Does the Swans constitution...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • liz
    Veteran
    Site Admin
    • Jan 2003
    • 16778

    #31
    Originally posted by Charlie


    However, the Sydney Swans have, for a variety of reasons not limited to South, a very significant-sized supporter base here. The interests of those supporters should be represented on the board. It's not irrational, surely, to suggest that it should be Melbourne supporters that decide what is desirable for Melbourne supporters.

    OK - where to start.

    Firstly, there are probably only two significant decisions made by the board that affect what a "Melbourne" supporter gets:-

    a) the committment of funds in the budget to a Melbourne office and, in particular, a resource like Tony Morwood; and

    b) the appointment of a CEO who may or may not believe in a strong Melbourne operation (linked to a) above)

    Factors like how many games in Melbourne the AFL allocates, where aftermatch functions are held, the price of Melbourne memberships, whether you get a cap or a scarf as part of your membership, who is on the inside cover of the membership brochure etc etc are not matters that the board will have much - if any - influence over. The first is largely an AFL decision while the rest are management decisions (and thus flow from a) and b) above).

    Secondly, once someone is accepts a seat on a board, whether elected or appointed and regardless of who elected by, he has an obligation to act in the best interests of ALL stakeholders of the club. In the corporate world the interests of shareholders take precedence over most other stakeholders. In the case of an AFL club, since members are not financial members in the same sense that shareholders of a company are, the interests of a broader group of stakeholders need to be considered - the AFL, members, non-member supporters, future members and supporters, sponsors, players, the Sydney community, the NSW government etc etc

    Thus, even if we did find ourselves in the position where there was one board member who was nominally elected just by Melbourne members, he would be derelict in his duties as a director if he pushed the interests of that constituency over and above the interests of all other stakeholders.

    Finally, throughout all the discussions that have been had on this board where the Sydney vs Melbourne supporter issue has arisen, no concensus has emerged that Melbourne supporters as a group have a set of needs in common that are different from those of Sydney supporters. There have been as many different views posted within each of the two supposed factions as there have been between them.

    Beyond the world of RWO I suspect there is even broader differentiation between what individuals look for from the club, regardless of location. The idea of a homogeneous Melbourne group is as much of a myth as the idea of such a Sydney group.

    Comment

    • JF_Bay22_SCG
      expat Sydneysider
      • Jan 2003
      • 3978

      #32
      Originally posted by Charlie
      Mate - sorry for snapping. Whether you've lived in Melbourne or not, though, surely what is sufficient for Melbourne supporters is something that should be decided by Melbourne supporters, not Sydney ones. You may not be Sydney-centric, but the statement was.
      But Charlie, that is what the Melbourne office is for. Tony Morwood is the most approachable guy around. Go up and approach him with the idea of instilling the old Bloods guernsey as our Melbourne-based guernsey. Maybe even start a petition or something. He hasn't let you down so far mate.

      Sadly after the 'kerfuffle' with ticketing in Geelong this year, you missed a huge change to get to meet the guy and put forward your ideas. But he DEFINITELY does remember you after that weekend mate!

      JF
      "Never ever ever state that Sydney is gone.They are like cockroaches in the aftermath of a nuclear war"
      (Forum poster 'Change', Big Footy 04Apr09)

      Comment

      • liz
        Veteran
        Site Admin
        • Jan 2003
        • 16778

        #33
        Re: Plastic surgery is needed!

        Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
        Of having a receptionist who is so football ignorant that when Channel 10 rings to interview mad keen supporters before an interstate final she replies "Well our club hasn't got any of those."

        That puzzles me because I know the main office receptionist moderately well - she is a pretty mad keen Swans fan herself. I regularly see her at games and have a bit of a chat, and know that she travels to a fair few away games as well.

        Comment

        • robbieando
          The King
          • Jan 2003
          • 2750

          #34
          Originally posted by Mark
          So Robbie, having said all that, one question;

          should the Swans still be in South Melbourne, playing at Lake Oval ?

          If the answer to that question is no, get over it, move on (from an event you were not even a spematazoa at !) and support the club as a whole, not some disgruntled faction.
          Move on from what?????

          Someone said it was the fans fault we moved because they "didn't support the team enough" and I say otherwise and all of a sudden I'm part of some disgruntled faction. I think you need to take a bex and have a good lie down, because I haven't once suggested what you seem to think I have. Regardless of where we play or what our first name is, to me we will always be the SWANS.

          I agree with you about the board, the two spots shouldn't be spilt between Sydney and Melbourne, like Charlie believes. The spots should got to who the members as a "whole" want and vote for. If that means two people from Sydney or two people from Melbourne or a split, or two from New Zealnad then thats what the members voted for and that the way it should be.
          Once was, now elsewhere

          Comment

          • robbieando
            The King
            • Jan 2003
            • 2750

            #35
            Originally posted by swansrule100
            but the vfl wanted it moved yes cos there was bugger all support for the club
            That wasn't the case. We traditionally had more fans than Fitzroy and just as many as Hawthorn, North Melbourne and St Kilda and membership wise we sat mid table. The VFL wanted us moved solely because they wanted a club playing out of Sydney and they didn't care who that team was. Our supporter base had NOTHING to do with that decision.

            The VFL had tried to move Fitzroy to Sydney in 1976 but the Lions managed to get themsleves out of the firing line thanks to a lucky brake, a brake the VFL wouldn't allow us to get. When the VFL got us in their sights in 1981, they vowed to not let us get away and pulled out every single trick they could to force us to move. We had debts yes, but they could of been handled and plans were in place to solve it and at the same time upgrade the Lake Side Oval.

            Support never came into it because we weren't the least supported in Melbourne at the time.

            i guess to me the point is the swans are in sydney.....the priority is to make sydney its strong base...yes it must acknowledge its past and try to use it to its advantage
            Agree 100%. We are Sydney now and as Sydney we must grow. No point wasting needless money and time on Melbourne when we will always get 5000 members and plenty of support at Melbourne games. All it costs is keeping up with our history and a well run Melbourne office and as far as I can see thats the case.
            Once was, now elsewhere

            Comment

            • Charlie
              On the Rookie List
              • Jan 2003
              • 4101

              #36
              Robbie - how many times do I have to clarify what I'm suggesting?

              I DO NOT WANT the two elected-positions to be split between Melbourne and Sydney. That is an unequivocal, plain-as-day position.

              ALL I'm saying is that I believe it's favourable for Melbourne members - as well as Sydney members (although for other reasons) - that a portion of the board remains appointed by the AFL. In the past, there has been a minority (as it should be) of directors that have come from Melbourne, which I don't believe would happen if the entire board was directly-elected.

              That is all. I'm not suggesting any special rights or priveliges. Just that we retain the status quo. Now... is anybody still confused?

              (before anybody misinterprets the tone of this post, it is one of exasperation, rather than of combativeness or anger)
              We hate Anthony Rocca
              We hate Shannon Grant too
              We hate scumbag Gaspar
              But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

              Comment

              • Charlie
                On the Rookie List
                • Jan 2003
                • 4101

                #37
                Originally posted by liz

                Beyond the world of RWO I suspect there is even broader differentiation between what individuals look for from the club, regardless of location. The idea of a homogeneous Melbourne group is as much of a myth as the idea of such a Sydney group.
                Although I've only quoted a small section of your post, I agree with all of it. In principle, all board members are supposed to represent all supporters. In practice, it's more likely that a Melbourne supporter's viewpoint is going to be taken into consideration when things are being done.

                Basically, I'm concerned that in the event of a fully-elected board, a ticket made up solely of Sydney-based professionals would win. In such a circumstance, I don't believe that the interest of Melbourne supporters, Sydney supporters or ultimately the club itself would be best represented, because certain viewpoints wouldn't be present on the board. With the AFL appointing at least some of the directors, we are more likely to get broader representation.

                That's why the coming system is good. It addresses the current imbalance - a lack of grassroots input, while avoiding the creation of other imbalances.
                We hate Anthony Rocca
                We hate Shannon Grant too
                We hate scumbag Gaspar
                But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

                Comment

                • Charlie
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 4101

                  #38
                  Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
                  But Charlie, that is what the Melbourne office is for. Tony Morwood is the most approachable guy around. Go up and approach him with the idea of instilling the old Bloods guernsey as our Melbourne-based guernsey. Maybe even start a petition or something. He hasn't let you down so far mate.

                  Sadly after the 'kerfuffle' with ticketing in Geelong this year, you missed a huge change to get to meet the guy and put forward your ideas. But he DEFINITELY does remember you after that weekend mate!

                  JF
                  Julian, if Tony Morwood was elevated to the board, I'd be as happy as could be.

                  I have no idea what this has to do with the ticketing problem.
                  Last edited by Charlie; 16 November 2004, 11:28 PM.
                  We hate Anthony Rocca
                  We hate Shannon Grant too
                  We hate scumbag Gaspar
                  But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

                  Comment

                  • swansrule100
                    The quarterback
                    • May 2004
                    • 4538

                    #39
                    Originally posted by robbieando
                    That wasn't the case. We traditionally had more fans than Fitzroy and just as many as Hawthorn, North Melbourne and St Kilda and membership wise we sat mid table. The VFL wanted us moved solely because they wanted a club playing out of Sydney and they didn't care who that team was. Our supporter base had NOTHING to do with that decision.

                    The VFL had tried to move Fitzroy to Sydney in 1976 but the Lions managed to get themsleves out of the firing line thanks to a lucky brake, a brake the VFL wouldn't allow us to get. When the VFL got us in their sights in 1981, they vowed to not let us get away and pulled out every single trick they could to force us to move. We had debts yes, but they could of been handled and plans were in place to solve it and at the same time upgrade the Lake Side Oval.

                    Support never came into it because we weren't the least supported in Melbourne at the time.



                    well im either mis informed or your full of it...but ill believe you and apologise sorry..

                    but glad we agree on the focus of the club.... i think it is heading in the right direction off the field.
                    Theres not much left to say

                    Comment

                    • swansrule100
                      The quarterback
                      • May 2004
                      • 4538

                      #40
                      i think anyone who tried to ignore the melbourne roots and fan base would be doing the swans an injustice and i would hope people like that wouldnt be interested in running for a position on the board in the first place.
                      Theres not much left to say

                      Comment

                      • JF_Bay22_SCG
                        expat Sydneysider
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 3978

                        #41
                        Originally posted by Charlie
                        Julian, if Tony Morwood was elevated to the board, I'd be as happy as could be.

                        Could he though?

                        wouldn't it be a conflict of interest, albeit a great one.

                        JF
                        "Never ever ever state that Sydney is gone.They are like cockroaches in the aftermath of a nuclear war"
                        (Forum poster 'Change', Big Footy 04Apr09)

                        Comment

                        • swansrule100
                          The quarterback
                          • May 2004
                          • 4538

                          #42
                          Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
                          Could he though?

                          wouldn't it be a conflict of interest, albeit a great one.

                          JF
                          he would probably have to make a choice...

                          and would be too great a loss in his current role
                          Theres not much left to say

                          Comment

                          • go_monty
                            On the Rookie List
                            • Nov 2004
                            • 44

                            #43
                            Originally posted by swansrock4eva
                            No we don't actually have a constitution, or at least we didn't have one at the end of 2002, when all the Choose Roos stuff was going on. I think we'd have heard if that had changed.
                            I think you best check your facts. The Club has a constitution. It has to have one because it is governed by a board.

                            GM

                            Comment

                            • j s
                              Think positive!
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 3303

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Charlie
                              that a portion of the board remains appointed by the AFL.
                              I don't believe the AFL will EVER allow themselves to lose the controlling say. The last thing they want is the potential for power struggles like we have seen at some Clubs in recent years.

                              The member elected Board positions will ensure (in theory anyway) that our opinions will be officially heard and some decisions influenced but we will NEVER be allowed to be in control.

                              Quite frankly, I prefer it that way. I don''t want to see power struggles either.

                              The one thing I am sure of is that the AFL wants to see a successful and prosperous Sydney team. The AFL's long term future depends on it.

                              Comment

                              • Charlie
                                On the Rookie List
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 4101

                                #45
                                Is there a law precluding an executive of a company from also being a director?

                                I was envisioning him being on the board in his current capacity...
                                We hate Anthony Rocca
                                We hate Shannon Grant too
                                We hate scumbag Gaspar
                                But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

                                Comment

                                Working...