Tracy Smart or Graeme Goodings?

Remove this Banner Ad

Macjoe

Got your Back
Apr 14, 2009
1,490
278
Victoria
AFL Club
Adelaide
Voting for the one "member elected" position on the Board closes on Friday. I have read the candidate statements, and am no closer to being able to make a rational choice. Any input, particularly with reference to Goodings' representation of members, for the last 2 years?
 
Voting for the one "member elected" position on the Board closes on Friday. I have read the candidate statements, and am no closer to being able to make a rational choice. Any input, particularly with reference to Goodings' representation of members, for the last 2 years?

They’re not required to ‘represent’ members any more than other directors. They’re just appointed via membership vote, they then just become another director with the same responsibilities.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Makes absolutely no difference because the majority of the board is not member elected

The great thing about the member-elected directors is they have a mandate to prosecute member issues (which then get voted down 7-2.)

That’s democracy in action right there buddy, if you’re not happy with that maybe you should move to North Korea.
 
Shame there wasn't a 3rd option.

Goodings has always come across as the quintessential candidate that's been hand picked to appeal to the apple slice brigade. I didn't vote for him last time because the last thing the Crows board needed was a vanilla "celebrity" board member that gets voted in solely because of his status and just ends up being a bum on a seat and offering nothing.
 
Have we ever had a decent candidate that actually wants to ask the tough questions and make the club accountable?

Sadly I couldn't see someone that wanted to shake the status quo ever being allowed to run unless they duplicitously pretended to be a sycophant in order to be elected.
 
Have we ever had a decent candidate that actually wants to ask the tough questions and make the club accountable?

Sadly I couldn't see someone that wanted to shake the status quo ever being allowed to run unless they duplicitously pretended to be a sycophant in order to be elected.

Even if we elected a candidate that would ask the tough questions, they are entering an AFL controlled board where they can easily be outvoted and outvoiced on any issue
 
Port just elected one.

Not sure what it will amount to, but he certainly didn’t run as the status quo.

Yeah I know and to be honest he was the much better candidate out of the two.

That being said, I wanted Abernethy to win solely because he would have been a yes man and helped cement Hinkley's spot.

Port will definitely be better for having Tredrea on their board.
 
Even if we elected a candidate that would ask the tough questions, they are entering an AFL controlled board where they can easily be outvoted and outvoiced on any issue

This is true and it’s a racket to be sure.

However, a certain type of board candidate has the ability to strategically influence others around the table.

So you can’t completely discount the role of the member-elected directors.

Of the two in this race, I actually think Smart would be the one most likely to influence.

And not in a good way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Have we ever had a decent candidate that actually wants to ask the tough questions and make the club accountable?

Sadly I couldn't see someone that wanted to shake the status quo ever being allowed to run unless they duplicitously pretended to be a sycophant in order to be elected.

They’ve got to get through the club’s vetting process and be selected to be a candidate. It’s not hidden, they’ve provided the process to us in black and white.
 
Even if we elected a candidate that would ask the tough questions, they are entering an AFL controlled board where they can easily be outvoted and outvoiced on any issue

They can, but at least there would be someone in board meetings asking questions and offering an alternative opinions on things.

Even if they're being voted against by the majority it's better than having another sycophant on the Board

If you were to ask enough questions eventually people would start to taking them seriously.
 
I don't see how you could be sure unless it's a "they can only get better from here" type of argument. Plenty of well meaning, competent people get corrupted by access to the inner circle.

That's true for some, but we all know that Tredders has a lot more conviction than most and wouldn't fold like a deck of cards.

He has nothing to gain from becoming a stooge especially when he has made his opinions very public and was voted in on a platform that he's not happy with the current direction.
 
That's true for some, but we all know that Tredders has a lot more conviction than most and wouldn't fold like a deck of cards.

He has nothing to gain from becoming a stooge especially when he has made his opinions very public and was voted in on a platform that he's not happy with the current direction.

Do we? Didn't sound like it last night.
 
That's true for some, but we all know that Tredders has a lot more conviction than most and wouldn't fold like a deck of cards.

He has nothing to gain from becoming a stooge especially when he has made his opinions very public and was voted in on a platform that he's not happy with the current direction.

Well I’m not convinced from what I heard last night.

Toeing the club line last night.
 
Have we ever had a decent candidate that actually wants to ask the tough questions and make the club accountable?

Sadly I couldn't see someone that wanted to shake the status quo ever being allowed to run unless they duplicitously pretended to be a sycophant in order to be elected.
the year I ran, there were only three nominations so under the rules I didn't even get to issue a statement. Bill Sanders beat me. Scandal.;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top