of the Century promotion. Both heritage games have been at the SCG.

Liz - the one big happy family thing is great in theory, but I'd like the insurance of a couple of Melbourne-based board members just in case - I suspect it's not quite as reliable to assume that Sydneysiders will act in the best interests of Melbourne-based supporters.

I wasn't advocating specific voting in any case - don't know where that came from. Merely pointing out that while the majority of the board remains appointed, it's more likely that Melbourne people will be there than if the members - 75% Sydneysiders - vote for all Directors.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
Wrong. That was the Team of the Century promotion. Both heritage games have been at the SCG.

Apologies, but you did get to see the jumper up close and personal tho !

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Mark
Apologies, but you did get to see the jumper up close and personal tho !

In a way, yes.

My reason is simple: a) it's a great looking jumper, and b) if it gets a couple of hundred old Southerners back to the club, surely it's worth it.