Opinion Were we wrong? Were we better off owned by the SANFL?

[feenix67]

I agree. The AFL isn’t appointing anyone, they have reserved powers due to the loans we took out; but they’re not exercising them. They aren’t meddling in practise

I don't think this is the case at all. The structure is specifically designed to ward off an opposing ticket. The AFL have veto rights on any Board nomination. They may not be meddling directly, but thats only because the structure means they don't have to.

The bigger question is why, as the license holder, did the SANFL agree to those terms? We had no need to court the AFL given our financial strength. The answer, of course, is to preserve funding and a seat at the AO gravy train for the SANFL. Olsen was in charge of that negotiation.

So Olsen has the AFL's favour. How will that influence negotiations when 2028 rolls around, considering he is now our Chairman? Will the AFL be prepared to relinquish control of such a strong club with such a large membership? It would be totally out of character for them to do so.

 

[Cap]

I don't think this is the case at all. The structure is specifically designed to ward off an opposing ticket. The AFL have veto rights on any Board nomination. They may not be meddling directly, but thats only because the structure means they don't have to.

The bigger question is why, as the license holder, did the SANFL agree to those terms? We had no need to court the AFL given our financial strength. The answer, of course, is to preserve funding and a seat at the AO gravy train for the SANFL. Olsen was in charge of that negotiation.

So Olsen has the AFL's favour. How will that influence negotiations when 2028 rolls around, considering he is now our Chairman? Will the AFL be prepared to relinquish control of such a strong club with such a large membership? It would be totally out of character for them to do so.

If I recall correctly, Chapman was part of our negotiations.

I recall him talking about having this on place to stop board challenges, which he saw as creating uncertainty.

But I share your concern re: AFL actions in 2028.

 

[WeeBlake]

I don't think this is the case at all. The structure is specifically designed to ward off an opposing ticket. The AFL have veto rights on any Board nomination. They may not be meddling directly, but thats only because the structure means they don't have to.

The bigger question is why, as the license holder, did the SANFL agree to those terms? We had no need to court the AFL given our financial strength. The answer, of course, is to preserve funding and a seat at the AO gravy train for the SANFL. Olsen was in charge of that negotiation.

So Olsen has the AFL's favour. How will that influence negotiations when 2028 rolls around, considering he is now our Chairman? Will the AFL be prepared to relinquish control of such a strong club with such a large membership? It would be totally out of character for them to do so.

Agree.

Current directors know that they serve at the pleasure of the AFL. Of course that influences how they go about it.

And the current board chooses a new board member, how likely is it they’ll choose someone who the AFL won’t like?

The AFL doesn’t need to be micromanaging the club to have a large influence.

 

[Crowked]

They'll assign all voting rights to Mark Ricciuto.

So, no change then?

 

[Kwality]

We went to a loan shark to get the money.

No the loan shark arranged the deal.
Is the club actually paying off the debt or is it a book entry/sleight of hand.

 

[feenix67]

If I recall correctly, Chapman was part of our negotiations.

I recall him talking about having this on place to stop board challenges, which he saw as creating uncertainty.

But I share your concern re: AFL actions in 2028.

I meant Olsen was in charge of the SANFL part of the negotiation.

And yes, the stated goal of the AFL veto rights is to ward off challenges. In practice, what that means is a Board beholden to the wishes of the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

From the 2021 Financials:
Non-current SANFL game development grant liability(i) 4,091,883 (2020) 4,683,593

(i) In March 2014, the Club committed to support the development of football in South Australia through a Game Development Grant payable to the SANFL, ending 2028. The liability for these future payments is recognised at its net present value.

Is this the cost of buying back your club?

 

[Sanders]

I don't think this is the case at all. The structure is specifically designed to ward off an opposing ticket. The AFL have veto rights on any Board nomination. They may not be meddling directly, but thats only because the structure means they don't have to.

Exactly so at the moment, it’s made no difference.

 

[Sanders]

No the loan shark arranged the deal.
Is the club actually paying off the debt or is it a book entry/sleight of hand.

Of course we’re paying it off

What a bizarre question

 

[MarcusP2]

From the 2021 Financials:
Non-current SANFL game development grant liability(i) 4,091,883 (2020) 4,683,593

(i) In March 2014, the Club committed to support the development of football in South Australia through a Game Development Grant payable to the SANFL, ending 2028. The liability for these future payments is recognised at its net present value.

Is this the cost of buying back your club?

Yes. 11M to be paid to the SANFL over 15 years was agreed in 2014.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

On Pixel 5 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Not really true. North would be in Gold Coast now had it not been for their independent board and (at the time) public ownership.

Who was the AFL CEO at the time and what club did he used to play for?

 

[feenix67]

Who was the AFL CEO at the time and what club did he used to play for?

Vlad wanted them on the Gold Coast. That's been well documented. It was the NM Board's refusal to roll over that kept them in Victoria.

 

[Kwality]

Vlad wanted them on the Gold Coast. That's been well documented. It was the NM Board's refusal to roll over that kept them in Victoria.

I ask why Demetriou was so compliant over the North Melbourne refusal - did it change nothing in the AFL expansion plan ? Thats a question for the Commission of the day, we know the answer the administration would give.

 

[feenix67]

I ask why Demetriou was so compliant over the North Melbourne refusal - did it change nothing in the AFL expansion plan ? Thats a question for the Commission of the day, we know the answer the administration would give.

North had private shareholders at the time. There was not much he could do about it.

 

[1970crow]

None of us were aware at the time how much of our soul we sold to the AFL in buying back the license. Had we been aware, I doubt there would have been much support.

It's short term pain, just unlucky it's those that lived through the Trigg/Chappy SANFL years that also experience the AFL ownership years. It's our gift to those that come after us, we have sacrificed for them.

 

[1970crow]

But does it say anything about them being elected?

The main problem isn’t the AFL rubber stamp — as bad as that is — it’s the fact the bulk of them are unelected.

And the sheer swill that led us through the Trigg debacle inherited the gift of self perpetuation. Shocking that under that quality of srewardship, we managed to descend to the CM debacle.

 

[1970crow]

Vlad wanted them on the Gold Coast. That's been well documented. It was the NM Board's refusal to roll over that kept them in Victoria.

remember James Brayshaw's 'white knights'? 10 wealthy benefactors putting $1m aside each and the club using the interest to support operations?