2015 Board Candidates Announced

[19thDan]

I have never said otherwise. The board has 7 places to appoint Directors, and they are using them to... Appoint Directors .

We don't know yet what their plan is for that vacant seventh spot.

They got Roo right, let's see who come up next before we get too excited.

There probably won't be a 'next' for quite a while. Jamo will probably come up for re-election next year in the one available spot, Roo the next year, and so on and so forth.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

Exactly why do you think we've been pushing for member elected positions? Why is this attractive? What do we want from it?

We have spare positions on the board, as per our constitution, with which to appoint Roo, who is already acting as a board member anyway. As others have noted, why is Jameson trying to get on the board now all of a sudden? We finally have member elected positions, and yet we immediately place former players in the running? Why not just have Roo join the board without taking up one of the two member elected positions? It's a foregone conclusion he'll be appointed. We all know Roo will win, and it's very likely Jamo will too. I am not suggesting they're not qualified for a board position, or have nothing to contribute - I have no problem with either being on the board. But neither represent me and my experiences and needs as a supporter. Further to this, we could have someone infinitely more qualified than either running, yet they wouldn't in a million years stand a chance against Roo.

This is our first opportunity to vote for board members, and our first chance to be truly represented in club discussions at the highest level. We have had so many complaints over the years over the way the administration has talked down to fans, ignored public sentiment, lacked transparency to the detriment of the club, pushed agendas of exclusivity despite a public mantra of inclusivity. How completely out of touch with the common fan has the club seemed at times? So many of our mistakes over the last few years seemed to stem from this.

Until now, our only options have been to 'agitate' (for which we have been continuously mocked by the club), or to give up our memberships. That is exactly why member elected representation was so exciting. Why it made us hopeful for change.

We finally have member elected positions, and yet they stack the field with former players who could have made it onto the board through the regular processes years ago if they wanted them. As such, the voice of the regular supporter will likely continue to be unheard at this level.

It's such a disingenuous process.

Just another way to ensure the boys club mentality prevails.

Ultimately, fault will lie with the members, too, who vote based on name recognition alone. One of the realities of democratic processes is voter irrationality. There are many ways to exploit and manipulate this. One such way is placing OUR BEST EVER PLAYER amongst the field of candidates, when he's already on the ******* board, and could be there permanently through other processes.

Sham.

this is an extremely well put together argument. You got me thinking.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

It's just how it see it.

Just a thought, some here think that the non former players are a good idea because they are not part of the 'old boys club' but fail to see how these guys and girls are simply wanting to be part of the boys club, that's what makes this process a sham

so anyone wanting to be on the board makes it a sham??? How then would you unsham it?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Exactly why do you think we've been pushing for member elected positions? Why is this attractive? What do we want from it?

We have spare positions on the board, as per our constitution, with which to appoint Roo, who is already acting as a board member anyway. As others have noted, why is Jameson trying to get on the board now all of a sudden? We finally have member elected positions, and yet we immediately place former players in the running? Why not just have Roo join the board without taking up one of the two member elected positions? It's a foregone conclusion he'll be appointed. We all know Roo will win, and it's very likely Jamo will too. I am not suggesting they're not qualified for a board position, or have nothing to contribute - I have no problem with either being on the board. But neither represent me and my experiences and needs as a supporter. Further to this, we could have someone infinitely more qualified than either running, yet they wouldn't in a million years stand a chance against Roo.

This is our first opportunity to vote for board members, and our first chance to be truly represented in club discussions at the highest level. We have had so many complaints over the years over the way the administration has talked down to fans, ignored public sentiment, lacked transparency to the detriment of the club, pushed agendas of exclusivity despite a public mantra of inclusivity. How completely out of touch with the common fan has the club seemed at times? So many of our mistakes over the last few years seemed to stem from this.

Until now, our only options have been to 'agitate' (for which we have been continuously mocked by the club), or to give up our memberships. That is exactly why member elected representation was so exciting. Why it made us hopeful for change.

We finally have member elected positions, and yet they stack the field with former players who could have made it onto the board through the regular processes years ago if they wanted them. As such, the voice of the regular supporter will likely continue to be unheard at this level.

It's such a disingenuous process.

Just another way to ensure the boys club mentality prevails.

Ultimately, fault will lie with the members, too, who vote based on name recognition alone. One of the realities of democratic processes is voter irrationality. There are many ways to exploit and manipulate this. One such way is placing OUR BEST EVER PLAYER amongst the field of candidates, when he's already on the ******* board, and could be there permanently through other processes.

Sham.

I have similar concerns.

Would have been better to exclude any current or former director, employee, sponsor or other associate from running for a member elected position.

 

[1970crow]

I have never said otherwise. The board has 7 places to appoint Directors, and they are using them to... Appoint Directors .

We were promised the ability to vote in 2, and we will.

The problem is going half-in with only 2 member voted positions. You see Roo up for election as a bonus appointment for them, they would see appointing Roo as a bonus elected to us.

That were even talking them/us is a negative.

They got Roo right, let's see who come up next before we get too excited.

Your suggestion is that they want Roo plus another person who may not poll well. Therefore pushing Roo, who is an existing and appointed director, into the members vote makes sense because it gives the incumbent board the best chance of getting all the candidates that THEY want onto the board. The inaugural members election has been hijacked by the board and it's not by accident. You won't accept it but you basically stated it as a plain matter of fact. There's nothing stopping this from happening and it's certainly constitutional, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stink of the old regime that has been considerably under-performed over the last few years.

I understand that you enjoyed your time in the boardroom and you probably want to be welcome back, but this is absolute bullshit and there's no other way to describe it. I'm glad that you're happy with the process. Interesting that only 1 other ex-player has put their hand up. No one else interested or not their turn? Wouldn't want the second club elect to have their votes diluted by a 3rd eh.

 

[WeeBlake]

I agree with what Dandy_GO says about Roo, but...

How else could it be done? There will be plenty of ex-players who are members. How could they be stopped from nominating? Should they be stopped? And if they nominate, what chance does a regular member, or anyone really who is not famous in their own right, have?

The problem for us agitators is a large electorate of poorly informed voters.

The best we can hope for us such low turnout that the informed vote has the numbers.

 

[Niximus]

Your suggestion is that they want Roo plus another person who may not poll well. Therefore pushing Roo, who is an existing and appointed director, into the members vote makes sense because it gives the incumbent board the best chance of getting all the candidates that THEY want onto the board. The inaugural members election has been hijacked by the board and it's not by accident. You won't accept it but you basically stated it as a plain matter of fact. There's nothing stopping this from happening and it's certainly constitutional, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stink of the old regime that has been considerably under-performed over the last few years.

I understand that you enjoyed your time in the boardroom and you probably want to be welcome back, but this is absolute bullshit and there's no other way to describe it. I'm glad that you're happy with the process. Interesting that only 1 other ex-player has put their hand up. No one else interested or not their turn? Wouldn't want the second club elect to have their votes diluted by a 3rd eh.

And when Roo was appointed people got pissed about that too.. If he was appointed the focus would shift to Jamo and we'd be whinging about that.

I don't see it as a negative as you do because I consider Roo the most influential member of the board, and think it is great that he'll be directly accountable to the members. I see this as a better outcome when we have only 2 places, than getting 2 x 19thdan types on the board.

We need voting rights no so we can get average members onto the board, but so that the board are accountable for any appointments, and so that a poorly performing board can't shield themselves and continue on indefinitely.

Whatever. This is the second time you've had a crack at me personally for being involved with the Fages meet up.

 

[Bacon8]

Which part of that is contradictory to what I posted? They were appointed after a mid-term retirement and they must face the members vote.

Yeah, that is a shifty way to do that and is exploiting a loophole, but at the end of the day if the members take exception to it, every one of those Directors will be up for election again. If the Hawks weren't winning flags then Gowers & Kristjanson would be voted out now, and if people didn't like Newbold pulling a shifty they'll get a chance to vote him out too.

I guess I don't consider a retirement announced prior to an AGM, that is then extended and then retired on day 1/365 to be a mid - term retirement.

Our AGM is Feb 25 2015. Hurley has said he's stepping down in July 2014. His term won't be extended by AFC.

If he was at the Hawks, he'd get a new term in 2015 and then step down after the AGM.

 

[1970crow]

And when Roo was appointed people got pissed about that too.. If he was appointed the focus would shift to Jamo and we'd be whinging about that.

I don't see it as a negative as you do because I consider Roo the most influential member of the board, and think it is great that he'll be directly accountable to the members. I see this as a better outcome when we have only 2 places, than getting 2 x 19thdan types on the board.

We need voting rights no so we can get average members onto the board, but so that the board are accountable for any appointments, and so that a poorly performing board can't shield themselves and continue on indefinitely.

Whatever. This is the second time you've had a crack at me personally for being involved with the Fages meet up.

When the poorly performing board ends up jettisoning the only members who are effective how does that improve the overall quality of the board. Using your logic, which is inexplicable, you're saying that you want Roo on the board, but despite his abilities and efficacy, if he's flogging a dead horse in there and we continue to be s**t, it's him you want turfed at the next AGM. Thereby allowing the incumbent and self-selected board members, who hold a massive balance of power, to continue on with gay abandon. This is your preferred outcome? You somehow think this is the right way to go. Roo continually gets out-voted as a member elect but endures the wrath of the membership for continued poor performance. And your happy with that. Rather odd I'd suggest.

 

[Niximus]

When the poorly performing board ends up jettisoning the only members who are effective how does that improve the overall quality of the board. Using your logic, which is inexplicable, you're saying that you want Roo on the board, but despite his abilities and efficacy, if he's flogging a dead horse in there and we continue to be s**t, it's him you want turfed at the next AGM. Thereby allowing the incumbent and self-selected board members, who hold a massive balance of power, to continue on with gay abandon. This is your preferred outcome? You somehow think this is the right way to go. Roo continually gets out-voted as a member elect but endures the wrath of the membership for continued poor performance. And your happy with that. Rather odd I'd suggest.

No, if the board is performing poorly, having 2 elected members will do nothing, this is why I advocate having every position elected - I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

The reality is that at this time we have 2,and the board have 7. The best we can hope for at this point, is that those two are influential enough to actually have an impact on the board.

IMO 2 regular members would be token positions and would have 0 chance of effecting any sort of agenda. Roo on the other hand, I think will be very influential and has been already.

 

[1970crow]

No, if the board is performing poorly, having 2 elected members will do nothing, this is why I advocate having every position elected - I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

The reality is that at this time we have 2,and the board have 7. The best we can hope for at this point, is that those two are influential enough to actually have an impact on the board.

IMO 2 regular members would be token positions and would have 0 chance of effecting any sort of agenda. Roo on the other hand, I think will be very influential and has been already.

I think we agree in a sense, although I'm finding it hard to reconcile how you consider it preferable that Roo is going to be a member elect. The fact is that we have been a thoroughly ordinary club both on and off field for the last few years. Despite this, we have been told that we have the best available people at board and club level and they have all been doing a marvellous job. Now, the problem that has existed and continues to exist is that the self-elected board members need only be comfortable amongst their own performance and they can continue on for as long as they wish. Among growing discontent, Roo was appointed to the board and embarked on a process to shake things up and attempt to return us to an on-field powerhouse. Surely it's preferable that he continues to do this as one of the board appointed members rather than from one of the 2 member elect positions at the whim of the members.

FWIW, I can guarantee that there is one board member who was disgusted with what went down over the Trigg debacle and him keeping his job. So we have a CEO who's present and desired employment path depends on a very successful AFC on the board. So, taking into account the existing dis-satisfied director that I know of, we have;

Existing dis-satisfied Director
Fagan
Roo
Member elect 1
Member elect 2

There's potentially 5 members of a board who could choose to distance themselves from the 'we're great, nothing to see here' board of old. We certainly agree in some sense, but the idea that it's better for Roo to be part of the member elect process is absolutely wrong. It's nothing more than the numbers being stacked against any meaningful challenge form disaffected board members against the old regime.

We've got the worst board in our history and they've been handed the keys of perpetuity and to protect that they are stacking the member elect process. But if you don't want to see it that way, I understand. I also understand those that couldn't give a rats. What I don't understand is someone preferring that Roo isn't directly elected, so I guess I'll leave it at that, there's probably not much point in discussing this any further.

 

[Niximus]

The remaining 'Old board' is really
Rob Chapman
Andrew Payze
Jim Hazel
Bob Foord

Presumably your dissatisfied director comes from this above group. This group is also not changing regardless of whether Roo takes the currently vacant appointed seat, or the elected seat.

So, for people able to distance themselves from the old board, we'll have
Andrew Fagan
Kate Gould
Member Elect #1 (Mark Ricciuto)
Member Elect #2
Appointed Director
(Dissatisfied Director?)

Assuming that an additional elected Director = Old board and a member elected Director = New ignores that the current board was able to appoint Roo in the first place (And they didn't even have Roo or Fagan, AND they did it with Trigg still there). Obviously even at that time, there were enough of them fed up with how things had been run to outvote Trigg and get Roo on the board which was Trigg's writing on the wall.

We don't even know who the appointed Director will be, or who was backing them so it is silly to fly off the handle. For all we know Fages could be bringing over a brilliant businessman (or businesswoman) via his rugby contacts but is making them an appointed director as they know we'll have NFI who it is.

Yes, I do much prefer Roo to be accountable to the members. I think that he wields a ton of influence over the other members, and we have only seen him for 6 months. It already feels like it's Roo in control, and that he was the driving force that got rid of Trigg and Sando. If someone is going to have that sort of power, I definitely want them to be accountable. We can have the appointed directors following the lead of the elected directors, rather than the other way around, and if it turns out that Roo isn't the messiah and he turns out horrible, with his influence over the rest of the board he could be Trigg-like. Being accountable to the members is a balance for this.

 

[Deaneus!]

Checked my home email just now and I received this at midnight:

Dear Deaneus the Magnificent,

You have received this email because you are eligible to vote in the Adelaide Football Club Member Elected Board of Directors Election 2015.

Following the nomination period for the positions for Member Elected Board of Directors, AFC received NINE (9) nominations for TWO (2) positions available, therefore in accordance with clause 10 of the AFC Election Rules a ballot is required to determine these positions.

Your eligibility to vote in this election has been determined in accordance with clause 7.1 and 22.1(b) of the Constitution of Adelaide Football Club Limited.

BALLOT PERIOD

The ballot will be open for 15 days starting at 9:00AM ACDT on Monday, 9th February 2015 and ending at 5:00PM ACDT on Monday, 23rd February 2015.

VOTING METHODS

You will be able to cast your vote by Internet or by requesting a Postal Voting pack. Details on how to vote by Internet or request a Postal Ballot will be included in an email message sent at the time the vote opens. You will only be able to vote once and your vote will be registered anonymously.

WHAT DO I NEED TO VOTE

In order to vote you will require your AFC Account ID Number and your Postcode. Please refer to your Membership Card or Membership Renewal notice for your AFC Account ID Number.

ELECTION RESULTS

Election results will be announced at the AFC 2015 Annual Members Meeting starting at 6:00pm ACDT on Wednesday, 25th February 2015 at the Adelaide Football Club ‘The Shed’, 105 West Lakes Boulevard, West Lakes, SA 5021.

WHO IS CONDUCTING THE BALLOT PROCESS

CorpVote Pty Ltd is independently conducting this ballot process. We have been appointed by the Adelaide Football Club Limited (AFC) to protect your privacy and ensure a fair and equitable ballot result. All votes submitted through our system are anonymous and the method by which you cast your vote is secure.
For information about CorpVote please visit the following:
Our Website: http://www.corpvote.com.au
Voter Privacy: http://yourprivacy.corpvote.com.au

Yours sincerely,
Ken Dyer | CorpVote Returning Officer

It's on, somewhat like Donkey Kong

 

[FR0GGY]

Checked my home email just now and I received this at midnight:



It's on, somewhat like Donkey Kong

Yep got the same

 

[AFC3000]

I'm glad they have opened voting to silver members and made it online. Originally I assumed it would be open to gold members who were available to attend on a Tuesday afternoon or something like that.

 

[PrideOf]

We don't know yet what their plan is for that vacant seventh spot.

The club's going to retire it and it will become "The 7th Board Member", representing all fans.

 

[little graham]

Don't we just need the best persons for the job?

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. A champion teams priority is balance.

 

[Mong]

I'll be voting Jameson. He may be an ex-player but is as big a fan as any of us.

 

[Pdub]

I'll be voting for Roo and Jameson.

Roo is the perfect members rep, he may be our greatest player but unlike any other candidates he also has a voice that can reach a lot of members through his radio and TV work, he runs hospitality businesses where drunk people would constantly be telling him exactly what they think and his radio show has talkback segments where bogans can phone in. On top of that he is also friends with the players, they would tell him things that they may not feel comfortable coming forward within the club situation, that's probably why Walsh is now our coach.

Jameson because he is clearly passionate about the club and his work with looking after past players is great, I love seeing blokes like Modra in the changerooms after games and it's got to be good for the players, I think our club should be famous for how well ex-players are looked after by the club and it's the kind of thing that will make players want to be one club players.

 

[Pdub]

Greg Huggett

 

[Elite Crow]

I am Greg

 

[Deaneus!]

I am Greg

Je suis Greg?

 

[Deaneus!]

Just for all the people on here voting for Roo - I put it to you that he is a shoe-in to get on the board. If you want a member in the member-elected positions, vote elsewhere, or put him second.

 

[Pdub]

My main concern with Greg is that he seems to have the support of Rucci, also that he may want to use this to try get his hospitality business the Adelaide Oval gig if the SANFL's catering company can be removed.

 

[DJ75]

Hmmm should I vote Jameson?


Maybe if one of those punches landed....