Swans elected board

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • floppinab
    Senior Player
    • Jan 2003
    • 1681

    #61
    My case is for a more open, accountable, and democratic club that I believe will give the members a far better chance of producing a Board and Chair, far better performed than what we have today.

    Comment

    • CureTheSane
      Carpe Noctem
      • Jan 2003
      • 5032

      #62
      But seriously, my great fear is that someone like me will get on the board and create havoc - we have a lot of great supporters but they may not be great board members. Personally, I'd like things to stay pretty much as is, but obtain member feedback more often and in a more broader and direct way; report it back to members, and convert that feedback into action plans.
      Holy ****!

      I could have written that.

      I always think of Eddie.
      Don't get me wrong, I hate Collingwood, I really do, and I hate Eddie, BUT he has been great for the club.

      But he got his job solely on his profile, and that is a very dangerous thing.
      He could have been crap.
      What were his presidential skills?

      I swear, if Paul Kelly ran for a spot on the board, he would win in a landslide.
      And he was a great player, but I bet he'd be a pretty average board member at best.
      The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

      Comment

      • stellation
        scott names the planets
        • Sep 2003
        • 9721

        #63
        Originally posted by CureTheSane
        I swear, if Paul Kelly ran for a spot on the board, he would win in a landslide.
        And he was a great player, but I bet he'd be a pretty average board member at best.
        He (or someone like him) might not be that bad a person to have on the board actually. It is not completely uncommon practice to have someone on a board of directors who is not an expert in the enterprise's core business to ask the "obvious"/laymans questions. I'm not saying president, but just a seat on the board. Adam Gilchrist was put on the board of Travelex not that long ago for that reason (mainly for PR too I am sure).
        I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
        We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

        Comment

        • Rob-bloods
          What a year 2005 SSFC/CFC
          • Aug 2003
          • 931

          #64
          Originally posted by DST


          It was the SCG that was killing this club not the Telstra Stadium deal we have done.

          How do you think both Essendon and Collingwood have come to get 40,000 members, strong sponsorship and boosted revenue? By playing constant big game blockbusters at the MCG, with it's capacity of 100,000, great transport and some of the best corporate facilities in Australia.
          DST
          A small technical point here the SCG has been a good venue for us in recent years after our deal was renegotiated. We were screwed for many years by the trust early in the piece, when we had to achieve, say, 25000 gate to break even or something ridiculous, and were averaging 6/8000 . At that stage I seem to recall we did not get a cut of catering either, and boy you needed a drink in the old days!

          That aside, the SCG is a great footy venue and Sunday afternoons there have to be amongst the best sporting experiences, even better since the Swans began winning more often!

          It is true a good venue is an assistance but Collingwood and Essendon play many matches at Telstra too, do not always fill it, and remember the 'granting' of blockbusters to the clubs does give them a leg up. I hope we are establishing a blockbuster tradition at Telstra Stadium, but the Dees next year is a worry.
          Sports do not build character. They reveal it....Heywood Broun

          I always turn to the sports pages first, which record people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures......Earl Warren

          Comment

          • Rizzo
            On the Rookie List
            • Jan 2003
            • 655

            #65
            Personally I don't see why the members need to be represented on the board. As customers of the club we get pretty well looked after, and very few other organisations have customers on the board. As spiritual (if not legal) owners of the club maybe we entitled to some mechanism to hold the board accountable to us, but I'm not entirely convinced that having one or two "member directors" would achieve this (LIZZ)
            I have to agree with Lizz on this. Our membership only buys us seats, thats all. The Swans board are only accountable to the AFL. They have an obvious interest in attract supporters and keeping them but that's it. They may have entertained the idea of having one electing board member to keep members but I suspect the on field success of this year will push it concept into the background. So, it comes down to ownership - hence my unanswered questions in an earlier post.

            You guys (old posters and new) are wasting your time shooting off about the merits or blunders of Colless. We have no voice with authority.

            It's interesting that all (hypothetical) discussion around the board and elections lead to arguments about the president yet we as a nation don't elect our leader directly. Who says voting rights would give the members power to elect the president?

            Comment

            • CureTheSane
              Carpe Noctem
              • Jan 2003
              • 5032

              #66
              I've heard that a lot of jobs given away by the club are directed at non Sydney supporters as a preference.

              You could make an argument that it should be the same way with the board.
              The club is a business, pure and simple
              If Colless has made mistakes (and I am not saying he has) perhaps they were nfluenced by his passion?
              The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

              Comment

              • Bron
                On the Rookie List
                • Jan 2003
                • 851

                #67
                Originally posted by Rizzo
                I wish people wouldn't tie an elected board and the performance of Colless together. They are really seperate issues.

                I find the point of who owns the license interesting. In order to transfer ownership the membership would have to buy the license. Do the AFL want to sell? How much would it cost and could payments be spread out over time.

                I'd love to attend the SSI meetings but my time is limited. If I became a financial member could I proxy these type of questions?
                Of course.
                Dream, believe, achieve!

                Comment

                • Bron
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 851

                  #68
                  Originally posted by Rob-bloods
                  Sorry but what is an SSI?
                  Follow this link
                  Dream, believe, achieve!

                  Comment

                  • robbieando
                    The King
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 2750

                    #69
                    Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
                    And AGAIN - your alternative chairman is?
                    You got me thinking on this issue while I was at work and I put some names in my head of people who are currently connected to the club in some form and has a solid business backgrounds.

                    Geoff Polites
                    Dennis Carroll
                    Ricky Quade

                    Now I'm not saying that these people would run against Colless, but maybe when the day comes and Colless decides to step down from his post and hand the job over to someone within the club or at least connected to the club these 3 would be at least on the shortlist.

                    My issue with Colless isn't about getting him out of the club, infact I want him to stay on to at least set the club up for the future. Its true he has had some hurdles to overcome and has done very well in regards of the difficulties the Olympics presented and overseen great changes at the club. I don't fault him there, where I fault him is mainly on the last 2 season before this season, when spending wasn't stopped, but the amount of money coming in went down, he should of foreseen this happening but didn't, lucky we had a great season this year otherwise our dept would be larger.

                    A good sign for the future is that we cut cost by $3-4million which is great. Next year these cuts will benefit the club with the likely increase of sponsorship and membership, plus crowds should continue to rise.

                    I would like to see a more open club with the first step being that members are given an annual report and the club holds a AGM so that at least members can ask questions of the board and Colless. After that elections should be introduce, but in way the least un-stables the club.
                    Once was, now elsewhere

                    Comment

                    • Mark
                      Suspended by the MRP
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 578

                      #70
                      "The stadium Australia deal is and will continue to be an out and out success story for this club. Do you think we were going to be able to grow revenue and attract further supporters and sponsors by remaining at the SCG.

                      It was the SCG that was killing this club not the Telstra Stadium deal we have done.


                      DST to make this point you are either very naive, choosing to ignore facts or blissfully unaware of the Sydney market.

                      I suspect all three !

                      Comment

                      • Mark
                        Suspended by the MRP
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 578

                        #71
                        "Please tell what these private agendas are then. Its easy to dismiss this group, yet you have no idea of what they are really doing or what they are for. Whenever this group is brought up you and a fair few others just bag it out. Maybe if you and a few others were willing to listen to what SSI is for and about maybe then you would listen, but no, your willing to dismiss them without giving them a chance."

                        Robbie for your visual pleasure;

                        Position
                        Filled By

                        President
                        Arunas Carl Blandis


                        need i say more ?

                        Comment

                        • DST
                          The voice of reason!
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 2705

                          #72
                          Originally posted by Mark
                          "The stadium Australia deal is and will continue to be an out and out success story for this club. Do you think we were going to be able to grow revenue and attract further supporters and sponsors by remaining at the SCG.

                          It was the SCG that was killing this club not the Telstra Stadium deal we have done.


                          DST to make this point you are either very naive, choosing to ignore facts or blissfully unaware of the Sydney market.

                          I suspect all three !
                          Come on Mark look at the facts, we play all our games at the SCG which enforces a membership cap on the club of 25,000 in Sydney. How on earth is this club going to prosper if we can't if the demand is there sell more memberships, I will tell you how by increasing prices for current members.

                          The SCG also has limited corporate facilities which also hinder the development opportunities the club gets during the boom times to smooth out the lean times.

                          I love the SCG, it is easier to get to, has a better atmosphere and sight lines than Telstra Stadium but the fact remains if the club wants to become a power house in the AFL on and off the field it needed a venue that could cope with demand now and in the future.

                          The board of directors of our club and the AFL made the correct decision at the time to make sure that we have the option of using Telstra Stadium now and in the future to grow the game in Sydney.

                          True, it cost us $3 Million to do now and has caused a tightening of the belt strings around the club, but it will return 10 times mnore money in the next 25 years.

                          DST
                          "Looking forward to a rebuilt, new, fast and exciting Swans model in 2010"

                          Comment

                          • Mark
                            Suspended by the MRP
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 578

                            #73
                            Apologies DST appears i may have misjudged you:

                            "True, it cost us $3 Million to do now and has caused a tightening of the belt strings around the club, but it will return 10 times mnore money in the next 25 years"

                            I hope this is true, but the facts are we cannot continue to bleed this sort of money. We need to get between 45-55,000 (depending on advertising costs) just to break even at stad Aus. Do you see this happening at all three games every year ?

                            Especially Melbourne, and that is after a successful season ! if we lose a few prior to these games it will be a ghost house !

                            "the SCG which enforces a membership cap on the club of 25,000 in Sydney. How on earth is this club going to prosper if we can't if the demand is there sell more memberships"

                            There are always memberships available year after year ! until we consistently sell them why commit to something on the off chance we might in the next 25 years !

                            "The board of directors of our club and the AFL made the correct decision at the time to make sure that we have the option of using Telstra Stadium now and in the future to grow the game in Sydney"

                            We were suckered into the deal (which incidently was signed by the AFL) in the expectation that both the dogs and North would be playing games at the stadium. When they were made aware of the break even figure both pulled out leaving us to carry the burden. It is a great deal for the AFL not us ! in the future MAYBE, but we could well go bust finding out.

                            There is no doubt Stad Aus has some great upsides for home finals games, but we cant afford to commit to so many games out there. Stad aus is begging for tenants and we should have used that to only commit in certain cicumstances.

                            Comment

                            • DST
                              The voice of reason!
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 2705

                              #74
                              Not a problem Mark, I know everyone on this board has the club at heart and well meaning intentions, but thank god we live in a country where we can talk openly about things.

                              In regards to your previous comments:

                              I can remember when we committed the $6 Million to Stad De Oz ($3 Mil from us and $3 Mil from the AFL) that it was stated that if we were to look at developing the ground to accomodate AFL in the future after the initial works it was going to cost at least three times that amount.

                              Both the club and the AFL took the punt that $6 Million now and the short term pain was a small price to pay considering they would have had to fork out alot more in the future, not to mention the serious egg on face for everyone involved.

                              My understanding is that with this years finals series that the AFL has now paid it's entire $3 Million off. It would not surprise me to see the AFL now look to help the club out with their portion of the debt, especially if they manage to host another preliminary final out there. The AFL made in excess of $2.5 Million on that game alone.

                              I'll admit that it was a massive punt by both parties, but it looks like it could be the deal that laid the golden egg for our club. The AFL knowing they need big games to fill it now gives us three blockbusters a year against the teams we ask for. The flow on effect (once the $3 Mil is paid off) in membership, extra seat revenue, sponorship and extra TV coverage is what will take this club to the next level.

                              I agree with you about the 25,000 membership not being reached often, But I am sure we would both be devestated if the club reached 25,000 members and had to turn people away, only to see them turn to soccer, union or league just when the club had caught their attention.

                              DST





                              "Looking forward to a rebuilt, new, fast and exciting Swans model in 2010"

                              Comment

                              • Mark
                                Suspended by the MRP
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 578

                                #75
                                I take your points, and in the long term would love to see it happen. Problem is we cannot aford it in the short term. IMHO we will only make a tidy profit (or any profit !)on these games in circumstances akin to the Colligwood game. IE end of season blockbuster built up by wave of emotion from a succesful season.

                                Whilst i would love to believe that will happen year after year realistically it wont.

                                For mine the games that make money are finals for which the AFL takes the profit, therefore Swans do hard work and ultimately get shafted !

                                I know that everyone wants to believe we have got all this latent support waiting to become members, but where are they, turning up to one or two games when times are good does not a member make !

                                As a matter of interest it is the club that limits memberships not the SCG trust. It is so there are always a set amount of "walk up/pre sell" tickets available for matches.

                                Comment

                                Working...