Swamp Donkey wrote:Do we have a decision on Angle Vale yet, or will the board just keep calling for another vote until they get the result they want?
We do. Kind of.
Four voted against the motion to rescind the Board's decision.
One club voted for it.
Two clubs did not vote.
I don't know where that leaves us. Working on it.
Hope it's ok with Norm that I've revealed this.
I'm assuming the two clubs not voting was basically a show of no confidence in the whole process - I can't understand why else they would not put their view forward. It will be very interesting to see how the SACFL handle the situation. I have far more faith in their process to ensure the right outcome is reached.
Swamp Donkey wrote:Do we have a decision on Angle Vale yet, or will the board just keep calling for another vote until they get the result they want?
We do. Kind of.
Four voted against the motion to rescind the Board's decision.
One club voted for it.
Two clubs did not vote.
I don't know where that leaves us. Working on it.
Hope it's ok with Norm that I've revealed this.
I'm assuming the two clubs not voting was basically a show of no confidence in the whole process - I can't understand why else they would not put their view forward. It will be very interesting to see how the SACFL handle the situation. I have far more faith in their process to ensure the right outcome is reached.
They did not vote as there was nothing to vote on in their opinion, the matter had been decided on the first vote.
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Geez. One (or two) sides might be in for a few big losses next season unless they get some serious ins
Was there any player movement in regards to the Crewdson situation at United?
Also very interested to see player movements at Virginia this off-season with the new salary cap
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Has the big fella signed the paper work or is he still playing the game
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Has the big fella signed the paper work or is he still playing the game
If you believe Facebook, he has. There's a classic page dedicated to the "King of the Adelaide Plains". Haha
Mythical Creature wrote:Is it in the Constitution that you can rescind your vote and change your mind the next morning? If it is fair enough, if not what sort of "cooling off" period do you have on votes. It may very well be legitimate and not dodgy but shit it does look dodgy as hell.
The way i understand it delegates vote on behalf of their members. For a club to decide which way to vote you hold a meeting to get the consensus of the members and delegates vote accordingly even if its different to their personal opinion. To change your vote overnight just shows how bad some clubs are run and its just 1 or 2 people making their minds up on the fly.
People can understand if votes go against them and the process is fair, however if its not in the Constitution to change your vote then it appears to be unfair and more people will be annoyed now than after the original decision.
Seems some clubs need lessons on Corporate Governance......
Exactly. Add directors to those lessons. Very scary position to put yourself into going outside the book. Not somewhere i would wanna be
All I have every seen is a club committee make the decision for the club members without consulting members, but then again that's what members vote a committee in to do, show the best interest of the club , huge decision which may/maybe not good ,only time will tell.
Correct. Still highly doubt between late friday night and early saturday morning is enough time to hold a committee meeting and majority of committee members change their mind and change their club vote. The whole process has been a joke really.
If you don't like it, change it. If you don't want to change it, it can't be that bad!
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Where is the dislike button. Lol
Is harris staying at mallala?
If you don't like it, change it. If you don't want to change it, it can't be that bad!
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Where is the dislike button. Lol
Is harris staying at mallala?
Surely not they can't fit em all in there is a salary cap the big fella wouldn't come for meal vouchers
wrt to AVFC proposal - it is disappointing to see so much differing opinions between clubs and the APFL. I cannot understand why proper protocol was not followed from day 1 and it leaves the proposal in a mess that could have been avoided. 1. What is the strategic plan of the league and where is this? Expansion (north or south), stability, or controlled contraction (down to six clubs). 2. An appointed investigation committee separate to the board to provide recommendation. Where was this? 3. Why would any club move to rescind the board decision? So the clubs could vote on it?? Doesn't this leave the league to the mercy of the four strongest (collusive) clubs - which is why an independent board of directors is formed (by the clubs). Wouldn't the clubs only vote for the preferment of the club and not necessarily the league??
If I was AVFC, I'd be wondering I'm getting into. The APFL or a bunch of club powerbrokers.
"As long as I live, I will deny taking performance enhancing drugs" Lance Armstrong 2010
Lame Choice wrote:wrt to AVFC proposal - it is disappointing to see so much differing opinions between clubs and the APFL. I cannot understand why proper protocol was not followed from day 1 and it leaves the proposal in a mess that could have been avoided. 1. What is the strategic plan of the league and where is this? Expansion (north or south), stability, or controlled contraction (down to six clubs). 2. An appointed investigation committee separate to the board to provide recommendation. Where was this? 3. Why would any club move to rescind the board decision? So the clubs could vote on it?? Doesn't this leave the league to the mercy of the four strongest (collusive) clubs - which is why an independent board of directors is formed (by the clubs). Wouldn't the clubs only vote for the preferment of the club and not necessarily the league??
If I was AVFC, I'd be wondering I'm getting into. The APFL or a bunch of club powerbrokers.
The league is always at the mercy of the clubs. The board is there to administer the league in its day to day operations. As per the constitution, clubs have the power to rescind any Board decision should they see fit. Otherwise you have a dictatorship.
Lame Choice wrote:wrt to AVFC proposal - it is disappointing to see so much differing opinions between clubs and the APFL. I cannot understand why proper protocol was not followed from day 1 and it leaves the proposal in a mess that could have been avoided. 1. What is the strategic plan of the league and where is this? Expansion (north or south), stability, or controlled contraction (down to six clubs). 2. An appointed investigation committee separate to the board to provide recommendation. Where was this? 3. Why would any club move to rescind the board decision? So the clubs could vote on it?? Doesn't this leave the league to the mercy of the four strongest (collusive) clubs - which is why an independent board of directors is formed (by the clubs). Wouldn't the clubs only vote for the preferment of the club and not necessarily the league??
If I was AVFC, I'd be wondering I'm getting into. The APFL or a bunch of club powerbrokers.
The league is always at the mercy of the clubs. The board is there to administer the league in its day to day operations. As per the constitution, clubs have the power to rescind any Board decision should they see fit. Otherwise you have a dictatorship.
I don't know too many board directors that get involved with 'day to day operations'. I thought they were independent counsel to provide balanced decision making on behalf of the league based on all the facts. They are appointed by the clubs to do this - not have the decision rescinded if the decision isn't popular. Whilst the APFL President may be seen to call the shots at certain times, he only carries one vote on the board. That is why there are five directors. The day to day stuff is a part time role for one.
"As long as I live, I will deny taking performance enhancing drugs" Lance Armstrong 2010
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Mallala are hopeful that Brad Wilson continues his committment in the SANFL. Plenty of time to come back and play country footy.
Lame Choice wrote:wrt to AVFC proposal - it is disappointing to see so much differing opinions between clubs and the APFL. I cannot understand why proper protocol was not followed from day 1 and it leaves the proposal in a mess that could have been avoided. 1. What is the strategic plan of the league and where is this? Expansion (north or south), stability, or controlled contraction (down to six clubs). 2. An appointed investigation committee separate to the board to provide recommendation. Where was this? 3. Why would any club move to rescind the board decision? So the clubs could vote on it?? Doesn't this leave the league to the mercy of the four strongest (collusive) clubs - which is why an independent board of directors is formed (by the clubs). Wouldn't the clubs only vote for the preferment of the club and not necessarily the league??
If I was AVFC, I'd be wondering I'm getting into. The APFL or a bunch of club powerbrokers.
The league is always at the mercy of the clubs. The board is there to administer the league in its day to day operations. As per the constitution, clubs have the power to rescind any Board decision should they see fit. Otherwise you have a dictatorship.
I don't know too many board directors that get involved with 'day to day operations'. I thought they were independent counsel to provide balanced decision making on behalf of the league based on all the facts. They are appointed by the clubs to do this - not have the decision rescinded if the decision isn't popular. Whilst the APFL President may be seen to call the shots at certain times, he only carries one vote on the board. That is why there are five directors. The day to day stuff is a part time role for one.
I'm sure they make a lot of decisions the clubs don't get involved in. A vast majority of league business is handled by the Board and handled very well. They're there to run the joint in the interest of the leagues BUT there is the provision for the clubs to vote on matters should they wish to. So in regards to the rescission motion, it's there in the constitution that it can be done.
What I think you're trying to say is clubs shouldn't be able to rescind a board decision.
My perception is that they are currently accepted but there could also be a referendum pending on decisions made my club delegates putting it towards each clubs members, would this be right or is it set in concrete that they have been accepted?
Lame Choice wrote:wrt to AVFC proposal - it is disappointing to see so much differing opinions between clubs and the APFL. I cannot understand why proper protocol was not followed from day 1 and it leaves the proposal in a mess that could have been avoided. 1. What is the strategic plan of the league and where is this? Expansion (north or south), stability, or controlled contraction (down to six clubs). 2. An appointed investigation committee separate to the board to provide recommendation. Where was this? 3. Why would any club move to rescind the board decision? So the clubs could vote on it?? Doesn't this leave the league to the mercy of the four strongest (collusive) clubs - which is why an independent board of directors is formed (by the clubs). Wouldn't the clubs only vote for the preferment of the club and not necessarily the league??
If I was AVFC, I'd be wondering I'm getting into. The APFL or a bunch of club powerbrokers.
The league is always at the mercy of the clubs. The board is there to administer the league in its day to day operations. As per the constitution, clubs have the power to rescind any Board decision should they see fit. Otherwise you have a dictatorship.
I don't know too many board directors that get involved with 'day to day operations'. I thought they were independent counsel to provide balanced decision making on behalf of the league based on all the facts. They are appointed by the clubs to do this - not have the decision rescinded if the decision isn't popular. Whilst the APFL President may be seen to call the shots at certain times, he only carries one vote on the board. That is why there are five directors. The day to day stuff is a part time role for one.
I'm sure they make a lot of decisions the clubs don't get involved in. A vast majority of league business is handled by the Board and handled very well. They're there to run the joint in the interest of the leagues BUT there is the provision for the clubs to vote on matters should they wish to. So in regards to the rescission motion, it's there in the constitution that it can be done.
What I think you're trying to say is clubs shouldn't be able to rescind a board decision.
Not quite. I believe the constitutional clause is there to allow the clubs to overturn a clanger of a decision. If the clubs want to challenge a decision to the people they appoint, then we may as well go back to a delegate vote on everything and stop wasting the time of the people elected. There are leagues that do this quite well, and there are others that have the strongest majority of clubs that run a league to the detriment of the lesser clubs and league overall. The reason for the board is to make the best decision for the league, considering all clubs and matters. Clubs always vote for themselves to put themselves in a stronger position - which is what they should be doing. My initial point is that the process to date has appeared a bit thin and seemed always doomed to a club vote - which to date seems in limbo with clubs changing their minds.
"As long as I live, I will deny taking performance enhancing drugs" Lance Armstrong 2010
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a board, nor challenging a decision you don't think is right. Like I said, a fair majority of the time, they do the business without anyone batting an eyelid. But the second a decision is challenged, you're saying abandon the whole concept? Seems a bit over the top. This is once in however many years a motion to rescind has been lodged, which says to me that by and large, the system works well. And will continue to work well once this process is finished with.
OnSong wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with having a board, nor challenging a decision you don't think is right. Like I said, a fair majority of the time, they do the business without anyone batting an eyelid. But the second a decision is challenged, you're saying abandon the whole concept? Seems a bit over the top. This is once in however many years a motion to rescind has been lodged, which says to me that by and large, the system works well. And will continue to work well once this process is finished with.
Fair enough and I'm not deliberately arguing for the sake of an argument. I also do not have the inner details to the application or preferences of individuals. But I do sense that some on this forum (whom I assume have some involvement with the clubs) were fairly certain from the beginning that the decision (or in this case indecision) would be made by the clubs - which is what has happened. That is fine too. It is my experience though that this is not the best approach for major decisions such as this and the APFL (and CFL) has a mechanism to assess and derive an outcome based on the benefit of the league. It seems this has not been achieved to date.
"As long as I live, I will deny taking performance enhancing drugs" Lance Armstrong 2010
hairy cat wrote:Sorry to change the subject but the pies are the sleepers and one big thing hasn't been mentioned Angus Bruggemann is he back local or still in town?
Bruggemann/Wilson/Wildbore all will be back in 2016
Mallala are hopeful that Brad Wilson continues his committment in the SANFL. Plenty of time to come back and play country footy.
Good move for brad yes Wildbore we expected but what about the bigfella he is hot property and im not sure hes in the bag
