The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[Ronnie]

Excellent article by former Labor Senator Chris Schacht today in the paper. Details the set up of both SA based AFL clubs who are controlled wholly by the AFL.
No members (only ticket holders) No AGMs, all Board Members appointed or vetted by the AFL Commission. No members therefore no meaningful input into how these clubs are actually run and managed. You hand over serious money to hold a ticket to the games is the extent of it. These clubs are effectively franchise outlets of the AFL Commission, based in Melbourne.

Another reason why it is completely inappropriate to have these two AFL outlets in a legitimate footballing competition such as the SANFL.
I find it staggering that this situation is tolerated let alone largely ignored by the masses as it apparently has been.

[Booney]

Excellent article by former Labor Senator Chris Schacht today in the paper. Details the set up of both SA based AFL clubs who are controlled wholly by the AFL.
No members (only ticket holders) No AGMs, all Board Members appointed or vetted by the AFL Commission. No members therefore no meaningful input into how these clubs are actually run and managed. You hand over serious money to hold a ticket to the games is the extent of it. These clubs are effectively franchise outlets of the AFL Commission, based in Melbourne.

Another reason why it is completely inappropriate to have these two AFL outlets in a legitimate footballing competition such as the SANFL.
I find it staggering that this situation is tolerated let alone largely ignored by the masses as it apparently has been.

The Port Adelaide Football Club has a 10 person board. 8 are appointed by the AFL, 2 are nominated to the AFL by the club membership. I don't believe at any time has either of the club membership nominated board members been declined by the AFL.

The last AGM was held Friday February 3, 2017, I was there.

Someone hasn't done their homework very well.

[tipper]

Excellent article by former Labor Senator Chris Schacht today in the paper. Details the set up of both SA based AFL clubs who are controlled wholly by the AFL.
No members (only ticket holders) No AGMs, all Board Members appointed or vetted by the AFL Commission. No members therefore no meaningful input into how these clubs are actually run and managed. You hand over serious money to hold a ticket to the games is the extent of it. These clubs are effectively franchise outlets of the AFL Commission, based in Melbourne.

Another reason why it is completely inappropriate to have these two AFL outlets in a legitimate footballing competition such as the SANFL.
I find it staggering that this situation is tolerated let alone largely ignored by the masses as it apparently has been.

The Port Adelaide Football Club has a 10 person board. 8 are appointed by the AFL, 2 are nominated to the AFL by the club membership. I don't believe at any time has either of the club membership nominated board members been declined by the AFL.

The last AGM was held Friday February 3, 2017, I was there.

Someone hasn't done their homework very well.

thats splitting some pretty fine hairs there Boon. the membership get to vote for 2 out of ten? not exactly a controlling interest is it? seems more like a token to make it seem like the members get a voice.

not that i can really talk. the North board are (nearly) all voted on by the members and they dont listen to them anyway, so not really any different in the end i suppose.......

[Booney]

Excellent article by former Labor Senator Chris Schacht today in the paper. Details the set up of both SA based AFL clubs who are controlled wholly by the AFL.
No members (only ticket holders) No AGMs, all Board Members appointed or vetted by the AFL Commission. No members therefore no meaningful input into how these clubs are actually run and managed. You hand over serious money to hold a ticket to the games is the extent of it. These clubs are effectively franchise outlets of the AFL Commission, based in Melbourne.

Another reason why it is completely inappropriate to have these two AFL outlets in a legitimate footballing competition such as the SANFL.
I find it staggering that this situation is tolerated let alone largely ignored by the masses as it apparently has been.

The Port Adelaide Football Club has a 10 person board. 8 are appointed by the AFL, 2 are nominated to the AFL by the club membership. I don't believe at any time has either of the club membership nominated board members been declined by the AFL.

The last AGM was held Friday February 3, 2017, I was there.

Someone hasn't done their homework very well.

thats splitting some pretty fine hairs there Boon. the membership get to vote for 2 out of ten? not exactly a controlling interest is it? seems more like a token to make it seem like the members get a voice.

not that i can really talk. the North board are (nearly) all voted on by the members and they dont listen to them anyway, so not really any different in the end i suppose.......

The article ( well the content of the article as posted by Ronnie ) reports that the PAFC holds no AGM and the members are "ticket holders" who don't vote on the make up of the board of directors, that's not true.

[tipper]

The article ( well the content of the article as posted by Ronnie ) reports that the PAFC holds no AGM and the members are "ticket holders" who don't vote on the make up of the board of directors, that's not true.

its 80% true on the board makeup though, with an afl veto on the remaining 20% if they dont like who you vote in. completely wrong on the agm obviously, although i dont know why PAFC would bother if the members cannot then make a change at board level without permission from the afl overlords....

[Ronnie]

Fair enough Boon you attend what is called an AGM (in all honesty it is a member information session) and I believe get to hear the financials. Maybe even get to vote for a puppet of the AFL for a small percentage of spots on the Board. It's unbelievable that an organization with claims to a long and proud history would settle for this. You've swapped one overlord for another.
Does this all really matter, not really sure

[Booney]

Fair enough Boon you attend what is called an AGM (in all honesty it is a member information session) and I believe get to hear the financials. Maybe even get to vote for a puppet of the AFL for a small percentage of spots on the Board. It's unbelievable that an organization with claims to a long and proud history would settle for this. You've swapped one overlord for another.
Does this all really matter, not really sure

It's not your fault Chris Schit got it wrong.

[Magellan]

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.

[Hazydog]

And meanwhile in the West... the discontent with their AFL player alignment arrangement continues to fester...

https://thewest.com.au/sport/wafl/the-t ... b88448580z

The old method of farming out players to varying WAFL clubs, (SANFL referenced as using the same method), is being warmly reminisced..

[Pseudo]

And meanwhile in the West... the discontent with their AFL player alignment arrangement continues to fester...

https://thewest.com.au/sport/wafl/the-t ... b88448580z

The old method of farming out players to varying WAFL clubs, (SANFL referenced as using the same method), is being warmly reminisced..

As an aside, the video links in that story are well worth a click. Vintage WAFL action.

[StrayDog]

And meanwhile in the West... the discontent with their AFL player alignment arrangement continues to fester...

https://thewest.com.au/sport/wafl/the-t ... b88448580z

The old method of farming out players to varying WAFL clubs, (SANFL referenced as using the same method), is being warmly reminisced..

I remember in the 1990s when some in the east were openly citing this model in a positive light.

Collingwood's 2010 flag, after three seasons of standalone reserves, a propaganda appetiser used to justify standalone teams / full alignments across the board, and the SANFL was on their menu.

Conveniently tucked away was the fact that Geelong's reserves, continued in the VFL in 2000 after AFL reserves disbanded, watched their seniors average about 9th until they tore "the Power" a new Size 119 pooper in 2007.

[saintal]

And meanwhile in the West... the discontent with their AFL player alignment arrangement continues to fester...

https://thewest.com.au/sport/wafl/the-t ... b88448580z

The old method of farming out players to varying WAFL clubs, (SANFL referenced as using the same method), is being warmly reminisced..

A good read. Not the first time an article of that nature has been penned regarding the WAFL alignments.

The other article referenced in that link also has a few points of interest stemming from a recent review:

- The WAFL’s alignment model will continue until at least the end of the 2021
- The WAFL will also be scaled back to an 18-round home-and-away competition from next season.
- The WAFC would investigate being rebranded as AFLWA in a bid to secure more AFL funding, with the WAFL keeping its own identity;
- Colts coaches will be hired directly by the WAFC with the development teams still aligned to WAFL clubs, but no longer run by them starting from 2018.

[wild dog]

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.

.........

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.

A footballing state that more than held its own has allowed its history and culture to be binned and replaced by a two team franchise that is totally controlled from Melbourne. One small article telling it how it is, and no one really could care less. It would be great to think that as a state we have finally bottomed out and the only way is up, after the closure of Holdens that is....

[RB]

- The WAFC would investigate being rebranded as AFLWA in a bid to secure more AFL funding, with the WAFL keeping its own identity

This is totally contradictory...

[UK Fan]

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.

[Ronnie]

The new franchises like Gold Coast and GWS are basically AFL run and administered. Some rationale exists in those markets for that. However it isn't clear why clubs in SA have so meekly surrendered their control over to AFL House.

[stan]

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?

[Booney]

And the Booney/BennyMacs of the world support above. And try to claim "we can't have it both ways".

SA footys finest.

Remarkable that a website dedicated to talking about football is somewhere that you visit.

Most people would note it's never to talk football but just to throw grenades and scurry back under your bridge.

[UK Fan]

We've had 300 pages of football discussion on this thread alone dumbass.


https://memesuper.com/download/3aa07a5e ... 5d18c.html

[Booney]

We've had 300 pages of football discussion on this thread alone dumbass.

https://memesuper.com/download/3aa07a5e ... 5d18c.html

Another constructive little contribution.