Jars458
29 Jun 2001, 17:24
This is really for Crows members but would be interested in the views of others also. This was posted on the AFC site earlier today also.
The Adelaide Football Club is one of the few clubs in the AFL whose members do not control the make up of the board and therefore have no real say in how the Club is run.
The AFC members are allowed to elect one person who is submitted to the SANFL commission for approval to sit on the board.
Therefore the only representation we get is tempered by the fact that if the Commission are not happy with the nomination, then they can refuse to admit this person to the board. As I understand it, they would not have to justify their position to AFC members (would be happy to be proved wrong).
Therefore, if a controversial issue ever arises that the members want something done about and we elect a person onto the board to put froward our views, all the Commission have to do is reject that person’s application to go on the board and therefore all debate is stifled.
Ross Dillon used to be our representative on the board, but now he has resigned due to the circumstances surrounding the elevation of Bob Campbell to AFC Chairman, which, according to media reports, occurred at the last minute, and seemed to be “politically” motivated.
After Ross resigned, he was replaced by Andrew Payze, who is not a members’ representative. That is, now the members have no representation on the AFC board and therefore not even a marginal input into how the club is run.
I would say at this point that I know of no reason why either Bob or Ross would not make a good Chairman, I merely use this as an example of lack of member input into our own club.
I think it is a shocking state of affairs that the members of a football club can have no real say in how their club is run. That is what the situation is with our club, regardless of whether we have one representative on the board or not, who can always be rejected by the Commission if they so desire.
As I understand it, the Commission is elected by the SANFL clubs, and therefore the only way we can indirectly have a voice is to become a member of our SANFL clubs and get people on the boards of the SANFL who agree with how we think the AFC should be run and who can in turn elect like minded people onto the Commission? There are so many holes in that avenue of representation that I won’t go into them here.
It seems to me that the AFC members should have at least the same deal as the Port Adelaide Football Club members and be allowed to elect half the number of the board, as I believe Port members elect 5 out of ten members of their board.
Is this too much to ask? I don’t think it is, but I imagine the SANFL have a completely different view as they would never want the AFC to be out of the control of the Commission and therefore the SANFL clubs.
I am not saying the board has done a bad job or that the AFC should not continue to support the SANFL, as clearly the local league needs this support, through the dividend etc.
The main point is that Crows members should have a say in how the club is run, just like all other Club members in Victoria.
I realise that there is then the problem of which members should be allowed to vote for the board, in light of the fact that there are Gold, Silver and Bronze Members as well as Footy Park Members.
In my view, it should only be Gold Members and Bronze Members whose money goes directly to the Club as an extra fee other than the price of the season ticket (again stand corrected if this is not right).
I would be interested to know what other people think, as this will only ever happen if we get off our backsides and do something. Others may not think it’s a problem however, so I would be interested in your views.
Cheers.
The Adelaide Football Club is one of the few clubs in the AFL whose members do not control the make up of the board and therefore have no real say in how the Club is run.
The AFC members are allowed to elect one person who is submitted to the SANFL commission for approval to sit on the board.
Therefore the only representation we get is tempered by the fact that if the Commission are not happy with the nomination, then they can refuse to admit this person to the board. As I understand it, they would not have to justify their position to AFC members (would be happy to be proved wrong).
Therefore, if a controversial issue ever arises that the members want something done about and we elect a person onto the board to put froward our views, all the Commission have to do is reject that person’s application to go on the board and therefore all debate is stifled.
Ross Dillon used to be our representative on the board, but now he has resigned due to the circumstances surrounding the elevation of Bob Campbell to AFC Chairman, which, according to media reports, occurred at the last minute, and seemed to be “politically” motivated.
After Ross resigned, he was replaced by Andrew Payze, who is not a members’ representative. That is, now the members have no representation on the AFC board and therefore not even a marginal input into how the club is run.
I would say at this point that I know of no reason why either Bob or Ross would not make a good Chairman, I merely use this as an example of lack of member input into our own club.
I think it is a shocking state of affairs that the members of a football club can have no real say in how their club is run. That is what the situation is with our club, regardless of whether we have one representative on the board or not, who can always be rejected by the Commission if they so desire.
As I understand it, the Commission is elected by the SANFL clubs, and therefore the only way we can indirectly have a voice is to become a member of our SANFL clubs and get people on the boards of the SANFL who agree with how we think the AFC should be run and who can in turn elect like minded people onto the Commission? There are so many holes in that avenue of representation that I won’t go into them here.
It seems to me that the AFC members should have at least the same deal as the Port Adelaide Football Club members and be allowed to elect half the number of the board, as I believe Port members elect 5 out of ten members of their board.
Is this too much to ask? I don’t think it is, but I imagine the SANFL have a completely different view as they would never want the AFC to be out of the control of the Commission and therefore the SANFL clubs.
I am not saying the board has done a bad job or that the AFC should not continue to support the SANFL, as clearly the local league needs this support, through the dividend etc.
The main point is that Crows members should have a say in how the club is run, just like all other Club members in Victoria.
I realise that there is then the problem of which members should be allowed to vote for the board, in light of the fact that there are Gold, Silver and Bronze Members as well as Footy Park Members.
In my view, it should only be Gold Members and Bronze Members whose money goes directly to the Club as an extra fee other than the price of the season ticket (again stand corrected if this is not right).
I would be interested to know what other people think, as this will only ever happen if we get off our backsides and do something. Others may not think it’s a problem however, so I would be interested in your views.
Cheers.