Swans elected board

[robbieando]

Let the club get on with business, we dont need self interested groups pushing private agendas

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.

[CureTheSane]

tell us then Robbie.....

have their goals changed from the ones posted on that site?

[DST]

Originally posted by lizz
Should the whole board be elected by members - not necessarily immediately but as a long term goal - or just a couple? Many (most?) of the Melbourne clubs have a full board elected by the members. Whether that's a good thing or not, who knows.

2 Should directors elected by members necessarily have to be members themselves, suggesting they are very much on the board to represent the members?

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.

I would like to see some more openness - maybe published financial statements and/or an AGM style event where members can ask the board questions about the direction of the club.

Liz a very balanced veiw and one I think that could be accomodated by the club with a minimum fuss at this stage.

A more open board with an AGM and published accounts would not be unreasonable and small step to giving members an insight into how the club operates which I believe is part of the problem we have at the moment, members just don't know how the club operates and makes decsions.

I do beleive though that the members should have the right to elect some of the positions on the board with one at least being a director that is Melbourne based. The most important reason why I beleive this should be accomodated is that it will give members a sense of re connenction to the club, something which has been lacking over a number of years.

DST

[i'm-uninformed2]

Originally posted by DST

As for Colless, if you are serious IU2 (not totally sure you are) I agree with you. While he has his detractors on this board and amongst some of the members, Richard has given his heart and sole to this club and clearly wants it to propser.

I also believe that with his credentials there is no one more capable of leading this club at this point in time.

DST

For the record, I am totally serious and this isn't directed at you, DST, as I appreciate you value his contribution too.

But for his detractors, I'd like to know in which of the following categories we are in a worse position now than when he took over the Chairmanship:

* Onfield performance
* Membership
* Crowds
* Professionalism, both as an organisation and the footy dept
* Strategic direction
* Marketing/promotion
* Financial security (long-term)
* and on and on.

Come to think of it, I'm not even sure of the compelling case people want to make against him.

[knownothing]

i think we need fresh blood on the board - people who represent the average supporter. The type of people who know who should be in the team and how the game should be played. People who understand the clubs history. So i'd like to see Cygnatius, Leanne Edelstien, Peter Filandia, Sandra Sully and the guy who sits behind me and always screams out "man up" at the kickouts, get a go. I also think think the members should get a say in team selections.
Get rid of Colless - he's had his chance.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Originally posted by knownothing
i think we need fresh blood on the board - people who represent the average supporter. The type of people who know who should be in the team and how the game should be played. People who understand the clubs history. So i'd like to see Cygnatius, Leanne Edelstien, Peter Filandia, Sandra Sully and the guy who sits behind me and always screams out "man up" at the kickouts, get a go. I also think think the members should get a say in team selections.
Get rid of Colless - he's had his chance.

You have to be kidding, right. If there is a single person in the crowd who thinks you man-up at kick-ins, he should be banned from the ground and stripped of his membership on principle.

[robbieando]

* Onfield performance
* Membership
* Crowds
* Professionalism, both as an organisation and the footy dept
* Strategic direction
* Marketing/promotion
* Financial security (long-term)

Now I'll go easy on you, but of the above alot of it come down to explosion of interest following the 1996 season. Since then we have seen things settle down. So I can give you memberships and crowds because its true they are up on where they were in 1994 when he took over. However Onfield performance you can't put down to Colless, I put it down to Ron Barassi who when coach set out to the club what needed to be done to a) improve the playing list b) improve facilties for players c) introduce a level of professionalism, this is what led to our success in 1996 which resulted in the explosion of interest in us as a club and the code in general in Sydney. It should be pointed out Barassi was at the club before Colless.

Strategic direction of the club wasn't down to Colless as alot of what is in place now was layed down before he came to power, he has overseen the implament of these decisions, but did not come up with them himself.

Marketing and promotion has been a mixed bag, with the AFL being involved in alot of the early work in this area (ie the "I'd like to see that" ads) Again its an area that the club has improved on but again I can't put this down to just Colless.

On the finanical security long term you talk about, I'm not so sure and this is my major bug bear with Colless. If we were in such a great position as you think then why did he come out mid season and say that we might not last past October if we don't have fresh funds injected into the club. Twice now the club has become debt free on the back of successful season from the football dept, not because of sound management from front office. When Colless took power we were in dept and yet 9 years later we would of found ourselves in the same position if it wasn't for an increase in crowds on last season and one massive payday from the Collingwood game at Telstra Stadium. In this area Colless has alot to improve on and don't forget in his only season as boss of the West Coast Eagles he nearly sent them broke.

Again I'm not a fan of Colless, success this year and in 1996 have papered over the crakes with his management of the club, while I admit he has been good for the club in many areas, I just don't think he has been as good as you think he has and alot of people give him credit for other people's work

[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?

[Rob-bloods]

Sorry but what is an SSI?

[i'm-uninformed2]

Maybe you shouldn't "go easy" on me RobbieAndo because you're going to have to do better than that.

First, you say a lot of the success is due to the explosion in 96. Well, what were the central ingredients to that -

* recruitment of a coach in Rodney Eade, who yes, had his failings, but took the good work of Barassi and turned it into success;

* active recruitment of Lockett and Roos in 95 when most other clubs, notably Collingwood, didn't want to take a punt on him;

* doing what a good chairman does and leaving the football department to run the football team

Some of the longer-term issues you also don't seem to want to give him credit for include:

* the move to Homebush, which was very much a baby of him and Wayne Jackson and indeed has given us the capacity for big pay days to talk about;

* surrounding himself with a management team that looked after new young interstate players and in turn consolidated the playing list rather than suffer the agonies of cry-babies like Shannon Grant returning home;

And by the way, when you "go easy" on me again, do you actually want to say how - not some vague what - Colless could do things better or who your preferred choice for Chairman is?

[knownothing]

You are a deadset goose imuninformed2. If colless is so good how come we have failed to capitalise on the oppotunities to cheat on the salary cap - like the successfull clubs do. Robbieando is the sort of guy we need on the board - go robbie.
Also there is another guy who sits behind me and always sreams out "kick it long" when we have the ball. He would do avery good job as well.

[floppinab]

I'll have a crack at these one by one

* recruitment of a coach in Rodney Eade, who yes, had his failings, but took the good work of Barassi and turned it into success;

Colless had little to do with Eade's selection at the time, although Joseph had departed prior to Eade's appointment he had a far more significant hand in getting Eade to Sydney

* active recruitment of Lockett and Roos in 95 when most other clubs, notably Collingwood, didn't want to take a punt on him

Joseph again

* doing what a good chairman does and leaving the football department to run the football team

This one takes the cake, was one of the main reasons of Eades falling out with Colless

Some of the longer-term issues you also don't seem to want to give him credit for include:

* the move to Homebush, which was very much a baby of him and Wayne Jackson and indeed has given us the capacity for big pay days to talk about

Maybe but to date the Club has been losing money every year from this deal. He sure as hell could have brokered a far better deal for the Club

* surrounding himself with a management team that looked after new young interstate players and in turn consolidated the playing list rather than suffer the agonies of cry-babies like Shannon Grant returning home

Again largely through the value of guys that have been around longer than Colless such as Basil Sellers, the Willesees, Craig Kimberley and so forth are the result of our better facilities and ability to hang on to out of towners

As Bron has mentioned earlier all I remember from Colless are his broken promises (the interview in the Tele last year took the cake) and hoo har over petty issues.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Ok - clearly I've got it wrong then. I understand now.

All the good decisions were made by everyone else and Colless had nothing to do with any of them.

All the bad decisions were made by Colless only, acting alone.

Right. How could I get it so wrong?! I mean, it's so simple.

[barry]

The AFL will never allow a fully elected Swans board while the swans are the only team in Sydney. The importance of Sydney is too great for the AFL to leave it outside the centralised organisation.

A partial token elected position is about all you'll get.

[knownothing]

Right on floppinab. Get rid of Colless. Personally i'd like to see a more high profile chairman, like that gay couple from "the Block" or maybe even Baby John Burgess