Aims and objectives of SSI

[CureTheSane]

Aims and objectives of SSI (Swans Supporters Incorporated)

The appointment and/or election of SSI members who are Members of the Sydney Swans to the Board of the Sydney Swans

Here is the ONLY REAL objective here.
This is why I am completely anti this SSI group.
Best interests of teh Swans?
More like best interests of the group....

Support the Board and Management of the Sydney Swans Limited in the expansion of the Club's membership and supporter base.

How?
Isn't this one of the main reasons we HAVE a board?
I'm sure they don't need any help from supporters here.

Progress towards achieving full voting rights for members to the Board of the Sydney Swans Limited

Swans had this on the agenda well before this group existed

Promote links between Sydney-based and non-Sydney-based supporters of the Sydney Swans.

Swans do this well enough already IMO

[motorace_182]

Why do they think they can change the Swans. Roos was proberbly going to be appointed whether they rallied or not.

[desredandwhite]

Why don't we save this debate for the RWO/SSI q&a session? We're trying to organise one and I certainly don't have an opinion until I can see how they respond to some questions.

[LondonSwan]

Re: Aims and objectives of SSI

Yes okay but who are they?

I gather noone likes them but thats all I can gather.

[Charlie]

LS - the basis of their creation was the Wallace/Swans/Roos saga. They *claim* to have been instrumental in the appointment of Roos... and will no doubt claim the same if voting rights are extended to members.

In actual fact, I doubt that the petition that Arunas Carl Blandis (the leader of this group, who until he is willing to show his face on RWO, I will continue to believe is simply after a spot on the board... the look at me factor?) put out, or the "protest rally" had any effect whatsoever on the decision.

They also claim to be representative of the general community of Swans members. As can be seen on this site, that is untrue. Easily less than 10% of RWOers openly support them, and the very vocal majority oppose their existence.

[treespirit]

Actually Charlie, I think the quiet majority neither support nor oppose SSI but are waiting to see what they are really about. I sit in that camp anyway. I think some of you are being overly cynical, but time will tell.

[Rizzo]

From reading of the aims and objectives it looks like a political party to me.

CTS, I now understand your opposition to democracy. My gut feeling is that this is exactly what a democratic club doesn't need - a factional group that will vote in a party block in order to promote is own stated self interest. It goes well beyond a lobbying group that will communicate issues to club because of the state aims.

I'll keep an open mind on SSI but we'll have to watch this closely. The strength of this group will be its membership so I suspect they will hold this info closely to their chest (may be an good test of their openess).

I notice they advertised the RWO Trivia Night in their newsletter.....I'd be interested in a Q&A session.

[CureTheSane]

Yeah, but I am presenting a somewhat cynical view, as treespirit said.
I'll be interested to hear what they have to say (if they ever say something.... )

[desredandwhite]

I think basically the point is that there's not much information available, and some of it may be misintepreted or badly worded. I'm not prepared to endorse or condemn until I have the full story.

[chammond]

I'd have to say I'm every bit as cynical as Martin.

But I've been wrong so many times in my life that I'm more than happy to listen to what SSI have to say.

[CureTheSane]

hahaha, Cliff

I was wrong once, but that was a mistake... :lol

They've been around for long enough now.
Time to answer some Q's methinks

[Charlie]

Tree - I can only base my opinion on the facts they themselves are willing to put at hand. ACB clearly has ambitions of a board position - otherwise why is he chairman of a group which has a stated aim of getting it's own people on the board?

This same person who wants us to vote for him to lead our club, has so far been unwilling to come onto RWO and talk to us about his objectives, and policies that candidates NEED to get out to the constituency.

Why is that? Is it because he is fearful of being found out to be an attention seeker? It's the only reasonable explanation I can think of. It's certainly not because he doesn't have time... he had time to organise a petition, and time to attend a Swans cocktail party...

I can't trust him until I know something about him. And the longer he remains a mystery, the more cynical and untrusting I become.

[Bart]

Agree with all of the above. I said last year that this group would take credit for getting Roos the job.

I arrived at the NSO game and was handed a flyer and there it was in print, 'instrumental in Roos being selected'

If anyone wants to form an independent supporters group, I reckon it sgould be RWO. There's a pretty diverse bunch here.

But I'm happy to wait and see. I have no desire for a board totally elected by members. My big fear is that Swans members are notoriously apathetic. You would only get a small number vote, which means that groups like SSI would have a good chance of getting in. God help us.

And Des, agree with debate, but we've been saving it for 6 months.

[SSI]

Swans Supporters Inc.

Please see our other post seeking your questions which we will endeavour to respond to.

[treespirit]

Charlie, your opinion is fair enough, I just don't think you can claim that the majority share it, that's all. I don't think the majority holds a strong opinion either way.