Haysman Pushed Out The Door

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reading between the lines - it is more than obvious the AFL has told the SANFL that after 2014 the SANFL clubs will need to live off whatever money they get from West Lakes.

A place within the SMA keeps their pride intact, but little more.
 
When you put aside the disappointment of his departure - he probably has won the war against the SANFL and with a bit more time we'll know.

Adelaide Oval will happen and the SANFL will likely lose the licenses with this to be decided by June 2012.

He has done absolutely tremendous work and that should never be forgotten.

Yes, the SANFL got him in the end, but before they did he inflicted tremendous irrevocable damage on them and their backward governance model and set Port on the path to freedom and prosperity.

So he's kind of like the man with no name- rides into town, causes havoc, screws over the town goons and then rides off into the sunset

Makes for a good spaghetti western
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So he's kind of like the man with no name- rides into town, causes havoc, screws over the town goons and then rides off into the sunset

Makes for a good spaghetti western

[youtube]hDJl7C7vf8k[/youtube]

The part of William Munny (Clint Eastwood) will now be played by Mark Haysman.

The part of Little Bill (Gene Hackman) will now be played by Leigh Whicker.

The part of Little Bill's posse will now be played by the SANFL directors.

The part of Ned (Morgan Freeman) will now be played by the PAFC - the treatment, not the fact he is dead. ;)
 
Again, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is there to stop the SMA giving us an equally appalling stadium deal at Adelaide Oval?

Its not like we can play anywhere else now.
 
Again, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is there to stop the SMA giving us an equally appalling stadium deal at Adelaide Oval?

Its not like we can play anywhere else now.

It is a guaranteed 'clean' stadium as I understand it as part of the written agreement that brought the SACA and SANFL together and that the Clubs have signed up to.
 
The root of the problem for the SANFL was Haysman paying himself an inflated 'bonus' in the $thousands, on top of his salary, even when Port were asking for handouts.
SANFL took a dim view and Haysman's card was marked from then on.
 
The root of the problem for the SANFL was Haysman paying himself an inflated 'bonus' in the $thousands, on top of his salary, even when Port were asking for handouts.
SANFL took a dim view and Haysman's card was marked from then on.

If we assume this to be true:

1. Membership is up
2. OnePAFC Merger is sealed
3. Corporate sponsorship is up
4. Adelaide Oval move finalized
5. Club finances and future strategies approved by independent forensic accountant
6. Paid $5000 of his own money to become a Foundation Leader

If this was any other company in the private sector he'd be entitled to a bonus/golden handshake in the 6-figure range.

What bonuses have SANFL executives paid themselves as they preside over $28,000,000 worth of debt?

There's a reason this state is a joke.
 
If we assume this to be true:

1. Membership is up
2. OnePAFC Merger is sealed
3. Corporate sponsorship is up
4. Adelaide Oval move finalized
5. Club finances and future strategies approved by independent forensic accountant
6. Paid $5000 of his own money to become a Foundation Leader

If this was any other company in the private sector he'd be entitled to a bonus/golden handshake in the 6-figure range.

What bonuses have SANFL executives paid themselves as they preside over $28,000,000 worth of debt?

There's a reason this state is a joke.

Brilliant post Tribey. Absolutely spot on.

Besides Haysman wouldnt decide his bonus'. If he received a bonus it was a bonus set out by the board based on goals the board set for him (yeah that's right the same board that the SANFL voted in half of and the same board with a SANFL appointed independent auditor who said they were doing a good job).
 
He had a BIG say in his bonus.
Port didn't have a problem with it - the SNAFFLE did.

Makes perfect sense when you factor in the departure of the SANFL appointed independent forensic accountant. Differences in philosophies and all that.

I still think the SANFL want more control at the PAFC so they can influence the new stadium deal in their favour.
 
If we assume this to be true:

1. Membership is up
2. OnePAFC Merger is sealed
3. Corporate sponsorship is up
4. Adelaide Oval move finalized
5. Club finances and future strategies approved by independent forensic accountant
6. Paid $5000 of his own money to become a Foundation Leader

If this was any other company in the private sector he'd be entitled to a bonus/golden handshake in the 6-figure range.

What bonuses have SANFL executives paid themselves as they preside over $28,000,000 worth of debt?

There's a reason this state is a joke.

Post of the year, seriously.
 
If we assume this to be true:

1. Membership is up
2. OnePAFC Merger is sealed
3. Corporate sponsorship is up
4. Adelaide Oval move finalized
5. Club finances and future strategies approved by independent forensic accountant
6. Paid $5000 of his own money to become a Foundation Leader

If this was any other company in the private sector he'd be entitled to a bonus/golden handshake in the 6-figure range.

What bonuses have SANFL executives paid themselves as they preside over $28,000,000 worth of debt?

There's a reason this state is a joke.


Long time reader, first time poster, tribey your post nails it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

radio pre-Crows game are commenting widely on this

... on ABC Steve Williams ...

"good to see after choco went last year that someone from admin goes this year ... as the club has been heameoragging millions over the last 3 yaers so time to get someone else in to fix that up!"

:rolleyes:
 
He had a BIG say in his bonus.
Port didn't have a problem with it - the SNAFFLE did.

The CEO is an employee. He is answerable to the board and does not set his own bonuses. He may negotiate incentives with the board based on corporate objectives but these need to be ratified by the board before the goals are met.

The SANFL, if they were doing their due diligence, would have known about these bonuses before they were even close to being paid out. To cry foul after the fact is an indication of the amateur hour that is Leigh Whicker Corp.
 
I still think the SANFL want more control at the PAFC so they can influence the new stadium deal in their favour.

Sadly, Forza, I think you are right.

It will be interesting to see how the process for selection goes.
 
radio pre-Crows game are commenting widely on this

... on ABC Steve Williams ...

"good to see after choco went last year that someone from admin goes this year ... as the club has been heameoragging millions over the last 3 yaers so time to get someone else in to fix that up!"

:rolleyes:

So totally over the Williams progeny.
 
So totally over the Williams progeny.

I agree ... but they're not over the 'choco' was made the scapegaot for all our woes!
 
Also, it was partly the way in which Haysman was able to connect with us common members, us people without "credibility or reputations", that endeared him so much to the fans. He had time for everyone who wanted to talk to him, treated everyone as equals and didn't feel the need to ask if they had a Certificate 3 in coaching in order to big note himself if his methods were brought into question.
 
Haysman and Primus' ability to deal with the nuffies, on show on at the member's night and talkback radio etc, has been bloody sterling.
 
After the events of the tumultuous past week Haysman is looking to just kicking back and taking it easy for a spell.

Mark Haysman's break after footy fix

My personal opinion is that our club has lost a very good operator.

However, I'm heartened by a few things;
1) Haysman's complete transformation into a true Port club man.
2) The foundations have been laid for the PAFC to forge an independent future.
3) The SANFL has been shown up, on the national stage, for the petty and small-minded operation that it is.

We needed someone to come in and make some tough decisions and go up against the football "establishment" in this state. Losing Haysman will likely go down as him 'taking one for the team'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top