Melbourne Based Members/Supporters

[liz]

Originally posted by Mark
"Those involved in SSI are aware of the impact of their efforts, and that is sufficient"

A little pompous Bron dont you think ?

This is my problem with the group really. I have been a member for many years and personally do not want SSI professing to speak on my behalf.

None of this is a personal attack, and i think before asking others to "chill out" perhaps we should look at ourselves. If a group puts itself up as representatives of Swans supporters (correct me if i am wrong ?) then that group should be willing to answer questions and even listen to criticism !

Especially when that groups main stated aim is democracy !!!!!!

To be fair to SSI, they did enter into some dialogue on this board earlier in the season. I can fully understand why they wouldn't really want to enter into ongoing discussion here - I can't see it being a particularly constructive "debate". And remember that we're no more representative of the Sydney membership / support group than SSI - we're just a small group of pretty passionate supporters who happen to like to spend time on the 'net.

I am not involved in SSI and am not really interested in their agenda. And sure, I have some concerns about any small group purporting to represent a much larger one. But if anyone is really interested in finding out more about them they should probably take themselves along to one of their meetings and talk to some of the individuals involved personally, then make up their minds.

[Mark]

"I can fully understand why they wouldn't really want to enter into ongoing discussion here - I can't see it being a particularly constructive "debate"."

Cant agree lizz, you cant put yourself forward as representatives of a group and then refuse dialogue with that group just because you dont like what they have to say ! I admit we are but a small minority of the membership, but most if not all are members.

let me revisit one of their main aims again; "DEMOCRACY"

Is this just a one way process then ?

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Mark
Thus, there is every liklihood if the Swans refuse to underwrite the game, the dogs first preference to the AFL will be the game is moved to an "emerging market", presumably Darwin, possibly Tassie

Fancy that trip anyone ?

You bloody betcha I would!

I'd be on the first flight to either Darwin or Hobart/Launceston. I've never been to either Tasmania or the NT and am hanging to go there with a backpack (and a few flags of course).

Man, I wished I lived in Europe sometimes. My friends who follow Bayern are going to France, Scotland and Belgium this year in support of their team. Where am I going, Brisboring, Melboring, and Sadaelaide.

Still the car trip we are planning to Perth should make up for all of those in the adventure stakes.

I for one would leap at the thought of a match in Tassie or Darwin. BRING IT ON!

JF

PS:- Wonder what the pizza/pasta tastes like in NT/Tassie?

[Bron]

Originally posted by Mark
"Those involved in SSI are aware of the impact of their efforts, and that is sufficient"

A little pompous Bron dont you think ?

This is my problem with the group really. I have been a member for many years and personally do not want SSI professing to speak on my behalf.

None of this is a personal attack, and i think before asking others to "chill out" perhaps we should look at ourselves. If a group puts itself up as representatives of Swans supporters (correct me if i am wrong ?) then that group should be willing to answer questions and even listen to criticism !

Especially when that groups main stated aim is democracy !!!!!!

Can I ask you if you came along to the SSI workshop to put together a position statement on board positions? If you didn't then maybe you are not in a position to make judgements on how the group has engaged with those who have questions and are prepared to see how the group works. That was an open forum, to which all were invited (regardless of whether they were members of SSI or not), when there was rigorous debate.

There is no problem with people asking questions and they have been answered if you will note in this and other threads, where possible. This forum is not about SSI, and so questions are requested to go through the SSI website, not here, but noone has asked any questions that way.

I am just not interested in getting into a debate on what is fundamentally a personal choice because in the past people have attacked the player not the ball.

SSI is very willing for people to come along to the committee meetings for discussion and to raise their point of view, as has been done in the past by several people who participate in this forum.

[Mark]

"Can I ask you if you came along to the SSI workshop to put together a position statement on board positions? If you didn't then maybe you are not in a position to make judgements on how the group has engaged with those who have questions and are prepared to see how the group works. That was an open forum, to which all were invited (regardless of whether they were members of SSI or not), when there was rigorous debate."

Apparantly there were 25-30 people at the meeting (your figures)
hardly representative of 22,000 members or 14,000 full members. Surely this is an indication of the relevance of the meeting ! And not what i would call a "rigorous debate"

IMHO you cannot put yourselves forward as representatives of swans members and then only agree to discuss or engage with other members if they are willing to come to your meetings. Especially if those members have never asked you to "represent" them in the first place. You are a self appointed group, and in those cicumstances, the very least you should do is be willing to accept some questions or even criticisms !

At the moment all i have heard is "i am not willing to answer questions because you dont agree with us" or "we are not willing to answer questions unless you commit to our meetings or forums"

NOT DEMOCRATIC BRON

[Mark]

"You bloody betcha I would!"

Accepted JF and i respect you for that, but not really what i was getting at !

[Bear]

Originally posted by Mark
Can i just point out that there is absolutely no garantee this game will ever end up in Melbourne again. The mooted extra 2,000 Swans fans will not make a jot of difference to the profitability of the Dogs.

Thus, there is every liklihood if the Swans refuse to underwrite the game, the dogs first preference to the AFL will be the game is moved to an "emerging market", presumably Darwin, possibly Tassie

Fancy that trip anyone ?

Yes that is a remote possibilility, but very unlikely if THE CLUB makes it a PRIORITY request to get games in Melbourne, and demonstrates this by not renewing the WB agreement.

The AFL would hardly turn around and spite the Swans by sending them to Darwin.

[Bron]

Originally posted by Mark
"Can I ask you if you came along to the SSI workshop to put together a position statement on board positions? If you didn't then maybe you are not in a position to make judgements on how the group has engaged with those who have questions and are prepared to see how the group works. That was an open forum, to which all were invited (regardless of whether they were members of SSI or not), when there was rigorous debate."

Apparantly there were 25-30 people at the meeting (your figures)
hardly representative of 22,000 members or 14,000 full members. Surely this is an indication of the relevance of the meeting ! And not what i would call a "rigorous debate"

IMHO you cannot put yourselves forward as representatives of swans members and then only agree to discuss or engage with other members if they are willing to come to your meetings. Especially if those members have never asked you to "represent" them in the first place. You are a self appointed group, and in those cicumstances, the very least you should do is be willing to accept some questions or even criticisms !

At the moment all i have heard is "i am not willing to answer questions because you dont agree with us" or "we are not willing to answer questions unless you commit to our meetings or forums"

NOT DEMOCRATIC BRON

If you look at the website, SSI professes to be "a voice of the members and supports of the sydney swans football club", not THE voice, but A voice. This is quite correct and I really don't know what your point is. SSI does not purport to represent you, unless you are a member of SSI.

SSI has had numerous interactions with people. Indeed, some months ago asked RWO for their questions, these were all responded to and continue to be published on the website under Q&A. There were over 20 questions listed. If you have more, I will take them on board to get answered.

If you have specific questions, then these can be answered. To date, I don't recall too many questions coming up ... rather criticisms .... "you are a self-appointed group", "not democratic", SSI is not relevant, etc.

SSI may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant to hundreds of people who have joined and/or participated in the survey and to the more than a thousand who are happy to remain on our mailing list.

SSI is democratic. The committee has been elected and has been given a mandate to represent its members. What is not democratic about that?

Frankly, I joined SSI because I felt a democratically elected board was important. Personally, I felt that this was an effective way to get the message across to the Club - individuals have limited success in communicating with the Club; a lobby group has greater success (evidenced by the fact that Richard Colless will meet with SSI, but won't meet with other constituents, e.g. Redbacks who are members) and I felt the profile of SSI would give some leverage.

Those are my reasons. Others have different reasons. The bottom line is that I care about the Club, I believe this will help it to be more successful (this is an opinion, I cannot of course guarantee this). I tend to be the sort of person who wants to get involved rather than sit around and whinge or criticise others. That's just me. I'm not saying doing the latter is wrong, it's just not the approach that I prefer to take.

[Mark]

"If you look at the website, SSI professes to be "a voice of the members and supports of the sydney swans football club", not THE voice, but A voice. This is quite correct and I really don't know what your point is"

ERR, not sure i can be much clearer than i was in my original so ill quote again;

"Those involved in SSI are aware of the impact of their efforts, and that is sufficient"

A little pompous Bron dont you think ?

This is my problem with the group really. I have been a member for many years and personally do not want SSI professing to speak on my behalf.

None of this is a personal attack, and i think before asking others to "chill out" perhaps we should look at ourselves. If a group puts itself up as representatives of Swans supporters (correct me if i am wrong ?) then that group should be willing to answer questions and even listen to criticism !

Especially when that groups main stated aim is democracy !!!!!!

What did i miss Bron ?, respect your right to an opinion, respect mine. I feel SSI is a self serving sycophantic group beholding to an individual who felt he could influence club policy, just because he paid for an advertisement.

Then i am told he is representing me, and is holding a cocktail party to backslap himself for having a big say in appointing our current coach !

ERRRRRR

Not sure i agree, especially when the best i have got is i wont turn up to a group of 25-30 (of a possible 22,000) to argue my case, and what is more if i dont then my opinion is worthless !!

Please correct me if any of this is wrong ?

It is very easy to drop cliches like " maturing club", "everyone should chill out", "supporters should have a say" (i could go on !)

Personally i prefer "SUBSTANCE"

Dont hold yourself (SSI) out to be A voice of supporters, i repeat A voice, unless you are willing to be accountable.

If you just want to meet up with fellow supporters (sorry heavyweight legal types !!) and drink arunas red and white wine good for you. But do not purport to represent me, or "A" voice of the membership in general !