Strategy Core business

[jackcass]

It’s a soft cap so you can spend over it.

The issue is that we A) refuse to do so and B) probably wouldn’t do it correctly anyway. Personally I would cop the 100% levy and invest a further $500k into development pa. It results in an extra $1m expense, but would seriously bolster an obvious area of weakness at the club. That is at least until other changes are made that are best left for other threads.

As you said we can also invest in non football dept expenses that can benefit the men’s team such as facilities.

Wasn't it the membership who dictated we not spend above the cap?

 

[Scodog10]

Wasn't it the membership who dictated we not spend above the cap?

Not this s**t again?

I’ll be blunt here. Do you remember that being put to a vote? It wasn’t the membership that decided it. Ed just announced at a member forum that it’s the reason why we don’t.

Is it remotely possible that the club went to it’s members and based one of the most important football decisions possible on their collective POV? It’s bonkers and I don’t know why anyone ever bought it. Hell they don’t even want to tell us the details of minor injuries and we’re supposed to believe we as members were in control of this?

So either those in charge get a clip for passing the buck on it and saying the members dictate it or they potentially get a clip for not doing it because it’s sorely needed ATM given the relative weakness of our FD.

 

[jackcass]

Not this s**t again?

I’ll be blunt here. Do you remember that being put to a vote? It wasn’t the membership that decided it. Ed just announced at a member forum that it’s the reason why we don’t.

Is it remotely possible that the club went to it’s members and based one of the most important football decisions possible on their collective POV? It’s bonkers and I don’t know why anyone ever bought it. Hell they don’t even want to tell us the details of minor injuries and we’re supposed to believe we as members were in control of this?

So either those in charge get a clip for passing the buck on it and saying the members dictate it or they potentially get a clip for not doing it because it’s sorely needed ATM given the relative weakness of our FD.

So the only way the membership can influence the decision making of the club is via a formal vote. Interesting.

 

[Scodog10]

So the only way the membership can influence the decision making of the club is via a formal vote. Interesting.

I’m sorry Jack I know you took it in a good spirit, but that was a harsh response given it was a simple question you asked. It’s borne out of the frustration/ futility of the topic.

To answer the above, yes. Unless you can refer me to another means of us as members shaping the views of the club on such an important football decision?

IMO, we absolutely shouldn’t be making that decision anyway. We should be making decisions on the tenure of the people (the board) that employ the people (the administration) to make those decisions.

 

[jackcass]

I’m sorry Jack I know you took it in a good spirit, but that was a harsh response given it was a simple question you asked. It’s borne out of the frustration/ futility of the topic.

To answer the above, yes. Unless you can refer me to another means of us as members shaping the views of the club on such an important football decision?

IMO, we absolutely shouldn’t be making that decision anyway. We should be making decisions on the tenure of the people (the board) that employ the people (the administration) to make those decisions.

All sweet, happy to take the rub of the green as it's dealt. I shouldn't have been poking the bear.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Not this s**t again?

I’ll be blunt here. Do you remember that being put to a vote? It wasn’t the membership that decided it. Ed just announced at a member forum that it’s the reason why we don’t.

Sure it hasn't been put to a vote ...

... but I have seen members at an AGM passionately vocal against spending over the cap and I can assure you that there weren't any dissenting voices.

Is it remotely possible that the club went to it’s members and based one of the most important football decisions possible on their collective POV? It’s bonkers and I don’t know why anyone ever bought it. Hell they don’t even want to tell us the details of minor injuries and we’re supposed to believe we as members were in control of this?

Unless the club could somehow convince me that spending more money would increase our prospects, then no way would I support it in a vote.

So either those in charge get a clip for passing the buck on it and saying the members dictate it or they potentially get a clip for not doing it because it’s sorely needed ATM given the relative weakness of our FD.

Of course our FD is clearly underperforming - no disputing that.

OK, let's say we spend up against the hard cap. Let's say that gets us from 13th to 7th. Then what???

We've got more fundamental issues in the FD that need to be sorted out before we start flushing members' hard earned down the toilet.

 

[Lockyer24]

Pert made the club too big. One of the big lessons of history is that smaller, more concentrated and better organised groups usually win.

Those 3 game memberships which got priority seats at Anzac Day etc were utterly shambolic.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Quicky]

Those 3 game memberships which got priority seats at Anzac Day etc were utterly shambolic.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Why?

 

[magpies42]

For those that disagree, a bit of a snippet in the article indicating that we were stretched for resources last year because of the aflw and netball introduction...

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/buckley-lets-go-and-his-message-takes-hold-20180629-p4zol0.html

 

[76woodenspooners]

For those that disagree, a bit of a snippet in the article indicating that we were stretched for resources last year because of the aflw and netball introduction...

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/buckley-lets-go-and-his-message-takes-hold-20180629-p4zol0.html

It doesn’t necessarily mean that our AFL performances suffered because of the introduction of the AFLW and SNL teams ...


... although to be fair, you’d have a hard time getting the club to admit that if it was the case.

 

[magpies42]

It doesn’t necessarily mean that our AFL performances suffered because of the introduction of the AFLW and SNL teams ...


... although to be fair, you’d have a hard time getting the club to admit that if it was the case.

It seems the review may have touched on this as a contributing factor to our decline over the period.

Either way my point still stands, aflw, netball, bball can only detract from our ability to win AFL premierships.

 

[76woodenspooners]

It seems the review may have touched on this as a contributing factor to our decline over the period.

Either way my point still stands, aflw, netball, bball can only detract from our ability to win AFL premierships.

Can you explain what the exact mechanism would be for it to detract?

Nathan Buckley would be having demands on his time to teach the SNL girls game day tactics?

The AFL lads can’t get access to the bench press because the SNL girls are hogging it?

Or ...?

Unless it’s a shared resource that’s got nothing to do with onfield (media, marketing, etc) I just can’t see it.

 

[The Plowking]

Can you explain what the exact mechanism would be for it to detract?

Nathan Buckley would be having demands on his time to teach the SNL girls game day tactics?

The AFL lads can’t get access to the bench press because the SNL girls are hogging it?

Or ...?

Unless it’s a shared resource that’s got nothing to do with onfield (media, marketing, etc) I just can’t see it.

Exactly.
Im not too sure any of it would impact them whatsoever.