THE BOARD. PAFC DIRECTORS. Why? Just why? 😢

[RussellEbertHandball]

Online voting once logged in takes voters to a page where they see all entrants not one entrant.

so this year I could have driven traffic to vote for me and then the masses would have seen Gav...

Still don't really get what you are saying, unless you have some massive campaign before the club sends out the official info page on all candidates.

Most people get a notice from the club, they see 4 candidates are running, and that's the first time they know who is running, 3 have the normal spiel, the 4th one says go to my website to learn about my manifesto. They go there, they read what you say, they either like it or don't, they then log on electronically to vote, and once again see the 4 candidates. If they like what you wrote then I doubt they will go, oh I forgot Gav was running, I like what Rick wrote, but bad luck I will vote for Gavin.

Am I missing something in the steps?

 

[El Zorro]

Online voting once logged in takes voters to a page where they see all entrants not one entrant.

so this year I could have driven traffic to vote for me and then the masses would have seen Gav...

Isn't that how all voting works though?

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[FishingRick04]

Isn't that how all voting works though?

could be yes, need to work the strategy to get best return

 

[Arsene Wenger]

REH and Fishing Rick - would u go up for members elected directors ? Are you involved the the club in any capacity on any sub committees to the board ?

FWIW I reckon there will be a refresh after this year


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

REH and Fishing Rick - would u go up for members elected directors ? Are you involved the the club in any capacity on any sub committees to the board ?

FWIW I reckon there will be a refresh after this year


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

See my answer in post 1,171 on the previous page for my explanation.

 

[FishingRick04]

REH and Fishing Rick - would u go up for members elected directors ? Are you involved the the club in any capacity on any sub committees to the board ?

FWIW I reckon there will be a refresh after this year


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I was on the marketing and brand sub committee until is was pulled apart, did it for over two years.
There will be some change I believe.

unless invited I guess ill
Have to try for members elect

 

[Borscht Mat]

So with a couple of Directors standing down I guess we will get to vote for their replacements ? We are members after all. But no. We are not to be trusted with appointing directors to our own club like we did for 100 years.

 

[Steve Dore]

So with a couple of Directors standing down I guess we will get to vote for their replacements ? We are members after all. But no. We are not to be trusted with appointing directors to our own club like we did for 100 years.

AFL appointed directors will be replaced by AFL appointed directors. Members should just pay up, shut up and be grateful that the AFL allows us to buy memberships.

 

[VineValerian]

AFL appointed directors will be replaced by AFL appointed directors. Members should just pay up, shut up and be grateful that the AFL allows us to buy memberships.

Pay up.
Shut up.
Turn up.

 

[Hambo88]

AFL appointed directors will be replaced by AFL appointed directors. Members should just pay up, shut up and be grateful that the AFL allows us to buy memberships.

You forgot see "you at the footy............"

 

[Power Raid]

The board of PAFC should reflect the same process and demarcation as an ordinary company.

Board members are appointed by the board and ratified by members only at the subsequent AGM. Board members should be put on rotation for re-election, which is every second or third year.

 

[Tibbs]

The board of PAFC should reflect the same process and demarcation as an ordinary company.

Board members are appointed by the board and ratified by members only at the subsequent AGM. Board members should be put on rotation for re-election, which is every second or third year.

Well, not sure if you are aware, but the process for a public listed company is for the majority Shareholder to be able to choose and appoint a number of their own directors, depending on ownership %. They have greater powers if their ownership is above 50%, including being able to appoint & sack ALL the directors. The exact nature of it all depends on the company's constitution.

So depending on what the AFL's control is over Port, and the AFL/Club constitution, the AFL controlling many of Port's directors is well within current "ordinary company" processes.

We might not like it, but it is standard practice.

 

[Power Raid]

Well, not sure if you are aware, but the process for a public listed company is for the majority Shareholder to be able to choose and appoint a number of their own directors, depending on ownership %. They have greater powers if their ownership is above 50%, including being able to appoint & sack ALL the directors. The exact nature of it all depends on the company's constitution.

So depending on what the AFL's control is over Port, and the AFL/Club constitution, the AFL controlling many of Port's directors is well within current "ordinary company" processes.

We might not like it, but it is standard practice.

That’s not quite right

Shareholders rarely appoint board members in public companies. Rather boards appoint board members and shareholders only ratify at the next meeting.

 

[Borscht Mat]

Well, not sure if you are aware, but the process for a public listed company is for the majority Shareholder to be able to choose and appoint a number of their own directors, depending on ownership %. They have greater powers if their ownership is above 50%, including being able to appoint & sack ALL the directors. The exact nature of it all depends on the company's constitution.

So depending on what the AFL's control is over Port, and the AFL/Club constitution, the AFL controlling many of Port's directors is well within current "ordinary company" processes.

We might not like it, but it is standard practice.

Ummmm the AFL are a creditor not a shareholder and the PAFC is a member based organisation so the board is appointed by the members. It just so happens that in our case (and the Crows) the members are not members as you or I see them, or the club itself says in selling "memberships". The "members" are the directors of the club (only) who therefore appoint themselves with the approval of the AFL. We "members" really "subscribers" have no say. Even our "member elected" positions are not elected by us. They are a recommendation to the actual members to nominate this person to the AFL for approval. The actual members (the board) could choose to ignore it or the AFL could choose to decline it.

 

[Tibbs]

That’s not quite right

Shareholders rarely appoint board members in public companies. Rather boards appoint board members and shareholders only ratify at the next meeting.

Rubbish, it happens all the time ... https://andreyev.com.au/2015/08/22/who-gets-to-choose-who-goes-on-your-board/

You used the word "shareholders" ... I said "majority shareholder." I trade & invest in shares, and I see it often. A company or fund takes a large holding in a company, and they appoint one or two of their own people on the board. Shareholder approval is a given, because they are the majority shareholder, and have the voting power to carry it.

Ummmm the AFL are a creditor not a shareholder and the PAFC is a member based organisation ...

Ummmm ... If you read the thread, I didnt say the AFL were a shareholder, I was responding to a poster suggesting that "The board of PAFC should reflect the same process and demarcation as an ordinary company."

Yes we are a member-based organization, but that too is very general, as it all depends on the constitution, which would vary from club to club & sport to sport. Obviously ours allows for the AFL control ... But I admit to having zero knowledge about it.

 

[Power Raid]

Rubbish, it happens all the time ... https://andreyev.com.au/2015/08/22/who-gets-to-choose-who-goes-on-your-board/

You used the word "shareholders" ... I said "majority shareholder." I trade & invest in shares, and I see it often. A company or fund takes a large holding in a company, and they appoint one or two of their own people on the board. Shareholder approval is a given, because they are the majority shareholder, and have the voting power to carry it.


Ummmm ... If you read the thread, I didnt say the AFL were a shareholder, I was responding to a poster suggesting that "The board of PAFC should reflect the same process and demarcation as an ordinary company."

Yes we are a member-based organization, but that too is very general, as it all depends on the constitution, which would vary from club to club & sport to sport. Obviously ours allows for the AFL control ... But I admit to having zero knowledge about it.

Major shareholders like superannuation funds and managed funds usually don’t appoint directors as there are legal implications such as silent directors (the people the appointed director reports back to), insider trading, black out provisions and reputation all damage such as being seen as an activist fund.

You’re right though that they can and Fortescue is an example of that but cba, ANZ, rio, BHP etc are examples of boards appointing directors.

Generally you’re right if the company is small, going or gone through a turn around or other special situation. But for a normal functioning organisation it is rare.

 

[Tibbs]

Major shareholders like superannuation funds and managed funds usually don’t appoint directors as there are legal implications such as silent directors (the people the appointed director reports back to), insider trading, black out provisions and reputation all damage such as being seen as an activist fund.

You’re right though that they can and Fortescue is an example of that but cba, ANZ, rio, BHP etc are examples of boards appointing directors.

Generally you’re right if the company is small, going or gone through a turn around or other special situation. But for a normal functioning organisation it is rare.

You are right, but remember that the companies you mention are giant Monoliths, and will rarely have a majority shareholder that has enough holding to warrant a board member. BHP's biggest shareholder is US hedgefund Elliott International, with about 5% holding.

RIO, however is an interesting case ... Their top shareholder is the giant Chinese company Chinalco. During the GFC they agreed to bail RIO out of its debt troubles with an $18m fund offer, boosting their ownership past the 15% threshold, BUT, they demanded that they be allowed a board representative to protect their investment. In the end the RIO board were able to scuttle it by raising the needed cash through a massive rights issue.

 

[Tibbs]

You are right, but remember that the companies you mention are giant Monoliths, and will rarely have a majority shareholder that has enough holding to warrant a board member. BHP's biggest shareholder is US hedgefund Elliott International, with about 5% holding.

RIO, however is an interesting case ... Their top shareholder is the giant Chinese company Chinalco. During the GFC they agreed to bail RIO out of its debt troubles with an $18m fund offer, boosting their ownership past the 15% threshold, BUT, they demanded that they be allowed a board representative to protect their investment. In the end the RIO board were able to scuttle it by raising the needed cash through a massive rights issue.

Found an article that discusses it here...

Chinalco deal derailed over board seat

CHINALCO'S $US19.5 billion investment deal was ultimately derailed because Rio Tinto refused to allow it one director on the Rio board, Chinalco's president, Xiong Weiping, said yesterday.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Alyx]

WHY I PULLED POWER PLUG

LIBERAL powerbroker Amanda Vanstone has spoken for the first time about quitting the Port Adelaide Football Club board last month.

The former federal Cabinet minister and Australian Ambassador to Italy says she stood down because she wanted more spare time, having also left the Royal Flying Doctor Service Federation Board last December after six years as voluntary chairwoman.

Vanstone, an SA Liberal senator from 1984 to 2007, was appointed to Port’s board in November 2012.

“I’ve done more than seven years – that’s a fair while. You need a bit of a break – it does all add up,” she told Off the Record.

Doubtless, Vanstone will be missed at Port, given there are Liberal governments at federal and state level and the club has been traditionally associated with Labor.

Port is on the hunt for cash to fund its ambitious Alberton Oval redevelopment plan, which was initially given a $35 million price tag and earmarked to be up and running by this year.

The formidable Vanstone’s departure might just complicate that fundraising task.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

www.adelaidenow.com.au

 

[OneGreatClub]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

www.adelaidenow.com.au

Lol what did Vanstone actually do to get the libs on side? Nothing that I can remember.

 

[NoddyHolder]

Doubtless, Vanstone will be missed at Port, given there are Liberal governments at federal and state level and the club has been traditionally associated with Labor.

Port is on the hunt for cash to fund its ambitious Alberton Oval redevelopment plan, which was initially given a $35 million price tag and earmarked to be up and running by this year.

The formidable Vanstone’s departure might just complicate that fundraising task.

Oh no! The Liberal government rivers of gold are in danger of drying up for Prot Powar.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

www.adelaidenow.com.au

From the several stories on that page that is probably the least interesting. Flinders Uni rejecting Foley for 2 jobs was a bit of laugh but - MBA chief executive Ian Markos has hired former Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union state secretary Aaron Cartledge as a consultant, is intriguing. Guess it would be a bit like Ports putting Rob Chapman on the board.

 

[PropertySteward]

From the several stories on that page that is probably the least interesting. Flinders Uni rejecting Foley for 2 jobs was a bit of laugh but - MBA chief executive Ian Markos has hired former Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union state secretary Aaron Cartledge as a consultant, is intriguing. Guess it would be a bit like Ports putting Rob Chapman on the board.

Yeah, had to laugh at Foley: "We understand one role was the equivalent of a head of school requiring significant academic qualifications. But the other was said to be as a senior lecturer in politics – surely an area in which Foley boasts significant first-hand experience. Surprisingly, we understand Foley was not even required for an interview, partly due to insufficient academic qualifications and inexperience at winning government grants for academic research."

Surprisingly? Kev didn't even finish high school. If he doesn't meet the minimum essential requirements for the job, he doesn't deserve an interview. He's not in politics now.

 

[Lockhart Road]

Hey, Cos Cardone, how d’ya feel? Even your own employer, your family’s rice bowl, is making fun of you: