stan wrote:UK Fan wrote:Magellan wrote:Here 's the article in all its glory:
Chris Schacht: Adelaide Football Club, Port Adelaide Football Club and SACA members must demand constitutional change
WHO runs the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs?
If you think it is the 120,000 souls who form the two South Australian AFL clubs’ membership bases, then you are wrong.
The AFL Commission is the sole owner and controlling shareholder of the Crows and Power.
This means the 120,000 members spread across the great divide in SA football share one common theme.
They do not have any effective say in who manages and operates their clubs.
It is absolutely ironical that the two AFL football clubs in South Australia are not owned by any South Australians. They are owned by the AFL Commission, which has at present no South Australian as a director.
The AFL Commission has absolute power to appoint the majority of directors in each club. In the case of the Adelaide Football Club, the so-called members can elect two of the nine directors in a postal ballot.
But even after these directors are elected, their final appointment must be approved by the AFL Commission.
The remaining board members are appointed by the AFL on the recommendation of the existing directors at the two clubs. In recent months three new directors have been appointed to the Crows board. No notice was given to the members that new directors were to be appointed. Management at West Lakes did not seek registration of interest from any club member as to whom they wished to be considered for any of these vacancies.
Seven of the nine directors never have had to face a ballot by the club members.
The 60,000 members at each club are no more than subscribers who buy tickets to attend a football match at Adelaide Oval.
Recently, the Adelaide Football Club held its annual meeting at Adelaide Oval. This consisted only of the existing board members plus a representative of the AFL Commission.
The AFL, as the sole shareholder, did not send a representative to the meeting. It appointed one of the existing directors as its proxy. The session in essence was a private meeting with only the directors present.
The club’s annual report and financial statement was approved by the board, but not circulated to the so-called 60,000 members for their information. The annual report was adopted by the sole shareholder, who in this case was the AFL proxy.
If the Adelaide Football Club was a publicly listed company the annual report and financial statements would be publicly available to all members or shareholders before the meeting.
The words of the Crows club song, “we are the pride of South Australia”, are particularly ironic considering that no South Australian is a club shareholder.
By comparison, several of the original AFL clubs in Victoria, such as Hawthorn, still have a constitution which allows their members to vote for their directors. There also is a term limit on all board members including the chairman.
Clearly, the Hawthorn members are committed to ensure that their club runs well and as a result they have won four premierships in the past 10 years.
The Crows have not played in a grand final since 1998.
Either all AFL football clubs should have a membership and governance structure like Hawthorn or all football clubs have to be owned by the AFL in the same way as Adelaide and Port Adelaide. Otherwise, there is a two-tiered system of governance which is not fair.
Recently a select committee of the South Australian Parliament held a public inquiry into the governance of the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA). The report was scathing in the way the SACA board manipulated the election process of board members.
SA taxpayers have directly contributed over half a billion dollars to build a new stadium at Adelaide Oval, to the absolute advantage of the Crows, Port Power and SACA.
Taxpayers, as well as club members, have a public right to know that their sporting clubs are democratically run.
In South Australia the members of the Adelaide Football Club, Port Adelaide Football Club and SACA must demand constitutional change so that they, the members, truly have an effective say in the ownership and running of their clubs.
And the Booney/BennyMacs of the world support above. And try to claim "we can't have it both ways".
SA footys finest.
In fairness considering how poorly Port have been run in the past you wouldnt really want them to have run of the board now would you?
PAFC incompetence is irrelevant really.
They were encouraged to overspend by AD and the AFL for years. Then the afl used PAFC poor financial position as the basis on the value they placed on their licence when purchasing it back.
Freaking genius move by Victorians. And of course 100% supported by Olsen and PAFCs vic controlled board wonderful Safooty servants they are.
One Question on the crows though Stan ???
They are making millions every year as promised and using your justification for pafcs board.
So why have the afl taken the crows over ???
Thoughts
