Another SANFL Coup Attempt

[tribey]

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/

That was John Olsen, Adelaide Football Club Ambassador, everybody. :craigwilli:

 

[Relativity]

That was John Olsen, Adelaide Football Club Ambassador, everybody. :craigwilli:

Adelaide Crows or Adelaide Power?

 

[Portia]

Heard Olsen on 5aa just now, apparently the board is making the calls and the SANFL is acting as the club's `banker'.

Denied that they were forcing a decision, but claimed that they wanted confidence in reaching performance goals - didn't like it when Rowey said that there were `strings attached'.

Apparently Olsen reckons we owe the SANFL $18 million. Fascinating, really.

 

[Natman]

Heard Olsen on 5aa just now, apparently the board is making the calls and the SANFL is acting as the club's `banker'.

Denied that they were forcing a decision, but claimed that they wanted confidence in reaching performance goals - didn't like it when Rowey said that there were `strings attached'.

Apparently Olsen reckons we owe the SANFL $18 million. Fascinating, really.

Consider it a bridging loan - it can be repaid when footy park, you know, the oval we helped build with disproportionate contributions - is redeveloped and sold off.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Heard Olsen on 5aa just now, apparently the board is making the calls and the SANFL is acting as the club's `banker'.

Denied that they were forcing a decision, but claimed that they wanted confidence in reaching performance goals - didn't like it when Rowey said that there were `strings attached'.

Apparently Olsen reckons we owe the SANFL $18 million. Fascinating, really.

I heard the same interview whilst driving home and I swear if he had crossed the road in fornt of me I wouldnt have braked...

I just dont know what to do anymore. We have lost control of our club and the SANFL have their fingerprints all over it.

How can we get it back?

 

[Natman]

I heard the same interview whilst driving home and I swear if he had crossed the road in fornt of me I wouldnt have braked...

I just dont know what to do anymore. We have lost control of our club and the SANFL have their fingerprints all over it.

How can we get it back?

Just wait for the hadover of the licence when the move to AO happens.

Then we succeed or fail by our own design - I can handle that.

 

[Eric Blair]

I heard the same interview whilst driving home and I swear if he had crossed the road in fornt of me I wouldnt have braked...

I just dont know what to do anymore. We have lost control of our club and the SANFL have their fingerprints all over it.

How can we get it back?

If what Olsen is saying is true that the club owes the SANFL $18 million, then we got them by the nuts. Remember if you owe the bank $1 million it's your problem, but if you owe the bank $1 billion it's the banks problem.

As I posted previously default ought to be an option on the table

 

[Spadge]

We owe the $ANFL 18 mil eh? Just take it off the millions you owe us you parasites

 

[silverfingers]

The bottom line with Rucci is this..

He is absolutely desperate to get a place on the PAFC board.
So I think a lot of what he writes / thinks, is done to try and enable him to do so.

 

[Portology]

Why would Rooch give up the #1 journalism job in the state for a spot on our board ?

/wants-to-be-a-fly-on-the-wall-when-Leigh-gets-that-nomination thread

 

[silverfingers]

Why would Rooch give up the #1 journalism job in the state for a spot on our board ?

/wants-to-be-a-fly-on-the-wall-when-Leigh-gets-that-nomination thread

He'll do both.

 

[Natman]

The bottom line with Rucci is this..

He is absolutely desperate to get a place on the PAFC board.
So I think a lot of what he writes / thinks, is done to try and enable him to do so.

You need to have credibility, experience and business accumen to get any board jobs - Rucc doesn't have those attributes and would not get any where near a board seat.

 

[silverfingers]

You need to have credibility, experience and business accumen to get any board jobs - Rucc doesn't have those attributes and would not get any where near a board seat.

You might be right, but is he desperate regardless.

 

[Tredz]

Sorry for my ignorance on this matter but I'm kinda new to Aussie Rules and a little confused about this whole financial bailout thing going on between the AFL, SANFL and PAFC. Can someone explain it to me briefly. Who is actually providing PAFC the funding assistance? I thought the AFL just recently guaranteed us $9M over 3 years. Now I hear reports the SANFL is actually provided the funding. Who is really giving what? Not that it really matters - I'm just interested.

Also, TBH I enjoy watching what I think is a great spectacle of a game (enjoyed it for years even before coming to Australia) and would love to be more involved and help out if/where I can but holy hannah for a newbie supporter everything seems pretty chaotic and disorganized at the moment - I'm getting head-spins! Is this just my perception or is it just the way things are actually done here in Adelaide?

 

[Portology]

He'll do both.

LOL I can't see how that is possible.

OK never mind workload, that's manageable. In his so called day job, 2/3 of his articles are speculation and/or rabble rousing, he could do that over a bottle of red every evening, the rest, actual news, he may have to attend a press conference, or interview someone (or something).

OK never mind "conflict of interest". It's a value inherent in the fabric of the SANFL, why stop now.

The SANFL may find it funny to "silence him" by dumping him onto our board and getting us to pay him for it and getting our club to suffer for every leak rightly or wrongly blamed on our "unprofessionally run club". I don't.

 

[silverfingers]

LOL I can't see how that is possible.

OK never mind workload, that's manageable. In his so called day job, 2/3 of his articles are speculation and/or rabble rousing, he could do that over a bottle of red every evening, the rest, actual news, he may have to attend a press conference, or interview someone (or something).

OK never mind "conflict of interest". It's a value inherent in the fabric of the SANFL, why stop now.

The SANFL may find it funny to "silence him" by dumping him onto our board and getting us to pay him for it and getting our club to suffer for every leak rightly or wrongly blamed on our "unprofessionally run club". I don't.

It may never happen. Just know that it's one of his lifetime goals.

 

[Natman]

Sorry for my ignorance on this matter but I'm kinda new to Aussie Rules and a little confused about this whole financial bailout thing going on between the AFL, SANFL and PAFC. Can someone explain it to me briefly. Who is actually providing PAFC the funding assistance? I thought the AFL just recently guaranteed us $9M over 3 years. Now I hear reports the SANFL is actually provided the funding. Who is really giving what? Not that it really matters - I'm just interested.

Also, TBH I enjoy watching what I think is a great spectacle of a game (enjoyed it for years even before coming to Australia) and would love to be more involved and help out if/where I can but holy hannah for a newbie supporter everything seems pretty chaotic and disorganized at the moment - I'm getting head-spins! Is this just my perception or is it just the way things are actually done here in Adelaide?

From my understanding the SNAFL have paid the funds with 'encouragement' from the AFL to do so - with the kicker being the funds being repaid via the sale of AAMI after the move to Adelaide Oval which was initiated and orchestrated by the AFL.

You have come onboard at an unusual and unstable time - as a club we have had these in the past and like a good and strong club we have overcome the obstacles. This time it is more deep-seated and other forces have created a 'perfect storm' which is proving difficult to ride out.

Stick with us - the ride back up will be more enjoyable and rewarding. We can only hope the opportunities are there, we get an even playing field and the club officers do the right thing.

 

[Portology]

Sorry for my ignorance on this matter but I'm kinda new to Aussie Rules and a little confused about this whole financial bailout thing going on between the AFL, SANFL and PAFC. Can someone explain it to me briefly. Who is actually providing PAFC the funding assistance? I thought the AFL just recently guaranteed us $9M over 3 years. Now I hear reports the SANFL is actually provided the funding. Who is really giving what? Not that it really matters - I'm just interested.

Also, TBH I enjoy watching what I think is a great spectacle of a game (enjoyed it for years even before coming to Australia) and would love to be more involved and help out if/where I can but holy hannah for a newbie supporter everything seems pretty chaotic and disorganized at the moment - I'm getting head-spins! Is this just my perception or is it just the way things are actually done here in Adelaide?

High order summary of what was announced...

Some money goes direct from AFL -> Port
Some money goes from AFL through SA Footy Commission -> Port
Some money goes from AFL through SA Footy Commission -> Crows

I think the AFL were VERY concerned by SANFL suggestions Port should divert monies collected from debt reduction events to cover current OPEX (ie paying the debt strapped SANFL its extortionate rent for using AAMI). There also was a mandate to focus on our currently uncompetitive footy department spend.

This reads like an unbiased, clear report of what was announced...

http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20110630210208592

Here is one version from AFL.com version, mixed with announcement of our R24 game going to Adelaide oval, so its harder to pick out the specifics...

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=117476

 

[Portology]

It may never happen. Just know that it's one of his lifetime goals.

When we're all free and cashed up perhaps we can create a new, honorary position for him. The Minister for Leaks.

 

[Natman]

High order summary of what was announced...

Some money goes direct from AFL -> Port
Some money goes from AFL through SA Footy Commission -> Port
Some money goes from AFL through SA Footy Commission -> Crows

I think the AFL were VERY concerned by SANFL suggestions Port should divert monies collected from debt reduction events to cover current OPEX (ie paying the debt strapped SANFL its extortionate rent for using AAMI). There also was a mandate to focus on our currently uncompetitive footy department spend.

This reads like an unbiased, clear report of what was announced...

http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20110630210208592

Here is one version from AFL.com version, mixed with announcement of our R24 game going to Adelaide oval, so its harder to pick out the specifics...

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=117476

I forgot to mention the $1m yearly AFL grant.

How then does Olsen get 3 years x $2m = $9m????

 

[bomberclifford]

I forgot to mention the $1m yearly AFL grant.

How then does Olsen get 3 years x $2m = $9m????

By the end of his interview with the two potatoes on AA the other night, it had grown to $18m.

The lack of definite answers to what is included in these amounts tends to suggest that there's some creative definitions by the SANFL of what constitutes a handout.

 

[Portology]

Never, ever confuse

a) the amount of money we have earned for the SANFL
b) the amount they have grudgingly given back to us
c) the amount they believe we owe them
d) the amount third parties have contributed in the interests of short term peace

These are four completely different numbers.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Yep I don't know what Rucci is banging on about.

I wasn't living in Adelaide in 2008, so I didn't go to the AGM, but I can't remember being asked to vote by proxy on any constitutional change. To change a constitution it would be more than just a motion at an AGM, proxies would have been issued. I will check my 2008 AGM notice tonight.

Rucci goes on about how it handed over power to the SANFL, but will never say what that change was and how different it was. As far as I'm aware there was no material extra powers given to the SANFL.

The constitutional change I am aware of was the the one changing the structure of the board from 5 SANFL apointees + 5 member elected to 4 + 4 + 2 specialists who could be appointed by the board and approved by the SANFL. And the changes resulting from the Magpies merger.

Rucci never sets out the before and after position just dramatises how big a change was at the 2008 AGM.

You would think that Rucci would know how the board is set up as he's appointed himself the guru on the Port constitution...

article by Rucci

Duncanson is among the five directors placed by the SANFL on the 10-person Power board. The other five are nominated by election by Power members and subject to SANFL endorsement.

article by Rucci

 

[PortBrillance]

Rucci is making it public and trying to get Port fans to actually rally around our club and show up to games. These scare tactics will benefit the club imo, and the SANFL won't be allowed to just change our name whenever they like because of the backlash. The SANFL might want to re-think things if they even thought of changing our name because of the anger from Port fans this week

If anything Port fans should be thanking Rucci

 

[Portia]

Yeah, I dunno.

Every time it is thrust into the spotlight how much we are irrevocably ****ed by the SANFL, it makes me more fed up with being a Port supporter. It definitely kills any enthusiasm I have for going to Footy Park to give the SANFL more parking/catering money.

I am pretty sure I'm not alone in seeing the timing of Rucci's tirades as destructive to the PAFC. Like I said earlier this thread, funny how he has these revelations when Port are about to play at home, and not when we're on a bye - perhaps because its less controversial/paper-selling when we are not playing at home.