Another SANFL Coup Attempt

[tribey]

^^ Exactly!
Really got wild angry at the number of callers rining in to 5aa after the game saying we shouldnt turn up to the Bulldogs game...
What is that going to achive????

I bet these same people would bitch and complain if our club went down the drain due to lack of numbers at the game and cash....

Staggers me really how they can think bycotting the game is a good thing??

Those who talk of boycotts usually aren't members or go to games anyway. There's a fair amount of bluster and lack of money where the mouth is about our wider supporter base.

For all the SANFL's short-sightedness, if we don't attend and spend on matchdays it doesn't matter where we'll be playing under what deal - we just won't have a club.

 

[Minotaur]

Does anyone have Kevin Foleys email address?

Im convinced he's one of the only people that can save this club now.

If, according to Haysey "theres more politics in football than in politics", then we very much need Kevin.

The SANFL wouldnt know what hit them. Lying, cheating, backstabbing, I'm sure Foley has been there done that and would have mastered the art of dealing with this type of parasite.

For all his flaws, Foley is a powerful character that would not take things lying down (not this type of thing anyway).

For a long time as a club we have been too acquiescent . The whole thing about the prison bars for the heritage rounds was the pinnicle of this.

This story today needs to be strongly refuted because it is damaging to the brand. Foley would be able to do that.

Foley also has a strong/close connection to Demitriou over the Adelaide Oval stuff.

I think we could far worse than Foley. i think labor would also benefit if he stood aside from politics to take this role on.

 

[Spadge]

i hate Arctic Park and i hate the SANFL with a passion... but i will be there rain, hail, shine, 165 point drubbings to support MY club

At least i can hold my head up high and say i am doing the best thing for MY club

Those who boycott are part of the problem, not part of the solution

 

[The Smaller Warrior]

**** the SANFL.

Would kill for my club.

We have to do everything possible to stop any of this bullshit action from taking place.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Lolle.

The best way to fix a club where only the die hards are still attending is to piss off all the die hards.

Looking forward to marching on West Lakes with the rest of you if any of this comes to pass.

 

[timmyd33]

Just found this on the SANFL website:


The following is to be attributed to John Olsen, Chairman of the South Australian Football Commission:

In response to a story posted today on Adelaide Now website (‘SANFL plotting another Port Adelaide Football Club coup’, Monday 15th August) I feel it important to explain the governance process that relates to the appointment of directors of both the AFL clubs in accordance with their respective constitutions.

In October of each year, a Nominations Committee sits to discuss vacancies and invite nominations. This committee is made up of the CEO and Chairman of the relevant club and the CEO and Chairman of the Commission.
Then, following the AGM of the club and based on the recommendations of the Nominations Committee, the Commission appoints the most qualified nominees to the available directors’ positions.
It is the responsibility of the boards – and the boards alone - of the two AFL clubs to appoint persons to the positions of CEO and Chairman.
With respect to the club’s brand name, the Commission is not considering removing the name Port Adelaide and it cannot do so without the approval of the club which again is a matter that is contained in the Port Adelaide Constitution.

I trust this clarification will prevent further speculation that can only be harmful to the Port Adelaide brand.


http://sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/1540/

 

[FishingRick04]

thanks timmy, good to see the SANFL with that publiccomment

I like this "I trust this clarification will prevent further speculation that can only be harmful to the Port Adelaide brand."

 

[The Smaller Warrior]

Good to see them come out about it.

Hasnt fixed anything imo, but good none the less.

 

[Mr Crow!]

Re: The Board and management of the club

Rucci seems obsessed with this rebranding issue. Didn't he sprout some crap about a 'Southern Jets' team some time ago?

Southern Jets??? WTF!?!

 

[Relativity]

I don't know what Rucci's agenda is or why he has continually "ground the axe" against the PAFC over the last few years but it seems to me that he has been as damaging to the Port brand as any of the other local media outlets.

 

[finbarr]

I don't know what Rucci's agenda is or why he has continually "ground the axe" against the PAFC over the last few years but it seems to me that he has been as damaging to the Port brand as any of the other local media outlets.

I get the feeling it's little more than Rucci's own way of "rallying the troops" to get off our collective arses and get to games etc. "Use it or lose it".

 

[Relativity]

I get the feeling it's little more than Rucci's own way of "rallying the troops" to get off our collective arses and get to games etc. "Use it or lose it".

You are probably right but surely it comes to a point when you realise your tactics aren't working, and worse are damaging the club, that you change strategies or back off.

 

[Jose Cruzeiro]

With respect to the club’s brand name, the Commission is not considering removing the name Port Adelaide and it cannot do so without the approval of the club which again is a matter that is contained in the Port Adelaide Constitution.

I trust this clarification will prevent further speculation that can only be harmful to the Port Adelaide brand.

http://sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/1540/

WTF is Rucci doing?!

Is he seriously just publishing whatever random musings come into his head?!

 

[Spadge]

WTF is Rucci doing?!

Is he seriously just publishing whatever random musings come into his head?!

Seems like it doesn't it. I don't know what his agenda is but it's not doing our club any good at all

 

[bomberclifford]

Seems like it doesn't it. I don't know what his agenda is but it's not doing our club any good at all

I disagree.

We now have an official public statement from the SSANFL that they have no intention of dropping the Port from Port Adelaide and that the role of president and matters of branding are issues for the PAFC board to resolve.

Sometimes you need to poke people with a stick to get things in writing.

 

[Redline]

I disagree.

We now have an official public statement from the SSANFL that they have no intention of dropping the Port from Port Adelaide and that the role of president and matters of branding are issues for the PAFC board to resolve.

Sometimes you need to poke people with a stick to get things in writing.

So he should just continue to write sloppy articles just to get someone to answer a made up story

 

[Macca19]

^^ Exactly!
Really got wild angry at the number of callers rining in to 5aa after the game saying we shouldnt turn up to the Bulldogs game...
What is that going to achive????

Nothing. All it does is put our club in jeopardy. The one thing I decided to do after the match on the weekend is add another $100 to the money ill donate at the end of the season.

 

[bomberclifford]

So he should just continue to write sloppy articles just to get someone to answer a made up story

Yeah. That's exactly what I said.

 

[Portology]

Rucci can seem to be really grubbing around at times.

This time he extracted a statement from our 'friends' at West Lakes that Alberton wasn't about to be burned to the ground, have a gigantic Saddam Hussein style statue of Max Basheer erected in it's place and be renamed "Whicker Park".

At some point outrage fatigue will set in.

 

[CrimsonRaven]

Problem is this sort of article speads bad vibes about our club.

I think I had about 3 crows fans come up to me today at work asking why Port were trying to steal their name.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

nivek_48 has posted this in another thread - this is what Rucci has written previously:

link

link

Thanks for that Ford. Missed that article as I was on a boat in the Kimberley's for a couple of days when Rucci wrote it.

My hunch is clause 4.9 was changed but that the rest were always there. Anyone think that clause 9.4, 11.1 and 11.7 weren't there in 1996? They read constitent with what I knew at the time. Look at the way he wrote it...

They should ask why the PAFC consitition in clause 4.9 now reads: "a `member' means a person who is a director of the company and whose name is entered as a member of the company ..."

They should consider clause 9.4 that declares they "have a right to vote in relation to the election of club NOMINEES for appointment by the league commission to the board." Sounds like the Adelaide Football Club.

They should read clauses 11 - such as 11.1 that says "the directors of the company shall be such persons as shall be appointed by time to time by the league commission and the league commission may likewise remove any director at any time."

And 11.7 that says "the league commission may in its absolute discretion decline to appoint a club nominee as a director. In that event the club membership is entitled to nominate a replacement person for appointment by the league commission as a director."

The other constitutional change that I'm aware of that members had to vote was in June 2010 when The Magpies sold their 25% share of the Port Club after the February 2010 merger failed.

I took his meaning that the change in clause 4.9 has greater impact due to the pre-existing clauses of 9.4,11.1 and 11.7

Maybe that's what he meant, and that's why I don't get why he is banging on about it.

But I want to check the AGM notice tonight to see what was intended by the constitutional change.

Ok I have looked up the Notice of Annual General Meeting for December 2008. There was nothing about a constitutional amendment. The only area of business that it could have been covered in was..
"2. To transact any other business as shall lawfully be brought before the meeting."

(Item 1 of business was receiving reports, directors, financial and audit. Item 3 was provide info on 2009 season and item 4 was introduction of new president.)

The change of a constitution requires a 21 day notice and a special resolution of 75% approval. That would have been in the notice as a specific issue not a general item.

Last year after the PAMFC constitutional change whereby they gave up 25% share in the Port club ie asked Steve Weinert - Port's Finance Manager and company secretary, if he could send me an electronic copy of the club's constitution. The copy I have is dated October 2008. A cut and paste of the clauses Rucci quoted and 4.5 is below. Rucci has the wrong year at best.

I seem to remember having to vote in changes to the Constitution in either 2001, 2002 or 2003. I can't remeber voting but I seem to recall a voting slip with the changes highlighted in red compared to the existing clauses being in black. Back in those days us interstate members usually got voting stuff after the vote had closed. I think it suits his agenda to say 2008 and not 2001 2002 or 2003, if indeed I'm right that's when the changes took place if at all.

4. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

....

4.5 "Club Members" are "the Members of the Company, Club football players, the coaches and the staff of the Company for the time being, those supporters of the Club who have paid their annual subscription for Club Membership or are Patrons, Life Members or Life Governors of the Club as determined by the Board from time to time under Clause 8" and "Club Membership" shall have a corresponding meaning;

...

4.9 "Member" means a person who is a Director of the Company and whose name is entered as a Member of the Company in the Register and "Member of the Company" shall have a corresponding meaning;

....

9.4 All Club Members have a right to vote in relation to the election of Club nominees for appointment by the League Commission to the Board.

......

11. DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY

11.1 Subject to this clause, the Directors of the Company shall be such persons as shall be appointed from time to time by the League Commission and the League Commission may likewise remove any Director at any time.

....

11.7 The League Commission may in its absolute discretion decline to appoint a Club nominee as a Director. In that event the Club Membership is entitled to nominate a replacement person for appointment by the League Commission as a Director.

....

MEMBERS

WE the several persons whose names and addresses follow, being the Members of Port Adelaide Football Club Ltd ACN 068 839 547, hereby agree to the following Constitution.

Full Names, Addresses and Signatures of Members
Gregory Colin Boulton
xxxx, West Beach SA 5024
............................................................
Bruce Richard Abernethy
xxxxx, West Beach SA 5024
…………………………………
David Nadeem Basheer
xxxxxx, Auldana, SA 5072
............................................................
Brett Duncanson
xxxxxxx, Semaphore, SA 5019
............................................................
Anthony David Hobby
xxxxxxxx, Medindie, SA 5081
............................................................
John Guthrie Hood
xxxxxxx, Springfield, SA 5062
............................................................
Michael O’Connor
xxxxxx, Heathpool SA 5068
............................................................
Alex Panas
xxxxxxx, Bridgewater SA 5155
............................................................
Anthony Charles Earl Toop
xxxxxxx, Norwood SA 5067
............................................................
Darryl Brett Wakelin
xxxxxxx, Hawthorn, SA 5022
............................................................
DATED the day of October 2008

 

[EdgeOfReason]

Silverfingers I am so angry today I have a headache and am slightly dizzy.

I'm right at the end of my tether with all this crap.

And who knows how it will end

who ever would have thunk it.

I'm in the same boat; at least with the anger-induced headache.

 

[Magpiespower]

The Rooch at his mischievous best.

Mind you, I'd be more surprised if a name change hadn't been considered at some stage.

No Port, no support!

 

[Macca19]

It is the responsibility of the boards – and the boards alone - of the two AFL clubs to appoint persons to the positions of CEO and Chairman.

This doesnt really answer any questions for me. Adelaides board is almost entirely SANFL elected. Ours (i believe) is majority SANFL elected.

The SANFL may not directly elect the CEO or Chairman, but if the SANFL makes the strong recommendation that (for example) it wants Keith Thomas as the CEO, what do you reckon will happen?

 

[powermacs]

This doesnt really answer any questions for me. Adelaides board is almost entirely SANFL elected. Ours (i believe) is majority SANFL elected.

The SANFL may not directly elect the CEO or Chairman, but if the SANFL makes the strong recommendation that (for example) it wants Keith Thomas as the CEO, what do you reckon will happen?

I heard a bit of Darryl Wakelin on SEN yesterday, he said there were still people within the SANFL trying to bring down port because of 1990. It didn't come as a surprise just thought it was interesting hearing it from a former board member. How are we ever supposed to come out of our current situation with the SANFL is beyond me. Guess I'm just praying Andy D has something up his sleeve.