Yeah I had a quick peruse of the document and I couldn't see the words purple or anchor anywhere.

But that section about a members meeting did grab my attention. I presumed they'd say that the AGM served as this meeting, but zorro's been able to confirm otherwise.

Another thing that piqued my interest was the mention of minutes of board meetings. Would be interesting to see if these were made available to members. Reckon they'd make for some interesting reading.

I'm sure that they'd be so used to the Kingstons and Monte Carlos I'd doubt they'd even minute the biscuit choice any more. Minutes of board meetings from the late 90s, when the great "unlimited SAOs for all, one scotch finger to be shared between two" policy was introduced would make much more interesting reading.

Given your points i and ii Morgan (which are pretty much my reading of the constitution as well), it appears that we should be focussing more on the WAFC.


Also, according to Article 36 (especially 36.2), could move to have Steve 2 (Harris) sacked over a possible conflict of interest. I'm fairly certain there is one somewhere given that the Brand agency has done work for the club, which is stated on their website.
Just an idea.

Zorro's post (above) gives you the proper email address to send your complaints to. The WAFC are the only shareholder and the only stakeholder with a vote that means anything.

I have looked over the Constitution of the 'Fremantle Football Club Limited' and the remedy is right there on the front cover.

In my opinion, the 'Fremantle Football Club Limited' no longer exists - it has become 'The Fremantle Dockers Football Club'. The new logo of the FDFC is misleading when it claims that it was 'EST 1994', it was (in fact) established on Oct. 1, 2010 (or was announced to the 'membership' at that time).

Whether or not the Steves have acquired a new ACN (the old one was 066055249) or not, it is misleading (under the Fair Trading Act) to claim that the FDFC is the FFC when clearly a number of their 'voting members' are of the opinion that it is not. The radical departure of their new corporate/company 'brand' from their former 'brand' reinforces a conclusion that the FDFC is not the FFC - it is something else.

While the Corporations Act has contingencies to permit the evolution of a limited company through changes, the Fair Trading Act does not. It calls itself something else, it looks like something else, it acts like something else.

Under the terms of their former 'Constitution' (item 56 Arbitration) the Company may refer to arbitration any existing or future difference question or other matter whatsoever in dispute between itself and any other Company or person and the parties to the arbitration....power to settle any term order anything to be done....

In my opinion, the footy club I am a member of vanished on October 1, 2010. I don't believe the FDFC is the FFC. I cannot contact the FFC because they no longer exist. As the only Shareholder in the FFC Ltd. the WAFC are obliged to put the matter to arbitration in order to resolve the dispute.

Just my opinion.

You are kidding, aren't you? We've just had the second best season in our history, got the best bunch of young talent in the league and you are talking about clubs vanishing. I'll be there next year in whichever jumper I happen to pull out of the cupboard, cheering on the TEAM in whichever colour jumper they want to wear. I might even take an inflatatble purple finger or maybe an inflatable white anchor.

I'll not worry about the name, logo, CEO, song or anything else. I'll just hope that they guys that matter win the clearances, beat the flood and get it forward quick. It's the onfield stuff that really matters.

on the bright side, at least we now have a topic of discussion that will sustain us for the off season.

well said Pope