Official Club Stuff Port Adelaide FC AGM 2023

[Mutha F]

 

[agmsy]

There was some scepticism, especially re Collingwood, but the Vic clubs are more likely to be 8 elected + 2 appointed than our 2+8 model.

I said we should be aiming for a 5+5 situation again.

Would we be targeting 5+5 with a view to becoming 8+2, or do you think 5+5 is enough?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Would we be targeting 5+5 with a view to becoming 8+2, or do you think 5+5 is enough?

I would be happy with 6+4 with the right president who stands for election and it means 2 spots are up for a vote every year given people get 3 year terms.

5+5 was used by me as an example of how it worked when we started and won a flag and were doing ok off field despite the SANFL screwing us and no AO.

 

[TeeKray]

What incentive do those running the club have to change the status quo re elected and non elected board members?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What incentive do those running the club have to change the status quo re elected and non elected board members?

None if they are ego driven and worried about their own position, plenty if they believe in change and real democracy and want to be remembered as the change agents. Then there is the why did you let the crows get an AFL departure date in their constitution argument, they have to address.

 

[Schulzenfest]

None if they are ego driven and worried about their own position, plenty if they believe in change and real democracy and want to be remembered as the change agents.

So none then.

 

[Interstater]

...

I then asked why don't we have a 31st October 2028 - the AFL exits the club clause - like the crows have in their constitution? Koch and Richo, and the board members I spoke to afterwards, were oblivious to this, didn't know about it. I had printed out 4 pages of the crows constitution, but didn't have it handy to read from, had it mixed up with other stuff, but I asked why haven't we got this clause in our Constitution, and will the club move to this model?? Koch didn't give an answer.

I said we used to be 5 member elected + 5 appointed to the board when we were under SANFL's control, then it became 4+4 + the board were allowed to appoint 2 "experts." I said we should be aiming for a 5+5 situation again.

At the end of the meeting I gave Koch the 4 pages from the crows constitution and pointed out where it said it 31-10-28 is independence day for them and he took it with him.

This is step 1 of changing things. I will follow up with a letter to Richo and our legal eagle on the board Jamie Restas and push that we have to transition to the same situation as the crows. That we change our constitution to include the 31-10-28 independence day clause. The next step is to go to 3 member elected directors, and get to 5 by 31-10-28. We are never going to get to all 10 being member elected directors. Koch and Richo made that clear.

So if anyone of you are lapsed members get a call from the membership department about you joining up again, and you don't want to, tell them you will renew when the 31-10-28 independence day clause is inserted into our constitution, and well as when Ken goes.

...

Thank you, you've just given me more hope than I've had since 2004.

I'm gobsmacked they were not aware of the crows situation.
I can't see them being content with the crows doing this while we don't.

Also thank you PowerLil.

 

[glitch01]

Pretty scary when someone who posts on an internet footy forum seems to have a better grasp of everything than the guy”running” what used to be our Club.
Thanks REH for your ongoing insights and for at least being one of the “white noise” that is making our case to the Club.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Doctor Feel]

Long and the short of it, we're stuck with Koch, Ken and Richo until we physically burn the place down.

 

[GremioPower]

He said the club was also working towards being carbon neutral.

It makes sense. After all, 20% of a member’s body is carbon. Moreover, 20% of a Premiership player is also carbon.

We are doing our part!

 

[GremioPower]

Mate … “nothing to say that the next one won’t be worse” … kindly desist with this sort of unhelpful glob shyte.

It is not possible that ‘the next one’ will be worse.

And if it is… So what? We change the Chair again!

 

[El_Scorcho]

What incentive do those running the club have to change the status quo re elected and non elected board members?

We yell at them every year about it and get it in the media and they do it on the way out. That's about the best we can hope for.

Another trigger, again if we can get the media to care, is the Crows members getting control of their board. We really need Crows supporters to go hard at us over that. A "we're a real football club and Port aren't" sort of trolling narrative to shame our board into acting. Short term pain for long term gain. We arguably need to fuel that from here, go on their bigfooty board and give them what they need to roast us mercilessly.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Looking forward to being blocked as I'm just whitenoise

Yeah instead of comparing the last 11 years of their vanilla regime to 2012, how about they at least compare it to our first 11 years in the competition when we started with nothing and achieved 3 minor premierships, 2 grand finals, 1 premiership and the best W-L record in the league over that period.

The "the AFL is a tough competition and you can't expect to dominate it like we did in the SANFL" argument is an excuse to hide their mediocrity behind. We've already shown we can coming from the low base of a shitty second-tier suburban league that was dying after being eviscerated by the Crows joining the AFL.

 

[philthy05]

The AGM format was different this year, Q&A in the middle not the end. Therefore I knew it was going to be somewhat limited with the time of asking questions.

Koch started off going thru our financials and it turned me to sleep. The usual stuff about net assets are strong, despite inserting an intangible asset of the licence of $6.5m, 3 years ago, but back dated prior year comparison, making profits last 2 years, revenues recovered well post covid then he bloviated about debt. He tried to say that our debt was good debt, not bad debt because we are building assets.

FFS between 2008 and 2014 we made accumulated losses of $6m, those loses were after SANFL and AFL grants, that helped to keep us afloat. That was financed by debt as we had no cash or assets to sell. Add a bit of debt between 2015-19, a bit more for The Precinct upgrade and short term loan from the AFL to get thru covid, which has been paid back.

Debt is now $6m and they hope to pay off another $2m to get it to $4m at end of 2023. At that level, then we can go borrow monies to buy income producing assets.

The 3 pages of financial statements provided at the meeting are useless to try and understand the clubs true position especially with government grants and write offs of a large chunk of assets that have been demolished. You need the full accounts that we only can get from ASIC, but the P&L position was;

Normal profits inc depreciation.. $3,463,552
other items
Capital grants for redevelopment $3,554,008 .... $7,017,560 was reported in December as statutory profit. Not correct.
Revaluation gain on memorabilia $146,065
Losses on knocking down facility ($4,972,746) ie impairment of previously revalued building assets on eastern side of Alberton Oval

Total Statutory Profit .............. $2,190,879

This is why net assets only increased by $2.190m to and not $7.017m "statutory profit"

Carbon neutrality - is puff stuff.

Richo said our membership is at 90% of budget for end of January - that means about 5k behind where they thought they would be.

Admitted membership has stagnated at 60,000 mark. Said we have 50,000 new supporters a lot of that that driven by AFLW. I assume that comes from those annual Roy Morgan surveys.

Someone asked about getting rid of the "bad" pokies and Richo said the club will sell them some point down the track. I was tempted to says pokies have made the Hawks a net $40m after exiting their pokie venues in mid 2022, and after paying off the $8m loan balance that was $12m 10 years ago and they made $2m-$4m a year profit from their pokie venues over that decade. So the Hawks have benefited by $60m - $80m from their pokies over a decade.

I put several points and questions into one lot, because I knew I wouldn't get answers to each one. PowerLil had asked a question about becoming a fully member controlled club again and Richo and Koch talked about no club having 100% member elected directors. There was some scepticism, especially re Collingwood, but the Vic clubs are more likely to be 8 elected + 2 appointed than our 2+8 model.

So I changed my questions as a result and focused it onto the whole governance structure. I first said thanks for some of the improvements over the last few years at Alberton and that my criticism is driven about catching Greatness, not just bloody chasing it.

I said I had spoken to and meet Darren Cahill last year and am still in communication with him as I am introducing him to a software company near Indian Wells - where the 5th tennis major is played in March in Southern California. I said Darren told me he had recommended 3 people to Koch to replace him and that his first choice was Warren.

I asked why isn't their an experienced elite footballer on the club board? I asked do you expect a marketing company to not have an experienced marketing person on their board or a motor vehicle manufacturer not have a motor industry person on their board? Got a few claps for this point. I asked why did it take 4 months to basically tell Warren that they wanted him to go thru the member elected route? I asked why don't we have a member election every year, so that at least 3 people are elected onto the board?

I got the answers you saw in the Tsier. That it had to go thru a governance committee. They want ex players to be on club committees first, ie do a whole lot of unpaid work before they get on the board. Koch contrasted Tredders to Dom who has been on the footy committee for 5+ years and said how can I pick one ex captain over another, so his default position is, let the members choose.

He said his view might be wrong, but that is the way he has chosen to handle things.

Koch made it clear that he chooses. He has the real power. Despite what he said about a governance committee, he has the final say.

I then asked why don't we have a 31st October 2028 - the AFL exits the club clause - like the crows have in their constitution? Koch and Richo, and the board members I spoke to afterwards, were oblivious to this, didn't know about it. I had printed out 4 pages of the crows constitution, but didn't have it handy to read from, had it mixed up with other stuff, but I asked why haven't we got this clause in our Constitution, and will the club move to this model?? Koch didn't give an answer.

I said we used to be 5 member elected + 5 appointed to the board when we were under SANFL's control, then it became 4+4 + the board were allowed to appoint 2 "experts." I said we should be aiming for a 5+5 situation again.

At the end of the meeting I gave Koch the 4 pages from the crows constitution and pointed out where it said it 31-10-28 is independence day for them and he took it with him.

This is step 1 of changing things. I will follow up with a letter to Richo and our legal eagle on the board Jamie Restas and push that we have to transition to the same situation as the crows. That we change our constitution to include the 31-10-28 independence day clause. The next step is to go to 3 member elected directors, and get to 5 by 31-10-28. We are never going to get to all 10 being member elected directors. Koch and Richo made that clear.

So if anyone of you are lapsed members get a call from the membership department about you joining up again, and you don't want to, tell them you will renew when the 31-10-28 independence day clause is inserted into our constitution, and well as when Ken goes.

Someone raised the PBs. No movement on that front. One guy asked a lot about footy and that it wasn't good enough.

Juliet Haslam then spoke about the women's program. She was clear and to the point about our inaugural season. She's impressive.

Ken spoke about the footy program. Someone asked what can we expect to see?? Fast attacking footy - that was the simple answer.

The 7 new players were presented. Willie Rioli is a bit of a character, think he will become a fan favourite if he plays well. JHF was given the microphone and spoke well and you can tell he is a driven kid. I didn't realise Fabian Francis has been his step dad for as long as he indicated. Said he has only known the Port way since he was a little kid.

Tom Scully is a tall bastard. Has a lot of meat to put on the bones. Tom McCallum is a good size already, but he stood next to Scully and you could clearly see how much height he is giving away if he has to play on 200cm CHFs/FFs gorilla types.

When Ken left the stage there were no applause, just walked off. silence.

Overall a pretty dry and tame evening. Flat is one word I'd use, but I was pretty flat going into it, so it might have been me.

Here are the relevant sections from the crows constitution. Their's came into force on 27-03-2014, our's on 01-11-13.


View attachment 1604950

........

View attachment 1604954

.......
View attachment 1604953



View attachment 1604956

View attachment 1604957

View attachment 1604961

Thanks REH

I appreciate the work you’ve put in to this and the time taken to articulate these issues to those in charge.

These are core issues that are vitally important. I see ownership of the club as the most important issue there is, greater than on field imo.


I did not know about the crows constitution including that goal, that is a major point we as fans must not let go.


Can we start a new thread about that mods?

Can a mod take REHs info in this post about that and sticky it at the top of a new thread please?

Would help to get this info out, keep updated about what is happening and put pressure on.

 

[GremioPower]

I love this board:

 

[GremioPower]

Thanks REH

I appreciate the work you’ve put in to this and the time taken to articulate these issues to those in charge.

These are core issues that are vitally important. I see ownership of the club as the most important issue there is, greater than on field imo.


I did not know about the crows constitution including that goal, that is a major point we as fans must not let go.


Can we start a new thread about that mods?

Can a mod take REHs info in this post about that and sticky it at the top of a new thread please?

Would help to get this info out, keep updated about what is happening and put pressure on.

I was aware. I think RussellEbertHandball has mentioned it before a few times already. I don’t remember where, though.

 

[PowerBaz]

The AGM format was different this year, Q&A in the middle not the end. Therefore I knew it was going to be somewhat limited with the time of asking questions.

Koch started off going thru our financials and it turned me to sleep. The usual stuff about net assets are strong, despite inserting an intangible asset of the licence of $6.5m, 3 years ago, but back dated prior year comparison, making profits last 2 years, revenues recovered well post covid then he bloviated about debt. He tried to say that our debt was good debt, not bad debt because we are building assets.

FFS between 2008 and 2014 we made accumulated losses of $6m, those loses were after SANFL and AFL grants, that helped to keep us afloat. That was financed by debt as we had no cash or assets to sell. Add a bit of debt between 2015-19, a bit more for The Precinct upgrade and short term loan from the AFL to get thru covid, which has been paid back.

Debt is now $6m and they hope to pay off another $2m to get it to $4m at end of 2023. At that level, then we can go borrow monies to buy income producing assets.

The 3 pages of financial statements provided at the meeting are useless to try and understand the clubs true position especially with government grants and write offs of a large chunk of assets that have been demolished. You need the full accounts that we only can get from ASIC, but the P&L position was;

Normal profits inc depreciation.. $3,463,552
other items
Capital grants for redevelopment $3,554,008 .... $7,017,560 was reported in December as statutory profit. Not correct.
Revaluation gain on memorabilia $146,065
Losses on knocking down facility ($4,972,746) ie impairment of previously revalued building assets on eastern side of Alberton Oval

Total Statutory Profit .............. $2,190,879

This is why net assets only increased by $2.190m to and not $7.017m "statutory profit"

Carbon neutrality - is puff stuff.

Richo said our membership is at 90% of budget for end of January - that means about 5k behind where they thought they would be.

Admitted membership has stagnated at 60,000 mark. Said we have 50,000 new supporters a lot of that that driven by AFLW. I assume that comes from those annual Roy Morgan surveys.

Someone asked about getting rid of the "bad" pokies and Richo said the club will sell them some point down the track. I was tempted to says pokies have made the Hawks a net $40m after exiting their pokie venues in mid 2022, and after paying off the $8m loan balance that was $12m 10 years ago and they made $2m-$4m a year profit from their pokie venues over that decade. So the Hawks have benefited by $60m - $80m from their pokies over a decade.

I put several points and questions into one lot, because I knew I wouldn't get answers to each one. PowerLil had asked a question about becoming a fully member controlled club again and Richo and Koch talked about no club having 100% member elected directors. There was some scepticism, especially re Collingwood, but the Vic clubs are more likely to be 8 elected + 2 appointed than our 2+8 model.

So I changed my questions as a result and focused it onto the whole governance structure. I first said thanks for some of the improvements over the last few years at Alberton and that my criticism is driven about catching Greatness, not just bloody chasing it.

I said I had spoken to and meet Darren Cahill last year and am still in communication with him as I am introducing him to a software company near Indian Wells - where the 5th tennis major is played in March in Southern California. I said Darren told me he had recommended 3 people to Koch to replace him and that his first choice was Warren.

I asked why isn't their an experienced elite footballer on the club board? I asked do you expect a marketing company to not have an experienced marketing person on their board or a motor vehicle manufacturer not have a motor industry person on their board? Got a few claps for this point. I asked why did it take 4 months to basically tell Warren that they wanted him to go thru the member elected route? I asked why don't we have a member election every year, so that at least 3 people are elected onto the board?

I got the answers you saw in the Tsier. That it had to go thru a governance committee. They want ex players to be on club committees first, ie do a whole lot of unpaid work before they get on the board. Koch contrasted Tredders to Dom who has been on the footy committee for 5+ years and said how can I pick one ex captain over another, so his default position is, let the members choose.

He said his view might be wrong, but that is the way he has chosen to handle things.

Koch made it clear that he chooses. He has the real power. Despite what he said about a governance committee, he has the final say.

I then asked why don't we have a 31st October 2028 - the AFL exits the club clause - like the crows have in their constitution? Koch and Richo, and the board members I spoke to afterwards, were oblivious to this, didn't know about it. I had printed out 4 pages of the crows constitution, but didn't have it handy to read from, had it mixed up with other stuff, but I asked why haven't we got this clause in our Constitution, and will the club move to this model?? Koch didn't give an answer.

I said we used to be 5 member elected + 5 appointed to the board when we were under SANFL's control, then it became 4+4 + the board were allowed to appoint 2 "experts." I said we should be aiming for a 5+5 situation again.

At the end of the meeting I gave Koch the 4 pages from the crows constitution and pointed out where it said it 31-10-28 is independence day for them and he took it with him.

This is step 1 of changing things. I will follow up with a letter to Richo and our legal eagle on the board Jamie Restas and push that we have to transition to the same situation as the crows. That we change our constitution to include the 31-10-28 independence day clause. The next step is to go to 3 member elected directors, and get to 5 by 31-10-28. We are never going to get to all 10 being member elected directors. Koch and Richo made that clear.

So if anyone of you are lapsed members get a call from the membership department about you joining up again, and you don't want to, tell them you will renew when the 31-10-28 independence day clause is inserted into our constitution, and well as when Ken goes.

Someone raised the PBs. No movement on that front. One guy asked a lot about footy and that it wasn't good enough.

Juliet Haslam then spoke about the women's program. She was clear and to the point about our inaugural season. She's impressive.

Ken spoke about the footy program. Someone asked what can we expect to see?? Fast attacking footy - that was the simple answer.

The 7 new players were presented. Willie Rioli is a bit of a character, think he will become a fan favourite if he plays well. JHF was given the microphone and spoke well and you can tell he is a driven kid. I didn't realise Fabian Francis has been his step dad for as long as he indicated. Said he has only known the Port way since he was a little kid.

Tom Scully is a tall bastard. Has a lot of meat to put on the bones. Tom McCallum is a good size already, but he stood next to Scully and you could clearly see how much height he is giving away if he has to play on 200cm CHFs/FFs gorilla types.

When Ken left the stage there were no applause, just walked off. silence.

Overall a pretty dry and tame evening. Flat is one word I'd use, but I was pretty flat going into it, so it might have been me.

Here are the relevant sections from the crows constitution. Their's came into force on 27-03-2014, our's on 01-11-13.


View attachment 1604950

........

View attachment 1604954

.......
View attachment 1604953



View attachment 1604956

View attachment 1604957

View attachment 1604961

Good read.

I’ll watch with interest this year but suspect Koch and Ken haven’t got too long left, and whilst they are still there why have someone like Warren on the board.

I was thinking about the constants, Koch, Ken, No PB’s etc.

Perhaps the PB’s are more of a member want, maybe Koch and Co aren’t really that interested hence why it sits idle.

If we aren’t winning a flag this year I can’t see how Ken stay, he’ll go before Koch.

 

[AdamMarrett]

Good read.

I’ll watch with interest this year but suspect Koch and Ken haven’t got too long left, and whilst they are still there why have someone like Warren on the board.

I was thinking about the constants, Koch, Ken, No PB’s etc.

Perhaps the PB’s are more of a member want, maybe Koch and Co aren’t really that interested hence why it sits idle.

If we aren’t winning a flag this year I can’t see how Ken stay, he’ll go before Koch.

Someone needs to expose the truth of the PB's and the most recent deal we did to wear it in our 150th year.

That debate every year is a diversion, it distracts from actual issues and plays on the passion of Port Adelaide people, it's a political move activated by a politician in Koch everytime we aren't going well on the field. If we do get to wear it (which I don't think will happen, not anytime soon) Koch will use it to solidify his position. Something so dear to Port Adelaide people should never be used for political point scoring as it is.

At some point the PB issue & request needs to be exposed for what it actually is.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I was aware. I think RussellEbertHandball has mentioned it before a few times already. I don’t remember where, though.

In my best Jack Dyer voice,

Here

Mega Thread - Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 14

Thanks for sharing the link! The big thing for me from a Port point of view is that we have the same governance issue as the Crows - ie, fully controlled by the AFL. From the article: South Australian lawyer Greg Griffin identifies March 27, 2014 as the day the Adelaide Crows sold their soul...

www.bigfooty.com

Here - I have attached Adelaide's and Port's constitutions to this post

Strategy - Regaining Control of our Club

Its funny how we fork out $10-15 million bucks a year to be members of this club but have no real say in it. Its not funny. We would be better represented as shareholders in a business. But unfortunately, we are "customers" rather than "shareholders".

www.bigfooty.com

Here

Rob Snowdon's back in town

Timmy G gets it Sheesh do I have some bro-mance for him or what. Our very own modern day Mr Port Adelaide.

www.bigfooty.com

Here

David Koch - The Chairman of the Board

I can't believe I'm defending the Crows here, but at least they eventually had the kahunas to sack Neil Craig when his game plan was as bad as Ken's is now. Trouble is, for Ken to be terminated, Koch would need to admit he was wrong in extending Ken's contract, and that's about as likely as...

www.bigfooty.com

and Here.

Opinion - Sack Hinkley 5 - Lower The Blinds

Fck the blinds, lower Hinkley to where he belongs, coaching the Managatang magoos should be about right! What have the good people of Managatang ever done to you?

www.bigfooty.com

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Port and the crows are paying for their licences over 15 years to the sanfl with the final instalment being in 2028 that is why the crows have the 31-10-28 date.

Port are paying $6.985m and the crows $11.326m which is indexed over the period and the first instalment started at approx $385k and $625k respectively in 2014.

Someone asked what Port are paying the sanfl to play in the sanfl and Koch said $480k and asked the CFO Shane Smith if that was right or close to it. Smith confirmed the figure. Port don't pay to play in the sanfl like the crows, so that figure would be our instalment fee.

Port don't reveal what they pay as an expense in their detailed financials, and the crows do, but like a lot of things in the AFL, its not straight forward.

The crows in 2014 did a discounted cash flow calculation and said $11.326m over 15 years is like $8.44m in 2014 and they expensed that outright in 2014 and the other side is a liability of $8.44m which is reduced each year. Its why they showed a statutory loss of $8m in 2014.

It was good PR trick to take a massive hit in 2014 and only have a 1/3rd expense each year of the actual cash they have to pay the SANFL for the licence as explained in the next paragraph.

In their P&L each year they have an expense item of around $200k-$280k of Unwind of discount on deferred liabilities, since 2014, which is basically the difference between how much they reduce their $8.44m liability figure each year and the actual cash paid each year. Its not a straight line equal amount each year hence the $200k-$280k range.

In their 2021 Cash flow statement you see how much they paid in cash in 2021 and 2020. Note the same phrase used as in their constitution re kicking the AFL out. This is from the middle 1/3rd of the cash flow statement.

 

[VineValerian]

Out of interest, did Shane Grimm say anything of note about how the Magpies are tracking, top up players, training, etc?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Out of interest, did Shane Grimm say anything of note about how the Magpies are tracking, top up players, training, etc?

Nobody from the Magpies spoke.

 

[PatientMental]

Nobody from the Magpies spoke.

It's into mad-eye moody's trunk for the Magpies too, then

Might as well lock everything away that might disrupt the status quo.

 

[Grave Danger]

So no mention of a possible Coles sponsorship - maybe it's a making our community proud thing, or scraps from the AFL to keep on top of that damned debt.

 

[Port2Power]

So no mention of a possible Coles sponsorship - maybe it's a making our community proud thing, or scraps from the AFL to keep on top of that damned debt.

So the Coles sponsorship is mostly likely NOT a Major Sponsor but a Platinum Partner. Reason being is the position where the logo is placed on the travel polo (shirt). Earlier seasons we had Tyrepower's logo in that exact same position on the polo (deltoid area).
So since Coles is a Platinum Partner and not a Major Sponsor like KFC, MG, GFG I think they dont feel the need to be releasing that kind of info at the AGM and instead put it up on the Port webpage like they did when they announced Jim Beam sponsorship.

Simple reason less sponsorship money coming into the club therefore no need the hype....