Roast It's time to pay off the AFL and buy our soul back

[dylan123]

You don't think members would've voted for a spill in the last couple years? Seriously?

Like Churchill said, democracy isn't perfect but it's the least worst system we have (or words to that effect).

To be honest, no I don't. If I read the comments on FB for example it's usually supportive of the group and they represent the majority of our supporter base in my opinion. Just look at the one board vote we get, we've seen what happens in the past where it goes to an ex player as they're an easy vote for those that don't know any better/care to look any deeper into it.

I feel like it would need a huge media influence to open the minds of supporters to ask themselves the question and I'm not sure there is anyone willing to do that otherwise you think we'd hear from them right now given Chapman is on his way out - yet all we hear is silence. I do feel like our short time as a club hurts for something like a spill as there doesn't appear to be any factions to keep the other parties honest. I feel like for a sporting club POV, this would need to come from someonoe that 'loves' the club yet I'm not sure that exists.

I agree with a lot of what you said. Alot of members would still support Roo, Fages and Chappy, and in any event why should we pay extra to fix this mess. I also don't know much about the current board, which I think is half the problem. Whilst I get majority aren't member elected, the club still needs to be more transparent and inclusive around decision making, so we have some understanding of what's actually happening at our club. We heard nothing of the Randall appointment until it happens. We as members know very little about this club as it's so shut off. I'm actually regretting that I grew up a Crows fan as it does feel like a business, rather than a real club that has some heart and soul, and you feel proud to support. As supporters what can we do? We are totally powerless.

Just on the second point you raise in terms of us knowing anything of a board members appointment until it happens. Are we sure that this in transparent from other clubs where members have more of a say? I get a feeling we'd still be left in the dark.

On your other point as growing up as a Crows supporter, I share your pain. Born and lived in Vic my entire life, certainly the odd one out going for the Crows but that's who I was brought up to support and we've just got to ride the highs and lows with everyone else and hope that we're not riding this low for too much longer...

 

[Red mist]

I completely understand your point but my point is that even if we controlled our licence the same incompetent group would most likely still control the club. The AFL could have removed Chapman at any point and most definitely should have. They were completely derelict in their duty to the AFC members. It's debatable even if we had controlled our own licence whether Chapman would have been removed or even if he was he more than likely would have been replaced by my another Adelaide club incompetent. My point is that I want us to have our licence back but I want assurance that the Adelaide so called elite incompetents have no relationship with the club and it is purely run by its membership. If the licence changes hands but there is no real significant change then nothing has been achieved. I want the AFL to ensure the same group and their associates are not able to have anything to do with the club ever again by stipulating in the handover that the membership will vote on the Board and Chairman.

Weeell they probably kept him as he’s a banker financier yeah?
Without soul. That’s the problem. He rarely surfaces and when he does there’s not much to it.

 

[mattymac]

I agree with a lot of what you said. Alot of members would still support Roo, Fages and Chappy, and in any event why should we pay extra to fix this mess. I also don't know much about the current board, which I think is half the problem. Whilst I get majority aren't member elected, the club still needs to be more transparent and inclusive around decision making, so we have some understanding of what's actually happening at our club. We heard nothing of the Randall appointment until it happens. We as members know very little about this club as it's so shut off. I'm actually regretting that I grew up a Crows fan as it does feel like a business, rather than a real club that has some heart and soul, and you feel proud to support. As supporters what can we do? We are totally powerless.

Yep. As much as Victorians are stinky and virus prone, I envy how close they feel to their football clubs.

We on the other hand we are more like, in the words of AFC chief operating officer Nigel Smart, 'customers'.

Arms length and hand over your money for a seat and a scarf.

 

[mattymac]

I completely understand your point but my point is that even if we controlled our licence the same incompetent group would most likely still control the club. The AFL could have removed Chapman at any point and most definitely should have. They were completely derelict in their duty to the AFC members. It's debatable even if we had controlled our own licence whether Chapman would have been removed or even if he was he more than likely would have been replaced by my another Adelaide club incompetent. My point is that I want us to have our licence back but I want assurance that the Adelaide so called elite incompetents have no relationship with the club and it is purely run by its membership. If the licence changes hands but there is no real significant change then nothing has been achieved. I want the AFL to ensure the same group and their associates are not able to have anything to do with the club ever again by stipulating in the handover that the membership will vote on the Board and Chairman.

The whole point of buying back our licence would be to change the constitution to that of a real football club like the Victorian clubs.

Look at Richmond. They were going shithouse. A group put together a spill motion. Next minute the board conducts a serious review (not like our farcical post-season charade) and then bang.

Accountability is a powerful tool. We don't have it.

 

[mattymac]

To be honest, no I don't. If I read the comments on FB for example it's usually supportive of the group and they represent the majority of our supporter base in my opinion. Just look at the one board vote we get, we've seen what happens in the past where it goes to an ex player as they're an easy vote for those that don't know any better/care to look any deeper into it....

Staggering that you have that mindset. Hands in the air give up because judging by facebook.

I would say there is a big difference between being allowed to vote for one token board member out of nine (faux democracy) compared to members having the right to force a full spill when the board starts acting incestuous and untouchable.

 

[Klug]

Staggering that you have that mindset. Hands in the air give up because judging by facebook.

I would say there is a big difference between being allowed to vote for one token board member out of nine (faux democracy) compared to members having the right to force a full spill when the board starts acting incestuous and untouchable.

Look at Essendon's current structure. This is what the AFC should be seeking to move to.


9 board members, 6 of which are voted in by the members.

Each year, 3 positions are up for re-election, 2 of which are member voted.

That is a great mix of board and member elected positions.

It drives accountability and transparency *each year*, not just when someone's term on the board is up.

I am not convinced Chapman is leaving at end of this year.

He has left enough space in his announcements to push it out by another year, and could use extenuating circumstances of 2020 season to justify it.

 

[SaltPeter]

Look at Essendon's current structure. This is what the AFC should be seeking to move to.


9 board members, 6 of which are voted in by the members.

Each year, 3 positions are up for re-election, 2 of which are member voted.

That is a great mix of board and member elected positions.

It drives accountability and transparency *each year*, not just when someone's term on the board is up.

I am not convinced Chapman is leaving at end of this year.

He has left enough space in his announcements to push it out by another year, and could use extenuating circumstances of 2020 season to justify it.

If the negative press surrounding the camp, list management, board factions, disgruntled former players etc continues he may have his hand forced.

 

[King Elvis]

The AFL is not the cause for our problems. The cause of our problems is Chapman, Riccuito, Fagan and the men they employed which have either been terminated or are still at the club. The problem i have with the Afl is that they have supplied the rope to do ourselves in by not demanding Chapman stand down after Tippett. I feel we do need to buy our licence back but will anything change? Will the Adelaide club of incompetents still have their fingerprints all over the place,? Likely. If the licence is bought back and it is member run i would totally support that.

This is scandalous though.

AFL gives us huge sanctions over Tippett... but doesn’t demand anyone’s resignation?

Rendell makes some clumsy but well intentioned comments - demands his resignation.

The AFC brings themselves and arguably the AFL itself into disrepute by their engagement of Collective Minds and specifically the negligence of the camp... the AFL doesn’t demand any accountability at management level.

What the *?

 

[Geoffa32]

Even with voting rights, are you all so sure that things would really be that different? I feel like bigfooty is a loud but very small minority and I imagine the likes of Roo, Jamo etc have the support of the large majority of the supporter base because their ex players.

And then some of the other ones I don't really know that well and I'd say many are in the same boat. How am I to judge an individual board member vs another or whether someone not on the board would do any better?

Certainly not happy with how the club is being run which obviously ends at the board/Chapman but outside of that, I don't think I could really form an informed opinion.

In a populist vote the average member has no chance.

BTW we do have two member appointed Board members.

Anyone here confident these two guys would present the views of members to the Board now? Email them and ask them to air your views at the next Board meeting. It won't happen.



I am all for us members appointing the Board. But it is not the cure of our current issues.


It is a romantic notion that all democratically elected Board members represent those who elected them, the reality is different.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

Look at Essendon's current structure. This is what the AFC should be seeking to move to.


9 board members, 6 of which are voted in by the members.

Each year, 3 positions are up for re-election, 2 of which are member voted.

That is a great mix of board and member elected positions.

It drives accountability and transparency *each year*, not just when someone's term on the board is up.

I am not convinced Chapman is leaving at end of this year.

He has left enough space in his announcements to push it out by another year, and could use extenuating circumstances of 2020 season to justify it.

Good structure in theory.

But when was the last time Essendon won a Final?

That Board structure was also in place during the implementation of the drugs program.


As I said in an earlier post. A democratically elected Board is a nice romantic notion, but it does not mean the organisation will run well.


WCE have minimal member representation on their Board. Yet are the best ran club in the league



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[1970crow]

Settle down.
I’m just pointing out a glaring issue with a generalisation that was made.

It's not a glaring issue at all. You're generalisation was much worse. There's a difference between wielding influence due to lack of financial strength and outright structural control. And yes, St Kilda did decide to go to China. They did this as soon as the AFL incentive met the threshold required by them.

 

[Cap]

I don't think you can judge all Crows fans by Facebook comments.

 

[Cap]

Good structure in theory.

But when was the last time Essendon won a Final?

That Board structure was also in place during the implementation of the drugs program.


As I said in an earlier post. A democratically elected Board is a nice romantic notion, but it does not mean the organisation will run well.


WCE have minimal member representation on their Board. Yet are the best ran club in the league



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I think however they are elected

Transparency and accountability are the key.

Both of which AFC has 0 of.

 

[Geoffa32]

I think however they are elected

Transparency and accountability are the key.

Both of which AFC has 0 of.

Exactly.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Mego Red]

The AFL is not the cause for our problems. The cause of our problems is Chapman, Riccuito, Fagan and the men they employed which have either been terminated or are still at the club. The problem i have with the Afl is that they have supplied the rope to do ourselves in by not demanding Chapman stand down after Tippett. I feel we do need to buy our licence back but will anything change? Will the Adelaide club of incompetents still have their fingerprints all over the place,? Likely. If the licence is bought back and it is member run i would totally support that.

You don't know what pressure the AFL has placed in our club to make decisions in the past. None of us know.

 

[Mego Red]

I think however they are elected

Transparency and accountability are the key.

Both of which AFC has 0 of.

Look, we might get still stuff things up, but at least democracy lets us know we had the chance to play a role in whether the club succeeds or fails.

Currently, we are absolutely powerless and virtually irrelevant.

 

[1970crow]

In a populist vote the average member has no chance.

BTW we do have two member appointed Board members.

Anyone here confident these two guys would present the views of members to the Board now? Email them and ask them to air your views at the next Board meeting. It won't happen.



I am all for us members appointing the Board. But it is not the cure of our current issues.


It is a romantic notion that all democratically elected Board members represent those who elected them, the reality is different.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

This is the biggest misunderstanding of our board. Those 2 positions are member elected not member representative. The members choose to vote from a carefully vetted group of sycophants. They're no more likely to or even expected to represent member interest to any further extent tHan that of appointed positions. Once they're on the board, they're just another vote with a term to run. Their method of getting on is slightly different, but it doesn't change the type of person they'll be or how they operate as a director.

 

[1970crow]

If the negative press surrounding the camp, list management, board factions, disgruntled former players etc continues he may have his hand forced.

I'd be surprised if communication between AFL and our club hasn't been increasing over the last couple of years.

 

[Geoffa32]

This is the biggest misunderstanding of our board. Those 2 positions are member elected not member representative. The members choose to vote from a carefully vetted group of sycophants. They're no more likely to or even expected to represent member interest any to further extent tHan that of appointed positions. Once they're on the board, they're just another vote with a term to run. Their method of getting on is slightly different, but it doesn't change the type of person they'll be or how they operate as a director.

They put up an ex player and a lawyer who's firm has done some work for the club before.

We get a token vote. But their boys get in.


They don't represent us at all.



So who is to say having more elected Board members would be different?


There will still be a vetting process.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[1970crow]

They put up an ex player and a lawyer who's firm has done some work for the club before.

We get a token vote. But their boys get in.


They don't represent us at all.



So who is to say having more elected Board members would be different?


There will still be a vetting process.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

No, that would need to be removed. It would need to be open to everyone with a certain level of membership. Less exclusions based upon criminal activity etc. Reality is that unless you have a huge profile, you're not getting on without existing board support. But when a club gets to this kind of low, you get a rival ticket throwing their hat into the ring.

 

[Geoffa32]

No, that would need to be removed. It would need to be open to everyone with a certain level of membership. Less exclusions based upon criminal activity etc. Reality is that unless you have a huge profile, you're not getting on without existing board support. But when a club gets to this kind of low, you get a rival ticket throwing their hat into the ring.

I agree it should be removed.

But won't be.


Do other clubs vet Board candidates?



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[1970crow]

I agree it should be removed.

But won't be.


Do other clubs vet Board candidates?



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I doubt the Richmond board had the luxury of vetting the rival ticket.

 

[jenny61_99]

If this alleged opposition board were real and asked, I'd pledge to sign up and pay money to get control back.

I'm sure many would.

Probably need to ask many questions BEFORE I'd stump up... but if WE (the people) could establish the constitution and elect the board, then I'd be all for it.

 

[Cap]

Probably need to ask many questions BEFORE I'd stump up... but if WE (the people) could establish the constitution and elect the board, then I'd be all for it.

That's true, details are important

 

[slice]

The idea that we could buy out the AFL's ownership of the Crows is complete fantasy.

The AFL controls the AFC board. The AFC board makes decisions on behalf of the club. AFL = AFC board. Therefore the board is not going to recommend a break away from itself and that is the conflict of interest that Griffin is demonstrating.

We're completely ****ed unless the AFL suddenly acknowledge the existence of the conflict and not just for us, for the other clubs in this situation - lol