Independence, only days away

[Big Gazoongas]

Well looks like this is very close, and finally we will get a say in the club. We dont know what that looks like yet but this is a step in the right direction.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...-into-the-future/story-e6freck3-1226595917369

 

[Smoooothy]

this is great

 

[Dirty Bird]

CROWS chairman Rob Chapman has delivered the vision of a new Adelaide Football Club expecting independence from the SANFL this week.


The club's AFL licence is ready to be signed away by the SANFL club presidents, 22 years after the Crows were formed as SA's first entry to the expanding VFL.

Rucci lost me there. It was the AFL by that stage. Surely he could just for once get his articles factually correct

 

[TheMightyCrow]

This is GREAT for the club, Independence is something we've been needing for a very long time.

 

[rayven]

Rucci lost me there. It was the AFL by that stage. Surely he could just for once get his articles factually correct

He actually did here...

 

[Dirty Bird]

He actually did here...

Brush up on your history please.
It may have only been a few months, but it was the AFL, not the VFL as Rucci points out.

 

[rayven]

How could you call it the Australian football league with no team in sa or tas and only 1 WA?

 

[Southerntakeover]

The detail is important here.

'Both club boards from November would be independently appointed by members or the current directors rather than need to be ratified by the SA Football Commission.'

Chapman seems to be talking the right game though. "Our members deserve that right," Chapman said last night. "With independence, we need a new constitution to determine how that right looks."

Turn the club over to the members and I'll be a happy man.

 

[Dirty Bird]

How could you call it the Australian football league with no team in sa or tas and only 1 WA?

I don't know, but Ross Oakley managed it.

 

[Southerntakeover]

How could you call it the Australian football league with no team in sa or tas and only 1 WA?

The name of the league is not a matter of opinion. It doesnt matter what you think it should have been called.

 

[rayven]

The name of the league is not a matter of opinion. .

i don't know about that...What if Jesus was actually called Adolf?.

 

[Wright Away]

Dont sniff ether kids ^^^^^^

 

[cmndstab]

I really have no idea what this will mean in practice, but it seems like it must be a good thing to have greater control over your own destiny.

Can someone educate me as to the practical benefits of this change?

 

[Cap]

so maybe it is weeks away?

 

[Cap]

When the hell is this happening and what is the hold up?

 

[Crowked]

Maybe its taking so long because they're actually doing this with written documentation and they've never done that before. First time always takes longer.

 

[macca23]

The detail is important here.

'Both club boards from November would be independently appointed by members or the current directors rather than need to be ratified by the SA Football Commission.'

Chapman seems to be talking the right game though. "Our members deserve that right," Chapman said last night. "With independence, we need a new constitution to determine how that right looks."

Turn the club over to the members and I'll be a happy man.

Between now and the 31st October, the date that clubs cut off their books which is why November 1 is the start of freedom from the financial blood-sucking leeches at the SANFL, a new Constitution will be prepared which will reflect how the club is to be structured, how it carries on business, Office bearers, Directors, etc etc.

My understanding of the thinking as it stood when I last got an update on this was that the current 9 directors on the board would be reduced to 7 with the 2 directors appointed by the SANFL dropping out. These remaining 7 directors would serve out their term, and at the time of re-election 2 of the director positions would become member elected.

Whether that still remains the case we'll see, but I'd be very surprised if all 7 positions became member elected.

 

[1970crow]

Between now and the 31st October, the date that clubs cut off their books which is why November 1 is the start of freedom from the financial blood-sucking leeches at the SANFL, a new Constitution will be prepared which will reflect how the club is to be structured, how it carries on business, Office bearers, Directors, etc etc.

My understanding of the thinking as it stood when I last got an update on this was that the current 9 directors on the board would be reduced to 7 with the 2 directors appointed by the SANFL dropping out. These remaining 7 directors would serve out their term, and at the time of re-election 2 of the director positions would become member elected.

Whether that still remains the case we'll see, but I'd be very surprised if all 7 positions became member elected.

Although a 2 member elected board appears to be an improvement, the method of appointment of the other 5 positions is what will be most important. I would assume 2 year terms with 3 retiring one year and 2 the next. Will the afl declare the positions open and select from a list of applicants which may or may not include the retiring members. I would like to think that the continuing board members themselves will have no involvement in the process.

 

[Geoffa32]

Don't they want to hand both licences over at the same time.

Isn't there an issue in how to hand the $15,000,000.00 worth of SANFL debt attributed to propping up Port Power in regards to how the SANFL's banks see this debt and losing the asset of the AFL licence on the Balance Sheet. The ownership/management of this debt still being debated?

 

[Marty64]

Don't they want to hand both licences over at the same time.

Isn't there an issue in how to hand the $15,000,000.00 worth of SANFL debt attributed to propping up Port Power in regards to how the SANFL's banks see this debt and losing the asset of the AFL licence on the Balance Sheet. The ownership/management of this debt still being debated?

Debt may be a problem.
AFL choosing our board except for two members who they can veto anyway.
Paying the SANFL for 15 years to allow us to be controled by the AFL.
SANFL loses the dividend payment we currently make.
If/when it happens not much will change for 15 years.

 

[Nelso]

When the hell is this happening and what is the hold up?

I was talking to a few people at the Port AGM on Friday night.

Both the Crows and Port have finished what they needed to do. The hold up now is the haggling between the AFL and SANFL which has been going for the last few months. Could still be a while before it is all wrapped up.

 

[macca23]

Although a 2 member elected board appears to be an improvement, the method of appointment of the other 5 positions is what will be most important. I would assume 2 year terms with 3 retiring one year and 2 the next. Will the afl declare the positions open and select from a list of applicants which may or may not include the retiring members. I would like to think that the continuing board members themselves will have no involvement in the process.

As I've told you several times Matty, although you were probably 9/10th's pissed each and every time, on the many boards that I've been on, the continuing Board members have always considered the applications for the vacant positions and chosen the replacements on the basis of their suitabilty and skill set.

The SA Harness Racing club is an example of an Association that allows its members to elect all Board members and there have been some shocking choices made on the "he's a good bloke" basis. Overall that Board has completely buggered its industry by some of the worst decisions that could possibly be made, having been made by people who were totally inept and incapable of making the appropriate business decisions when necessary. Because its method of election doesn't take into account the compatibility of board members, there also has been massive in-fighting at Board level over the years as well.

Because of my own experiences, I would be totally opposed to a board fully elected by members.

 

[macca23]

I was talking to a few people at the Port AGM on Friday night.

Both the Crows and Port have finished what they needed to do. The hold up now is the haggling between the AFL and SANFL which has been going for the last few months. Could still be a while before it is all wrapped up.

Rightly or wrongly Nelso, my understanding is that the point of contention is who has to front with the cash to bail Port out for last year and this year.

Is that what you've heard?

 

[Nelso]

Rightly or wrongly Nelso, my understanding is that the point of contention is who has to front with the cash to bail Port out for last year and this year.

Is that what you've heard?

I have not heard what the AFL and SANFL are arguing about? But it could possibly be one of the reasons.

Whatever Port and the Crows had to do was finished before XMAS so who knows what has happened over the last 5-6 weeks.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Well this is good

As i would understand it'll free up some of the constrictions we have been operating under:

1. We can have now have gambling venues

2. If we want we could change our jumper to the state jumper .......guess nothing stopping this other than public opinion

3. Once the license is paid off ......annual fee will instead go into our coffers

4. The member voting rights, not sure we'll see much from that