Bob Campbell - embarassment

[Mong]

I am getting more and more annoyed these days with that whole Ross Dillon controversy when the SANFL contrived to have Campbell win the Chairman position. How bad is that, this is not Iraq you know. But that's another matter.

The point I want to make is that since that time I have become more and more embarassed with Bob Campbell's antics as Chairman.

First it was disrepectful comments about Malcolm Blight (after all he did for the club) after Blight had left the Crows, then there was the blaming of KG and Cornesy for low attendance at Wizard Cup games, there is the whinging about where final's should be played (if you have an issue with it then address it with class like Steven Trigg, not a spoilt little kid), and now we see him singing along with the players in the post match club song just to get his ugly face on the TV.

Bob Hammond would never have done anything like this. Hammond was a great Chairman. Campbell is an embarassment.

Thankfully we have a top CEO, Steven Trigg, to keep some sanity.


****

 

[tribey]

What I've liked about the Adelaide Football Club is that there have always been football people in the top managerial positions...

Sanders = ex-player
Hammond = ex-player/coach
Reid = ex-player/coach
Trigg = ex-player/coach

Now Campbell has been on the board since day one, but with a lot of the decisions and comments he makes he comes off looking like a real footy layman sometimes...

I don't think he ever played did he?

 

[noddy]

What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by noddy
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???

He's definetely got my vote!!!!!! Whether Campbell played or not is irrelevant IMO but you have to have good brains and a touch of class like Triggy. IMHO Campbell appers to have neither!!!!!!

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by noddy
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???

If he does - its a disgrace

Was quitting footy for good

Now he's back on the board

Said he never had plans to become Chairman

if he does - he's misled everyone.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Whether Campbell played or not is irrelevant IMO

My point was we've always had people who've played/coached in charge at AFC, and hence they know exactly what's it like for the players and coaching staff they're in charge of - as well as having fine managerial and business acumen.

As a result they know that bringing any undue attention to themselves or the club by way of making ridiculous statements is a complete no-no and doesn't help the onfield or off-field situation at all.

Campbell (compared to the names I've mentioned) certainly seems to be free of these shackles, as do some of his contemparies like Richard Colless and everyone's favourite windbag John Elliott.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by dyertribe
My point was we've always had people who've played/coached in charge at AFC, and hence they know exactly what's it like for the players and coaching staff they're in charge of - as well as having fine managerial and business acumen.

As a result they know that bringing any undue attention to themselves or the club by way of making ridiculous statements is a complete no-no and doesn't help the onfield or off-field situation at all.

Campbell (compared to the names I've mentioned) certainly seems to be free of these shackles, as do some of his contemparies like Richard Colless and everyone's favourite windbag John Elliott.

I understand where you are coming from mate and you make a good point but what I was trying to say it doesn't matter if the player or coached at SANFL or AFL level. It comes down to the type of person and their outlook on certain situations. IMHO Bob Campbell is on more of an ego trip than anything. The likes of Eddie McGuire have not played or coached at a reasonable level, but he does everything he possibly can to make things better for his team and take the pressure of his player. He is on an ego trip but he doesn't put his players and footy club in unconfortable position.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by noddy
What are the odds of Bill Sanders being elected chaiman within the next couple of years???

From memory, I think this was part of the reason why Dillon and David Marshall were sacked. Between them they brought in one million (it may have been 3 mil) to the club that year and they got sacked.

I recall they werent happy about Sanders being CEO and having a board spot and it was "seeya later". The SANFL old boys club had spoken and they wanted Sanders and Cambell.

Colonel Sanders will get the top job, dont worry about that. Although I dont like the process, I think he'd be a better option than the current bloke.

Jerome

 

[Mong]

Hey Jerome

My memory on the subject is a bit hazy but I am pretty sure that Ross Dillon actually resigned in protest of the system.

I think you are right about Marshall though, the SANFL replaced him because he was a Dillon fan. They put someone else in who was going to vote for Campbell and that gave him enough votes to win.

That was the claim by the Dillon 'party' anyway.


****

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Jerome
From memory, I think this was part of the reason why Dillon and David Marshall were sacked. Between them they brought in one million (it may have been 3 mil) to the club that year and they got sacked.

I recall they werent happy about Sanders being CEO and having a board spot and it was "seeya later". The SANFL old boys club had spoken and they wanted Sanders and Cambell.

Colonel Sanders will get the top job, dont worry about that. Although I dont like the process, I think he'd be a better option than the current bloke.

No doubt the Colonel will get the top job as he knows people in the right places. Don't reckon there will be a process, but more likely a handshake or 2 (they probably have already agreed on a date). As a Chairman all we can ask is that they keep things in order (although not much operational stuff like with the CEO), keep their trap shut most of the time (ie. none of this Collis v Eddie crap) & only talk (in an eloquent way) when real issues come up. Sanders is probably better placed to do this than Campbell, but there may be someone else better on the board too. In fact who else is on the board? Wouldn't mind someone like out ex-no 1 ticket holder Rob Gerard.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by ****
Hey Jerome

My memory on the subject is a bit hazy but I am pretty sure that Ross Dillon actually resigned in protest of the system.

****

I think youre right.

I have another question - who is our members rep? who is on the members committee and has anyone ever heard from them? If not why not? Why arent these people given a page on the site or in crowing?

Jerome

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Jars458
If he does - its a disgrace

Was quitting footy for good

Now he's back on the board

Said he never had plans to become Chairman

if he does - he's misled everyone.

Thank you linesman thank you ball boys

The whole membership representation is a bloody farce and Sanders has had this planned all along.

The biggest weakenss for the AFC in my view as members have no real representation.

Not happy.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Jars458
The biggest weakenss for the AFC in my view as members have no real representation.

Not happy.

Totally agreed.

The club in the AFL with the most members who have the least power.

My elder sister's partner's membership at Carlton allows him to do everything short of picking the bloody team.

 

[DaveW]

Get over it.

Club officials are appointed to do a job, not to win ****ing popularity contests.

We're the best run club in the league and some supporters still whinge.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by DaveW
Get over it.

Club officials are appointed to do a job, not to win ****ing popularity contests.

We're the best run club in the league and some supporters still whinge.

Yeah we're the best run club in the league because we have 45000 members/season ticket holders who pour millions into the club every ****ing year and see nothing by way of the members' rights that other AFL clubs members enjoy.

Seven or eight years in they built us a shed... now there's a tavern... that took long enough.

It's high time the supporters - without whom there'd be no club - got a little more respect and input rather than a patronising invitation to select a nominee for the board to consider.

 

[DaveW]

I trust the SANFL and the AFC to appoint the best people for the job.

As a supporter, I'll worry about what happens on-field.

I certainly won't pretend to know who the best candidates are for running the the off-field side of the club.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by DaveW
I certainly won't pretend to know who the best candidates are for running the the off-field side of the club.

Typical patronising dogma.

"The masses are too stupid to think for themselves, therefore shouldn't lead themselves"

You're assuming the membership base of the Adelaide Football Club is a) stupid and b) apathetic. I'd love to have a vote that actually COUNTS towards the future direction of my club.

So I should just throw my nominees voting form and reply paid envelope in the bin then?

 

[DaveW]

Well that's quite impressive if you have expertise in knowing how organisations with multi-million dollar turnovers each year should run...

Frankly I doubt most of our supporters do.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by DaveW
Well that's quite impressive if you have expertise in knowing how organisations with multi-million dollar turnovers each year should run...

Frankly I doubt most of our supporters do.

Well yob and Dave, lets just do away with democracy altogether then.

Starting right now John Howard and his cabinet can have government for life!... screw it... the public of Australia simply doesn't have the expertise in foreign affairs, running a multi-billion dollar economy, keeping the health system up and running as well as all the other facets that consist of maintaining responsible government.

 

[DaveW]

The Adelaide Football Club is not a government.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by DaveW
The Adelaide Football Club is not a government.

The Federal Government of Australia answers to its constituents, the citizens and permanent residents of Australia who in turn pay taxes into the treasury which funds the public servants and the construction of schools, roads, hospitals, etc.

The Adelaide Football Club answers to its constituents, the members and supporters of the club, who pay fees to that club, as well as other moneys that enter the club's coffers. Those fees pay the wages of the relevant staff, players and upkeep of the club's facilities and other infrastructure.

But Dave, I thought your point was you trust the AFC and its board to run itself - because Joe Public certainly doesn't have any idea how to run a multi-million dollar corporation!

So how is Australia any different with it's multi-billion dollar economy? Why the hell are the Australian people trusted with voting in governments that have the power to declare war, manage trade deficits and sign treaties regarding sovereignty, alliances and environmental management then?! Christ! How the hell did this democracy crap start? You and I don't know anything about running the economy or waging wars! So why the hell are idiots like us allowed to vote on such an important facet of life???

Oh that's right... democracy doesn't count in this case because "the Adelaide Football Club is not a government"... sure it runs a team and infrastructure that is funded and loved but its 45000+ members... but it isnt a government.

 

[DaveW]

The government isn't selling a product.

The cost of a season ticket is in no way comparable to taxes.

You pay money to see games. If you don't like it, then don't pay. A choice you don't have with paying tax.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by DaveW
The government isn't selling a product.

But your argument was that the members of the AFC don't have the necessary knowledge on how to a football club with multi-million dollar turnover to be allowed to cast a vote on who is placed on the AFC board wasn't it?

Strange... using that logic we shouldn't be allowed to vote in state or federal elections either should we? And that's far more important.

Originally posted by DaveW
You pay money to see games. If you don't like it, then don't pay.

Yawn. Yeah yeah.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by dyertribe
But your argument was that the members of the AFC don't have the necessary knowledge on how to a football club with multi-million dollar turnover to be allowed to cast a vote on who is placed on the AFC board wasn't it?

Strange... using that logic we shouldn't be allowed to vote in state or federal elections either should we? And that's far more important.

The government in power chooses the right people for the job.

We just pick the party.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by DaveW
The government in power chooses the right people for the job.

We just pick the party.

The party still has a platform and we have the power to elect them or not. Same goes for boardroom tickets at AFL football clubs.

Collingwood people voted for Eddie McGuire's ticket didn't they?
Carlton people voted out John Elliott's ticket didn't they?

Meanwhile Bob Campbell, Bob Hammond, Bill Sanders et al can seemingly stay for as long as they want, regardless of performance.

No-one liked Bob Campbell and didn't think he was much chop in his position at the club... but he stayed from the creation of the club to now. That's 13 seasons in a power position... is that good or bad?

I say bad. But I don't have a vote, and subsequently don't have a say. And neither does anyone else who isn't in power at that club - and a situation such as that is unfavourable for all concerned.

You disagree with me. That's that.