SAAFL Div 5 & 5R (2009)

[Keepitreal]

These rules can only be changed at an AGM, a lot of clubs are "Sports & Social Clubs", therefore, what the "Football committee" see as a good thing, the "Executive committee" may not. Our club has survived for almost 100 years because we follow the constitution.

What if there is a former AFL player that has moved within your area and would like a crack at coaching amateur level and you pass it by because you didn't advertise.

I think the key is to advertise as early as possible, you'll probably end up with far more applicants, some maybe just for a sticky-beak, nevertheless, the position will be filled as early as possible so you aren't "dicking around" someone that you are always going to give the nod to.

The constitution does state "advertise", there is no stipulation on the level of advertising you have to perform.

Clubs should not have to feel obliged to employ coaches on mateship or any other reason, each year should be taken as a new step and if the rules state that a club "HAS" to advertise, there should be no hard feelings. If the current coach is the best man for the job, he should have no concerns then.

Not digging at you, I just see it from the other side of the fence, I have coached and I have been on an executive committee.

Very well said Lightning my thoughts exactly you never know who is out there looking and this is with no disrespect to the current coach whom may have done nothing wrong to deserve not keeping their position but if you don't look you will never know.

Also I believe it is a big task changing a constitution for one thing.

Also was not having a dig at anyone, have also coached & been on committees, was only stating that if happy & going to reappoint current coach why not just post at club level, but if also looking to see what is out there then advertise in general, but which ever way you do it, do it professionally as some clubs project a very negative experience to applicants by not treating the position as a job advertisement and responding in a timely manner. Know of one coach who applied at a certain club, didn't hear or receive any correspondence back for the applied position, heard through the footy vine who they had appointed, the following year (end of the season he applied for) received a letter to say he was unsuccessful for the next year to which he didn't even apply, nor would he due to their un-professionalism the first time! Have also seen & heard clubs that have constitutionally advertised get upset when current coach also applies for other roles, as he doesn't know whether he will or won't be reappointed so needs to cover his bases, which IMO is "dicking" them around and wasting theirs and other clubs time and resources.
Was also looking from both sides to project club as place to be through professional actions to attract best coaches market has to offer.

[Choccies]

ok..so basically unless someone dobbed in the club from within no-one would even know..but yeah pretty wild figures for the fines!

LM you made great points re your constitution..but from a player and coaches and supporters point of view it causes much confusion, uncertainty and tends to show (on the outside) a lack of confidence in the incumbent..and they are then bombarded with questions as to who, what, when and why and the uncertainty goes on, you only have to look on here at the amount of times posters get asked why clubs are advertising when they have a coach etc..just my opinion and i see merit from both sides of the argument but for me i dont like it..

Am I wrong or do some clubs appoint coaches to 2 year contracts ??? How can they do this then if the constitution says different ?

[Keepitreal]

ok..so basically unless someone dobbed in the club from within no-one would even know..but yeah pretty wild figures for the fines!

LM you made great points re your constitution..but from a player and coaches and supporters point of view it causes much confusion, uncertainty and tends to show (on the outside) a lack of confidence in the incumbent..and they are then bombarded with questions as to who, what, when and why and the uncertainty goes on, you only have to look on here at the amount of times posters get asked why clubs are advertising when they have a coach etc..just my opinion and i see merit from both sides of the argument but for me i dont like it..

Exactly!

[Footy Chick]

Am I wrong or do some clubs appoint coaches to 2 year contracts ??? How can they do this then if the constitution says different ?

Yep, but this will be stipulated in the constitution, for examples sake: treasurer and general committee members will be subject to a 2 year tenure. President, chairman and secretary will be a 1 year tenure.

[Choccies]

Am I wrong or do some clubs appoint coaches to 2 year contracts ??? How can they do this then if the constitution says different ?

Yep, but this will be stipulated in the constitution, for examples sake: treasurer and general committee members will be subject to a 2 year tenure. President, chairman and secretary will be a 1 year tenure.

Ok... Ta

[Footy Chick]

Sorry Choccies - I misread your question.

coaches that appoint for 2 years are probably breaking the rules as you'll find that the majority of constitutions call for the re-application of coaches each year.

ie; the contracts aren't worth the piece of paper they're written on.

When Shrek graces us with his prescence again, he may be able to clarify...

[Lightning McQueen]

Sorry Choccies - I misread your question.

coaches that appoint for 2 years are probably breaking the rules as you'll find that the majority of constitutions call for the re-application of coaches each year.

ie; the contracts aren't worth the piece of paper they're written on.

When Shrek graces us with his prescence again, he may be able to clarify...

I would think that they are soley "Football Clubs" that don't have a governing body or it isn't in their constitution.

[Lightning McQueen]

ok..so basically unless someone dobbed in the club from within no-one would even know..but yeah pretty wild figures for the fines!

LM you made great points re your constitution..but from a player and coaches and supporters point of view it causes much confusion, uncertainty and tends to show (on the outside) a lack of confidence in the incumbent..and they are then bombarded with questions as to who, what, when and why and the uncertainty goes on, you only have to look on here at the amount of times posters get asked why clubs are advertising when they have a coach etc..just my opinion and i see merit from both sides of the argument but for me i dont like it..

Like I said, do it as early as possible and is the level of advertising stipulated, it could be a post-it note on the clubs notice-board. The sporting body is responsible for the running of the club and the members should have enough faith in them to make the correct moves.

Uncertainty is a pain in the arse, but so is having a defunct club or having to revert to one side due to mis-management.

[Choccies]

Sorry Choccies - I misread your question.

coaches that appoint for 2 years are probably breaking the rules as you'll find that the majority of constitutions call for the re-application of coaches each year.

ie; the contracts aren't worth the piece of paper they're written on.

When Shrek graces us with his prescence again, he may be able to clarify...

Yeah I guess that was my point... those 2 year contracts are technically 1 + 1 knowing the inevitable has to occur midway thru either way...

[The Big Shrek]

pardon my ignorance..if the constitution asks for the club to advertise each year and one year they dont..does the club fine itself?..who fines it and under what laws?..who determines the amount?

For the best part it will go unnoticed....

The fines for non compliance are set by the courts (yes! this is REAL legal stuff) and ranges as a guess.

For example, I found out that if its proven that a club accepted the votes of non-financial members at an AGM ... anywhere from $10-$20k upwards... I found that rather interesting..

I haven't really studied this stuff but I doubt that a club would be fined. The person instigating the action would be looking for another remedy such as declaring the vote invalid and the court forrcing the club to do it again properly. Unless I am vastly mistaken the behaviour talked about on here isn't criminal and so the only way these things would be enforced would be by a civil suit, and who would dob in their own club unless they had something to gain from it.

[zedman]

well said..thx big green thing

[The Big Shrek]

Where did you get those numbers for the fines FC? Were they local sporting clubs or other corporations?

[Footy Chick]

Where did you get those numbers for the fines FC? Were they local sporting clubs or other corporations?

Just made my own enquiries

I was told that sporting organisations with a lodged constitutions follow the corporations law acts or whatever they are.. and are still liable to the same penalties as any other organisation.

I've got the details at home..

[The Big Shrek]

As for a 2 year contract in that situation I don't know what happens when a company makes a contract they were not empowered to make. I only know what happens when an agent makes a contract he was not entitled to make on behalf of the company and I assume they are different. My guess is the club would still be lliable for a breach though. You can't expect coaches to look through the constitution every time they get a job. Or maybe you can?

They follow the same law FC but I doubt their actions would be as serious as in say a large corporation were they delibarately allowed non-members to vote to acheive an outcome such as replacing a director. They fine would depend on the circumstances, not merely the fact that they didn't follow the rules

[Footy Chick]

You're probably right, those were just the approx figures given to me by the dept of consumer affairs.

[S Demon]

Personally, I believe clubs use the excuse that it's in the constitution to advertise when they just want to see what else is out there. Let's be honest, if the committee wanted the current coach to stay on - they would sign him up and not advertise at all.

No one out there is going to police every clubs' constitution to see if they should have advertised or not. Plenty of clubs re-appoint coaches without advertising (even if it is in the constitution) which proves that clubs only do it to try and get someone better (which is fine) or they are unhappy with the current coach and are looking for the easy way to sack him...

[Footy Chick]

They wouldn't be looking for an easy way to sack a coach, if a coach wasn't wanted, Im sure any committee would say something at seasons end.

This is probably a bad example (sorry Charlie), but what if Macca applied for an A grade coaching position after your club advertised, claiming he wanted to give something back to his grassroots club?

[zedman]

macca never had grassroots..he was born with hair on his face and played seniors since birth!

but FC..if the club is happy with current coach dont you think that is showing lack of loyalty by suddenly dropping said coach for the high profile one..same as LM's example of an AFL player moving into the area..he might have played AFL but it dont mean he can coach..why would he be better than the appointed coach?

it creates suspicion and unease with the players and committe members..they dont want to be seen as being disloyal but they have to go thru the process cuz the constitution says so..so the coach also checks out who else is about and they may end up terminating what was actually a good relationship that became poisoned by the stupid rules

[Footy Chick]

macca never had grassroots..he was born with hair on his face and played seniors since birth!

but FC..if the club is happy with current coach dont you think that is showing lack of loyalty by suddenly dropping said coach for the high profile one..same as LM's example of an AFL player moving into the area..he might have played AFL but it dont mean he can coach..why would he be better than the appointed coach?

it creates suspicion and unease with the players and committe members..they dont want to be seen as being disloyal but they have to go thru the process cuz the constitution says so..so the coach also checks out who else is about and they may end up terminating what was actually a good relationship that became poisoned by the stupid rules

I think it would be a gross misloyalty to someone who has already had success over a period of time with the club *wow, I feel this sense of de ja vu, like I've been here before *

Unfortunately, there are clubs out there that would do it and the drop of a hat though as the big name coach attracts big players and big sponsorship $$. Most coaches would be aware or should be made aware that advertising is all part of the process though.

[aceman]

macca never had grassroots..he was born with hair on his face and played seniors since birth!

but FC..if the club is happy with current coach dont you think that is showing lack of loyalty by suddenly dropping said coach for the high profile one..same as LM's example of an AFL player moving into the area..he might have played AFL but it dont mean he can coach..why would he be better than the appointed coach?

it creates suspicion and unease with the players and committe members..they dont want to be seen as being disloyal but they have to go thru the process cuz the constitution says so..so the coach also checks out who else is about and they may end up terminating what was actually a good relationship that became poisoned by the stupid rules

Don't you worry, Macca's had plenty of grass roots, and in every other place you could have one too!!!