Am I right in thinking that from the constitutional point of view, the criticisms that have been expressed in the last few posts have mainly concerned Motion 1?
Motion 2 doesn't affect the constitution (though perhaps doesn't show it in a great light). Motion 2 is like a general election in the UK - the voting was probably fair but parties in power broke a few er, rules before the vote.
With Motion 2 we are where we are...
MT's 'eligibility' seems to have been an unofficial campaign by senior officials since 2011, going by actions
in 2011 (AGM proposal brought under AOCB),
2014 (Council tried to implement grandparent rule),
2015 (eligibility vote similar to Motions 1 and 2 combined, was heading for defeat and pulled from the Constitution),
and after 2016 (not the Muir-Neave motion itself, but it's mistreatment by not recording the amended motion, not writing the minutes, not writing the motion into the rules, mislaying the rules, then misinterpreting the motion, defending the misinterpretation until blue in the face.
This misinterpretation, which was never even written down, was repeated so much by that Alex believed it and didn't think it even needed checking in 2019, and what happened then was - oh wait, I think we all know. (When is the playoff? Definitely only joking...
).
The essence of the 2015 eligibility proposal was saved from defeat in the constitutional meeting, removed from view by two or three hand picked committees, and reappeared in 2022 as a fait accompli in Motion 1 - which is "a motion Jim, but NOT as we know it".
Rather than unifinished projects that pay scant regard for the constitution and rules, surely Management's priority should have been the AGM which is overdue, required under the constitution and which could be arranged now. Had there been an AGM or SGM competing proposals could have been brought by members - most certainly on Motion 1 anyway.
Having said all that, we are where we are on Motion 2. The members have been asked and they will have spoken. Is there a constitutional objection to the vote on Motion 2 itself?
It's true that Motion 2 is not 'neat' - motions with people's names on them as exceptions (though brought about because Matt is an exceptional player). Ugh! But I think that's preferable to creating fake criteria like grandparent rules, that would only be there to give Matt eligibility and will lead to more players becoming eligible in the future. In fact anyone could even claim it as it's not very checkable.
But Motion 1, as noted by David, does seem to be a clear breach of the constitution and also sets a very bad precedent whereby if something isn't EXPLICITLY in the constitution management can say there's no rule against it.
Good luck and welcome to Matt if Motion 2 succeeds. If it fails I would echo Willie's hope that we should be done with the issue. Management have said this is to settle this matter of MT's eligibility (Motion 2) once and for all - I hope they will honour that and give a clear reassurance that they accept this vote, and won't be plaguing us with grandparent votes or "SCO code should be enough to give eligibility" or "one tier systems" and other such variants.
Cheers all
Motion 2 doesn't affect the constitution (though perhaps doesn't show it in a great light). Motion 2 is like a general election in the UK - the voting was probably fair but parties in power broke a few er, rules before the vote.
With Motion 2 we are where we are...
MT's 'eligibility' seems to have been an unofficial campaign by senior officials since 2011, going by actions
in 2011 (AGM proposal brought under AOCB),
2014 (Council tried to implement grandparent rule),
2015 (eligibility vote similar to Motions 1 and 2 combined, was heading for defeat and pulled from the Constitution),
and after 2016 (not the Muir-Neave motion itself, but it's mistreatment by not recording the amended motion, not writing the minutes, not writing the motion into the rules, mislaying the rules, then misinterpreting the motion, defending the misinterpretation until blue in the face.
This misinterpretation, which was never even written down, was repeated so much by that Alex believed it and didn't think it even needed checking in 2019, and what happened then was - oh wait, I think we all know. (When is the playoff? Definitely only joking...
).The essence of the 2015 eligibility proposal was saved from defeat in the constitutional meeting, removed from view by two or three hand picked committees, and reappeared in 2022 as a fait accompli in Motion 1 - which is "a motion Jim, but NOT as we know it".
Rather than unifinished projects that pay scant regard for the constitution and rules, surely Management's priority should have been the AGM which is overdue, required under the constitution and which could be arranged now. Had there been an AGM or SGM competing proposals could have been brought by members - most certainly on Motion 1 anyway.
Having said all that, we are where we are on Motion 2. The members have been asked and they will have spoken. Is there a constitutional objection to the vote on Motion 2 itself?
It's true that Motion 2 is not 'neat' - motions with people's names on them as exceptions (though brought about because Matt is an exceptional player). Ugh! But I think that's preferable to creating fake criteria like grandparent rules, that would only be there to give Matt eligibility and will lead to more players becoming eligible in the future. In fact anyone could even claim it as it's not very checkable.
But Motion 1, as noted by David, does seem to be a clear breach of the constitution and also sets a very bad precedent whereby if something isn't EXPLICITLY in the constitution management can say there's no rule against it.
Good luck and welcome to Matt if Motion 2 succeeds. If it fails I would echo Willie's hope that we should be done with the issue. Management have said this is to settle this matter of MT's eligibility (Motion 2) once and for all - I hope they will honour that and give a clear reassurance that they accept this vote, and won't be plaguing us with grandparent votes or "SCO code should be enough to give eligibility" or "one tier systems" and other such variants.
Cheers all