NO DICKHEADS???

[chammond]

This whole issue of Worner highlights the only thing I really really hate about our club. And I hate it with a passion

Do you think there is any way this creep would be a director if we, as members, elected our directors like grown ups the way other clubs do?

No way he would.

Our club is a benign dictatorship, the consummate boys clubs.

As fans and MEMBERS we are patronisingly given, what 1 or 2 directors we can elect directly but what about the other 10? We are made to feel important but we have no power.

My understanding is that essentially our club is the ultimate closed shop at board level, that directors are by-and-large elected by directors and so the story goes.

Surely the Swans are "owned" by the AFL Commission? They took the licence back in 1993. Fans are members, not shareholders, and they do not own the club.

There's no way that the AFL is going to appoint a Board that is antagonistic to the Commission. That's why people like Worner are appointed to the Board, and that's why the Swans are careful to never openly undermine the Commission, even when the Club receives egregious treatment and unwarranted sanctions. As Swans fans, we just have to cop it sweet.

[Vonsteinman]

Sustained success on the field.....
Sustained success off the field.....
Membership numbers that most of us didn't even dare to think possible....
The only key decision that would have really upset the supporter base (Wallace) in recent history overturned because supporters were heard.....
An average - I'm guessing - of about 15 positions higher on the ladder than the comparison (Brisbane) over the last five years....

Am I missing something?

[Mug Punter]

Surely the Swans are "owned" by the AFL Commission? They took the licence back in 1993. Fans are members, not shareholders, and they do not own the club.

There's no way that the AFL is going to appoint a Board that is antagonistic to the Commission. That's why people like Worner are appointed to the Board, and that's why the Swans are careful to never openly undermine the Commission, even when the Club receives egregious treatment and unwarranted sanctions. As Swans fans, we just have to cop it sweet.

I think you are right, we are effectively an AFL controlled entity.

Whilst we are quite happy to take on other clubs we rarely take on HQ unless we feel very strongly about something (e.g. the trade sanctions) which I also have no issue with. I think our Board is actually quite independent of the AFL, I doubt they appoint directors but they may have a right of veto on new appointees.

I guess history tells us the model works well, especially when things are travelling smoothly, and maybe I should be careful what I wish for (look at the Richmond powerplay debacle) but I just don't see any reason why we can't be a member-based organisation like other clubs.

I don't agree re us as fans and member not owning the club, I really do believe that members/supporters are the "owners" of all clubs and we should be able to exert more control than we can. At the moment it is a theoretical question because we are very well run and not many of us, especially me, have an issue with the club's operations.

But if we did, and a good example would be if the club decided to open a poker machine venue, then we don't have a direct way of influencing the club/ Sure we can withdraw our dollar support and season tickets but in many ways that penalises us more than the club. We would have to just cop a licensed venue sweet, OK maybe we might write letters, maybe we would boycott the venue and generally stir up trouble but ultimately the club would be able to do whatever the directors wanted. If we had direct control then a rival non-Pokie ticket could run for the board.

I might add I can see how the current model suits the AFL

- - - Updated - - -

Sustained success on the field.....
Sustained success off the field.....
Membership numbers that most of us didn't even dare to think possible....
The only key decision that would have really upset the supporter base (Wallace) in recent history overturned because supporters were heard.....
An average - I'm guessing - of about 15 positions higher on the ladder than the comparison (Brisbane) over the last five years....

Am I missing something?

I am not comparing us to Brisbane except I terms of governance.

You clearly didn't understand my post so I'm not going to waste any more time on you

[56-14]

Sustained success on the field.....
Sustained success off the field.....
Membership numbers that most of us didn't even dare to think possible....
The only key decision that would have really upset the supporter base (Wallace) in recent history overturned because supporters were heard.....
An average - I'm guessing - of about 15 positions higher on the ladder than the comparison (Brisbane) over the last five years....

Am I missing something?

I think you maybe missing a few things.

1. Sustained success on the field - try telling that to the majority of supporters for the last 3 years.
2. Sustained success off the field - ?????
- Fighting the trading ban?
- No team in the inaugural Women's comp. ?
- Worner on the board?
Am I missing something?

[Vonsteinman]

I think you are right, we are effectively an AFL controlled entity.

Whilst we are quite happy to take on other clubs we rarely take on HQ unless we feel very strongly about something (e.g. the trade sanctions) which I also have no issue with. I think our Board is actually quite independent of the AFL, I doubt they appoint directors but they may have a right of veto on new appointees.

I guess history tells us the model works well, especially when things are travelling smoothly, and maybe I should be careful what I wish for (look at the Richmond powerplay debacle) but I just don't see any reason why we can't be a member-based organisation like other clubs.

I don't agree re us as fans and member not owning the club, I really do believe that members/supporters are the "owners" of all clubs and we should be able to exert more control than we can. At the moment it is a theoretical question because we are very well run and not many of us, especially me, have an issue with the club's operations.

But if we did, and a good example would be if the club decided to open a poker machine venue, then we don't have a direct way of influencing the club/ Sure we can withdraw our dollar support and season tickets but in many ways that penalises us more than the club. We would have to just cop a licensed venue sweet, OK maybe we might write letters, maybe we would boycott the venue and generally stir up trouble but ultimately the club would be able to do whatever the directors wanted. If we had direct control then a rival non-Pokie ticket could run for the board.

I might add I can see how the current model suits the AFL

- - - Updated - - -



I am not comparing us to Brisbane except I terms of governance.

You clearly didn't understand my post so I'm not going to waste any more time on you

Yep, you'd definitely be wasting your time trying to argue your point further.

[Vonsteinman]

I think you maybe missing a few things.

1. Sustained success on the field - try telling that to the majority of supporters for the last 3 years.
2. Sustained success off the field - ?????
- Fighting the trading ban?
- No team in the inaugural Women's comp. ?
- Worner on the board?
Am I missing something?

15 other clubs' supporters would envy our record over the last 20 years.

In the two years of the trade ban we landed arguably (time will tell) two of the best midfielders of a generation.

I don't really understand how holding off on a women's side until we are ready amounts to a failure?

I dont recall there being any criticism or objection when Worner joined the board. Happy to stand corrected on this front.

[Bloods05]

You clearly didn't understand my post so I'm not going to waste any more time on you

Quite a thoughtful and worthwhile post - and then you went and said that.

[Mug Punter]

Quite a thoughtful and worthwhile post - and then you went and said that.

Don't be so precious

It was a childish and stupid response to my post that deserved the response it got.

[Mug Punter]

I dont recall there being any criticism or objection when Worner joined the board. Happy to stand corrected on this front.

So what? The current information was not available then. If it was known then that he has multiple affairs on the job on company time and company money including drug use as well as the appalling use of company resources to make his personal issues go away then I suspect we may have.

My point is not really whether he'd get voted in or not, it's the complete lack of any member involvement in voting for our board with the exception of the token appointments.

[56-14]

15 other clubs' supporters would envy our record over the last 20 years.

In the two years of the trade ban we landed arguably (time will tell) two of the best midfielders of a generation.

I don't really understand how holding off on a women's side until we are ready amounts to a failure?

I dont recall there being any criticism or objection when Worner joined the board. Happy to stand corrected on this front.

1. Agree - 15 other clubs would like our record. However, should we be satisfied with 2014 & '16?
2. We stuck it up the AFL during the trade ban by all of of a sudden producing Heeney & Mills?
3. We held off fielding a women's side until we were certain it would be succcessful?
4. I, and I assume the majority of RWO'ers, didn't have any knowledge of what was happening with Worner at the time of his appointment to the board.

[Vonsteinman]

1. Agree - 15 other clubs would like our record. However, should we be satisfied with 2014 & '16?
2. We stuck it up the AFL during the trade ban by all of of a sudden producing Heeney & Mills?
3. We held off fielding a women's side until we were certain it would be succcessful?
4. I, and I assume the majority of RWO'ers, didn't have any knowledge of what was happening with Worner at the time of his appointment to the board.

1. My point is that, since the club was restructured, we've had sustained success. With regard to the input and influence of the board in onfield success, yes we should absolutely be satisfied. We have been in a position to win two out of the last three flags.

2. The trade ban, the organisation that implemented it, it's fairness and it's impact have been discussed at length elsewhere. The response of the club, in my opinion, was exceptional. From the board downwards. We didn't stick it up anyone. We just went about our business professionally, secure in the knowledge that we were continuing to strengthen our club.

3. The club has stated publicly that it did not yet have the facilities to cater for a team to enter AFLW, that it would be rectified when they build a new training facility. Did you just not read this or do you not believe the statement?

4. I may have missed the response from the Swans regarding Worner's conduct and the impact this will have on his position on the Swans board (although I don't think this is the case). If not, I am confident that it is being addressed and that the appropriate decision - with the best interests of the club in mind - will be made.

[Bloods05]

Don't be so precious

It was a childish and stupid response to my post that deserved the response it got.

"Ruby just smiled and said, ah, you know some babies never learn..."

[56-14]

1. My point is that, since the club was restructured, we've had sustained success. With regard to the input and influence of the board in onfield success, yes we should absolutely be satisfied. We have been in a position to win two out of the last three flags.

2. The trade ban, the organisation that implemented it, it's fairness and it's impact have been discussed at length elsewhere. The response of the club, in my opinion, was exceptional. From the board downwards. We didn't stick it up anyone. We just went about our business professionally, secure in the knowledge that we were continuing to strengthen our club.

3. The club has stated publicly that it did not yet have the facilities to cater for a team to enter AFLW, that it would be rectified when they build a new training facility. Did you just not read this or do you not believe the statement?

4. I may have missed the response from the Swans regarding Worner's conduct and the impact this will have on his position on the Swans board (although I don't think this is the case). If not, I am confident that it is being addressed and that the appropriate decision - with the best interests of the club in mind - will be made.

1. Being runner's up 2 out of 3 years is NOW not what I call successful - years ago yes!
2. Disagree that the response of the club was exceptional.
3. I did read that the club's position for not having a Women's team was "lack of training facilities". My reaction to this was "and GWS do have these facilities?"
4. Trying hard to restrain myself with your reply to this point. What the heck - what a load of crap!

(My apologies to RWO'ers - much prefer to sit back & enjoy posts re: the teams preparation for the upcoming season.)

[Joel Ridge]

One point that needs to be acknowledged on Worner is that he must be a brilliant TV executive. To survive this Amber Harrison episode shows how impressed that the Stokes family (biggest shareholders in 7 West) are in Worners performance. CEOs in the USA have been fired for the transgression that Worner involved himself in.

It can also be argued that the Swans Board must be benefitting from the expert input of the high performance Worner.

My personal opinion is that while Worner retains the support of Mr Stokes that he must also retain the support of Pridham and the Swans board.

[Swansongster]

I think you maybe missing a few things.

1. Sustained success on the field - try telling that to the majority of supporters for the last 3 years.
2. Sustained success off the field - ?????
- Fighting the trading ban?
- No team in the inaugural Women's comp. ?
- Worner on the board?
Am I missing something?

There was only ever going to be one team from Sydney in the start-up eight-team league. And. for that reason it was always going to be GWS.

Arguably that was the right decision. However, it could be said that a red and white women's team would have come with one million plus supporters up-front as opposed to GWS's crickets.

That supporter base (or lack of) must have come into AFL HQ's risk management plan but I would suggest that our Board got the word that we wouldn't get a licence first time around so they are keeping their powder dry for expansion opportunities.

FWIW - I think the Swans Board has no questions to answer in recent years but I also think Worner's recent brush with misadventure stamps him as a "dickhead" and would prefer him gone.