2019 Membership

Remove this Banner Ad

StickyMick said:
Yeah thanks heaps for that. Fills in a lot of blanks for me and puts to bed a lot of follow of questions I had. From what I understand you can only do your bidding as member through the memberships you buy (or don't buy in the case you want a change at the top). Here's hoping that you get Ken moved on. As a paying member you don't need a coach that puts himself before the club.
Click to expand...

When the licence was controlled by the sanfl we had 10 directors of which 5 were elected by the members and 5 directors were recommended by the club to the sanfl for approval.
 
PA88 said:
When the licence was controlled by the sanfl we had 10 directors of which 5 were elected by the members and 5 directors were recommended by the club to the sanfl for approval.
Click to expand...

Would you feel better as Port members having a model where you were in control of who sat on the board then? Or would that lead to a political power struggle amongst members and long term financial uncertainty? Also, once the debt is paid off to the afl for allowing you guys to become solvent again, will the need for an Afl appointed board be necessary?
 
StickyMick said:
Would you feel better as Port members having a model where you were in control of who sat on the board then? Or would that lead to a political power struggle amongst members and long term financial uncertainty? Also, once the debt is paid off to the afl for allowing you guys to become solvent again, will the need for an Afl appointed board be necessary?
Click to expand...
All very good questions. Power struggles are part and parcel of all elected boards everywhere and I guess we'd be no different. I think, however, that the prevailing mood of members is that we should at least work towards getting to the stage where that's a possibility.

Personally, I think that winning hides a multitude of sins. If we were in the top four we wouldn't be here grumbling about our board.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Capital Power said:
Personally, I think that winning hides a multitude of sins. If we were in the top four we wouldn't be here grumbling about our board.
Click to expand...

If it's and buts were candy and nuts
 
PA88 said:
When the licence was controlled by the sanfl we had 10 directors of which 5 were elected by the members and 5 directors were recommended by the club to the sanfl for approval.
Click to expand...
Correct for the majority of time, but around end of 2009/early 2010 it became 4+4+2 with the final 2 recommended by the board to the SANFL for their expertise in their field.
 
StickyMick said:
Apologies first and foremost if this is a Port Adelaide thread only but a mate and I have been keeping tabs on the coaching and board situation on here for a bit and are trying to get our head around what you guys and girls mean when you say your board is 'AFL appointed' and that memberships used to allow for board voting power. Just purely out of intrigue did port's processes to appointing a board used to be unique only to port in that members had all the election rights to who sat on the board? Was just chasing a bit of history on it because as I said, the whole situation as an outsider is pretty interesting and we were wondering what's changed and when did it change. Thanks
Click to expand...
The AFL handed over some "power" to swans members in their new 2005 Constitution ( which I read back then) after the AFL held the licence between 1993 and 2004, when in 1993 the Peter Weinert and Mike Willese ownership group handed back the swans licence for $10.

That 2005 Constitution is the basis for the Constitution of GC, GWS, Adelaide and Port. WCE and Freo have a similar Constitution but instead of AFL it will have WAFC in most clauses about approval of board members, appointments, removals, change of the Constitution etc.

The Brisbane Bears had a similar Constitution to Sydney's 1993-2004 one, between 1992 and 1996 after Ruben Pelerman (spel) handed back the licence to the AFL. With the merger with the Lions, the Constitution was changed to be in line with the other 10 Vic clubs and gave members control of the club. They had to, to make it a merger and for old Fitzroy members to still have a say, otherwise it would have been a takeover not a merger.
 
El_Scorcho said:
So basically originally when we entered the AFL, due to a lack of foresight by the AFL, the SANFL controlled our licence. They were and are blood sucking leeches that almost killed the club, banking our profits during the good years so that we couldn't survive the down years. We also had an abhorrent stadium deal. During that time the SANFL appointed our board.

About a decade ago, a complicated deal meant that the AFL bought our licence back from the SANFL. A much better deal for us because we're actually solvent now and don't just exist as a cash cow to prop up the SANFL. Same deal for the Crows. Under the new deal (because Port owe the AFL a lot of money for buying out the licence), Port Adelaide members appoint 2 board members, and the rest (6 or 8, I can't recall) are appointed by the AFL. These are usually Port Adelaide people, but they're still not answerable to the members.

Our issue is that we can't simply spill our board like Victorian clubs can to force the issue. There is no real pressure on the likes of Koch because he's AFL appointed and as such as long as we're doing okay financially, he'll keep his job. We can't threaten to vote him out at the next AGM to keep him honest. The AFL don't need us to be successful onfield, just off of it.
Click to expand...

3651F608-6FB1-45E6-A4C9-15C1C6B1EAFB.jpeg
6096AB2E-2BB2-478B-8287-4EAD1476C3C6.jpeg

‘So ah, we want you because you’re a strong, traditional, existing club with an existing fanbase as opposed to another new composite.’

- ‘Finally! The Port Adelaide Football Club, Established 1870, is in the AFL.’

‘Whoa, whoa, whoa...’

Ross Oakley, man.
 
Capital Power said:
All very good questions. Power struggles are part and parcel of all elected boards everywhere and I guess we'd be no different. I think, however, that the prevailing mood of members is that we should at least work towards getting to the stage where that's a possibility.

Personally, I think that winning hides a multitude of sins. If we were in the top four we wouldn't be here grumbling about our board.
Click to expand...
Winning doesn't hide 'sins', winning is the whole point. If you're winning people are doing their jobs well.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
The AFL handed over some "power" to swans members in their new 2005 Constitution ( which I read back then) after the AFL held the licence between 1993 and 2004, when in 1993 the Peter Weinert and Mike Willese ownership group handed back the swans licence for $10.

That 2005 Constitution is the basis for the Constitution of GC, GWS, Adelaide and Port. WCE and Freo have a similar Constitution but instead of AFL it will have WAFC in most clauses about approval of board members, appointments, removals, change of the Constitution etc.

The Brisbane Bears had a similar Constitution to Sydney's 1993-2004 one, between 1992 and 1996 after Ruben Pelerman (spel) handed back the licence to the AFL. With the merger with the Lions, the Constitution was changed to be in line with the other 10 Vic clubs and gave members control of the club. They had to, to make it a merger and for old Fitzroy members to still have a say, otherwise it would have been a takeover not a merger.
Click to expand...

Yeah appreciate the feedback. As Port members is the general consensus that the appointments should go back to the members' vote or would that create instability and a circus environment which may have a negative impact on finances and the club's ability to attract top-end talent?
 
StickyMick said:
Yeah appreciate the feedback. As Port members is the general consensus that the appointments should go back to the members' vote or would that create instability and a circus environment which may have a negative impact on finances and the club's ability to attract top-end talent?
Click to expand...
I think we should have at least 5 member elected ie at least one each year as they have 3 year terms. I don't have a problem with the concept of a few being appointed by the board and AFL approved, if they are experts in their fields but you don't want them to be yes men/women of the chairman.

That has been the problem, they appear to be yes men and women and they appear to be unaccountable.

Trouble is whilst the AFL guarantees our debt they won't change things. They are control freaks and they would like to change the Vic clubs to be under their control rather than turn the non Vic clubs into 100% member elected directors like the Vic clubs and Brisbane.

Most people don't vote, I think 3,500 votes is enough to get over the 50% line or 3,500 was the total votes in the February 2018 election. FishingRick04 ran for the board and got about 30% so he can confirm the numbers.

The club doesn't let them campaign. They put out a 250 word statement which is useless unless you make an effort.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
I think we should have at least 5 member elected ie at least one each year as they have 3 year terms. I don't have a problem with the concept of a few being appointed by the board and AFL approved, if they are experts in their fields but you don't want them to be yes men/women of the chairman.

That has been the problem, they appear to be yes men and women and they appear to be unaccountable.

Trouble is whilst the AFL guarantees our debt they won't change things. They are control freaks and they would like to change the Vic clubs to be under their control rather than turn the non Vic clubs into 100% member elected directors like the Vic clubs and Brisbane.

Most people don't vote, I think 3,500 votes is enough to get over the 50% line or 3,500 was the total votes in the February 2018 election. FishingRick04 ran for the board and got about 30% so he can confirm the numbers.

The club doesn't let them campaign. They put out a 250 word statement which is useless unless you make an effort.
Click to expand...

Correct, biggest issue is when voting you go to a page where all nominees are side by side so I could petition as hard as I want, be the best person but then I lead all my voters to Gav. Game over.
 
FishingRick04 said:
Correct, biggest issue is when voting you go to a page where all nominees are side by side so I could petition as hard as I want, be the best person but then I lead all my voters to Gav. Game over.
Click to expand...

You need to rebrand to AAAFishingRick00004
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

EBPmyKvU8AExT5b.jpg
 
Down 3k in memberships which is roughly 300k off the bottom line.

To you people that advocate dropping memberships as a form of protest.

You ****in' people. You have no idea how to run a club. All you did was weaken the club today.

That's all you did.

You put the clubs life in danger.

Sweet dreams, people.
 
How do Melbourne have 52k members? Is that some MCC related bullshit?

And are AFLW members counted in those tallies? If so, not a fair comparison.
 
When the crows released their numbers earlier in the year they included digital memberships (that term always gets me) with an asterisk. I think they should be made to show those pre-audit numbers as well just for a laugh.
 
Eddie Dingle said:
Down 3k in memberships which is roughly 300k off the bottom line.

To you people that advocate dropping memberships as a form of protest.

You ****in' people. You have no idea how to run a club. All you did was weaken the club today.

That's all you did.

You put the clubs life in danger.

Sweet dreams, people.
Click to expand...

but people don't want to be members of this regime's idea of the club. they put it in danger, not supporters
 
Eddie Dingle said:
Down 3k in memberships which is roughly 300k off the bottom line.

To you people that advocate dropping memberships as a form of protest.

You ****in' people. You have no idea how to run a club. All you did was weaken the club today.

That's all you did.

You put the clubs life in danger.

Sweet dreams, people.
Click to expand...
Down to 51k members is in danger? Carn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HinkleysHeroes
Resource 2024 Membership - 55,704 as at April 5th
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
321
Views
22K
Stryke
Stryke
gbear
  • Poll
Resource 2023 Membership - Audited Figure 64,041 - New Club Record
45 46 47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
71K
TeeKray
TeeKray

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top