Invoking a process for change at the AFC

[RedmanWasHere]

I'm gonna add the Pear to this.

Surely you South Aussies have media folk who are powerful enough to call for spills and changes at both clubs.

Seems like, from the outside looking in:

Kochie = Roo.
Hinkley = Nicks.

 

[FullyBigKPro]

So the definition of a football theatre goer?

Good on you, emotion removed.

Us Crows fans have learnt the hard way.

 

[Samcro24]

I'm gonna add the Pear to this.

Surely you South Aussies have media folk who are powerful enough to call for spills and changes at both clubs.

Seems like, from the outside looking in:

Kochie = Roo.
Hinkley = Nicks.

People who speak out get blacklisted

 

[glengowan]

Fair - although not directly with Crows, I've still been in corporate boxes/President club functions at the footy for last ~5 years. Also been to every grand final since 2019 in Melb in a corporate function

I've had my fill!

Still missed those 3 better seasons...

 

[Barneythecrab]

You would need a large amount of members to call up/email cancel their membership stating the reasons why. But I’m guessing there are many others waiting in line to get a membership.
I cancelled mine at the end of 2018. Don’t reckon I will ever get another one now.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

People who speak out get blacklisted

That's surely not right.

Surely a sports entity exists, continues and progresses through feedback and all kinds of communication means.

For a blacklisting to be enacted, it gives off the impression of a dictatorship.

Apologies for any voracious language/vocabulary but this isn't what is tolorable for me.

 

[Samcro24]

That's surely not right.

Surely a sports entity exists, continues and progresses through feedback and all kinds of communication means.

For a blacklisting to be enacted, it gives off the impression of a dictatorship.

Apologies for any voracious language/vocabulary but this isn't what is tolorable for me.

People in the media are generally also “ambassadors” for either club.

So when a Rowie has a go at the crows, or tredrea at port, they get pulled aside and reeducated. Then suddenly change their tune.

If Rowe has a crack at port, or tredrea the crows, well who cares, that’s the enemy, they’re just trolling.

It’s pretty much how it works.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

What this thread, other threads and Twitter discussions have shown me is that it's not the players who leave the members disillusioned, disenfranchised, detached and questioning why fans reneg on membership continuities.
It's the decisions of the higher ups.

Those who should have the club's constituents at the forefront of their minds instead shutting off whatever methods being a possible help and disabling mechanisms that would, otherwise, enable the progression of a club to be fluid and worthwhile.

Those deep in the bowels at the club.
Those frustratingly entrenched in the club.

Reads like Essendon's board issues from a few years ago dating back however long.

Perhaps also, there is a modicum of stubbornness at both, the Crows and Pear without any kind of malleability.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

People in the media are generally also “ambassadors” for either club.

So when a Rowie has a go at the crows, or tredrea at port, they get pulled aside and reeducated. Then suddenly change their tune.

If Rowe has a crack at port, or tredrea the crows, well who cares, that’s the enemy, they’re just trolling.

It’s pretty much how it works.

That's incredibly disappointing.

Bolded tells me maturity isn't a strong suit nor is it worth pursuing and would rather see repercussions limited so as to not disrupt whatever both clubs have as their status quo.

So maintaining the status quo seems a better option than identifying what is wrong at the club and finding out what's happening at the club and seizing upon errors, values, mantras and all of the fun stuff which would hopefully lead to a skerrick of accountability would not be in the boys clubs' best interests.

Sorry for spewing these long thoughts but it got me thinking.

 

[hidden]

I am not sure how many on here have ever been on a Board or have held CEO/Secretary positions in sporting clubs. I am not happy where the club is currently but we have to be careful where to aim the arrows. The CEOs etc have to report to and be answerable to the Board. They can make suggestions/want things to happen. However, the final say rests with the Board members (and even amongst them there will be different opinions). Once a Board makes a majority decision, everyone has to sing from that song sheet (even if through gritted teeth). What none of us know at this point in time is what each person's views really are. Yes, change is definitely needed. How many times have we heard things like "The board fully supports the coach (Rutten, Ratten, Noble, Sando etc.) and then weeks later it is bye bye. Any responsible organisation would make sure their cards are close to their chests and only announce what they are doing once they have all their ducks in a row. I am hoping our club is actually doing this at the moment (but none of us can be certain). As I said above, changes are required - whether that be the Chairperson (who has the most influence but not controlling influence), or a number of others doesn't matter. We on here believe things are bad here, but remember Essendon and Carlton's board problems? All I ask is that we be rational in what we say. By the way, I have held senior positions and been on Boards so have an understanding of how hard it can be at times for those at those levels.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

That's surely not right.

Surely a sports entity exists, continues and progresses through feedback and all kinds of communication means.

For a blacklisting to be enacted, it gives off the impression of a dictatorship.

Apologies for any voracious language/vocabulary but this isn't what is tolorable for me.

Port's reaction to being criticised heavily one weekend by 5AA was to ban all players and staff from that station for the next week.

 

[Pugsley]

He was approached about being chairman. He said no

He probably told them they were pathetic.

 

[Smoooothy]

Thing is, they arent actually corporate big wigs. They are Adelaide minnows. A couple of career public servants / politicians, a newsreader, and Roo....Compare the Adelaide board to say Sydney:

Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club. All the latest news, videos, results and information.

Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club

www.sydneyswans.com.au

Sydney also has 2 Football Directors...That to me makes so much more sense than relying on Roo...

This is a pretty good point. On a national scale, hardly anyone would know any of our directors at board level

It's the pissant Adelaide town thing again. It never seems to leave

 

[Apsaalooke]

This is a pretty good point. On a national scale, hardly anyone would know any of our directors at board level

It's the pissant Adelaide town thing again. It never seems to leave

I don't really care how famous the board members are or aren't, just how competent they are for the job, and whether they are willing to speak up when they don't agree with board groupthink.

We aren't privy to the inner workings of course apart from the odd snippet, but results would suggest the current board just isn't up to it.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm not sure if this is a regular point of discussion for you guys on here but our board structure is woven into basically every thread over on the Port board.

I think the main difference between the two clubs in this area is that you have a specific constitutional clause that change can occur in 2028, although it doesn't necessarily mean the members get the club. We don't have such a clause, but obviously with enough public pressure, change can be made.

It's a bit of an esoteric topic for the average football fan, but IMO is exactly why both clubs are currently in the worst periods in their history. We're in a position where most of our board and key decision makers have been in their roles for a decade or more, which is ridiculous at a well run club, let alone Koch's Port Adelaide. From the OP of this thread I can see you're feeling fairly similar.

I think there are two ways we can both get what we want.

1) Your board do the right thing and hand the club to the members. You then roast us mercilessly about how you're a real football club and we're a franchise, and the public pressure buildup sees us make a similar change.

2) Your board don't do the right thing immediately, but club greats from both clubs band together to formally campaign for this change for both clubs.

I think it's the kind of thing that most supporters don't know about but a firm, professional campaign from club greats to bring the supporters on board makes it basically a slam dunk. It's egregious that the members don't control the clubs when most AFL clubs are member controlled and when people know that and have a campaign to get behind, they'll mobilise.

2028 could be a crucial year for the future of both of our clubs and we can't just let it pass by without getting control.

 

[Mostyn]

Is there evidence as to whether a sporting club is more successful if the board is made up by people who are member elected?

 

[Shifty Crow]

I don't really care how famous the board members are or aren't, just how competent they are for the job, and whether they are willing to speak up when they don't agree with board groupthink.

We aren't privy to the inner workings of course apart from the odd snippet, but results would suggest the current board just isn't up to it.

By results you purely mean win loss?

Other metrics would include revenue, memberships, sponsorships, brand recognition and overall financial sustainability

There are also other matters in steering the process and decision making of our new football HQ

With this in mind and all due respect to our membership base, but we can’t expect a vast majority of our members to have the business and commercial acumen and experience to vote in an entire board.

A board needs to have diverse experiences to deal with both the football and commercial side of leading a club - having member representation at a board level is important however putting responsibility on members to elect an entire board - that’s disastrous

Nail the Chairperson and CEO roles - the rest will flow


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[WeeBlake]

Is there evidence as to whether a sporting club is more successful if the board is made up by people who are member elected?

Opinion - Non-Crows AFL 11

Crouch delisted What tha? Is this a Froggy piss take?

www.bigfooty.com

 

[El_Scorcho]

Is there evidence as to whether a sporting club is more successful if the board is made up by people who are member elected?

By results you purely mean win loss?

Other metrics would include revenue, memberships, sponsorships, brand recognition and overall financial sustainability

There are also other matters in steering the process and decision making of our new football HQ

With this in mind and all due respect to our membership base, but we can’t expect a vast majority of our members to have the business and commercial acumen and experience to vote in an entire board.

A board needs to have diverse experiences to deal with both the football and commercial side of leading a club - having member representation at a board level is important however putting responsibility on members to elect an entire board - that’s disastrous

Nail the Chairperson and CEO roles - the rest will flow


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

16 of the last 18 premiers have come from clubs who fully elect their board.

I think both Port and Adelaide supporters would agree that financial stability is nice, what's nicer is winning flags. If you're not doing that or moving towards it, what's the point?

When the question of moving to a member elected board has been put to David Koch and the Port Adelaide board of directors, they've said something along the lines of "we don't want a board full of former players". Which ultimately is showing a complete lack of respect for the members, the kind of lack of respect that arises when the members can't vote you out, and that lack of respect for the members flows through everything Koch and the club do.

Based on what I heard from Crows supporters, I suspect a lot of you feel fairly similarly.

The Victorian clubs all fully member elect their board, as do Brisbane. They don't have boards full of former players with no business acumen. They for the most part have high performing and diverse boards.

The result of the status quo is that we have a buffoonish former morning TV presenter as our chairman and you have perhaps the worst example of an Adelaide establishment boys club member. Are these ideal leaders for a football club who wants to win premierships? Our board are incredibly stale and in desperate need for a cleanout, but we have no mechanism to do that as supporters.

What makes these people perform is the risk of being voted out next election. Without that threat, you get complacency and the kind of stagnation that both of our clubs have seen.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Is there evidence as to whether a sporting club is more successful if the board is made up by people who are member elected?

1 of the last 19 flags has been won by an AFL controlled club.

The Facts About Member Control - The Black And White Noise

David Koch likes to say that he “deals in facts” and “relies on data”. Well, when it comes to AFL controlled clubs, the data is in, and it is irrefutable. Only one of the clubs that The Governance Institute of Australia defined as “AFL owned clubs” has won a premiership since 2005. With Sydney...

theblackandwhitenoise.com

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Punchy Bassett]

1 of the last 19 flags has been won by an AFL controlled club.

The Facts About Member Control - The Black And White Noise

David Koch likes to say that he “deals in facts” and “relies on data”. Well, when it comes to AFL controlled clubs, the data is in, and it is irrefutable. Only one of the clubs that The Governance Institute of Australia defined as “AFL owned clubs” has won a premiership since 2005. With Sydney...

theblackandwhitenoise.com

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

It's the one topic our fan bases should work together on. I've been calling for it for years now.

 

[jenny61_99]

Imagine if members actually controlled the club.

On SM-S901E using BigFooty.com mobile app

We’d be even more of a basket case than we are now. Have you even read this board?

 

[1970crow]

Is there evidence as to whether a sporting club is more successful if the board is made up by people who are member elected?

Pretty sure there was an article recently that showed that member owned clubs have one more than the statistical share of flags over the last bunch of years. Not saying that there's a heap of evidence, but there's not really anything to suggest that turning into a member controlled club is anything to be afraid of.

 

[1970crow]

16 of the last 18 premiers have come from clubs who fully elect their board.

I think both Port and Adelaide supporters would agree that financial stability is nice, what's nicer is winning flags. If you're not doing that or moving towards it, what's the point?

When the question of moving to a member elected board has been put to David Koch and the Port Adelaide board of directors, they've said something along the lines of "we don't want a board full of former players". Which ultimately is showing a complete lack of respect for the members, the kind of lack of respect that arises when the members can't vote you out, and that lack of respect for the members flows through everything Koch and the club do.

Based on what I heard from Crows supporters, I suspect a lot of you feel fairly similarly.

The Victorian clubs all fully member elect their board, as do Brisbane. They don't have boards full of former players with no business acumen. They for the most part have high performing and diverse boards.

The result of the status quo is that we have a buffoonish former morning TV presenter as our chairman and you have perhaps the worst example of an Adelaide establishment boys club member. Are these ideal leaders for a football club who wants to win premierships? Our board are incredibly stale and in desperate need for a cleanout, but we have no mechanism to do that as supporters.

What makes these people perform is the risk of being voted out next election. Without that threat, you get complacency and the kind of stagnation that both of our clubs have seen.

Attempted spills are fairly rare among the member owned clubs, so it's not like we'd be expecting a heap of volatility at board level. I'm fairly sure that there was one at Richmond in the year or so preceding their 2017 premiership. I guess that could be argued both ways, did the attempted spill put the incumbents on notice or does it show that they could have instead blown 3 flags over 4 years had the flag winning board been replaced.

 

[maxlilly]

Is there evidence as to whether a sporting club is more successful if the board is made up by people who are member elected?

Or you could look at it this way

Is there evidence as to whether a country is more successful if the government is made up by people who are elected ?

I think if you are closely associated with a group, people like the democratic way of things being run and footy clubs are no different.