The unelected hall of shame featuring Rob Chapman
- Thread starter Slippery Pete
- Start date
- Tagged users None
jackster83
The leader of the bunch.
Burton has been the worst appointment in the club's history. Worse than using a top 10 pick on Angwin.
Not just for the injuries, the CM debacle and that infamous press conference, but other facets that we had worked so hard on have regressed under him.
Player retention (and attraction), coaching staff retention/appointments, player development and even our drafting has declined under him (Phil Bunn a big loss IMO). Many of those leaving have also left on bad terms (Bode, Lever, Francou, etc).
Worst of all, there's absolutely no strategy in how we go about building for a season and for the longer-term future. It's just hope everybody gets fit and pick the most senior team and then hope the opposition fails to turn up.
He's ruined our premiership window and he's ruining the chances of a (relatively) pain free rejuvenation of the side as players decline.
Our women's team are lucky that he considers them beneath him.
The development great end date is 2028.
That's when the membership types will be changed. However i have no doubt AFL will retain some power.
As it does now having to sign off on 5 of the 7 directors.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
No, I quoted and bolded a clause that extinguishes all rights. It is not qualified in the way that you suggest.
Stop telling people to read things that you yourself cannot read.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
It's not really clear that the constitution as it currently stands allows for the AFL to retain power. The board has two options in terms of the conferral of their rights. Neither could be naturally be read as permitting a conferral back to the AFL.
That's not to say that there isnt a way around it, but it certainly would on its face appear to be contrary to the provision.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
No, that's a gloss that you've added.
The words are: 'all of the rights held by the AFL'. Had the agreement been intending only to extinguish only the rights defined as membership rights, it would have said so.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
My god you're hilarious. I don't know whether to be flattered, or take out an AVO
Look, squawk around all you want- but you should be embarassed- again.
You came in the thread strutting about your superior knowledge, have demonstrated a pretty plain inability to read and interpret the clauses that you were strutting around based upon your supposedly superior knowledge of, and now you're throwing some of the most trite and ineffectual insults one would ever see.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You know your limits, and more so you know that we know your limits. Why do you think it's going to end any other way? Surely there are still people that buy into your routine that you can find to try to impress?
Oh nice edit, but too late
The words are contained in the Section relating to membership. Hence, the words relate to membership. It's really quite simple.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Oh nice edit, but too late
The words are contained in the Section relating to membership. Hence, the words relate to membership. It's really quite simple.
No, there's no reason that's forced to be true and it certainly is not the plain reading of the document.
The document defines the term membership right, and also refers to rights from other sources (in particular the Corporations Act). I.e. the rights referenced in the document are not limited to membership rights. The word all plainly has it's ordinary meaning, and extinguishes more than the rights defined as membership rights.
If your position is that provisions in documents of this kind must be read down despite their ordinary meaning, having regard to the section they appear, and against the plain wording of the document I'm happy to consider the authority that you rely upon- provide citations.
The more straight forward answer is that the section appears under membership as it is only by virtue of membership that the AFL is able to be recognised at all, and the grandfather clause essentially ends their membership. The following sub clauses then deal with what happens when membership ceases. The reason that the clause refers to all rights is to remove any doubt, given that it subsequently defines members right.
It seems to be particularly important to you that I should be embarrassed. It's fascinating.
Look, I know you have a fairly elevated sense of self, but you do a lot of projecting on this board. Words such as "embarrassed" and "insecure" are words you use quite often. Then there was the classic "im smarter than you" line the other day. That gave me quite a chuckle. I also enjoyed watching you argue the law with a lawyer a few days ago too. That was some good comedy.
In any case, back to the point. You need to read the clauses contained in the document in the context of the Sections to which they relate. You're referring to conditions associated with the AFL's temporary membership of the AFC. Again, take note of Section 22 as it relates to appointment of directors.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
It's of no importance other than being how an reasonable person would react to having behaved as you have. As far as my being smarter than you goes: I'm not smarter than you because I said I was- it's just the reality. I'm sorry that you struggle with it, but rather than over compensating you should try to find a way to come to grips with it. You can't keep acting out because of it, that's not good for your state of mind. This thread is a pretty decent example really of the problems that you're causing yourself.
You've not engaged in attempting to present a counter argument, other than repeating a plainly facile assertion with no real underpinning legal reasoning. This after declaring that I had to learn to read legal documents like you (LOL). Still waiting for that authority. Why you would behave like this, knowing that you don't have the requisite ability, knowledge, or skills base would be baffling, were it not you.
Your reading is wrong for the reasons that I've already described. The clauses quoted are not limited in the way that you suggest. The rights in clause 22 fit within the category of 'all rights' and will be extinguished. There is no basis for reading down the removal clauses in the way that you've suggested, either from the text or from the understandable intention and you've not provided any argument other than the part of the document in which the clause appears, which- as I've already dealt with is not inconsistent with my reading.
Beyond that, it would take only a very cursory understanding to come to the view that your declared interpretation- that is, that the AFL ceases to be a member of the company, but retains the sole power of appointment over directors) would run into some pretty significant difficulties under the Corporations Act.
You got it wrong. I get that its embarrassing having come into the thread chest beating about that, but really the right thing to do is admit it and maybe not come in so full of self importance next time when you're speaking outside your abilities.
Morning_Fog
Premiership Player
- Jun 24, 2018
- 4,296
- 4,303
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The word was, his wife was not a fan of living in a two team town again. She didn’t want to live in Adelaide as footy is very similar to Perth.
Don’t blame her really.
Smoooothy
TAKE THAT BACK!!
- Jan 12, 2005
- 24,302
- 22,266
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide; ConeyIslandWarriors
I think gary ayres was a good coach. His first season was a disaster, but his 2nd and 3rd were great. he lost the players in the final year
That's a lot of words for someone apparently unaffected. Looks like the only person with a bruised chest in this thread is you
I guess we'll see what happens in a few years time won't we?
Not quite sure I agree with your "good coach" comment.
A 55-52 win/loss record after being gifted the nucleus of a dual premiership winning side by Blighty is not that great.
IMO I also feel he never fully had the playing group from day 1 - they were Blighty's guys and not Gary's. He was in Blighty's shadow at Geelong and he continued in Malcolm's shadow at Adelaide (albeit Malcolm had left).
Pity cause his record at Port Melbourne has been great.
Smoooothy
TAKE THAT BACK!!
- Jan 12, 2005
- 24,302
- 22,266
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide; ConeyIslandWarriors
he had a great midfield - that's it
our forward line was not fantastic back then, our back line was solid but unspectacular, leaked big scores on occasion
- Jun 23, 2016
- 15,217
- 13,937
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
A second go at getting an ex Geelong coach.
Blight but all his ideas are s**t.
He rolls with the punches, like your Goodwins, Riccutios, Mcleods.
I think the interesting take out of that article is that WCE are even more corporatised than we are. No member input at all.
Yet there they sit, a beacon of success that we all aspire to.
So is it the case the corporate management system does work and it’s more about who has the wheel ?
Yet there they sit, a beacon of success that we all aspire to.
So is it the case the corporate management system does work and it’s more about who has the wheel ?
- Jan 6, 2018
- 10,660
- 12,193
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood
I often wonder if having a banker as Chairman has created a completely risk averse culture
Chapman really isn't a football person. Not in a Maguire sense anyway. Was never really that interested in footy prior to his engagement. His initial appointment probably had something to do with our financiers at the time. Who knows why he's still there, although he does sit on a few boards.
Similar threads
