Swans elected board

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Nico
For those new to the site, Richard Colless got an absolute caning from many detractors in the preseason. To many he was nothing but a drop kick.

Since we starting winning games the silence has been deafening.

Wrong, as Bron has alluded to, SSI has been constantly meeting throughout the year in a motion to get the club to look at its constitution. To their credit, they duly have. And hence our club starts to seriously mature into a REAL football club where the average rank and file member in the outer can hopefully a sense of identification with the way OUR club is run.

I don't know whether this is because Colless fears some of the weighty legal eagle types involved with the SSI committee (who as Peter H can vouch for are very very clued up on things), or because he feels that this cause is a just one, which naturally I feel it is.

12 months ago the passions whipped up over this issue, and the flak SSI copped, reached incredible bounds.

We simply just want to get the club to have a serious look at the way it governs all of activities. And that we are a committed group of highly passionate supporters wishing to encourage the club it its maturing process. We very much ARE getting there, and hope to possibly work WITH the club to achieve the goal of a democratic football club.

It has been discussed at SSI meetings (before Arunas' RED & WHITE wine has started to kick in.) that in theory SSI may not well have a purpose after the time when members do get elected. I have *personal* feelings that a supporters/members association is a very good way to air supporter concerns, even if the voting does come around. But that is just my opinion on things.

Do people support member voting rights? The Terror poll conducted during the finals indicated that over 60% of our members do. And thankfully Timmy Morrisey and the media have realised that there are members actively pushing for this to take place.

You as a supporter, member or RWO poster may find this totally irrelevant to your involvement at the footy. If the footy to you is just about marks, free kicks and wearing your scarf each Sunday, then that's cool. But there are others who want more, and are taking active CONSTRUCTIVE steps to bring this about. (Thankfully SSI's committee seem all to be diehards anyway, hence our 'reluctance' to meet in September with all the dreams of premierships floating through our mind-however I bumped into 3 at both the Port game & Best & Fairest anyway!)

Our little old club is growing up all the time kids. Discuss, flame away if need be. Debate is healthy. And for the first time the club knows it can't make decisions without taking supporter/member concerns into account. Hopefully with the polished yet down-to-earth Myles Baron-Hay on board we all will become the club we are aiming to be.

JF

[paralowiepower]

Hi all
I have been asked by JF just to post how the Port Adelaide F.C elect the board.

First of we have 10 board members, each with a two year term.
5 are elected by members of the PAFC, (not season ticket holders)
The other 5 are appointed by the S.A.N.F.L commission.
The terms are staggered, so 5 come up for election each year.
Voting is done at the AGM. Anyone can nominate to go on the board.
The S.A.N.F.L normally elect ex Port people anyway, so its normally a good relationship between the 10 members.

When Port went in, the club wanted the majority to be voted by the members, and the S.A.N.F.L wanted to elect the majority, so after months of fighting this was the compromise.

The Crows are a different story and are very similar to yourselves. Members have no say on any board member, and its totally decided by the S.A.N.F.L

Good Luck, all clubs should have boards elected by the members.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Rob-bloods
I hope we are establishing a blockbuster tradition at Telstra Stadium, but the Dees next year is a worry.

Mate, let's be bold and MAKE it work. The AFL is being fair dinkum about cultivating Sydney vs Melbourne on Anzac Day as another Collingwood-SNdon. Whether it would ever get anywhere near the passion level of the MCG fixture is debatable, but the AFL is well aware that the Sydney market reacts highly favourably to "events", even if they are artificially hyped with a lot of fluff and padding like Rugby League State of Origin.

At the SCG the game would get 22-27000 on a Sunday afternoon. As a stand-out event marketed as "Sydney vs Melbourne" you attract those willing to be swept up in the 'interstate/intercity rivalry. Hopefully attracting them to one of these one-off 'events' will spark an interest in the sport. Because as everyone knows our game is 100% better live at the ground. Have faith in the power of the Swans to get people talking mate!!!!! We got 25000 for the match in its debut timeslot with a 1-4 season behind us. I'd be happy with 35-40000 for such a match. Anything more is a bonus!

I know as a fact that the SCG are bending over backwards to cater to the Swans these days. Their only tenant that would come anywhere near our numbers in terms of support and revenue are the rugger Waratahs who will never leave the quoffy cafe-filled Paddo capuccino precinct.

We DO have an option, which the boffins in their SCG Trust ties know. I can't say too much, I know the SCG Trust are in fact susidising the club to stay at the SCG. Because they know that Andrew Demetriou can snap his fingers and pull their biggest tenant from under their snotty noses, and they won't have a leg to stand on.

JF

[DST]

Originally posted by Mark
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.

All good points and we seem to be heading in the same direction. Don't get me wrong I still don't believe 100% that Stadium Australia will be the saviour we are looking for and worth the short term risks we have taken.

But it has given the club some much needed flexibilty and clout in getting the annual big games we have asked for in the past. Can't remember the last time Sydney played Collingwood in Sydney two years in a row.

As JF has mentioned in another post, Stadium Australia has also given some much needed amunition for the club in their battle with the SCG trust, which can only be a good thing.

DST

[Mark]

JF

"I'd be happy with 35-40000 for such a match. Anything more is a bonus!"

That would mean we lose money on the game, why is that making you happy ?

Everyone seems to miss the point here, everyone wants Stad aus to be a success, none more so than me. Unless we have an average of at least 45-50,000 for the three games we lose money.

WE SIMPLY CANT AFFORD IT

[Maestro]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
We simply just want to get the club to have a serious look at the way it governs all of activities. And that we are a committed group of highly passionate supporters wishing to encourage the club it its maturing process. We very much ARE getting there, and hope to possibly work WITH the club to achieve the goal of a democratic football club.
JF

I don't agree that you can link passion for the club and the issue of voting rights. I have been known to don the red wig myself at games, and regard myself as being very passionate. But I am unconvinced of the benefits of voting, or that voting reflects a "maturation" of the club. I don't think voting rights is a natural evolution in the development of the club - I think maturity is evidenced by firstly by premierships, memberships, balance sheet etc - in my view, these are more appropriate indicia of "maturity" than whether a member can vote.

Perhaps I might better understand your perspective on the issue if you could tell me what benefits/ expected outcomes to follow from this proposal?

[Mark]

Very Very good point, it is easy to make broad brush cliche statements and put them out as accepted fact !