Opinion How many members do we have here?

[Cap]

So in a matter of days, our current board will have control over the license that allows the Crows to operate.

I'm not sure what others think, but that concerns me greatly.

Now other teams have a variety of supporter based advocacy groups which seek to protect the rights of members, the AFC will likely be setup with minimal input from members now and in the future.

Given that I believe we need to try and establish a legitimate members advocacy group, not something designed to rock the boat or disrupt every thing but one that listens to the members and makes our feeling heard through 1 channel, rather than multiple easily ignored channels.

I'm not proposing a structure or a method right now, what I am looking for is a discussion about the who and how to.

id like to cover things such as;

Do we have enough people to achieve a critical mass on BF alone,

Is someone or dues someone know a person in a position of influence that could legitimise the group.

Is there even an appitite for a group like this.?

What do people think?

 

[JP Sauce]

Clearly everyone on here is passionate and I assume the majority are members, so I think some a group formed from here would get us some way to the critical mass you speak of. Wouldn't be hard to get formumers family and friends involved too, I can think of at least 12 non-forumer AFC members that would join such a group.

200 formumers, with each forumer brining along 5-10 family and friends and we're at a couple of thousand members in this proposed group without much trouble.

Not sure what to do in terms of legitimising it, but I'm sure there's some people on here in positions of influence.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Whenever anything like this has been suggested on here, there has been a serious case of too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Everybody wants to do things their own way and start sooking when others have different views.

For what it's worth, I do (and always have) liked the idea of a properly formed group of supporters at least attempting to keep the club/board accountable.

 

[Marty64]

I think the AFC only count me as a member when they release numbers or want to sell raffle tickets.

One of the joys of SMA membership.

 

[JP Sauce]

Whenever anything like this has been suggested on here, there has been a serious case of too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Everybody wants to do things their own way and start sooking when others have different views.

For what it's worth, I do (and always have) liked the idea of a properly formed group of supporters at least attempting to keep the club/board accountable.

We'd have to elect leaders/a leader and back them. Whether it would ever work remains to be seen, but we'd have to have some sort of hierarchy in the group.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

We'd have to elect leaders/a leader and back them. Whether it would ever work remains to be seen, but we'd have to have some sort of hierarchy in the group.

Correct

 

[jackster83]

We'd have to elect leaders/a leader and back them. Whether it would ever work remains to be seen, but we'd have to have some sort of hierarchy in the group.

 

[Cap]

I know you mean it in jest but that is half the problem, you need legitimacy and to be traken seriously.

Even early on you would need some loose hierarchy just to make sure you have a consistent message, hence the need for someone who is already has some position that is known to the Crows.

 

[Deaneus!]

I is member.

So in a matter of days, our current board will have control over the license that allows the Crows to operate.

I'm not sure what others think, but that concerns me greatly.

Now other teams have a variety of supporter based advocacy groups which seek to protect the rights of members, the AFC will likely be setup with minimal input from members now and in the future.

Given that I believe we need to try and establish a legitimate members advocacy group, not something designed to rock the boat or disrupt every thing but one that listens to the members and makes our feeling heard through 1 channel, rather than multiple easily ignored channels.

I'm not proposing a structure or a method right now, what I am looking for is a discussion about the who and how to.

id like to cover things such as;

Do we have enough people to achieve a critical mass on BF alone,

Is someone or dues someone know a person in a position of influence that could legitimise the group.

Is there even an appitite for a group like this.?

What do people think?

It's likely that yes the setup will be with minimal input from members - but that's not entirely the club's fault, as the membership isn't organized. We've never had to be, as the SANFL weren't ever interested.

If I could analogize for a moment, we effectively need an AFLPA for the members - an enormous task in itself. Consider, if we were to form a group to advocate for our members, we'd first need to:

(1) identify those members - certainly, the club has a list of our 50,000 members. And we'd need to contact all of them, or provide them with a way to contact us, to allow them to take part. Ever tried stuffing 50,000 envelopes? Or paying for it to be done? Don't assume the club will be happy to front up the cost, they've no guarantee that what they would be funding would be in alignment with the direction they intend to take the club;

(2) form the association - which means office bearers, which means elections. Of course, we can go the banana republic coup way, which is to nominate for example Cap as El Presidente until such time as elections can be held...

(3) have the club recognize us as a legitimate voice for members, separate to the club. Arguably all this could be done at great personal expense, and the club could dismiss us, or award legitimacy to a rival consortium... like the CSG.

As an organized group yes it's likely we could begin legitimacy with BF alone, but we'd need to branch out very quickly.

I'd suggest that contacting good support groups at rival clubs for blueprints as to the most effective way to achieve this.

 

[cmndstab]

I doubt there are enough Crows posters on BF to form a critical mass for any such group - and furthermore, if the club was going to support/recognise such a group, they'd want it to have people from the wider footy community. Whether it's fair or not (and I think it probably is), we're seen as a very niche corner of the overall supporter base for the Crows, and our preferences are not always in line with the majority of Crows supporters.

 

[Niximus]

I'm a member, and would be able to influence probably up to 10 other members (all family) who are not on BF.

I could see us being able to impact on who gets the member elected positions on the board. If some BF members want to use this site to campaign, we could certainly have a big chance of getting them elected.

 

[Cap]

I doubt there are enough Crows posters on BF to form a critical mass for any such group - and furthermore, if the club was going to support/recognise such a group, they'd want it to have people from the wider footy community. Whether it's fair or not (and I think it probably is), we're seen as a very niche corner of the overall supporter base for the Crows, and our preferences are not always in line with the majority of Crows supporters.

That doesn't mean an advocacy group can't be established.

in reality, it has to come from somewhere - I can't see any other place where there is a more organised group than here.

You would need to 1 get it established and then try and build it, hence my desire to see some people of influence - not attached to BF join in the creation stages because they are the ones that would be able to get buy in from non-bigfooty posters as well as making it appear more than some stupid internet things (to quote Bone and rowey)

 

[Cap]

I'm a member, and would be able to influence probably up to 10 other members (all family) who are not on BF.

I could see us being able to impact on who gets the member elected positions on the board. If some BF members want to use this site to campaign, we could certainly have a big chance of getting them elected.

that is going to be the part we need to see once the new constitution is out.

 

[cmndstab]

That doesn't mean an advocacy group can't be established.

in reality, it has to come from somewhere - I can't see any other place where there is a more organised group than here.

You would need to 1 get it established and then try and build it, hence my desire to see some people of influence - not attached to BF join in the creation stages because they are the ones that would be able to get buy in from non-bigfooty posters as well as making it appear more than some stupid internet things (to quote Bone and rowey)

It's a fair point. We do have a resource here in terms of passionate supporters.

You'd definitely need it to not be identified as a Bigfooty thing for it to gain significant legs.

 

[Niximus]

It's a fair point. We do have a resource here in terms of passionate supporters.

You'd definitely need it to not be identified as a Bigfooty thing for it to gain significant legs.

I think that is where the member elected board positions can work with it.

TBH, I reckon most members will get the ballot sheet and have NFI who any of the people are and will either not bother voting, or just pick randomly.

If we had a couple of candidates introduce themselves on here and explain what their agenda is, we can take that back to the non BF people we know, without even mentioning anything about BF. We can simply say, "hey, when the time comes to vote, I am going to vote for Joe Bloggs because of X, you should too".

 

[JP Sauce]

I doubt there are enough Crows posters on BF to form a critical mass for any such group - and furthermore, if the club was going to support/recognise such a group, they'd want it to have people from the wider footy community. Whether it's fair or not (and I think it probably is), we're seen as a very niche corner of the overall supporter base for the Crows, and our preferences are not always in line with the majority of Crows supporters.

Not from BigFooty alone, but as I and Nick85 said it wouldn't be too hard for each BF'er to get 5-10 non BF people involved too.

 

[Cap]

It's a fair point. We do have a resource here in terms of passionate supporters.

You'd definitely need it to not be identified as a Bigfooty thing for it to gain significant legs.

exactly, that would be an instant turn off for the AFC and most of the old media.

and Nick85 said, it gives a voice to the fans who up til now have been largely ignored.

 

[Deaneus!]

exactly, that would be an instant turn off for the AFC and most of the old media.

and Nick85 said, it gives a voice to the fans who up til now have been largely ignored.

...as the old media become irrelevant and the AFC are finally called to account!

 

[Sanders]

Not from BigFooty alone, but as I and Nick85 said it wouldn't be too hard for each BF'er to get 5-10 non BF people involved too.

Is this Amway or the AFC?

 

[1970crow]

speak to macca23 , has been known to be a one man lobby group in the past. spoke on behalf of literally hundreds of people, didn't you unca macca

 

[macca23]

speak to macca23 , has been known to be a one man lobby group in the past. spoke on behalf of literally hundreds of people, didn't you unca macca

Get it right Matty.

I was the spokesman on behalf of hundreds of people - who didn't exist!! lol

The good thing was hat the Govt and the Local Council believed that they existed, so I and my merry band of fk-all won quite a significant victory!! lol

 

[1970crow]

Get it right Matty.

I was the spokesman on behalf of hundreds of people - who didn't exist!! lol

The good thing was hat the Govt and the Local Council believed that they existed, so I and my merry band of fk-all won quite a significant victory!! lol

That's why I winked . I've learned me some smilies. Hopefully I'll improve.

 

[Allefgib]

Id be happy to throw my support behind such a group.

My question is this. ... What if truly representing the broader supporter desires does not align with the big footy think tank?

 

[Cap]

Id be happy to throw my support behind such a group.

My question is this. ... What if truly representing the broader supporter desires does not align with the big footy think tank?

then we have factional infighting like all good groups!

to be honest, the reasonable opinons on BF are shared by the majority of people I speak to who aren't close to or already eligible for the aged pension.

that is the whole problem, our club has never had a single voice for membership in the first place, so those people don't really know where to voice their concerns.

 

[1970crow]

then we have factional infighting like all good groups!

to be honest, the reasonable opinons on BF are shared by the majority of people I speak to who aren't close to or already eligible for the aged pension.

that is the whole problem, our club has never had a single voice for membership in the first place, so those people don't really know where to voice their concerns.

i nominate jenny61_99 to lead the charge on behalf of bf members.