The AGM

[WhyPhilWhy?]

[Lone Ranger]

Hold on!!!!!!!

So anyone can puchase a $39 AFLW Access membership and get to vote!?!?!?!?

Thats one hell of a change without consulting members.

[RudeBoy]

Long over due. More democracy is a good thing.

[stoliboy]

Well done Jeff and the Board.

That is a fantastic change.

I mentioned during the vote how disappointing it was to be an interstate Collingwood and Social Club member of 20 years and not be eligible to vote.

Glad this has happened.

[WhyPhilWhy?]

[stui magpie]

Good thing. Restricting voting rights to Social Club members was an elitist anachronism for what was supposed to be a working class club.

Progressive move, well done.

[Pies4shaw]

I think there is good reason to assume that this move is of interest at least partly because the voting group will now be more amorphous and harder to organize as an opposition block - you will, no doubt, recall that the Board was, at best, lukewarm about democracy when it reared it's ugly head and tried to bite back, last time. Unless this is supported by, eg, very much more generous rules about availability of member records in a usable form and less-restrictive rules about calling for special meetings, it is more likely to become part of the problem than part of the solution.

Be wary - as the Trojans would still be saying, if they weren't all dead - of Greeks bearing gifts.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

Still waiting for some confirmation from the club. I've got MCC add on but haven't received anything from the club but a category of membership I have no interest in (4-game flexi membership). Also you can't find anything on the Collingwood membership website that guarantees voting rights except for Legends membership. If the Collingwood Football Club is interested in democracy they need to avoid last year's sham elections where only 14,000 members out of an 80,000 membership base were entitled to vote.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

[Jezza]

Consultation with members would have been good.

I was only supportive of this extending up to 11+game members or 10+ consecutive years members.

[Charlie Oneeye]

I first joined as a social club member in 1982.

We had a small gathering for new social club members, Bon Rose came up to me, shook my hand, and welcomed me to the club.

We were a loyal bunch... no internet warriors

We didn't have huge crowds for home games.. 28,000 was a sellout. Packed. Kids stood on beer cans.

Pies fresh out of the warmer were cold.. but great.

Although I was a social club member, in sellout games, even as an adult, 178cm. I'd on occasion have to peer through some tall bastards armpit to watch the game.

I can't remember recall how many social club members we had... maybe 15000 ?

I remember a box near the bar, reserved for 50 year members.. wow I thought.

For the quick, there were seats across the bar to watch the game through the window.

Having a beer after the game with the odd player was normal. Having a game of snooker with them during weekdays was normal.

I donated to the renovation of the players areas. A wall tile there may still have my name. I supported the move from Vic Park.


So now some people are concerned that some people with a years' worth of home games can direct its future.


Welcome to the future, 'general election people'. Accept them.

You were always in good hands. But this works too.

IT WAS NEVER ELITISM... We are a much bigger club now.

I welcome them.

[pietillidie]

Given our club has long been neurotic and in-bred, and has greatly underachieved in no small part because of this, I see this as a very positive change. A limited view of whose opinions matter most only heightens inherited cultural battiness and self-entitlement, and increases conformity.

At a time that someone like McRae has brought new thinking to the club, I can see why the leadership would be wanting to encourage cultural shift. Remember, it's not a negation of membership, just a broadening of decision making.

(And if you think the club is a raging success that needs more of the same, well...).

[Dark Beanie]

There will be percentage of members who have AFLW or Netball membership (or both like me) who are also AFLM members.

Based on the number of eligible members who voted at the last election, you only get those who are really interested bothering to to participate in the voting process. Now, most likely you will get a similar percentage voting but from a larger pool.

[barrackers]

This group criticised Neil Wilson’s eligibility to sit on the board because he held MCC with club support. Now the same group has made this category eligible to vote and therefore I assume sit on the board.

My biggest issue though is that this board change was supposed to add transparency to club decisions, transparency that was already starting to occur under Korda. If this decision is anything to go by we’ve gone backwards on that front.

[think positive]