The unelected hall of shame featuring Rob Chapman

Slippery Pete

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 19, 2010
15,166
17,632
AFL Club
Adelaide
It's not defeatist, it's reality. Look at the Clubs constitution.

You can blame the "SA old boys club" all you like, but you've got to look at the root cause, the environment that facilitates it. Our Board is accountable to one entity, the AFL. Everything stems from that.
So who are the clubs with essentially AFL controlled boards?

GWS and GC obviously, Sydney presumably, and the two SA clubs. Any others?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

deaneus

You wouldn’t believe me if I told you
Nov 24, 2007
19,430
36,946
*sigh*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
The Black Caps
All this agitating is all well and good, but it's also pointless. You think the license was sold back to the club by the SANFL? Wrong. It was sold to the AFL.

People need to read the fine print. All board members are ratified by the AFL. The Chairman appointment, made by the board, is ratified by the AFL. We are run, at the board level, by the AFL.

The VFL won the war on which competition was going to commercialize the sport. In doing so, it protected it's foundation members (Vic clubs) and continues to do so. It's had two cracks at killing off those pesky competitors, the SANFL. First, when it dealt with Port back in 1990, ultimately scuttled by an injunction. Then it played the long game, let Port come in and bleed the SANFL dry, then force the SANFLs hand by giving it the only out possible - pseudo ownership of Adelaide Oval in return for enough money to get it out of probable insolvency. The trade off? The club "buying back" it's license from the SANFL, which was code for the SANFL selling the Crows to the AFL.

We support a VFL owned "club". I've said it a thousand times. You will never have a vote. You will never have a say. Why do you think we have the culture of rewarding effort over performance on field? Because that's what's it's like in the club house. Because the club's KPIs are not built around premierships. They're built around bums on seats. Revenue. Sustainability. The VFL use the Crows to generate as much money as possible, to help sustain the s**t clubs. That's why we get home Showdowns at ridiculous time slots. Because the VFL knows we will turn up. The entire business model is built on the fact that we will keep turning up. We are nothing but a ******* cash cow.

The only way to cause even a tiny ripple is to not turn up. But we all know that's not going to happen. So all you can do is hope that, by some miracle, the stars align, we get a decent group of players with a decent coach and we play good footy.

It's not the players fault, nor the coaches fault really. The cards have already been dealt. It's probably why good players leave on a regular basis. . So support the players but don't ever be under any illusion that this is a footy club. It's not a club, it's a company. And we aren't shareholders.
So we're the Adelaide Cash Crows?
 

OzSparrow

Club Legend
Aug 30, 2006
1,623
936
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Manly, Glenelg, Liverpool FC
All this agitating is all well and good, but it's also pointless. You think the license was sold back to the club by the SANFL? Wrong. It was sold to the AFL.

People need to read the fine print. All board members are ratified by the AFL. The Chairman appointment, made by the board, is ratified by the AFL. We are run, at the board level, by the AFL.

The VFL won the war on which competition was going to commercialize the sport. In doing so, it protected it's foundation members (Vic clubs) and continues to do so. It's had two cracks at killing off those pesky competitors, the SANFL. First, when it dealt with Port back in 1990, ultimately scuttled by an injunction. Then it played the long game, let Port come in and bleed the SANFL dry, then force the SANFLs hand by giving it the only out possible - pseudo ownership of Adelaide Oval in return for enough money to get it out of probable insolvency. The trade off? The club "buying back" it's license from the SANFL, which was code for the SANFL selling the Crows to the AFL.

We support a VFL owned "club". I've said it a thousand times. You will never have a vote. You will never have a say. Why do you think we have the culture of rewarding effort over performance on field? Because that's what's it's like in the club house. Because the club's KPIs are not built around premierships. They're built around bums on seats. Revenue. Sustainability. The VFL use the Crows to generate as much money as possible, to help sustain the s**t clubs. That's why we get home Showdowns at ridiculous time slots. Because the VFL knows we will turn up. The entire business model is built on the fact that we will keep turning up. We are nothing but a ******* cash cow.

The only way to cause even a tiny ripple is to not turn up. But we all know that's not going to happen. So all you can do is hope that, by some miracle, the stars align, we get a decent group of players with a decent coach and we play good footy.

It's not the players fault, nor the coaches fault really. The cards have already been dealt. It's probably why good players leave on a regular basis. . So support the players but don't ever be under any illusion that this is a footy club. It's not a club, it's a company. And we aren't shareholders.
This is POY

An outstanding summary of the AFL and the AFC's part in their business model. I have been repeating this mantra since the 2 token flags that the AFL allowed the AFC to win in the late 90's.

Congrats on your insight.

I might frame it and put it in my wall.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,909
13,451
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
So who are the clubs with essentially AFL controlled boards?

GWS and GC obviously, Sydney presumably, and the two SA clubs. Any others?
My gut feel is all of the non Vic clubs, plus a smattering of struggling Vic clubs. I can only think of a few member controlled clubs... Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood, Geelong, Melbourne and Carlton. Maybe Saints and Bulldogs. I'd have to do some research though.
 

WetCrow1991

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 23, 2016
7,183
6,273
AFL Club
Adelaide
There are many similarities between Pyke and Craig, we like a certain type of coach at the Crows, the others don't stick around very long. (Walsh for other reasons obviously)
 

Mike Smyth

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 8, 2012
14,748
17,774
AFL Club
Adelaide
Decent article on the matter:

Excellent article. As I said earlier the fans only hope of forcing change at the AFC is by voting with their wallet as Port supporters did prior to 2013. Unfortunately there is a portion of the fans who are just there to get out of the house/a day out so the result on the day is more important to them then short term pain/long term gain.

I wonder what % of the AFC supporterbase over the age of 30 are old die hard sanfl fans.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

1970crow

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 7, 2011
28,108
28,885
alice springs
AFL Club
Adelaide
This is POY

An outstanding summary of the AFL and the AFC's part in their business model. I have been repeating this mantra since the 2 token flags that the AFL allowed the AFC to win in the late 90's.

Congrats on your insight.

I might frame it and put it in my wall.
Except that it doesn't really work that way. Reality is that the board appoints themselves and the AFL ratify their choice. In fact, there is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the AFL can appoint outside of our list of nominees provided them. And there is no record of the AFL overruling any recommendation from our board. We are not piss weak because the AFL control our board, we are piss weak because our board are incompetent and not driven to success. The operation of our board hasn't gone backwards since the license was transferred from the SANFL, it's exactly the same. Our constitution requires our board, among other things;

(i) To develop, maintain and foster the ideals of the AFC.

Our issue is with how our board perceive the "ideals of the AFC". The AFL isn't getting in our way of winning premierships by controlling our board, only a complete fool would think that's why we select completely average 30+ year olds in a year that we're clearly not winning a premiership. We're our problem, not the AFL. Had we not been completely out-run due to our stupid selection policy that only gave us 22 viable options, 2 going in injured, in the 2017 GF, we'd potentially be recent premiers. Our biggest issue is, and has been for years, is our selection policy that relies heavily on experience and continuity.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,909
13,451
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
Except that it doesn't really work that way. Reality is that the board appoints themselves and the AFL ratify their choice. In fact, there is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the AFL can appoint outside of our list of nominees provided them. And there is no record of the AFL overruling any recommendation from our board. We are not piss weak because the AFL control our board, we are piss weak because our board are incompetent and not driven to success. The operation of our board hasn't gone backwards since the license was transferred from the SANFL, it's exactly the same. Our constitution requires our board, among other things;

(i) To develop, maintain and foster the ideals of the AFC.

Our issue is with how our board perceive the "ideals of the AFC". The AFL isn't getting in our way of winning premierships by controlling our board, only a complete fool would think that's why we select completely average 30+ year olds in a year that we're clearly not winning a premiership. We're our problem, not the AFL. Had we not been completely out-run due to our stupid selection policy that only gave us 22 viable options, 2 going in injured, in the 2017 GF, we'd potentially be recent premiers. Our biggest issue is, and has been for years, is our selection policy that relies heavily on experience and continuity.
Considering the post was about instigating change, it absolutely works that way.
 

deaneus

You wouldn’t believe me if I told you
Nov 24, 2007
19,430
36,946
*sigh*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
The Black Caps
Unless I’m missing something, that letter was calling for just calling for a study to look into it, so informed decisions could then be made?

That’s a long way from little Graham’s fantasy
Shouldn't his position automatically be "no", not "let's look at it", if he's so concerned about and on the wavelengths of Indigenous people?
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,217
15,688
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
All this agitating is all well and good, but it's also pointless. You think the license was sold back to the club by the SANFL? Wrong. It was sold to the AFL.

People need to read the fine print. All board members are ratified by the AFL. The Chairman appointment, made by the board, is ratified by the AFL. We are run, at the board level, by the AFL.
Well no, I don't think that you have said is accurate. Did you read the fine print?

As it reads, the AFL has a temporary membership of the club based upon an agreement relating to the 'development grant completion date', with that class of membership being granted prevailing rights over the composition of the non-elected board positions.

I imagine this relates to the capital that was used to purchase the license- i.e. the AFL has assumed the rule of the SANFL, but with a strict date that will cease that arrangement. That date is: 31 October 2028 (or such earlier time as the AFC and the AFL agree).

I.e. it could be ended sooner. In the event that it is not ended sooner, the following applies:

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing.

Pursuant to clause 7.2:

Cessation of AFL Membership
(a) The AFL will cease to be a Member on the Development Grant Completion Date.
(b) From the Development Grant Completion Date, the Board may grant all of the rights held by the AFL to any other class of Member that is in existence on the Development Grant Completion Date or is otherwise established by the Board.
(c) If the Board does not grant the rights of the AFL Voting Member to another class or classes, the Board will grant all of the rights held by the AFL to the Electing Members.


I.e. the AFL does not have any sense of permanent ownership over the club, and it is plausibly a very real and very live possibility that the board will 'choose' to convey the director appointment power on only a limited class of members when the time comes- perhaps limited to the board members- but that is a live decision that needs to be made and fans absolutely should be trying to pressure that decision, and ensure that it's made public when it occurs.

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing at present..

It's also worth noting that the agreement can be moved forward to an earlier time (but not delayed). I.e. public pressure could result in that arrangement being varied, it if were considered 'bad for business'. We could have membership voting rights for the entire board sooner.

In summary: your read of the situation was quite poor, and you should feel bad.

 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,217
15,688
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
It is a bit of a black pill, but it’s hard to argue with the crux of it.

When this all happened in 2014, Port and the Crows sold it to members as some sort of independence day. But both clubs are now answerable to the AFL commission (instead of the SANFL commission). That’s not independence. In fact you could mount an argument that it’s worse than before.

The SANFL received $18M from the two clubs when this happened, as well as another $45M from the AFL...

Just think about what it means when the chairman of an organization’s board, addresses the members of that organization and says the most important thing about his CEO is that he’s endorsed by a different organization...
It's only revealing of the hidden agenda if the chairman is competent.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,909
13,451
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
Well no, I don't think that you have said is accurate. Did you read the fine print?

As it reads, the AFL has a temporary membership of the club based upon an agreement relating to the 'development grant completion date', with that class of membership being granted prevailing rights over the composition of the non-elected board positions.

I imagine this relates to the capital that was used to purchase the license- i.e. the AFL has assumed the rule of the SANFL, but with a strict date that will cease that arrangement. That date is: 31 October 2028 (or such earlier time as the AFC and the AFL agree).

I.e. it could be ended sooner. In the event that it is not ended sooner, the following applies:

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing.

Pursuant to clause 7.2:

Cessation of AFL Membership
(a) The AFL will cease to be a Member on the Development Grant Completion Date.
(b) From the Development Grant Completion Date, the Board may grant all of the rights held by the AFL to any other class of Member that is in existence on the Development Grant Completion Date or is otherwise established by the Board.
(c) If the Board does not grant the rights of the AFL Voting Member to another class or classes, the Board will grant all of the rights held by the AFL to the Electing Members.


I.e. the AFL does not have any sense of permanent ownership over the club, and it is plausibly a very real and very live possibility that the board will 'choose' to convey the director appointment power on only a limited class of members when the time comes- perhaps limited to the board members- but that is a live decision that needs to be made and fans absolutely should be trying to pressure that decision, and ensure that it's made public when it occurs.

In practice, there is no conceivable way that the AFL is not simply acting on the advice of the current directors and recommendations in appointing at present..

It's also worth noting that the agreement can be moved forward to an earlier time (but not delayed). I.e. public pressure could result in that arrangement being varied, it if were considered 'bad for business'. We could have membership voting rights for the entire board sooner.

In summary: your read of the situation was quite poor, and you should feel bad.

Sidestepping your ego for a minute, I think you'll find that, whilst the AFL cease to be a member from the completion date, it retains final right of approval for Directors. You'll note that certain clauses specifically add the caveat of "until Development Grant completion date" but others do not.
 
Top Bottom