We Get A Right To Vote

[Bron]

Originally posted by Country Member
The primary job of the Swans (like Collingwood, Carlton et al) IS TOO TRY AND WIN THE PREMIERSHIP.

Correction ... TO WIN THE PREMIERSHIP

Originally posted by Country Member
- current developments in this area are NOTHING to do with SSI, a noisy minority, or current management: this issue has been on the agenda ever since the Colless group came in. The rules are governed by the constitution with the AFL having control. Any changes need AFL approval.

Yes

Originally posted by Country Member
- I agree with many contributors to this discussion that voting rights for "members" will not achieve anything: just look at Richmond and Hawthorn at the moment, Brad Cooper at Collingwood etc.
.

I disagree. But this is a personal opinion. As I think I've said elsewhere on this board, I believe that if you're not happy with something, you either do what you can to change it or shut up. That's why I believe in membership voting. Those who don't care can keep on doing what they've been doing (and please stop whinging). Those who do can do something.

Originally posted by Country Member
- SSI (and the dog) had nothing to do with the appointment of the current coach. A certain media person with political aspirations promoted those clowns way above their rightful station;
.

There are various views on this. My information is that there was an overwhelming upsurge of support for Paul Roos from members and supporters. SSI and the dog had nothing to do with it. SSI did not actually exist at the time! However, it was formed out of people who wanted to follow through. The dog, ah well, he got a bait and thought he'd like to die, so they buried him 'neath the tucker box, nine miles from Gundagai (OK, poetic license here, apologies to Jack Moses, but I couldn't resist - where did the dog come from????).

Originally posted by Country Member
- an AGM and proper annual report with a Q and A session with the Board is the most sensible outcome from this process. I have contact from time to time with Board members at games and functions, and anyone who thinks they do not act in the best interests of the Club and bleed for the joint has got rocks in their head; and
.

The AGM is part of what comes with membership election of Board members ... accountability. I agree with you that people act in what they think is the best interest. We all have our own perspective on the

Originally posted by Country Member - it is worth remembering that "members" are nothing of the sort: they are club-subsidised season ticket holders who don't pay full tote-odds at the gate. Harsh but true. They are hardly the only stakeholder in the club, and even partial representation on the Board may be too disruptive. This club "belongs" to ALL who support it, past, present and future.

I disagree, see other post. I believe we want a Club run with appropriate corporate governance, not a corporation run as a Club. Some people want transactional relationships and others want to be part of the Club. This is our difference of opinion, I suspect.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Bron
The AGM is part of what comes with membership election of Board members ... accountability. I agree with you that people act in what they think is the best interest.

The current board is accountable....to the AFL. We need a stable board in this market, arguably the most competitive market in Australia.

To say the current board is not accountable is untrue and misleading.

Mark my words, when the inevitable couple of lean years happen, i.e. Richmond, Hawthorn, watch out for the disintegration of the board and possibly our club, as the infighting starts and the blame is apportioned. The image that these two clubs are conveying to their sposnors and the corporate world is awful.

The main reason companies get involved with clubs is that the club's brand and its players and fans have a vitality that their widget lacks. Why oh why would any compnay want to be invloved with these basket cases.

Collingwood has an elected board, but all members are Eddie endorsed. Each position that comes up has been filled by the Edddie preferred candidate. This works well, and as a result Collingwood are the biggest and possibly most stable club.

We are a footy club, a non-profit organisation, a footy club that has been at death's door a number of times and will always require special attention, given the unique nature of this market. We need stability, and the very REAL possibility of do-gooders and big noters getting on the board could unravel everything that has been achieved to date.

You mention SSI, and I have read everything that is on their website, and your last newsletter lists one of the main items that SSI have been working on over the last 12 months, this being "Focused on moving towards a Club that is run professionally, rather than a company that happens to be a football Club". This concerns me immensely. We don't just "happen to be a footy club". We are a footy club, it is all that we are about. We don't issue dividends to our members. We require different governance.

You also list your objectives as

- The appointment and/or election of SSI members who are Members of the Sydney Swans to the Board of the Sydney Swans
- Support the Board and Management of the Sydney Swans Limited in the expansion of the Club's membership and supporter base.
- Progress towards achieving full voting rights for members to the Board of the Sydney Swans Limited
- Promote links between Sydney-based and non-Sydney-based supporters of the Sydney Swans.

Nowhere do you list why this is the case. Why are you doing this. What purpose will it serve.

The biggest concern for me is the Q&A on your site, that states the SSI believes it was influential in the appointment of Paul Roos. If our board or our footy dept is ever influenced by fans on such an inportant decision, is the day I give it away. I don't believe for a second that they were.

[Country Member]

Bart - spot on. SSI is a myth: a special (self) interest group that, like all other similar groups, once they drive a populist/trendy/politically correct agenda, they will crap themselves if THEY are ever responsible (accountible?) for getting the job done.
I wish they would just enjoy the footy like everyone else and leave the business to the grown-ups.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Bart
You mention SSI, and I have read everything that is on their website, and your last newsletter lists one of the main items that SSI have been working on over the last 12 months, this being "Focused on moving towards a Club that is run professionally, rather than a company that happens to be a football Club". This concerns me immensely. We don't just "happen to be a footy club". We are a footy club, it is all that we are about. We don't issue dividends to our members. We require different governance.

Interesting thoughts. Yes, we are a footy club and that's the way we should be run.

As far as being professionally run goes, from what I understand we are managed pretty well.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Bart

The biggest concern for me is the Q&A on your site, that states the SSI believes it was influential in the appointment of Paul Roos. If our board or our footy dept is ever influenced by fans on such an inportant decision, is the day I give it away. I don't believe for a second that they were.

Yep Bart, my biggest concern too. They are basically calling the club and Colless liars, with no proof other than hearsay.

I wrote to the club this morning asking for clarification on why SSI with a mailing list formed thanks to the Paul Roos coaching situation (probably also thanks to signatures got on the emotional Richmond game night...) and low meeting turnouts have become a stakeholder in my club.

[Maestro2]

Bron - two questions occur to me after reading your post.

(a) Do any of the people involved in SSI have experience in running a football club. (I appreciate there are businessmen and women involved, but we have people with this acumen on the board already and they seemed to be doing a good job to me).

(b) The list of names gathered during the Roos campaign - have you complied with the changes in the Privacy Act over the last 12 mths or so in the use of this list?

[CureTheSane]

(by JF) All of this would not have been positive if Myles and Richard Colless did not offer SSI a chance to put forward its case in person at the club offices. Whether our committee filled with barristers and legal eagles in the know has influenced the club in making this decision is something only the club can answer.

I am thinking that the club WILL answer the whole question of SSI in the near future.

EITHER...

SSI will continue to....er.... start to grow, and will become a bigger pain in the ass, and cause more dissention amongst Swans members than it already has, and the Swans will realise that there is no need to humor them with the odd meeting and throw them to the side.

Or they will (continue to) dwindle away.

Tell me, have they updated thier little site from 6 months or so ago?

Their goals and objectives were basically stating either clubs prior intentions or very trivial matters.

I feel sorry for people who actually paid to join them.
Was it to feel like more of a Swans supporter?
Was it to feel like they were making some sort of difference?
Who knows.

Now for the voting rights.
I don't vote in Federal of State elections.
You can see the election thread if you want the reasons why to that.
In a Swans election I would do all I could to vote for the right person.
But it would be just like politics.
Look at Don Scott.
Look at what one person did by tearing a jumper in half at the Hawks/Melb merger rally.
One person can make a club.
one person can practically destroy it IMO.

I've said it before, and if Paul Kelly ran for the board, he would be in with a landslide.

THAT worries me.

[CureTheSane]

Firstly, good on Bron, and JF (and whoever else) for standing up for what they believe in.
It continues to amaze me that on a Swans messageboard (and one which apparently is quite successful given that we have beenrslapped by the Swans, SSI don't bother to come and gain support.

Anyone else think they are relying on the masses who have no idea?

Originally posted by Maestro2
(a) Do any of the people involved in SSI have experience in running a football club. (I appreciate there are businessmen and women involved, but we have people with this acumen on the board already and they seemed to be doing a good job to me).

Yes, whilst being a doctor or lawyer are nice jobs which generally command a degree of respect, I am sur ethe club already has anough lawyers and doctors.
Who on the board has had past experience with say a listed company?
Surely these people would be the ones with their hands up.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
It continues to amaze me that on a Swans messageboard (and one which apparently is quite successful given that we have beenrslapped by the Swans, SSI don't bother to come and gain support.

Anyone else think they are relying on the masses who have no idea?

SSI. I didnt even know this thing existed before I started reading RWO. I still dont really know what they do.

[Bart]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
Firstly, good on Bron, and JF (and whoever else) for standing up for what they believe in.
It continues to amaze me that on a Swans messageboard (and one which apparently is quite successful given that we have beenrslapped by the Swans, SSI don't bother to come and gain support.

I think you'll find that JF and Bron ARE SSI, or at least are committee members.

[Bart]

Originally posted by sharpie
SSI. I didnt even know this thing existed before I started reading RWO. I still dont really know what they do.

http://www.swanssupporters.org/

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Bart
http://www.swanssupporters.org/

yeah, but what do they actually do and what purpose do they serve. that website is about as informative as the swans official website.

[boroboy]

Originally posted by Bart
The current board is accountable....to the AFL. To say the current board is not accountable is untrue and misleading.

Got to say this thread has been one of the most enjoyable I've ever read on RWO - great to see well argued debate from both sides.

Bart hits the nail right on the head. It's the AFL the club is truly accountable to - we compete in their league, are guided by their stipulations and play by their rules. If we don't - we have no club.

At the end of the day we're just stakeholders in the club - not shareholders which is a mighty big difference. And as much as it irks some people, that equates to being nothing more than a consumer in today's game.

All the argument is superficial anyway. If anyone thinks that Colless, and the other Board members are going to let someone take up a board position because they're 'passionate', 'want to see the club win flags' or 'want to keep them accountable' is living in dream land. The only people going on to the Board will be individuals that have an appropriate network of business associates, the ability to attract new revenues, senior management experience in the corporate world and an understanding of corporate governance. Moving to a member based club will make no difference to who ends up on the board - and neither should it. We're in more than capable hands already....

[Bron]

Originally posted by Maestro2
Bron - two questions occur to me after reading your post.

(a) Do any of the people involved in SSI have experience in running a football club. (I appreciate there are businessmen and women involved, but we have people with this acumen on the board already and they seemed to be doing a good job to me).

(b) The list of names gathered during the Roos campaign - have you complied with the changes in the Privacy Act over the last 12 mths or so in the use of this list?

(a) At least one has been involved in football administration at some level, I can't answer fully without reference to everyone else (not because I'm dodging, just because I don't know the anwer).

(b) There is a subscribe/unsubscribe capability on the email list. As everyone on the list either specifically gave their details originally or has since subscribed, they are categorised as having solicited SSI's material (I can't remember the correct technical/legalese term off the top of my head). In a mailing around the time the privacy legislation came into force people were asked to identify if they wished to be removed from the list.

[Maestro2]

Thanks Bron.