Callipygian
Team Player
- May 18, 2021
- 1,684
- 3,684
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Personally, as someone who has become heavily invested in our footy club, I care not only about footy and the on-field stuff, but also about the whole club and the off-field stuff too. That means I'm interested in all the personnel employed at the club from the coaches to the list managers to the high performance and physios, dieticians, psychologists etc etc but also the upper management and the Board. We already have threads to discuss the coaches and list managers but not so much for the Board and upper management. I am starting this thread as a place to discuss those issues.
It's topical now because last night was our AGM. I usually attend our AGMs and I usually ask as many questions as I can.
Last night's AGM was duller than usual. I think it was preceded by a proper board meeting in the boardroom and many of the board members did not hang around for the actual AGM in the auditorium which seems to be mostly a formality and a showpiece for members.
Probably the most controversial topic was when I inquired about what became of the committee that was set up by the board and chaired by Michael O'Loughlin following the reports about the Hawthorn racism review to inquire into the experiences of Indigenous players at the Swans. Here's a link to a news article when the committee was announced: Two AFL clubs make moves to review history with Indigenous players in answer to Eddie’s call. I also asked about the low number of Indigenous players on our list and whether Cooper Vickery is the only one left.
Andrew Pridham, our Chairman, explained that a committee had been set up following the revelations about Hawthorn's review just before the 2022 Grand Final. He added that among the things it would consider was whether there was any need to have any further review at all. Then Tom Harley explained that one reason for the lack of Indigenous players on our list is that a lot of them get diverted away by NGAs (which didn't use to happen). Happily Tom then asked whether that answered my question. I did not bother about the inadequacies of Tom's reply (e.g. the facts that NGAs only apply to players out of metro areas, wanted by their associated clubs but only after pick 40 and not relating to trades). Instead I pointed out my first question had not really been answered at all.
Andrew Pridham then went on to say that the conclusion of the committee's inquiry was that there was no need to inquire further about the experiences of Indigenous players at the Swans because the Hawthorn incident was really just a one off thing at one club and it was a bit anomalous. I then found myself in the uncomfortable position of saying "I'm sorry but I feel I have to push back a bit..." [I had not come to criticise - I was just curious about what happened with that committee and its inquiries and I care about our club being governed well.] and then saying something along the lines of Hawthorn was not a one off (it explored numerous incidents at that club) and that Collingwood also had their Do Better report (which covered many incidents over many years relating to racism especially of Indigenous players) and there have been incidents at St Kilda and other clubs too. I added (rather pithily, I thought) that "if you don't look, you won't find". Pridham then countered that there was no evidence that they are aware of that there have been any problematic issues (and they had consulted O'Loughlin and Goodes) and so they had decided to leave it. I was also glad to leave it on that relatively positive note. Possibly lame on my part but it didn't feel the forum to press the matter further - but then again there is no better forum. It's more that I, as a fan, just don't have much standing. I'm not really a voice in the room for these conversations, other than at the AGM.
Apart from that there was some discussion about the recent claims in the media about the size of our fanbase. There was discussion about post-match goings on in the Noble stand (Pridham said he gets asked about this all the time). There was a financial statement. There was the retirement and then re-appointment of three board members (Belinda Rowe, Bryan Tyson and Alexandra Goodfellow) plus the elected director (Michael O'Loughlin) was reappointed unopposed. There was an acknowledgement of important people connected with the Swans who have passed away in the last 12 months (starting with Ron Barassi).
I asked some questions about list management. I learned that it will be another 4-6 weeks before they make an announcement about how they will replace Simon Dalrymple. Apparently Dalrymple wanted to be based in Melbourne for family reasons (even though they acknowledged he was already based in Melbourne - possibly they were puzzled about that too, or (more likely) they have a better understanding but are quite rightly not bringing it into the public forum).
As for AFLW, the list management is in fact done primarily by Kate Mahoney and Scott Gowans with assistance from sundry dogsbodies - 'W' is still too much in its infancy to have dedicated staff for list management. I asked whether our data guys for AFLM list management could provide some assistance and Kate said they did get some help with data analysis.
Someone else asked the same question I asked last year about when the club might transition back to being member-owned - and the answer was similar i.e. that there is no timeframe for that and the AFL doesn't seem to be much interested in pursuing that (indeed why would they? they are our 100% owner as things stand so why relinquish?) but that Pridham doesn't feel like it is much of an impediment to the Board advocating for the things they think matter (I can't agree - although I accept our Board does push back at the AFL all the time about a wide range of things).
Those were my main take aways. I hope it's of interest to some others (I realise it probably won't appeal to most - and that's fine - but I would be sorry to think I am the only one who is interested in this stuff).
It's topical now because last night was our AGM. I usually attend our AGMs and I usually ask as many questions as I can.
Last night's AGM was duller than usual. I think it was preceded by a proper board meeting in the boardroom and many of the board members did not hang around for the actual AGM in the auditorium which seems to be mostly a formality and a showpiece for members.
Probably the most controversial topic was when I inquired about what became of the committee that was set up by the board and chaired by Michael O'Loughlin following the reports about the Hawthorn racism review to inquire into the experiences of Indigenous players at the Swans. Here's a link to a news article when the committee was announced: Two AFL clubs make moves to review history with Indigenous players in answer to Eddie’s call. I also asked about the low number of Indigenous players on our list and whether Cooper Vickery is the only one left.
Andrew Pridham, our Chairman, explained that a committee had been set up following the revelations about Hawthorn's review just before the 2022 Grand Final. He added that among the things it would consider was whether there was any need to have any further review at all. Then Tom Harley explained that one reason for the lack of Indigenous players on our list is that a lot of them get diverted away by NGAs (which didn't use to happen). Happily Tom then asked whether that answered my question. I did not bother about the inadequacies of Tom's reply (e.g. the facts that NGAs only apply to players out of metro areas, wanted by their associated clubs but only after pick 40 and not relating to trades). Instead I pointed out my first question had not really been answered at all.
Andrew Pridham then went on to say that the conclusion of the committee's inquiry was that there was no need to inquire further about the experiences of Indigenous players at the Swans because the Hawthorn incident was really just a one off thing at one club and it was a bit anomalous. I then found myself in the uncomfortable position of saying "I'm sorry but I feel I have to push back a bit..." [I had not come to criticise - I was just curious about what happened with that committee and its inquiries and I care about our club being governed well.] and then saying something along the lines of Hawthorn was not a one off (it explored numerous incidents at that club) and that Collingwood also had their Do Better report (which covered many incidents over many years relating to racism especially of Indigenous players) and there have been incidents at St Kilda and other clubs too. I added (rather pithily, I thought) that "if you don't look, you won't find". Pridham then countered that there was no evidence that they are aware of that there have been any problematic issues (and they had consulted O'Loughlin and Goodes) and so they had decided to leave it. I was also glad to leave it on that relatively positive note. Possibly lame on my part but it didn't feel the forum to press the matter further - but then again there is no better forum. It's more that I, as a fan, just don't have much standing. I'm not really a voice in the room for these conversations, other than at the AGM.
Apart from that there was some discussion about the recent claims in the media about the size of our fanbase. There was discussion about post-match goings on in the Noble stand (Pridham said he gets asked about this all the time). There was a financial statement. There was the retirement and then re-appointment of three board members (Belinda Rowe, Bryan Tyson and Alexandra Goodfellow) plus the elected director (Michael O'Loughlin) was reappointed unopposed. There was an acknowledgement of important people connected with the Swans who have passed away in the last 12 months (starting with Ron Barassi).
I asked some questions about list management. I learned that it will be another 4-6 weeks before they make an announcement about how they will replace Simon Dalrymple. Apparently Dalrymple wanted to be based in Melbourne for family reasons (even though they acknowledged he was already based in Melbourne - possibly they were puzzled about that too, or (more likely) they have a better understanding but are quite rightly not bringing it into the public forum).
As for AFLW, the list management is in fact done primarily by Kate Mahoney and Scott Gowans with assistance from sundry dogsbodies - 'W' is still too much in its infancy to have dedicated staff for list management. I asked whether our data guys for AFLM list management could provide some assistance and Kate said they did get some help with data analysis.
Someone else asked the same question I asked last year about when the club might transition back to being member-owned - and the answer was similar i.e. that there is no timeframe for that and the AFL doesn't seem to be much interested in pursuing that (indeed why would they? they are our 100% owner as things stand so why relinquish?) but that Pridham doesn't feel like it is much of an impediment to the Board advocating for the things they think matter (I can't agree - although I accept our Board does push back at the AFL all the time about a wide range of things).
Those were my main take aways. I hope it's of interest to some others (I realise it probably won't appeal to most - and that's fine - but I would be sorry to think I am the only one who is interested in this stuff).
Last edited by a moderator:
