The unelected hall of shame featuring Rob Chapman

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jackster83

#pykeout
Jul 31, 2007
11,592
14,897
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sin City Swamprats, Dethklok
FWIW

I dont think Roo has offered much in his Director of Football role

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Burton has been the worst appointment in the club's history. Worse than using a top 10 pick on Angwin.

Not just for the injuries, the CM debacle and that infamous press conference, but other facets that we had worked so hard on have regressed under him.

Player retention (and attraction), coaching staff retention/appointments, player development and even our drafting has declined under him (Phil Bunn a big loss IMO). Many of those leaving have also left on bad terms (Bode, Lever, Francou, etc).

Worst of all, there's absolutely no strategy in how we go about building for a season and for the longer-term future. It's just hope everybody gets fit and pick the most senior team and then hope the opposition fails to turn up.

He's ruined our premiership window and he's ruining the chances of a (relatively) pain free rejuvenation of the side as players decline.

Our women's team are lucky that he considers them beneath him.
 

Cap

Hall of Famer
Jul 27, 2004
30,305
13,955
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
You quoted the section regarding AFL membership. Try reading 22
The development great end date is 2028.

That's when the membership types will be changed. However i have no doubt AFL will retain some power.

As it does now having to sign off on 5 of the 7 directors.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,907
13,448
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
The development great end date is 2028.

That's when the membership types will be changed. However i have no doubt AFL will retain some power.

As it does now having to sign off on 5 of the 7 directors.
Yes, that's my reading of it. The membership element of it is just so the AFL can call a meeting during the Grant period (refer quorum conditions).
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,907
13,448
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
No, I quoted and bolded a clause that extinguishes all rights. It is not qualified in the way that you suggest.

Stop telling people to read things that you yourself cannot read.
Extinguished all rights as a member you moron. Learn to read a bloody legal document.
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,217
15,686
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
The development great end date is 2028.

That's when the membership types will be changed. However i have no doubt AFL will retain some power.

As it does now having to sign off on 5 of the 7 directors.
It's not really clear that the constitution as it currently stands allows for the AFL to retain power. The board has two options in terms of the conferral of their rights. Neither could be naturally be read as permitting a conferral back to the AFL.

That's not to say that there isnt a way around it, but it certainly would on its face appear to be contrary to the provision.
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,217
15,686
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
My god you're hilarious. I don't know whether to be flattered, or take out an AVO 🤣
Look, squawk around all you want- but you should be embarassed- again.

You came in the thread strutting about your superior knowledge, have demonstrated a pretty plain inability to read and interpret the clauses that you were strutting around based upon your supposedly superior knowledge of, and now you're throwing some of the most trite and ineffectual insults one would ever see.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You know your limits, and more so you know that we know your limits. Why do you think it's going to end any other way? Surely there are still people that buy into your routine that you can find to try to impress?
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,907
13,448
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
No, that's a gloss that you've added.

The words are: 'all of the rights held by the AFL'. Had the agreement been intending only to extinguish only the rights defined as membership rights, it would have said so.
Oh nice edit, but too late ;)

The words are contained in the Section relating to membership. Hence, the words relate to membership. It's really quite simple.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,217
15,686
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
Oh nice edit, but too late ;)

The words are contained in the Section relating to membership. Hence, the words relate to membership. It's really quite simple.
No, there's no reason that's forced to be true and it certainly is not the plain reading of the document.

The document defines the term membership right, and also refers to rights from other sources (in particular the Corporations Act). I.e. the rights referenced in the document are not limited to membership rights. The word all plainly has it's ordinary meaning, and extinguishes more than the rights defined as membership rights.

If your position is that provisions in documents of this kind must be read down despite their ordinary meaning, having regard to the section they appear, and against the plain wording of the document I'm happy to consider the authority that you rely upon- provide citations.

The more straight forward answer is that the section appears under membership as it is only by virtue of membership that the AFL is able to be recognised at all, and the grandfather clause essentially ends their membership. The following sub clauses then deal with what happens when membership ceases. The reason that the clause refers to all rights is to remove any doubt, given that it subsequently defines members right.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,907
13,448
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
Look, squawk around all you want- but you should be embarassed- again.

You came in the thread strutting about your superior knowledge, have demonstrated a pretty plain inability to read and interpret the clauses that you were strutting around based upon your supposedly superior knowledge of, and now you're throwing some of the most trite and ineffectual insults one would ever see.

Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You know your limits, and more so you know that we know your limits. Why do you think it's going to end any other way? Surely there are still people that buy into your routine that you can find to try to impress?
It seems to be particularly important to you that I should be embarrassed. It's fascinating.

Look, I know you have a fairly elevated sense of self, but you do a lot of projecting on this board. Words such as "embarrassed" and "insecure" are words you use quite often. Then there was the classic "im smarter than you" line the other day. That gave me quite a chuckle. I also enjoyed watching you argue the law with a lawyer a few days ago too. That was some good comedy.

In any case, back to the point. You need to read the clauses contained in the document in the context of the Sections to which they relate. You're referring to conditions associated with the AFL's temporary membership of the AFC. Again, take note of Section 22 as it relates to appointment of directors.
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,217
15,686
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
It seems to be particularly important to you that I should be embarrassed. It's fascinating.

Look, I know you have a fairly elevated sense of self, but you do a lot of projecting on this board. Words such as "embarrassed" and "insecure" are words you use quite often. Then there was the classic "im smarter than you" line the other day. That gave me quite a chuckle. I also enjoyed watching you argue the law with a lawyer a few days ago too. That was some good comedy.

In any case, back to the point. You need to read the clauses contained in the document in the context of the Sections to which they relate. You're referring to conditions associated with the AFL's temporary membership of the AFC. Again, take note of Section 22 as it relates to appointment of directors.
It's of no importance other than being how an reasonable person would react to having behaved as you have. As far as my being smarter than you goes: I'm not smarter than you because I said I was- it's just the reality. I'm sorry that you struggle with it, but rather than over compensating you should try to find a way to come to grips with it. You can't keep acting out because of it, that's not good for your state of mind. This thread is a pretty decent example really of the problems that you're causing yourself.

You've not engaged in attempting to present a counter argument, other than repeating a plainly facile assertion with no real underpinning legal reasoning. This after declaring that I had to learn to read legal documents like you (LOL). Still waiting for that authority. Why you would behave like this, knowing that you don't have the requisite ability, knowledge, or skills base would be baffling, were it not you.

Your reading is wrong for the reasons that I've already described. The clauses quoted are not limited in the way that you suggest. The rights in clause 22 fit within the category of 'all rights' and will be extinguished. There is no basis for reading down the removal clauses in the way that you've suggested, either from the text or from the understandable intention and you've not provided any argument other than the part of the document in which the clause appears, which- as I've already dealt with is not inconsistent with my reading.

Beyond that, it would take only a very cursory understanding to come to the view that your declared interpretation- that is, that the AFL ceases to be a member of the company, but retains the sole power of appointment over directors) would run into some pretty significant difficulties under the Corporations Act.

You got it wrong. I get that its embarrassing having come into the thread chest beating about that, but really the right thing to do is admit it and maybe not come in so full of self importance next time when you're speaking outside your abilities.
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,907
13,448
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
It's of no importance other than being how an reasonable person would react to having behaved as you have. As far as my being smarter than you goes: I'm not smarter than you because I said I was- it's just the reality. I'm sorry that you struggle with it, but rather than over compensating you should try to find a way to come to grips with it. You can't keep acting out because of it, that's not good for your state of mind. This thread is a pretty decent example really of the problems that you're causing yourself.

You've not engaged in attempting to present a counter argument, other than repeating a plainly facile assertion with no real underpinning legal reasoning. This after declaring that I had to learn to read legal documents like you (LOL). Still waiting for that authority. Why you would behave like this, knowing that you don't have the requisite ability, knowledge, or skills base would be baffling, were it not you.

Your reading is wrong for the reasons that I've already described. The clauses quoted are not limited in the way that you suggest. The rights in clause 22 fit within the category of 'all rights' and will be extinguished. There is no basis for reading down the removal clauses in the way that you've suggested, either from the text or from the understandable intention and you've not provided any argument other than the part of the document in which the clause appears, which- as I've already dealt with is not inconsistent with my reading.

Beyond that, it would take only a very cursory understanding to come to the view that your declared interpretation- that is, that the AFL ceases to be a member of the company, but retains the sole power of appointment over directors) would run into some pretty significant difficulties under the Corporations Act.

You got it wrong. I get that its embarrassing having come into the thread chest beating about that, but really the right thing to do is admit it and maybe not come in so full of self importance next time when you're speaking outside your abilities.
That's a lot of words for someone apparently unaffected. Looks like the only person with a bruised chest in this thread is you :)

I guess we'll see what happens in a few years time won't we?
 

OzSparrow

Club Legend
Aug 30, 2006
1,623
936
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Manly, Glenelg, Liverpool FC
I think gary ayres was a good coach. His first season was a disaster, but his 2nd and 3rd were great. he lost the players in the final year
Not quite sure I agree with your "good coach" comment.

A 55-52 win/loss record after being gifted the nucleus of a dual premiership winning side by Blighty is not that great.

IMO I also feel he never fully had the playing group from day 1 - they were Blighty's guys and not Gary's. He was in Blighty's shadow at Geelong and he continued in Malcolm's shadow at Adelaide (albeit Malcolm had left).

Pity cause his record at Port Melbourne has been great.
 

Smoooothy

TAKE THAT BACK!!
Jan 12, 2005
23,251
19,919
Brunswick
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
North Adelaide; ConeyIslandWarriors
Not quite sure I agree with your "good coach" comment.

A 55-52 win/loss record after being gifted the nucleus of a dual premiership winning side by Blighty is not that great.

IMO I also feel he never fully had the playing group from day 1 - they were Blighty's guys and not Gary's. He was in Blighty's shadow at Geelong and he continued in Malcolm's shadow at Adelaide (albeit Malcolm had left).

Pity cause his record at Port Melbourne has been great.
he had a great midfield - that's it

our forward line was not fantastic back then, our back line was solid but unspectacular, leaked big scores on occasion
 

Peter J

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 24, 2008
16,765
30,885
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think the interesting take out of that article is that WCE are even more corporatised than we are. No member input at all.

Yet there they sit, a beacon of success that we all aspire to.

So is it the case the corporate management system does work and it’s more about who has the wheel ?
 

SaltPeter

"I’m a professional bulls**tter"
Jan 6, 2018
5,960
6,575
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
I think the interesting take out of that article is that WCE are even more corporatised than we are. No member input at all.

Yet there they sit, a beacon of success that we all aspire to.

So is it the case the corporate management system does work and it’s more about who has the wheel ?
I often wonder if having a banker as Chairman has created a completely risk averse culture
 

feenix67

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2004
8,907
13,448
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt FC; Pittsburgh Steelers
I often wonder if having a banker as Chairman has created a completely risk averse culture
Chapman really isn't a football person. Not in a Maguire sense anyway. Was never really that interested in footy prior to his engagement. His initial appointment probably had something to do with our financiers at the time. Who knows why he's still there, although he does sit on a few boards.
 
Top Bottom