View Full Version : Bob Campbell - embarassment
I am getting more and more annoyed these days with that whole Ross Dillon controversy when the SANFL contrived to have Campbell win the Chairman position. How bad is that, this is not Iraq you know. But that's another matter.
The point I want to make is that since that time I have become more and more embarassed with Bob Campbell's antics as Chairman.
First it was disrepectful comments about Malcolm Blight (after all he did for the club) after Blight had left the Crows, then there was the blaming of KG and Cornesy for low attendance at Wizard Cup games, there is the whinging about where final's should be played (if you have an issue with it then address it with class like Steven Trigg, not a spoilt little kid), and now we see him singing along with the players in the post match club song just to get his ugly face on the TV.
Bob Hammond would never have done anything like this. Hammond was a great Chairman. Campbell is an embarassment.
Thankfully we have a top CEO, Steven Trigg, to keep some sanity.
Mong
dyertribe
4 Apr 2003, 14:21
What I've liked about the Adelaide Football Club is that there have always been football people in the top managerial positions...
Sanders = ex-player
Hammond = ex-player/coach
Reid = ex-player/coach
Trigg = ex-player/coach
Now Campbell has been on the board since day one, but with a lot of the decisions and comments he makes he comes off looking like a real footy layman sometimes...
I don't think he ever played did he?
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???
Stiffy_18
4 Apr 2003, 15:19
Originally posted by noddy
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???
He's definetely got my vote!!!!!! Whether Campbell played or not is irrelevant IMO but you have to have good brains and a touch of class like Triggy. IMHO Campbell appers to have neither!!!!!!
Originally posted by noddy
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???
If he does - its a disgrace
Was quitting footy for good
Now he's back on the board
Said he never had plans to become Chairman
if he does - he's misled everyone.
dyertribe
4 Apr 2003, 15:46
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Whether Campbell played or not is irrelevant IMO
My point was we've always had people who've played/coached in charge at AFC, and hence they know exactly what's it like for the players and coaching staff they're in charge of - as well as having fine managerial and business acumen.
As a result they know that bringing any undue attention to themselves or the club by way of making ridiculous statements is a complete no-no and doesn't help the onfield or off-field situation at all.
Campbell (compared to the names I've mentioned) certainly seems to be free of these shackles, as do some of his contemparies like Richard Colless and everyone's favourite windbag John Elliott.
Stiffy_18
4 Apr 2003, 19:12
Originally posted by dyertribe
My point was we've always had people who've played/coached in charge at AFC, and hence they know exactly what's it like for the players and coaching staff they're in charge of - as well as having fine managerial and business acumen.
As a result they know that bringing any undue attention to themselves or the club by way of making ridiculous statements is a complete no-no and doesn't help the onfield or off-field situation at all.
Campbell (compared to the names I've mentioned) certainly seems to be free of these shackles, as do some of his contemparies like Richard Colless and everyone's favourite windbag John Elliott.
I understand where you are coming from mate and you make a good point but what I was trying to say it doesn't matter if the player or coached at SANFL or AFL level. It comes down to the type of person and their outlook on certain situations. IMHO Bob Campbell is on more of an ego trip than anything. The likes of Eddie McGuire have not played or coached at a reasonable level, but he does everything he possibly can to make things better for his team and take the pressure of his player. He is on an ego trip but he doesn't put his players and footy club in unconfortable position.
Originally posted by noddy
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???
From memory, I think this was part of the reason why Dillon and David Marshall were sacked. Between them they brought in one million (it may have been 3 mil) to the club that year and they got sacked.
I recall they werent happy about Sanders being CEO and having a board spot and it was "seeya later". The SANFL old boys club had spoken and they wanted Sanders and Cambell.
Colonel Sanders will get the top job, dont worry about that. Although I dont like the process, I think he'd be a better option than the current bloke.
Jerome
Hey Jerome
My memory on the subject is a bit hazy but I am pretty sure that Ross Dillon actually resigned in protest of the system.
I think you are right about Marshall though, the SANFL replaced him because he was a Dillon fan. They put someone else in who was going to vote for Campbell and that gave him enough votes to win.
That was the claim by the Dillon 'party' anyway.
Mong
Kane McGoodwin
4 Apr 2003, 20:36
Originally posted by Jerome
From memory, I think this was part of the reason why Dillon and David Marshall were sacked. Between them they brought in one million (it may have been 3 mil) to the club that year and they got sacked.
I recall they werent happy about Sanders being CEO and having a board spot and it was "seeya later". The SANFL old boys club had spoken and they wanted Sanders and Cambell.
Colonel Sanders will get the top job, dont worry about that. Although I dont like the process, I think he'd be a better option than the current bloke.
No doubt the Colonel will get the top job as he knows people in the right places. Don't reckon there will be a process, but more likely a handshake or 2 (they probably have already agreed on a date). As a Chairman all we can ask is that they keep things in order (although not much operational stuff like with the CEO), keep their trap shut most of the time (ie. none of this Collis v Eddie crap) & only talk (in an eloquent way) when real issues come up. Sanders is probably better placed to do this than Campbell, but there may be someone else better on the board too. In fact who else is on the board? Wouldn't mind someone like out ex-no 1 ticket holder Rob Gerard.
Originally posted by Mong
Hey Jerome
My memory on the subject is a bit hazy but I am pretty sure that Ross Dillon actually resigned in protest of the system.
Mong
I think youre right.
I have another question - who is our members rep? who is on the members committee and has anyone ever heard from them? If not why not? Why arent these people given a page on the site or in crowing?
Jerome
Jars458
18 Nov 2003, 13:06
Originally posted by Jars458
If he does - its a disgrace
Was quitting footy for good
Now he's back on the board
Said he never had plans to become Chairman
if he does - he's misled everyone.
Thank you linesman thank you ball boys
The whole membership representation is a bloody farce and Sanders has had this planned all along.
The biggest weakenss for the AFC in my view as members have no real representation.
Not happy.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 14:05
Originally posted by Jars458
The biggest weakenss for the AFC in my view as members have no real representation.
Not happy.
Totally agreed.
The club in the AFL with the most members who have the least power.
My elder sister's partner's membership at Carlton allows him to do everything short of picking the bloody team.
Get over it.
Club officials are appointed to do a job, not to win ****ing popularity contests.
We're the best run club in the league and some supporters still whinge.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 15:37
Originally posted by DaveW
Get over it.
Club officials are appointed to do a job, not to win ****ing popularity contests.
We're the best run club in the league and some supporters still whinge.
Yeah we're the best run club in the league because we have 45000 members/season ticket holders who pour millions into the club every ****ing year and see nothing by way of the members' rights that other AFL clubs members enjoy.
Seven or eight years in they built us a shed... now there's a tavern... that took long enough.
It's high time the supporters - without whom there'd be no club - got a little more respect and input rather than a patronising invitation to select a nominee for the board to consider.
I trust the SANFL and the AFC to appoint the best people for the job.
As a supporter, I'll worry about what happens on-field.
I certainly won't pretend to know who the best candidates are for running the the off-field side of the club.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 15:47
Originally posted by DaveW
I certainly won't pretend to know who the best candidates are for running the the off-field side of the club.
Typical patronising dogma.
"The masses are too stupid to think for themselves, therefore shouldn't lead themselves"
You're assuming the membership base of the Adelaide Football Club is a) stupid and b) apathetic. I'd love to have a vote that actually COUNTS towards the future direction of my club.
So I should just throw my nominees voting form and reply paid envelope in the bin then?
Originally posted by dyertribe
Typical patronising dogma.
"The masses are too stupid to think for themselves, therefore shouldn't lead themselves"
You're assuming the membership base of the Adelaide Football Club is a) stupid and b) apathetic. I'd love to have a vote that actually COUNTS towards the future direction of my club.
So I should just throw my nominees voting form and reply paid envelope in the bin then?
Who do you believe is the best candidate, and why? What qualities do they have which make them a better choice compared to a few other candidates whom you know of?
Well that's quite impressive if you have expertise in knowing how organisations with multi-million dollar turnovers each year should run...
Frankly I doubt most of our supporters do.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 15:54
Originally posted by DaveW
Well that's quite impressive if you have expertise in knowing how organisations with multi-million dollar turnovers each year should run...
Frankly I doubt most of our supporters do.
Well yob and Dave, lets just do away with democracy altogether then.
Starting right now John Howard and his cabinet can have government for life!... screw it... the public of Australia simply doesn't have the expertise in foreign affairs, running a multi-billion dollar economy, keeping the health system up and running as well as all the other facets that consist of maintaining responsible government.
:rolleyes:
The Adelaide Football Club is not a government.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 16:20
Originally posted by DaveW
The Adelaide Football Club is not a government.
The Federal Government of Australia answers to its constituents, the citizens and permanent residents of Australia who in turn pay taxes into the treasury which funds the public servants and the construction of schools, roads, hospitals, etc.
The Adelaide Football Club answers to its constituents, the members and supporters of the club, who pay fees to that club, as well as other moneys that enter the club's coffers. Those fees pay the wages of the relevant staff, players and upkeep of the club's facilities and other infrastructure.
But Dave, I thought your point was you trust the AFC and its board to run itself - because Joe Public certainly doesn't have any idea how to run a multi-million dollar corporation!
So how is Australia any different with it's multi-billion dollar economy? Why the hell are the Australian people trusted with voting in governments that have the power to declare war, manage trade deficits and sign treaties regarding sovereignty, alliances and environmental management then?! Christ! How the hell did this democracy crap start? You and I don't know anything about running the economy or waging wars! So why the hell are idiots like us allowed to vote on such an important facet of life???
Oh that's right... democracy doesn't count in this case because "the Adelaide Football Club is not a government"... sure it runs a team and infrastructure that is funded and loved but its 45000+ members... but it isnt a government.
The government isn't selling a product.
The cost of a season ticket is in no way comparable to taxes.
You pay money to see games. If you don't like it, then don't pay. A choice you don't have with paying tax.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 16:32
Originally posted by DaveW
The government isn't selling a product.
But your argument was that the members of the AFC don't have the necessary knowledge on how to a football club with multi-million dollar turnover to be allowed to cast a vote on who is placed on the AFC board wasn't it?
Strange... using that logic we shouldn't be allowed to vote in state or federal elections either should we? And that's far more important.
Originally posted by DaveW
You pay money to see games. If you don't like it, then don't pay.
Yawn. Yeah yeah.
Originally posted by dyertribe
But your argument was that the members of the AFC don't have the necessary knowledge on how to a football club with multi-million dollar turnover to be allowed to cast a vote on who is placed on the AFC board wasn't it?
Strange... using that logic we shouldn't be allowed to vote in state or federal elections either should we? And that's far more important. The government in power chooses the right people for the job.
We just pick the party.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 16:45
Originally posted by DaveW
The government in power chooses the right people for the job.
We just pick the party.
The party still has a platform and we have the power to elect them or not. Same goes for boardroom tickets at AFL football clubs.
Collingwood people voted for Eddie McGuire's ticket didn't they?
Carlton people voted out John Elliott's ticket didn't they?
Meanwhile Bob Campbell, Bob Hammond, Bill Sanders et al can seemingly stay for as long as they want, regardless of performance.
No-one liked Bob Campbell and didn't think he was much chop in his position at the club... but he stayed from the creation of the club to now. That's 13 seasons in a power position... is that good or bad?
I say bad. But I don't have a vote, and subsequently don't have a say. And neither does anyone else who isn't in power at that club - and a situation such as that is unfavourable for all concerned.
You disagree with me. That's that.
Originally posted by dyertribe
Collingwood people voted for Eddie McGuire's ticket didn't they?
Carlton people voted out John Elliott's ticket didn't they?
And there's the argument that convinces me of my position.
The last thing we need is glorified mouthpieces masquerading as club leaders.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 16:59
Originally posted by DaveW
And there's the argument that convinces me of my position.
The last thing we need is glorified mouthpieces masquerading as club leaders.
Two things...
1. Eddie McGuire succeeded a stagnant board and has since used his contacts and business savvy to turn Collingwood from a laughing stock into a force again. I know many supporters of other AFL clubs would love his passion and acumen at their club.
2. Campbell wasn't glorified, but he was certainly a bloody 'mouthpiece' - refer to post one in this thread. And was he voted in by the public?
Originally posted by dyertribe
And was he voted in by the public? Has the outgoing left us in a financial mess? Are we wondering what to rename a stand selfishly named after himself at Football Park? No.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Really, what's the big deal? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside if you get to decide who should be in the high positions at the club?
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 21:37
Originally posted by DaveW
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Doesn't matter - if it does become 'broke' we won't get a chance to.
Originally posted by DaveW
Really, what's the big deal? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside if you get to decide who should be in the high positions at the club?
I already established exactly why I believe it's important that the members of the Adelaide Football Club get full voting rights pertaining to the election of board members.
Re-read the thread - slowly - if it's all too hard for you to understand.
Originally posted by dyertribe
I already established exactly why I believe it's important that the members of the Adelaide Football Club get full voting rights pertaining to the election of board members.
Re-read the thread - slowly - if it's all too hard for you to understand. That you just the club to spend more money on supporter facilities?
"Hmmm... what should we spend the club's money on? Upgrading the training facilities for the players, or another bar for the supporters? Well only one of those options will get us votes."
McLeod23
18 Nov 2003, 21:53
Dyertribe - the fact that you even mentioned John Elliott in a thread about Bob Campbell is pathetic. I'll gladly slag Bob when he leaves the club in financial ruins, and eliminates any hope of the Crows being a force in the AFL for the next five years because of cheating - but he hasn't. And, for what its worth, Bob Campbell happens to be my great uncle, and he is an absolutely legendary guy. So still your insults up your ass and get ****ed.
Go Crows
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 22:10
Originally posted by DaveW
That you just the club to spend more money on supporter facilities?
"Hmmm... what should we spend the club's money on? Upgrading the training facilities for the players, or another bar for the supporters? Well only one of those options will get us votes."
"Hmmm... **** the fans, we'll give them a bar eventually - it's not as if we'll ever be voted out or they'll stop pouring cash into our pockets now is it?!"
I am in no way suggesting anything radical here, I myself could ask you what the big deal is. I am merely asking for a full vote per fully paid up member to elect board members - to bring us into line with other clubs in the Australian Football League and across the globe.
I believe a democratic process within a club is important as it encourages responsible governance and provides extra motivation for the board to produce success both on and off the field. Now we'll never be a poor club, that's a given - the way the financial structure of the club is set up and the steady stream of fans willing to go to games, buy merchandise and watch us on the tele is never-ending, but it doesn't mean a board at any given time is untouchable. And I believe this is exactly the sort of situation the upper-tier of the Adelaide Football Club and the SANFL takes for granted - Doesn't matter what the score is on the field, or the situation off it, we'll always turn a profit so who cares?
Furthermore, this notion that the AFC members 'don't have adequate knowledge' is completely absurd as it not only insults the passion and intelligence of the paying member, but also contradicts the current situation where the SANFL allows us to nominate a board member for consideration, and not elect one or two or more directly. Why are we allowed to nominate and not elect? Strange isn't it? But If you enjoy being patronised that's your prerogative, not mine.
As it stands, the members - who pour the most money into the entire operation when all things are considered - are inadequately represented and have practically no say in nominating and voting for positions on the board proportionate to the funds they generate for the club, or in short, the biggest membership base in the AFL has the least power.
You're obviously apathetic or against paid members receiving full voting rights, and will continue to just assume that those in charge at the Adelaide Football Club and the SANFL will always know what they're doing.
We'll let's hope this is the case, because if we ever have an incompetant board member or two or three we as members won't be able to do anything about it - despite there being 45000 of us.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 22:15
Originally posted by McLeod23
So still your insults up your ass and get ****ed.
In light of your abusive language, poor grammar and ironic drivel posted above, I'm surprised that your IQ is so high as to be capable of reading my posts!
I applaud your courage and achievement in spite of such adversity.
McLeod23
18 Nov 2003, 22:33
Originally posted by dyertribe
I am merely asking for a full vote per fully paid up member to elect board members - to bring us into line with other clubs in the Australian Football League and across the globe.
I believe a democratic process within a club is important as it encourages responsible governance and provides extra motivation for the board to produce success both on and off the field.
You're obviously apathetic or against paid members receiving full voting rights, and will continue to just assume that those in charge at the Adelaide Football Club and the SANFL will always know what they're doing.
[/B]
Firstly I totally agree with your first point - AFC members should have the right to elect board members because of a number of reasons, especially the one you outlined in your second point. Which means that your observation of what I "obviously" am is incorrect. I probably overreacted with my post, I was just a little bit irritated considering a family member was being insulted, especially when he alone cannot change the current system of electing board members and positions. I am also not a member, only because I live in Queensland, which makes it slightly difficult to get to home games, however I always attend Crows games at the Gabba.
I was going to apologise for my insults, but in light of your most recent post I think I'll pass.
dyertribe
18 Nov 2003, 22:39
Originally posted by McLeod23
I was going to apologise for my insults, but in light of your most recent post I think I'll pass.
That's fine, but it was your choice to personally attack me in the first instance, not mine. I have every right to suggest a clown should join the circus if he decides to put on some baggy pants and show me a trick I'm amused by.
Furthermore, I meant no disrespect to Bob Campbell - I was making the simple point that at other clubs board members and those in power can be voted out by the paying membership base, at the Adelaide Football Club those in similar positions cannot be, regardless of their performance.
All things considered, no offense taken. :)
McLeod23
18 Nov 2003, 22:48
I only directed my admittedly poorly structured post at you because you associated Bob with Fat Jack.
Argument ends here.
Besides, I don't know why two Crows fans are wasting their time taking pot shots at each other - we should all be directed our insults at the poor beggars from Alberton. :D
Go Crows
The reason I think the members should have more voting power is because the members want people in the positions that will have the best interests of the Adelaide Football Club.
As Dave W has said the SANFL are capable of selecting good people that are capable of doing good jobs. The thing is they want people who will support the SANFL's agenda, which is not always in the best interests of the Adelaide Football Club.
And without voting power, there is nothing the members can do to change this.
Mong
Jars458
20 Nov 2003, 14:33
I agree with everything Dyertirbe has said on this thread
We are the stakeholders and we deserve some rights
Bill Sanders duplicity is disturbing.
Originally posted by Mong
The thing is they want people who will support the SANFL's agenda, which is not always in the best interests of the Adelaide Football Club. That's the best point made so far. But can you give me an example of where this has happened? :confused:
Originally posted by Jars458
I agree with everything Dyertirbe has said on this thread
We are the stakeholders and we deserve some rights
Bill Sanders duplicity is disturbing. Sure you aren't just holding on too tight? ;)
Porthos
20 Nov 2003, 14:40
Speaking as a Port Magpies supporter, I think its great that you guys make a point of having a bumper profit to give to the SANFL every year rather than reinvesting that money into facilities for your own club.
Jars458
20 Nov 2003, 15:00
Originally posted by DaveW
That's the best point made so far. But can you give me an example of where this has happened? :confused:
Sure you aren't just holding on too tight? ;)
I can't hold on too tight my palms always begin to sweat;)
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 15:00
Originally posted by DaveW
That's the best point made so far.
There's been plenty of good points made as to why we should receive full voting rights - you just don't agree with the argument for the positive out of hand.
Jars458
20 Nov 2003, 15:01
Originally posted by Porthos
Speaking as a Port Magpies supporter, I think its great that you guys make a point of having a bumper profit to give to the SANFL every year rather than reinvesting that money into facilities for your own club.
There is a new arrangment now where the Power and the Crows both put back money based on teh same formula.
I have no objection in giving money back to the SANFL. I do it every year through my Eagles membership.
Originally posted by dyertribe
There's been plenty of good points made as to why we should receive full voting rights - you just don't agree with the argument for the positive out of hand. No, I simply see no problem with the status quo remaining.
Frankly I find it frightening to have a board more worried about catering to the supporters wants ahead of those of the players and coaching & auxiliary staff.
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 15:47
Originally posted by DaveW
Frankly I find it frightening to have a board more worried about catering to the supporters wants ahead of those of the players and coaching & auxiliary staff.
I believe you're missing the point by a fair margin.
This isnt solely about the needs and wants of the supporters, it's about the stakeholders having their rightful say in the direction of our club...
It's about the board having someone other than themselves to answer to...
It's about the SANFL releasing some of its grip on the club to allow the right people to work in the best interests of the club, and not for other purposes and entities...
It's about encouraging a greater responsibility in governance and working in the best interests of the club as a whole - from the players, and the coach, right down to the bootstudder to the supporters and members who pay through the neck to keep the club afloat.
Without its supporters and members a football club dies. At the moment we are taken for granted, treated like sheep and the board and SANFL can do whatever it likes with our club.
Yes, at the moment things are running smoothly and the status quo is generally positive, but we cannot always assume that this will be the case.
Jars458
20 Nov 2003, 16:38
Originally posted by DaveW
That's the best point made so far. But can you give me an example of where this has happened? :
Tony Modra not given life membership
Allocation of AFL finacnes to the SANFL
Bill Sanders being chosen ahead of me on the Board:p
No member clubrooms because it would reduce the profits back to the SANFL.
Originally posted by Jars458
Tony Modra not given life membership How does that help the SANFL? :confused:
Allocation of AFL finacnes to the SANFL We're locked into a contract there. So giving members a vote isn't going to change this.
Bill Sanders being chosen ahead of me on the Board:p And we're back to my original question. How are those in power working in the interests of the SANFL ahead of the AFC?
Originally posted by Mong
No member clubrooms because it would reduce the profits back to the SANFL. I understand we now pay a flat rate (rather than a %) to the SANFL so that should be moot now.
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 17:23
Originally posted by DaveW
How does that help the SANFL? :confused:
Lord... Dave you're slipping son...
He's talking about a questionable decision made by the board that no-one - except certain board members in their wisdom - agreed with.
Originally posted by dyertribe
Lord... Dave you're slipping son...
He's talking about a questionable decision made by the board that no-one - except certain board members in their wisdom - agreed with. Yes, but the question was how is the board acting in the interests of the SANFL rather than the AFC?
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 17:41
Originally posted by DaveW
Yes, but the question was how is the board acting in the interests of the SANFL rather than the AFC?
Yeah but we both knew what he meant and in which context...
Trying to catch people out on technicalities, Dave?... Sign of a desperate man fighting a losing battle ;) :D
Originally posted by dyertribe
Yeah but we both knew what he meant and in which context...
Trying to catch people out on technicalities, Dave?... Sign of a desperate man fighting a losing battle ;) :D No, you're the one who is clutching at straws.
Jars quoted my question and that was his answer.
I sought further explanation.
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 17:53
Originally posted by DaveW
No, you're the one who is clutching at straws.
It's clear we disagree, and I have posted time and again sufficient reasons as to why - but all your responses have consisted of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" or "I am happy with the status quo" or just your usual doses of sarcasm...
If anyone has hayfever and a wagon full of straw it's you.
Originally posted by dyertribe
It's clear we disagree, and I have posted time and again sufficient reasons as to why - but all your responses have consisted of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" or "I am happy with the status quo" or just your usual doses of sarcasm...
If anyone has hayfever and a wagon full of straw it's you. None of the reasons have been terribly persuasive.
I was enquiring about Mong's point, but I still can't get a good example of how the board has failed us.
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 18:02
Originally posted by DaveW
None of the reasons have been terribly persuasive.
In your opinion - and that's not terribly surprising.
Originally posted by dyertribe
In your opinion There was a fair element of subjectivity about comment, yes. ;)
Originally posted by DaveW
That's the best point made so far. But can you give me an example of where this has happened? :confused:
Yes. Several years ago - I think it was 2000, the Crows Bar at West Lakes were running Bingo during the afternoons. There were other gaming fuctions going on as well to entice punters through the door.
AFC must have been doing alright out of it as some of the SANFL clubs in neighbouring areas complained about it to the SANFL board claiming it would keep people away from their venues and they would lose money. I recall West Adelaide being named as a club who wanted the functions shut down as they were planning their own gaming rooms.
The SANFL clubs got their way and the AFC lost out. The board did not look after us, and the people who used the venue didnt really have much of a right of reply.
Granted they have recently spent a fair bit on upgrading the Crows Bar, but its a waste of money. The joint is terrible, worse than before if thats possible.
Really we should buy a pub in the CBD and do it up. We are called the Adelaide Football Club so we should have a presence in the CBD. Why havent we done that?
Same reason why we dont have a reserves side. The SANFL clubs would see it as a threat and block it.
dyertribe
20 Nov 2003, 21:39
Originally posted by Jerome
Yes. Several years ago - I think it was 2000, the Crows Bar at West Lakes were running Bingo during the afternoons. There were other gaming fuctions going on as well to entice punters through the door.
AFC must have been doing alright out of it as some of the SANFL clubs in neighbouring areas complained about it to the SANFL board claiming it would keep people away from their venues and they would lose money. I recall West Adelaide being named as a club who wanted the functions shut down as they were planning their own gaming rooms.
The SANFL clubs got their way and the AFC lost out. The board did not look after us, and the people who used the venue didnt really have much of a right of reply.
Granted they have recently spent a fair bit on upgrading the Crows Bar, but its a waste of money. The joint is terrible, worse than before if thats possible.
Really we should buy a pub in the CBD and do it up. We are called the Adelaide Football Club so we should have a presence in the CBD. Why havent we done that?
Same reason why we dont have a reserves side. The SANFL clubs would see it as a threat and block it.
Dave?...
Jars458
21 Nov 2003, 08:58
Originally posted by DaveW
None of the reasons have been terribly persuasive.
I was enquiring about Mong's point, but I still can't get a good example of how the board has failed us.
You miss the point
Hitler was doing a great job until they lost the war.
We still don't have decent members clubrooms.