The unelected hall of shame featuring Rob Chapman

Remove this Banner Ad

feenix67 said:
It's not defeatist, it's reality. Look at the Clubs constitution.

You can blame the "SA old boys club" all you like, but you've got to look at the root cause, the environment that facilitates it. Our Board is accountable to one entity, the AFL. Everything stems from that.
Click to expand...

So who are the clubs with essentially AFL controlled boards?

GWS and GC obviously, Sydney presumably, and the two SA clubs. Any others?
 
feenix67 said:
All this agitating is all well and good, but it's also pointless. You think the license was sold back to the club by the SANFL? Wrong. It was sold to the AFL.

People need to read the fine print. All board members are ratified by the AFL. The Chairman appointment, made by the board, is ratified by the AFL. We are run, at the board level, by the AFL.

The VFL won the war on which competition was going to commercialize the sport. In doing so, it protected it's foundation members (Vic clubs) and continues to do so. It's had two cracks at killing off those pesky competitors, the SANFL. First, when it dealt with Port back in 1990, ultimately scuttled by an injunction. Then it played the long game, let Port come in and bleed the SANFL dry, then force the SANFLs hand by giving it the only out possible - pseudo ownership of Adelaide Oval in return for enough money to get it out of probable insolvency. The trade off? The club "buying back" it's license from the SANFL, which was code for the SANFL selling the Crows to the AFL.

We support a VFL owned "club". I've said it a thousand times. You will never have a vote. You will never have a say. Why do you think we have the culture of rewarding effort over performance on field? Because that's what's it's like in the club house. Because the club's KPIs are not built around premierships. They're built around bums on seats. Revenue. Sustainability. The VFL use the Crows to generate as much money as possible, to help sustain the s**t clubs. That's why we get home Showdowns at ridiculous time slots. Because the VFL knows we will turn up. The entire business model is built on the fact that we will keep turning up. We are nothing but a ******* cash cow.

The only way to cause even a tiny ripple is to not turn up. But we all know that's not going to happen. So all you can do is hope that, by some miracle, the stars align, we get a decent group of players with a decent coach and we play good footy.

It's not the players fault, nor the coaches fault really. The cards have already been dealt. It's probably why good players leave on a regular basis. . So support the players but don't ever be under any illusion that this is a footy club. It's not a club, it's a company. And we aren't shareholders.
Click to expand...

So we're the Adelaide Cash Crows?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

feenix67 said:
All this agitating is all well and good, but it's also pointless. You think the license was sold back to the club by the SANFL? Wrong. It was sold to the AFL.

People need to read the fine print. All board members are ratified by the AFL. The Chairman appointment, made by the board, is ratified by the AFL. We are run, at the board level, by the AFL.

The VFL won the war on which competition was going to commercialize the sport. In doing so, it protected it's foundation members (Vic clubs) and continues to do so. It's had two cracks at killing off those pesky competitors, the SANFL. First, when it dealt with Port back in 1990, ultimately scuttled by an injunction. Then it played the long game, let Port come in and bleed the SANFL dry, then force the SANFLs hand by giving it the only out possible - pseudo ownership of Adelaide Oval in return for enough money to get it out of probable insolvency. The trade off? The club "buying back" it's license from the SANFL, which was code for the SANFL selling the Crows to the AFL.

We support a VFL owned "club". I've said it a thousand times. You will never have a vote. You will never have a say. Why do you think we have the culture of rewarding effort over performance on field? Because that's what's it's like in the club house. Because the club's KPIs are not built around premierships. They're built around bums on seats. Revenue. Sustainability. The VFL use the Crows to generate as much money as possible, to help sustain the s**t clubs. That's why we get home Showdowns at ridiculous time slots. Because the VFL knows we will turn up. The entire business model is built on the fact that we will keep turning up. We are nothing but a ******* cash cow.

The only way to cause even a tiny ripple is to not turn up. But we all know that's not going to happen. So all you can do is hope that, by some miracle, the stars align, we get a decent group of players with a decent coach and we play good footy.

It's not the players fault, nor the coaches fault really. The cards have already been dealt. It's probably why good players leave on a regular basis. . So support the players but don't ever be under any illusion that this is a footy club. It's not a club, it's a company. And we aren't shareholders.
Click to expand...

This is POY

An outstanding summary of the AFL and the AFC's part in their business model. I have been repeating this mantra since the 2 token flags that the AFL allowed the AFC to win in the late 90's.

Congrats on your insight.

I might frame it and put it in my wall.
 
Slippery Pete said:
So who are the clubs with essentially AFL controlled boards?

GWS and GC obviously, Sydney presumably, and the two SA clubs. Any others?
Click to expand...
My gut feel is all of the non Vic clubs, plus a smattering of struggling Vic clubs. I can only think of a few member controlled clubs... Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood, Geelong, Melbourne and Carlton. Maybe Saints and Bulldogs. I'd have to do some research though.
 
There are many similarities between Pyke and Craig, we like a certain type of coach at the Crows, the others don't stick around very long. (Walsh for other reasons obviously)
 
feenix67 said:
Decent article on the matter:

www.theage.com.au

The fan’s genuine power is as consumer only

Some of the big AFL clubs are democratic in theory, yet governed by their elites in practice, writes Jake Niall.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
Click to expand...
Excellent article. As I said earlier the fans only hope of forcing change at the AFC is by voting with their wallet as Port supporters did prior to 2013. Unfortunately there is a portion of the fans who are just there to get out of the house/a day out so the result on the day is more important to them then short term pain/long term gain.

I wonder what % of the AFC supporterbase over the age of 30 are old die hard sanfl fans.
 
WetCrow1991 said:
There are many similarities between Pyke and Craig, we like a certain type of coach at the Crows, the others don't stick around very long. (Walsh for other reasons obviously)
Click to expand...
pyke was craigy's right hand man from when he started til the end of 2006
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

OzSparrow said:
This is POY

An outstanding summary of the AFL and the AFC's part in their business model. I have been repeating this mantra since the 2 token flags that the AFL allowed the AFC to win in the late 90's.

Congrats on your insight.

I might frame it and put it in my wall.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't really work that way. Reality is that the board appoints themselves and the AFL ratify their choice. In fact, there is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the AFL can appoint outside of our list of nominees provided them. And there is no record of the AFL overruling any recommendation from our board. We are not piss weak because the AFL control our board, we are piss weak because our board are incompetent and not driven to success. The operation of our board hasn't gone backwards since the license was transferred from the SANFL, it's exactly the same. Our constitution requires our board, among other things;

(i) To develop, maintain and foster the ideals of the AFC.

Our issue is with how our board perceive the "ideals of the AFC". The AFL isn't getting in our way of winning premierships by controlling our board, only a complete fool would think that's why we select completely average 30+ year olds in a year that we're clearly not winning a premiership. We're our problem, not the AFL. Had we not been completely out-run due to our stupid selection policy that only gave us 22 viable options, 2 going in injured, in the 2017 GF, we'd potentially be recent premiers. Our biggest issue is, and has been for years, is our selection policy that relies heavily on experience and continuity.
 
1970crow said:
Except that it doesn't really work that way. Reality is that the board appoints themselves and the AFL ratify their choice. In fact, there is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the AFL can appoint outside of our list of nominees provided them. And there is no record of the AFL overruling any recommendation from our board. We are not piss weak because the AFL control our board, we are piss weak because our board are incompetent and not driven to success. The operation of our board hasn't gone backwards since the license was transferred from the SANFL, it's exactly the same. Our constitution requires our board, among other things;

(i) To develop, maintain and foster the ideals of the AFC.

Our issue is with how our board perceive the "ideals of the AFC". The AFL isn't getting in our way of winning premierships by controlling our board, only a complete fool would think that's why we select completely average 30+ year olds in a year that we're clearly not winning a premiership. We're our problem, not the AFL. Had we not been completely out-run due to our stupid selection policy that only gave us 22 viable options, 2 going in injured, in the 2017 GF, we'd potentially be recent premiers. Our biggest issue is, and has been for years, is our selection policy that relies heavily on experience and continuity.
Click to expand...
Considering the post was about instigating change, it absolutely works that way.
 
Sanders said:
Unless I’m missing something, that letter was calling for just calling for a study to look into it, so informed decisions could then be made?

That’s a long way from little Graham’s fantasy
Click to expand...

Shouldn't his position automatically be "no", not "let's look at it", if he's so concerned about and on the wavelengths of Indigenous people?
 
feenix67 said:
All this agitating is all well and good, but it's also pointless. You think the license was sold back to the club by the SANFL? Wrong. It was sold to the AFL.

People need to read the fine print. All board members are ratified by the AFL. The Chairman appointment, made by the board, is ratified by the AFL. We are run, at the board level, by the AFL.
Click to expand...

Well no, I don't think that you have said is accurate. Did you read the fine print?

As it reads, the AFL has a temporary membership of the club based upon an agreement relating to the 'development grant completion date', with that class of membership being granted prevailing rights over the composition of the non-elected board positions.

I imagine this relates to the capital that was used to purchase the license- i.e. the AFL has assumed the rule of the SANFL, but with a strict date that will cease that arrangement. That date is: 31 October 2028 (or such earlier time as the AFC and the AFL agree).

I.e. it could be ended sooner. In the event that it is not ended sooner, the following applies:

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing.

Pursuant to clause 7.2:

Cessation of AFL Membership
(a) The AFL will cease to be a Member on the Development Grant Completion Date.
(b) From the Development Grant Completion Date, the Board may grant all of the rights held by the AFL to any other class of Member that is in existence on the Development Grant Completion Date or is otherwise established by the Board.
(c) If the Board does not grant the rights of the AFL Voting Member to another class or classes, the Board will grant all of the rights held by the AFL to the Electing Members.

I.e. the AFL does not have any sense of permanent ownership over the club, and it is plausibly a very real and very live possibility that the board will 'choose' to convey the director appointment power on only a limited class of members when the time comes- perhaps limited to the board members- but that is a live decision that needs to be made and fans absolutely should be trying to pressure that decision, and ensure that it's made public when it occurs.

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing at present..

It's also worth noting that the agreement can be moved forward to an earlier time (but not delayed). I.e. public pressure could result in that arrangement being varied, it if were considered 'bad for business'. We could have membership voting rights for the entire board sooner.

In summary: your read of the situation was quite poor, and you should feel bad.

 
Slippery Pete said:
It is a bit of a black pill, but it’s hard to argue with the crux of it.

When this all happened in 2014, Port and the Crows sold it to members as some sort of independence day. But both clubs are now answerable to the AFL commission (instead of the SANFL commission). That’s not independence. In fact you could mount an argument that it’s worse than before.

The SANFL received $18M from the two clubs when this happened, as well as another $45M from the AFL...

Just think about what it means when the chairman of an organization’s board, addresses the members of that organization and says the most important thing about his CEO is that he’s endorsed by a different organization...
Click to expand...

It's only revealing of the hidden agenda if the chairman is competent.
 
Southerntakeover said:
Well no, I don't think that you have said is accurate. Did you read the fine print?

As it reads, the AFL has a temporary membership of the club based upon an agreement relating to the 'development grant completion date', with that class of membership being granted prevailing rights over the composition of the non-elected board positions.

I imagine this relates to the capital that was used to purchase the license- i.e. the AFL has assumed the rule of the SANFL, but with a strict date that will cease that arrangement. That date is: 31 October 2028 (or such earlier time as the AFC and the AFL agree).

I.e. it could be ended sooner. In the event that it is not ended sooner, the following applies:

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing.

Pursuant to clause 7.2:

Cessation of AFL Membership
(a) The AFL will cease to be a Member on the Development Grant Completion Date.
(b) From the Development Grant Completion Date, the Board may grant all of the rights held by the AFL to any other class of Member that is in existence on the Development Grant Completion Date or is otherwise established by the Board.
(c) If the Board does not grant the rights of the AFL Voting Member to another class or classes, the Board will grant all of the rights held by the AFL to the Electing Members.

I.e. the AFL does not have any sense of permanent ownership over the club, and it is plausibly a very real and very live possibility that the board will 'choose' to convey the director appointment power on only a limited class of members when the time comes- perhaps limited to the board members- but that is a live decision that needs to be made and fans absolutely should be trying to pressure that decision, and ensure that it's made public when it occurs.

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing at present..

It's also worth noting that the agreement can be moved forward to an earlier time (but not delayed). I.e. public pressure could result in that arrangement being varied, it if were considered 'bad for business'. We could have membership voting rights for the entire board sooner.

In summary: your read of the situation was quite poor, and you should feel bad.

Click to expand...
Sidestepping your ego for a minute, I think you'll find that, whilst the AFL cease to be a member from the completion date, it retains final right of approval for Directors. You'll note that certain clauses specifically add the caveat of "until Development Grant completion date" but others do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BrissyCrow
Competitions SugerShane's Lock of the Week
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
4K
crowholder
crowholder
Punchy Bassett
Smelling their own smugness farts whilst always getting ahead of itself and the AFC, name a more iconic duo.
Replies
1
Views
224
StonesThrow
StonesThrow
dogs105
Oppo Camp The official Melbourne FC deathriding thread 2024
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Shuestar13
Shuestar13
BrissyCrow
Competitions Lock of the week and Goal kicking comps for the AFLW
Replies
0
Views
211
BrissyCrow
BrissyCrow
Cleric
Difference between the atmosphere at a Port Power vs Pride of South Australias home games?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
159
Views
7K
MrBarry
MrBarry
spenze
  • Poll
Review The good, the bad, the shat - vs Fremantle R3 2024
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
690
Views
27K
conVINCEd
C
baldandbroke
Opinion Playing for frees - it's now a big part of the game.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top