Its Time For Trigg To Resign.

[rocket18]

Trigg did NOT want Rendell gone. You can faff about as much as you like but you are just plain wrong on that.

Ha ha, this old chestnut again.

If the CEO didn't want him gone why is he gone?? Your scenario paints him as very week willed.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm not sure what to think about the Adelaide oval agreement. Aren't Port bound by the same agreement? And isn't the consensus that their CEO is doing a great job?

Is the current lack of profit just a short term thing, ie while first-run expenses are incurred during the changeover to Adelaide oval? Or are they projected to continue unless something changes?

Everyone makes some mistakes... But when you continually make big mistakes & blatantly lie... That's another thing entirely!

 

[cmndstab]

Please stop being the voice of reason Stabby. You are spoiling everyone elses fun!

Besides, YOU HAVE WORK TO DO!!!!!!!!!

You know what I mean!

I literally posted that while waiting for the video to upload mate

Kane - fair enough, but are we actually sure this is a "bad deal" yet? I haven't heard anything from the clubs about whether they expect the current profit margin will improve. I know the SMA mentioned that there were going to be initial set-up costs that would decrease significantly over time, but I don't know the specifics.

 

[fabs33]

Aes sedai.

I had to google that one.

 

[Better ahead]

Lasted 3 weeks before he opened his mouth.

So, what did he say then?

 

[Sanders]

You make it sound like a) he was sacked the first time he did it. He wasn't. And b) what he said should have no consequences. I never thought he deserved to be sacked, but as I said at the time, we were given no choice.

Have you got the same dealer as Amer?

 

[1970crow]

I'm not sure what to think about the Adelaide oval agreement. Aren't Port bound by the same agreement? And isn't the consensus that their CEO is doing a great job?

Is the current lack of profit just a short term thing, ie while first-run expenses are incurred during the changeover to Adelaide oval? Or are they projected to continue unless something changes?

Port were stuffed either way. They had nothing to lose by pushing for ao. We publicly stated that we wouldnt be going unless we were better off. If it turns out that way, then fair enough, but the early signs aren't good.

 

[skoobydoo]

Port were stuffed either way. They had nothing to lose by pushing for ao. We publicly stated that we wouldnt be going unless we were better off. If it turns out that way, then fair enough, but the early signs aren't good.

The oval redevelopment was generated from Port members who held high political office here in SA getting into bed with Vlad (or vice versa). It was done to save Port....to save Port. The return of football to AO also served to bail out SACA, and it is no coincidence that the McLachlan family is cosily represented in SACA and the AFL. The Crows had to jump on the last bus from West Lakes to Adelaide Oval. We may have been a player in the saga but we came in off the bench later in the game. The AFL love PA because of their cap-in-hand($) co-operative behaviour, whereas, both historically and recently, the AFC seems to be considered as untrustworthy and disobliging.

 

[*PAF]

Ok.

 

[amer]

Ha ha, this old chestnut again.

If the CEO didn't want him gone why is he gone?? Your scenario paints him as very week willed.

Because the directive came from someone other than the CEO?

Frame shit on no basis, then provide no evidence and you have a fact; Bigfooty "deep thought"

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Because the directive came from someone other than the CEO?

I'm missing something. If the CEO doesn't make the final decision, why do we (and every other organization across the world) hire someone for that role?

Even HR answers to a CEO - they make a suggestion and then the CEO will sign off on it. It's common practice.

Frame shit on no basis, then provide no evidence and you have a fact; Bigfooty "deep thought"

It's called taking knowledge and experience from other industries and business area and then implementing them into the world of AFL football. Once you remove the core product from the AFL world, the business side of the industry is no different to any other business.

So you can post your critic and cynical little posts about how myopic the Big Footy world is and everyone just follows each other but until you actually look at the question you are asking - you're just being difficult as you have zero basis for this.

 

[mattymac]

Question:

With all this equalisation shiz, since the taxes to be paid by the rich to the poor will be based on clubs' profits from last year, and since we made a loss, will we get away with paying no tax and perhaps even receive money from the profitable clubs like Collingwood and West Coast? Would be pretty funny.

 

[*PAF]

KT has been brilliant so far. Absolutely no doubt about that as IMO he has been the one that realigned the ducks on the wall, however he will be judged on the AO deal. That is far more important than anything else he may have done so far.
Sponsors come and go, teams go through highs and lows but the AO deal will either make or break our teams and Port in particular.
For all if you lot that want to see Port disappear, pray for a shit AO deal. The fact that the Crows will never end up being a proper club with a bad deal wouldn't worry those people, and unfortunately there are a few around.

 

[6BTS]

I'm not sure what to think about the Adelaide oval agreement. Aren't Port bound by the same agreement? And isn't the consensus that their CEO is doing a great job?

Is the current lack of profit just a short term thing, ie while first-run expenses are incurred during the changeover to Adelaide oval? Or are they projected to continue unless something changes?

I heard on Footy Classified, or somewhere else, can't remember, that the AFL were going to conduct a review into the Adelaide Oval costs and that the review would fix up any problems with costing and ensure profits are made by both clubs that were in the original ball park of what was expected.

I know this is a bit vague, but when I heard it, I was under the impression that it was a certainty to fix whatever problems there were as far as cost blowouts were concerned and that the AFL had some sort of power of fixing those cost blowouts. All this is to be done by the start of next season at the latest. They seemed pretty certain that this was definitely going to happen and that it was definitely going to fix the cost problems.

So on that bases, I guess eventually it will be the right move and right deal. I'll wait and see with baited breath, but like I said, they seemed very sure the costing issue would be all fixed up soon.

 

[6BTS]

Question:

With all this equalisation shiz, since the taxes to be paid by the rich to the poor will be based on clubs' profits from last year, and since we made a loss, will we get away with paying no tax and perhaps even receive money from the profitable clubs like Collingwood and West Coast? Would be pretty funny.

It's possible, it wouldn't be the first time they've introduced something new only to realize at a latter point that they could have done it a lot better. They all were bemoaning GWS stealing young star players with their 1 out of contract player from each club deal. The AFL and clubs responded by saying the reason for this deal was for GWS to get their hands on experienced players so they could be competitive earlier rather then later. Based on what the GWS did do, if they had their time again, they wouldn't let them have access to players under a certain age.

So yeah, there's a history of oversight and therefore a possibility that we could be receiving money based on their lack of scrutinizing. Imagine if it happened and we got money from Collingwood. Eddie would lose his sh*t and go on a verbal rampage.

 

[*PAF]

I heard on Footy Classified, or somewhere else, can't remember, that the AFL were going to conduct a review into the Adelaide Oval costs and that the review would fix up any problems with costing and ensure profits are made by both clubs that were in the original ball park of what was expected.
...

Hopefully the profits will be much higher than "in the original ballpark" as we are both tracking around 10k better than originally planned.
If they do end up around "the original ballpark", then hopefully the new agreement will also ensure around the "original ballpark" if the crowd figures drop to 10k below planned.

Profits during good times need to cover losses during bad times, and that was one of the biggest problems with the original footy park agreement where the only thing good times meant was a bigger profit for the SANFL.

 

[Niximus]

The fact that the Crows will never end up being a proper club with a bad deal wouldn't worry those people, and unfortunately there are a few around.

Keep this shit on your own board, or bugger off.

 

[6BTS]

So in all seriousness, given there has been media speculation of linking him to other clubs (St Kilda, Brisbane), although probably untrue, does anyone else feel like this might be Trigg's last season at the club? He's been CEO for a while now and had to endure a major scandal, all calls for sackings and resignations aside, it seems like the time is right from an AFC perspective at least. I can't see what he has to offer staying on for another season short of the AFC's unwillingness to find a replacement or inability to find a replacement they're happy with.

Trigg might chose to step down himself, but I would expect that would be in conjunction with the board. I'm getting a blurry read on it all, but apart from everyone from the board to Trigg himself wanting to stay for as long as possible, I can't see any reason for him to go on in 2015, it doesn't make a lot of sense from the AFC's side of things.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Keep this shit on your own board, or bugger off.

Reading it in context, I don't think he meant it was an insult.

Basically, I got the impression *PAF was saying - unless we get a favourable deal from the SMA - we will never evolve as a club and we will continue to just be that 'cash cow' for SMA.

Without that favourable deal, port Adelaide will disappear into insolvency and we will continue to be that cash machine for the SMA, much as we have been fir the SANFL over the past 23 years.

To become a 'real club' with an academy, reserves side and a thriving AFL side - we need a steady cash flow and the easiest way to achieve this would be with a very heathy AO deal.

If *PAF didn't mean it like that and used it as an insult, he can piss off. However, I suspect he didn't.

 

[*PAF]

Keep this shit on your own board, or bugger off.

Tell me what part of It is wrong and why?
The AFC has only just got it's own licence. Start losing money year after year because of a bad deal and you will lose that. Also remember that prior to having two teams AFC members had no vote.
Go back to being the only team in town or one where the SANFL runs two teams and you will lose your voting rights.
No voting power to members means customers only ==> not a club.

EDIT: IMO unfortunately there are people around that would like the last option where the AFL clubs are not clubs but teams fully owned and run by the SANFL where people who "know best" do as they please.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

So in all seriousness, given there has been media speculation of linking him to other clubs (St Kilda, Brisbane), although probably untrue, does anyone else feel like this might be Trigg's last season at the club? He's been CEO for a while now and had to endure a major scandal, all calls for sackings and resignations aside, it seems like the time is right from an AFC perspective at least. I can't see what he has to offer staying on for another season short of the AFC's unwillingness to find a replacement or inability to find a replacement they're happy with.

Trigg might chose to step down himself, but I would expect that would be in conjunction with the board. I'm getting a blurry read on it all, but apart from everyone from the board to Trigg himself wanting to stay for as long as possible, I can't see any reason for him to go on in 2015, it doesn't make a lot of sense from the AFC's side of things.

I strongly suspect this will be his final season as well and he will announce his departure at the AGM or the Club champion night.

If we miss the finals - I feel this will be like 95% to occurs. If we go deep, like a preliminary final, he may go one more year to get that flag he craves.

 

[*PAF]

Reading it in context, I don't think he meant it as an insult.

Basically, I got the impression *PAF was saying - unless we get a favourable deal from the SMA - we will never evolve as a club and we will continue to just be that 'cash cow' for SMA.

Without that favourable deal, port Adelaide will disappear into insolvency and we will continue to be that cash machine for the SMA, much as we have been fir the SANFL over the past 23 years.

To become a 'real club' with an academy, reserves side and a thriving AFL side - we need a steady cash flow and the easiest way to achieve this would be with a very heathy AO deal.

If *PAF didn't mean it like that and used it as an insult, he can piss off. However, I suspect he didn't.

There was no need for the last part Alex as you know better. If the context was missed all one has to do is ask.

EDIT: And yeah you are right. What's better than one cash cow? 2 cash cows.
Footy moved from AO because cricket was using it as a cash cow.
Now there are 3 players looking at doing the same from the AFL.

 

[Deaneus!]

I know it's been a while, I just thought I should mention it, and **** John Reid for negotiating the Tippett deal in the first place!

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Tell me what part of It is wrong and why?
The AFC has only just got it's own licence. Start losing money year after year because of a bad deal and you will lose that. Also remember that prior to having two teams AFC members had no vote.
Go back to being the only team in town or one where the SANFL runs two teams and you will lose your voting rights.
No voting power to members means customers only ==> not a club.

We don't have voting rights now and they are not part of any future plans.

We can still gain voting rights with one club, as long as the club changes the constitution to allow it to happen.

Not having the right to vote, doesn't mean we are not a real club. It would be nice but we have been a 'real club' since 1991. Even if you don't agree.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

There was no need for the last part Alex as you know better. If the context was missed all one has to do is ask.

Possibly not and apologise but the rest of the post made my opinion on the subject know.