Does the Swans constitution...

[Charlie]

... allow for proposals by members to be presented for a vote at General Meetings? Like, for instance, wearing the South Melbourne jumper at some or all Melbourne matches?

I'm assuming we'll have AGMs, seeing as we'll now have directors to elect.

BTW - I'm rapt with the 2 positions open for election. Guarantees stability - and in all likelihood Melbourne representation, while still providing for members' input and supervision of the board. I've favoured the idea of a minority-elected, majority-appointed board for a while.

[j s]

I think that is the more pertinent question right now!

[Charlie]

Hmm... good point. If not, how exactly do we get one?

[swansrock4eva]

No we don't actually have a constitution, or at least we didn't have one at the end of 2002, when all the Choose Roos stuff was going on. I think we'd have heard if that had changed.

[stellation]

With the membership being heavily Sydney based I am not certain there will be Melbourne representation if there are only 2 positions (bar the voting public). Edit: of course I could be wrong!

Also, to seem like I am on some anti-Melbourne rant (which I'm not), I think that wearing the South Melbourne strip for the Heritage round and maintaining the SMFC on the back of the regular playing jumpers is sufficient.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by stellation
With the membership being heavily Sydney based I am not certain there will be Melbourne representation if there are only 2 positions (bar the voting public).

Hence my pleasure that there will still be appointed board members.


Also, to seem like I am on some anti-Melbourne rant (which I'm not), I think that wearing the South Melbourne strip for the Heritage round and maintaining the SMFC on the back of the regular playing jumpers is sufficient.

At the risk of seeming like I am on some anti-Sydney rant, this is a Sydney-centric statement by a Sydney-centric person, who doesn't have a clue what a Melbourne based supporter would view as sufficient. The heritage round matches have been in Sydney. Don't you think Melbourne fans might like to go to games with the South Melbourne jumper?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
The heritage round matches have been in Sydney. Don't you think Melbourne fans might like to go to games with the South Melbourne jumper?

We played the pies at Colonial for heritage round 2003, so 50/50 so far

[liz]

I would get quite distressed at the idea of one "member rep" for Sydney members and one for Melbourne members. Aren't we one big club?

I suspect my requirements from the club are as different from Des', Bron's, JF's etc as they are from Charlie's, Anne's, Cliff;'s etc. There is no "Sydney" or "Melbourne" about it.

What I desire from board members - whether elected or appointed - is that they have skills to bring to the board to drive the club forward and that they are suitable guardians of the club for future generations/

[Mark]

I will be voting for Uranus Blandis

Anyone who is named after both a planet and a body part is worth my vote any day !

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
No we don't actually have a constitution, or at least we didn't have one at the end of 2002, when all the Choose Roos stuff was going on. I think we'd have heard if that had changed.
The Swans trade as a public company limited by guarantee - which basically means they have no share capital but raise money by fees from members (us). As we are not 'owners' of the company (ie stock holders) we have no right to vote unless the articles of association are so amended such that we can (which seems to be going to be the case). As I understand it (which could well be wrong) the Swans cannot trade, or be registered with ASIC as a company, without a constitution. I think (again, could easily be wrong) that if they do not have one the replaceable rules of the Corporations Act will stand in its place, effectively giving the copmany a constitution.

If you want to know a bit more about this side of the club Charlie some information is available free off the ASIC web site, and also the ABR web site

try this for starters (http://www.abr.business.gov.au/(lq44u1fngiclab553cw4uv55)/abnDetails.aspx?abn=48063349708)

I don't know if you be able to get a copy of the club's constitution this way. You could always ring Myles and ask him for one. I'm not sure that it would be a very interesting read.

The question that I am interested in seeing answered is who is going to amend the constitution and are members going to get a say in how it is amended. We have no 'right' to influence the amendments, but seeing as they are being initiated for our supposed benefit, it would be nice to think that we get a say in what is changed.

As I've said a couple of times, this is only what I think is the case. If any one is really interested, let me know an when I have some time next week I'll see what I can find out...

[monopoly19]

Originally posted by liz
Aren't we one big club?


Not on this board.

:D

I think that if we're going to divide up the member reps between Sydney and Melbourne, because that would be the fair/right thing to do, we should at least do it in proportion (i.e 3:1/4:1, whatever the figure is). However, seeing as that's not going to happen (there's only 2 spots) the positions should not be based on location, rather, on the person's ability to meet the requirements.

[liz]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
The question that I am interested in seeing answered is who is going to amend the constitution and are members going to get a say in how it is amended. We have no 'right' to influence the amendments, but seeing as they are being initiated for our supposed benefit, it would be nice to think that we get a say in what is changed.



My understanding is that the only 'member' with the right to agree to changes in the constitution is the AFL. Hence their approval is required to provide voting rights to club members.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Mark
We played the pies at Colonial for heritage round 2003, so 50/50 so far

Wrong. That was the Team of the Century promotion. Both heritage games have been at the SCG.

Liz - the one big happy family thing is great in theory, but I'd like the insurance of a couple of Melbourne-based board members just in case - I suspect it's not quite as reliable to assume that Sydneysiders will act in the best interests of Melbourne-based supporters.

I wasn't advocating specific voting in any case - don't know where that came from. Merely pointing out that while the majority of the board remains appointed, it's more likely that Melbourne people will be there than if the members - 75% Sydneysiders - vote for all Directors.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
Wrong. That was the Team of the Century promotion. Both heritage games have been at the SCG.


Apologies, but you did get to see the jumper up close and personal tho !

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Mark
Apologies, but you did get to see the jumper up close and personal tho !

In a way, yes.

My reason is simple: a) it's a great looking jumper, and b) if it gets a couple of hundred old Southerners back to the club, surely it's worth it.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
In a way, yes.

My reason is simple: a) it's a great looking jumper, and b) if it gets a couple of hundred old Southerners back to the club, surely it's worth it.

Anything that brings in members, regardless of where they live or why they join, has my vote.

Even mute members with nice new scarves, clad from head to toe in gimp leather outfits, are welcome as far as i am concerned !

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Mark
Apologies, but you did get to see the jumper up close and personal tho !

In a way, yes. But the jumper that night was a mixture of the old South jumper and the current jumper, with a TOTC logo over the front. Nice on the night and something us Victorians would love to see more offen when the Swans play in Melbourne. If it could help get us some more members in Victoria then it has to at least be looked at.

On the hertiage jumper for 05 I think we use our most successful jumper - the Red Sash - which we won 2 of our 3 premierships in. We have plenty of old jumpers which we could use not just the Red V.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Charlie

At the risk of seeming like I am on some anti-Sydney rant, this is a Sydney-centric statement by a Sydney-centric person, who doesn't have a clue what a Melbourne based supporter would view as sufficient. The heritage round matches have been in Sydney. Don't you think Melbourne fans might like to go to games with the South Melbourne jumper?

I have lived in Melbourne and am not particuarly Sydney-centric. If the AFL goes with a home and away strip idea then I have no issue with them using the South Melbourne jumper, and to be honest I don't really have an issue with them using it everytime they play in Melbourne... clubs change their strips...

I just didn't phrase my first response properly so I'll leave it there :)

[Charlie]

Originally posted by stellation
I have lived in Melbourne and am not particuarly Sydney-centric. If the AFL goes with a home and away strip idea then I have no issue with them using the South Melbourne jumper, and to be honest I don't really have an issue with them using it everytime they play in Melbourne... clubs change their strips...

Mate - sorry for snapping. Whether you've lived in Melbourne or not, though, surely what is sufficient for Melbourne supporters is something that should be decided by Melbourne supporters, not Sydney ones. You may not be Sydney-centric, but the statement was.

BTW - Thanks for that link ROK Lobster. As the club (I wish we hadn't changed our name to "Sydney Swans Limited") is a public company, does that mean that there are publicly available financial reports?

[ROK Lobster]

Charlie, if you look on the ASIC web site you will see that there are about 9 companies registered under the Swans name. Again I'm not 100% sure of this but my understanding is that "limited " refers to the type of company it is and means that its liability is limited, such that if they go bust creditors cannot chase members for money. It is part of being incorporated as a company. If it were a partnership (and all the members were partners) and ended up going down the gurgler with debts of say $2 million, we'd be forking out the dough. Our ramshackle tin pot cricket club with 5 teams is incorporated (a special sort for little clubs). It's just life, it does not really mean that the club is some ugly corporation sucking the life from society (that's the AFL)

[Charlie]

It's not the word "Limited" that upsets me. It's the lack of the words "Football Club" anywhere. If we were "Sydney Swans Football Club Limited", it'd be all good.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Charlie
It's not the word "Limited" that upsets me. It's the lack of the words "Football Club" anywhere. If we were "Sydney Swans Football Club Limited", it'd be all good.
Click here Charlie (http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c) for a list of the registered names. I'll have a bit of a snoop around and see what I can find for out for you regarding the constitution of the club.

Edit: I checked the link, doesn't seem to work if you come in from the outside. There are 13 registered names (one the Sydney Swans Inddor Football Club or something?), some are the same names registered in different states.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
Mate - sorry for snapping. Whether you've lived in Melbourne or not, though, surely what is sufficient for Melbourne supporters is something that should be decided by Melbourne supporters, not Sydney ones. You may not be Sydney-centric, but the statement was.

Geez this garbage is old and tired, we are all Sydney Swans supporters, not Melbourne or Sydney, swans supporters.

The thing that is amusing is that you were all of about 2 or 3 when when the club relocated anyway, why do you have such a chip on your shoulder ?

All of the 'old South' supporters i know, who were old enough to actually remember the relocation, could not give a stuff about this sort of nonsense

[Charlie]

Mark - I wasn't born when the Swans were South Melbourne. I respect the importance of that period of our history, but that's all. I'm not a South supporter, I'm a Sydney supporter, who lives in Melbourne.

However, the Sydney Swans have, for a variety of reasons not limited to South, a very significant-sized supporter base here. The interests of those supporters should be represented on the board. It's not irrational, surely, to suggest that it should be Melbourne supporters that decide what is desirable for Melbourne supporters.

I've already stated my reasons for favouring the South jumper for some games (I personally wouldn't like it to be all Victorian games, just 2 or 3). It makes good marketing sense to me, and the jumper itself looks great. I'm one of the strongest advocates here for a one-club culture, and I don't believe that highlighting both the South Melbourne and Sydney aspects of our club and culture is incompatible with that. But the material reality is that the two big fanbases have differing needs.

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by Charlie
Mark - I wasn't born when the Swans were South Melbourne. I respect the importance of that period of our history, but that's all. I'm not a South supporter, I'm a Sydney supporter, who lives in Melbourne.

However, the Sydney Swans have, for a variety of reasons not limited to South, a very significant-sized supporter base here. The interests of those supporters should be represented on the board. It's not irrational, surely, to suggest that it should be Melbourne supporters that decide what is desirable for Melbourne supporters.

I've already stated my reasons for favouring the South jumper for some games (I personally wouldn't like it to be all Victorian games, just 2 or 3). It makes good marketing sense to me, and the jumper itself looks great. I'm one of the strongest advocates here for a one-club culture, and I don't believe that highlighting both the South Melbourne and Sydney aspects of our club and culture is incompatible with that. But the material reality is that the two big fanbases have differing needs.



very important to acknowledge the melbourne past......
tho i dont agree with the south jumper idea i think its ok for heritage round..but why take away from that....plus it looks too white and stupid compared to todays jumper!

also i guess whilst melbourne fans must be looked after and its vital it doesnt need to go to far if sthmelbourne fans supported the team enough in the first place it would still be there

[Mark]

Originally posted by Charlie
the Sydney Swans have, for a variety of reasons not limited to South, a very significant-sized supporter base here. The interests of those supporters should be represented on the board. It's not irrational, surely, to suggest that it should be Melbourne supporters that decide what is desirable for Melbourne supporters.


NO, the best interests of all supporters of the club should be taken into consideration (and only consideration) by the club. And, if the club (board) feel it is sufficiently important/pertinent acted upon.

This is regardlesss of whether they are from Sydney, Melbourne or country areas.

Continuing this stupid 'Melbourne' or 'Sydney' SWANS supporters garbage is just divisve nonsense.

You admited yourself that both MBH and TM have done a bloody good job attracting new members and looking after current members in Melb. Who gives a rats arse where the board members are from, were from, or may at some point in their life live, as long as they look after the best interests of the club.

Parochial garbage is just that at the end of the day.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by swansrule100
if sthmelbourne fans supported the team enough in the first place it would still be there

I wish some people would get their facts right when stating the above. Comments like the above are an insult to people like my Father who fought tooth and nail to keep the club at the Lake Oval, all Swans supporters at the time did. We certainly didn't end up moving North because our supporters didn't care enough. The Keep South At South movement proves that.

Don't forget that the fans voted against moving to Sydney despite the underhanded tactics by the VFL who "brought" over 200 memberships in an attempt to push the result of the AGM in their favour. When that didn't work the VFL withheld money the Swans were entitled to as part of upgrading the Lake Oval saying if we wanted that money we had to play our 1982 home matches in Sydney, money which the club never got despite moving North for the 82 season.

If the supporters were the reason for anything then we would still be playing at Lake Oval and Sydney would be represented by some other outfit and we wouldn't even be talking about this issue here on this board.

The supporters or lack of didn't kill South, years of board mis-managment and the VFL not wanting to let us get away in their attempts to get a team in Sydney did, anything else is just plain wrong.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by monopoly19

I think that if we're going to divide up the member reps between Sydney and Melbourne, because that would be the fair/right thing to do, we should at least do it in proportion (i.e 3:1/4:1, whatever the figure is). However, seeing as that's not going to happen (there's only 2 spots) the positions should not be based on location, rather, on the person's ability to meet the requirements.

I have an idea. We have 1.5 people from Sydney and 0.5 of a person from Melbourne. The Melbourne people can select if they would like to be the wing breast or thigh if they would like. Or maybe one eye from Melbourne and the other from Sydney.

I have made no secret to my being involved with SSI in regard to encouraging this process to be carried out.

But now that it does look like it is being carried out, my involvement ceases. I have no ambition to support any particular party or person until I have looked at all of the candidates.

The main issue I have has already been addressed; that supporters were being taken seriously. Myles Baron-Haye has done more for this club that is humanly imaginable. If I send an email, I get a reply. If I see him at a game, I can have a chat about the match as if he was an every-day supporter. Yet he appears to have the business acumen in addition to his football knowledge. We are finally starting to mature into being a fair dinkum football CLUB. With our years of private ownership and pink helicopters being finally rendered to the vaults of history.

There is still an element within the club office in Sydney that I find a little unsavoury. Of people with ZERO football knowledge getting some course degree then landing a job somewhere in the club for 18 months then leaving "for better pastures" :frown Of having a receptionist who is so football ignorant that when Channel 10 rings to interview mad keen supporters before an interstate final she replies "Well our club hasn't got any of those."

You only need to know how to run things by calling the Swans Melbourne-based office. Not only do they all start knowing your name immediately, but they have that passion for what they do. I just want to know is whether it is just instilled in them because they live in Melbourne. Or is it instructed from above?

But enough negativety, I'm bloody happy the way things are heading with my club, at least off the field.

JF

[Mark]

So Robbie, having said all that, one question;

should the Swans still be in South Melbourne, playing at Lake Oval ?

If the answer to that question is no, get over it, move on (from an event you were not even a spermatazoa at !) and support the club as a whole, not some disgruntled faction.

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by robbieando
I wish some people would get their facts right when stating the above. Comments like the above are an insult to people like my Father who fought tooth and nail to keep the club at the Lake Oval, all Swans supporters at the time did. We certainly didn't end up moving North because our supporters didn't care enough. The Keep South At South movement proves that.



theres no denying there were some real die hard quality fans who fought hard
but the vfl wanted it moved yes cos there was bugger all support for the club

i guess to me the point is the swans are in sydney.....the priority is to make sydney its strong base...yes it must acknowledge its past and try to use it to its advantage, but sometimes i feel the melbourne crap gets out of hand.... not really on this site tho i might add where it seems reasonable

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie


However, the Sydney Swans have, for a variety of reasons not limited to South, a very significant-sized supporter base here. The interests of those supporters should be represented on the board. It's not irrational, surely, to suggest that it should be Melbourne supporters that decide what is desirable for Melbourne supporters.



OK - where to start.

Firstly, there are probably only two significant decisions made by the board that affect what a "Melbourne" supporter gets:-

a) the committment of funds in the budget to a Melbourne office and, in particular, a resource like Tony Morwood; and

b) the appointment of a CEO who may or may not believe in a strong Melbourne operation (linked to a) above)

Factors like how many games in Melbourne the AFL allocates, where aftermatch functions are held, the price of Melbourne memberships, whether you get a cap or a scarf as part of your membership, who is on the inside cover of the membership brochure etc etc are not matters that the board will have much - if any - influence over. The first is largely an AFL decision while the rest are management decisions (and thus flow from a) and b) above).

Secondly, once someone is accepts a seat on a board, whether elected or appointed and regardless of who elected by, he has an obligation to act in the best interests of ALL stakeholders of the club. In the corporate world the interests of shareholders take precedence over most other stakeholders. In the case of an AFL club, since members are not financial members in the same sense that shareholders of a company are, the interests of a broader group of stakeholders need to be considered - the AFL, members, non-member supporters, future members and supporters, sponsors, players, the Sydney community, the NSW government etc etc

Thus, even if we did find ourselves in the position where there was one board member who was nominally elected just by Melbourne members, he would be derelict in his duties as a director if he pushed the interests of that constituency over and above the interests of all other stakeholders.

Finally, throughout all the discussions that have been had on this board where the Sydney vs Melbourne supporter issue has arisen, no concensus has emerged that Melbourne supporters as a group have a set of needs in common that are different from those of Sydney supporters. There have been as many different views posted within each of the two supposed factions as there have been between them.

Beyond the world of RWO I suspect there is even broader differentiation between what individuals look for from the club, regardless of location. The idea of a homogeneous Melbourne group is as much of a myth as the idea of such a Sydney group.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Charlie
Mate - sorry for snapping. Whether you've lived in Melbourne or not, though, surely what is sufficient for Melbourne supporters is something that should be decided by Melbourne supporters, not Sydney ones. You may not be Sydney-centric, but the statement was.


But Charlie, that is what the Melbourne office is for. Tony Morwood is the most approachable guy around. Go up and approach him with the idea of instilling the old Bloods guernsey as our Melbourne-based guernsey. Maybe even start a petition or something. He hasn't let you down so far mate.

Sadly after the 'kerfuffle' with ticketing in Geelong this year, you missed a huge change to get to meet the guy and put forward your ideas. But he DEFINITELY does remember you after that weekend mate! ;)

JF

[liz]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Of having a receptionist who is so football ignorant that when Channel 10 rings to interview mad keen supporters before an interstate final she replies "Well our club hasn't got any of those."



That puzzles me because I know the main office receptionist moderately well - she is a pretty mad keen Swans fan herself. I regularly see her at games and have a bit of a chat, and know that she travels to a fair few away games as well.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Mark
So Robbie, having said all that, one question;

should the Swans still be in South Melbourne, playing at Lake Oval ?

If the answer to that question is no, get over it, move on (from an event you were not even a spematazoa at !) and support the club as a whole, not some disgruntled faction.

Move on from what?????

Someone said it was the fans fault we moved because they "didn't support the team enough" and I say otherwise and all of a sudden I'm part of some disgruntled faction. I think you need to take a bex and have a good lie down, because I haven't once suggested what you seem to think I have. Regardless of where we play or what our first name is, to me we will always be the SWANS.

I agree with you about the board, the two spots shouldn't be spilt between Sydney and Melbourne, like Charlie believes. The spots should got to who the members as a "whole" want and vote for. If that means two people from Sydney or two people from Melbourne or a split, or two from New Zealnad then thats what the members voted for and that the way it should be.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by swansrule100
but the vfl wanted it moved yes cos there was bugger all support for the club

That wasn't the case. We traditionally had more fans than Fitzroy and just as many as Hawthorn, North Melbourne and St Kilda and membership wise we sat mid table. The VFL wanted us moved solely because they wanted a club playing out of Sydney and they didn't care who that team was. Our supporter base had NOTHING to do with that decision.

The VFL had tried to move Fitzroy to Sydney in 1976 but the Lions managed to get themsleves out of the firing line thanks to a lucky brake, a brake the VFL wouldn't allow us to get. When the VFL got us in their sights in 1981, they vowed to not let us get away and pulled out every single trick they could to force us to move. We had debts yes, but they could of been handled and plans were in place to solve it and at the same time upgrade the Lake Side Oval.

Support never came into it because we weren't the least supported in Melbourne at the time.


i guess to me the point is the swans are in sydney.....the priority is to make sydney its strong base...yes it must acknowledge its past and try to use it to its advantage

Agree 100%. We are Sydney now and as Sydney we must grow. No point wasting needless money and time on Melbourne when we will always get 5000 members and plenty of support at Melbourne games. All it costs is keeping up with our history and a well run Melbourne office and as far as I can see thats the case.

[Charlie]

Robbie - how many times do I have to clarify what I'm suggesting?

I DO NOT WANT the two elected-positions to be split between Melbourne and Sydney. That is an unequivocal, plain-as-day position.

ALL I'm saying is that I believe it's favourable for Melbourne members - as well as Sydney members (although for other reasons) - that a portion of the board remains appointed by the AFL. In the past, there has been a minority (as it should be) of directors that have come from Melbourne, which I don't believe would happen if the entire board was directly-elected.

That is all. I'm not suggesting any special rights or priveliges. Just that we retain the status quo. Now... is anybody still confused?

(before anybody misinterprets the tone of this post, it is one of exasperation, rather than of combativeness or anger)

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz

Beyond the world of RWO I suspect there is even broader differentiation between what individuals look for from the club, regardless of location. The idea of a homogeneous Melbourne group is as much of a myth as the idea of such a Sydney group.

Although I've only quoted a small section of your post, I agree with all of it. In principle, all board members are supposed to represent all supporters. In practice, it's more likely that a Melbourne supporter's viewpoint is going to be taken into consideration when things are being done.

Basically, I'm concerned that in the event of a fully-elected board, a ticket made up solely of Sydney-based professionals would win. In such a circumstance, I don't believe that the interest of Melbourne supporters, Sydney supporters or ultimately the club itself would be best represented, because certain viewpoints wouldn't be present on the board. With the AFL appointing at least some of the directors, we are more likely to get broader representation.

That's why the coming system is good. It addresses the current imbalance - a lack of grassroots input, while avoiding the creation of other imbalances.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
But Charlie, that is what the Melbourne office is for. Tony Morwood is the most approachable guy around. Go up and approach him with the idea of instilling the old Bloods guernsey as our Melbourne-based guernsey. Maybe even start a petition or something. He hasn't let you down so far mate.

Sadly after the 'kerfuffle' with ticketing in Geelong this year, you missed a huge change to get to meet the guy and put forward your ideas. But he DEFINITELY does remember you after that weekend mate! ;)

JF

Julian, if Tony Morwood was elevated to the board, I'd be as happy as could be.

I have no idea what this has to do with the ticketing problem.

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by robbieando
That wasn't the case. We traditionally had more fans than Fitzroy and just as many as Hawthorn, North Melbourne and St Kilda and membership wise we sat mid table. The VFL wanted us moved solely because they wanted a club playing out of Sydney and they didn't care who that team was. Our supporter base had NOTHING to do with that decision.

The VFL had tried to move Fitzroy to Sydney in 1976 but the Lions managed to get themsleves out of the firing line thanks to a lucky brake, a brake the VFL wouldn't allow us to get. When the VFL got us in their sights in 1981, they vowed to not let us get away and pulled out every single trick they could to force us to move. We had debts yes, but they could of been handled and plans were in place to solve it and at the same time upgrade the Lake Side Oval.

Support never came into it because we weren't the least supported in Melbourne at the time.





well im either mis informed or your full of it...but ill believe you and apologise sorry..

but glad we agree on the focus of the club.... i think it is heading in the right direction off the field.

[swansrule100]

i think anyone who tried to ignore the melbourne roots and fan base would be doing the swans an injustice and i would hope people like that wouldnt be interested in running for a position on the board in the first place.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Charlie
Julian, if Tony Morwood was elevated to the board, I'd be as happy as could be.



Could he though?

wouldn't it be a conflict of interest, albeit a great one.

JF

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Could he though?

wouldn't it be a conflict of interest, albeit a great one.

JF
he would probably have to make a choice...

and would be too great a loss in his current role

[go_monty]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
No we don't actually have a constitution, or at least we didn't have one at the end of 2002, when all the Choose Roos stuff was going on. I think we'd have heard if that had changed.

I think you best check your facts. The Club has a constitution. It has to have one because it is governed by a board.

GM

[j s]

Originally posted by Charlie
that a portion of the board remains appointed by the AFL.
I don't believe the AFL will EVER allow themselves to lose the controlling say. The last thing they want is the potential for power struggles like we have seen at some Clubs in recent years.

The member elected Board positions will ensure (in theory anyway) that our opinions will be officially heard and some decisions influenced but we will NEVER be allowed to be in control.

Quite frankly, I prefer it that way. I don''t want to see power struggles either.

The one thing I am sure of is that the AFL wants to see a successful and prosperous Sydney team. The AFL's long term future depends on it.

[Charlie]

Is there a law precluding an executive of a company from also being a director?

I was envisioning him being on the board in his current capacity...:confused:

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Charlie
Is there a law precluding an executive of a company from also being a director?

Certainly not - most boards have at least a couple executives as directors, sometimes more.

There should certainly be no conflict of interest for an executive to be on the board. However, at the same time, it is very important to have a reasonable number (usually the majority) of non-exec directors.

[Bart]

Originally posted by Charlie
Is there a law precluding an executive of a company from also being a director?

I was envisioning him being on the board in his current capacity...:confused:

There are many executive directors. Many company heads for example have their CEO who is also MD (Managing Director). Myles Baron-Hayes is only CEO, but not a director, whereas at ARU they have a CEO and MD. It can happen.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrule100
theres no denying there were some real die hard quality fans who fought hard
but the vfl wanted it moved yes cos there was bugger all support for the club

Low support yes, but not significantly different to many other clubs. Off-field problems were more the issue than not enough supporters.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Could he though?

wouldn't it be a conflict of interest, albeit a great one.

JF

Why would it be a conflict of interest?

[stellation]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Why would it be a conflict of interest?

If he does not relinquish his current position he may feel inclined to vote for something that is not particuarly in the club's best interests but may please Melbourne fans which would then (if he does not relinquish his current position) benefit him. I'm not saying he would, but there is a conflict of interest there. It would be the same for someone who was elected and did not relinquish a similar role aimed at Sydney members.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by stellation
If he does not relinquish his current position he may feel inclined to vote for something that is not particuarly in the club's best interests but may please Melbourne fans which would then (if he does not relinquish his current position) benefit him. I'm not saying he would, but there is a conflict of interest there. It would be the same for someone who was elected and did not relinquish a similar role aimed at Sydney members.

I don't think this would be a conflict of interest, although potentially it could be perceived as such. His role on the board could be seen as an advocate for Melbourne-based members and he is only one vote and anything that would unfairly benefit Melbourne members would not pass the rest of the Board.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't think this would be a conflict of interest, although potentially it could be perceived as such. His role on the board could be seen as an advocate for Melbourne-based members and he is only one vote and anything that would unfairly benefit Melbourne members would not pass the rest of the Board.
It could possibly be a breach of his fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company, if stellation's scenario were proved. However, there would only be an issue if he was going to gain financially from an improper use of his position as a director.

[Charlie]

The COI thing seems a bit tenuous. His job is to develop and manage the Melbourne office in such a way that it brings maximum benefit to the club. Therefore, in the event of a conflict between Melbourne and club interests (which would be very rare in any case), his rightful vote would be in favour of the club. It wouldn't matter too much in any case, since his would be one vote amongst about a dozen.

As for fiduciary interests, I presume that there is some sort of bonus attached for meeting specific goals. Since these goals would be set by the club itself, then Morwood's interests in meeting those goals are the same as the club's. If it came to it - surely he could excuse himself from certain discussions and votes.

It's probably all academic in any case - if MBH doesn't have a board position, Morwood almost certainly won't get one.

[stellation]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
It could possibly be a breach of his fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company, if stellation's scenario were proved. However, there would only be an issue if he was going to gain financially from an improper use of his position as a director.

Yep, the financial benefit is where I am stuck in proving my case as I don't know the ins and outs of Tony's T&Cs, so...

Scenario 1: I am making an assumption that he would stand to receive a bonus if he could, say, hit the MMMM*. This could be aided significantly by his role on the board, obviously hitting the MMMM* would be fantastic but he would, in this scenario, have an additional financial incentive to do so.
Scenario 2: I am making an assumption that he does not stand to receive a bonus if he could, say, hit the MMMM* however hitting the mark produces career longevity for him in his existing role (being the Melbourne Manager). This could be aided significantly by his role on the board, obviously hitting the MMMM* would be fantastic but does career longevity equal financial incentive according to the letter of the law?

*MMMM = Magic Melbourne Member Mark

[NMWBloods]

The only issue with this COI scenario, is that other executive directors can have similar incentives to hit targets that will benefit them. This is what non-executive directors are for - to ensure these targets are consistent with what is best for the company.

[go_monty]

The Sydney Swans board is a non executive board. This rules out Tony Morwoord and MBH.

If you have been reading the information in the Swans Magazine that we as members get sent. It cleary indicates that although the Sydney Swans are now in Sydney, they respect their history as the former South Melbourne and will continullay look for ways to improve its services to Melbourne Members and Supporters.

The Appointment of Tony only seals the commitment they show. Tony is in his position so that Melbourne Members and Supporters can speak to him about thier concerns, he then would take this to management at the club who then report to a board that is fully supportive of the need to sustain Melbourne Members and Supporters.

Further to the committment of its Melbourne Fans the club has successfully lobbied the AFL for 6 games to be played in Melbourne in 2005.

So no matter who is elected to the board, or in that matter where they are from. The board is there to support the management (which they appoint) of the club in acheiving the ultimate prize, winning the premiership! A great return for any member or supporter.

GM

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by go_monty
The Sydney Swans board is a non executive board. This rules out Tony Morwoord and MBH.

Is it stated somewhere that this is required?

[chammond]

Originally posted by Charlie
It's not the word "Limited" that upsets me. It's the lack of the words "Football Club" anywhere. If we were "Sydney Swans Football Club Limited", it'd be all good.

It's intriguing to wonder why they changed the name from SYDNEY AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED to SYDNEY SWANS LIMITED. I don't recall any debate in the media about the name change.

Assuming that the company's owner (and guarantor) is still the AFL, it will be interesting to see how the club will be returned to the control of the members.

Will we have to buy the entity from the AFL? Will the new entity be a publicly listed company limited by shares, like, say, Man Utd? Or a private company like, say, the Kangaroos? Or possibly a registered charity?

And what about the AFL licence? That is "owned" by the AFL, and presumably will have to be purchased by the new Swans entity. It's market value must be at least $5 million!

[Charlie]

I'm not sure that ownership or control, per se, are being transferred.

'Control' would imply that the entire board is elected, and that's not the intention.

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by go_monty
I think you best check your facts. The Club has a constitution. It has to have one because it is governed by a board.

GM

As of the end of 2002, there was no constituion, according to Richard Colless. There may have been other charters etc, but there was no constitution itself.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Charlie
I'm not sure that ownership or control, per se, are being transferred.

'Control' would imply that the entire board is elected, and that's not the intention.

Hmm . . . I'm not sure that 'control' necessarily has anything to do with an entirely elected board (just ask Rupert Murdoch), but I certainly agree that what's being mooted at present won't change the 'ownership' of the Swans.

I was really just mulling over some of the more obvious obstacles facing the AFL and the Swans before the club could be returned to the members.

[chammond]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
As of the end of 2002, there was no constituion, according to Richard Colless. There may have been other charters etc, but there was no constitution itself.

Yeah, I think you might be caught in a semantic debate here.

A public company must have some fundamental document describing it's reason for being, but that document might be called 'Articles', or 'Memorandum', or 'Model Rules', or just plain 'Rules', (or something else, I guess)

But a Constitution by any other name would smell as sweet . . . . . . .

[Country Member]

Based on a bit of basic research (as oppossed to guesswork and/or wishful thinking which almost seems compulsory on this thread):
- the Club's legal structure is as a public company limited by guarantee called Sydney Swans Limited;
- the Club, like all other legal entities, has a constitution as required by law (I think the remarks attributed to Richard Colless may have been in the context that the present constitutionis out of date and needs updating, particularly regarding the classes of members aand their rights);
- the AFL is currently the only "member" of the Club that has a voting right, and thus "controls" the Club (although as far as I am aware they have not exercised any control during the period of the Colless-lead administration);
- no person or body "owns" the Club: there is no share capital and the Club is thus not owned by shareholders in a corporate sense. The club is owned by ALL who support it emotionally and financially;
- current "members" are essentially season ticket holders who benefit from cut-price admission prices to games;
- directors are required at law to act in the interests of the organisation as a whole. This talk of havinf an elected director represent the interests of Melbourne or Sydney members is just a waste of time;
- executives (such as MBH and TM) are quite entitled to be directors of the organisation they work for. This is not a conflict of interest per se.
I hope this is of interest to this discussion.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Country Member
Based on a bit of basic research (as oppossed to guesswork and/or wishful thinking which almost seems compulsory on this thread):

Not sure why you felt the need for that sneer, particularly since it applies to most of what you've written



- the Club's legal structure is as a public company limited by guarantee called Sydney Swans Limited;

We already knew that, thanks.



- the Club, like all other legal entities, has a constitution as required by law (I think the remarks attributed to Richard Colless may have been in the context that the present constitutionis out of date and needs updating, particularly regarding the classes of members aand their rights);

This statement is incorrect.

I own three companies, none of which has a Constitution.

A person is a "legal entity". I do not have a Constitution. Am I breaking the law?



- the AFL is currently the only "member" of the Club that has a voting right, and thus "controls" the Club (although as far as I am aware they have not exercised any control during the period of the Colless-lead administration);


This doesn't make sense. You've already said that the Sydney Swans is a corporate entity, so how can it have 'members'? And if there are no shareholders, how can there be 'voting rights'?



- no person or body "owns" the Club: there is no share capital and the Club is thus not owned by shareholders in a corporate sense. The club is owned by ALL who support it emotionally and financially;

Rubbish. The Sydney Swans is an operating business, not some intangible concept. And if you really think that you own a share of the Swans . . . . try and sell it.



- directors are required at law to act in the interests of the organisation as a whole. This talk of havinf an elected director represent the interests of Melbourne or Sydney members is just a waste of time;


No it's not. The two concepts are not incompatible. Having board members who represent minority interests (or majority interests, for that matter) is common in the business world. That doesn't necessarily prevent them from meeting their fiduciary obligations.


Apart from that, I agree with everything you said.

[Tiz]

Originally posted by chammond
I own three companies, none of which has a Constitution.

A person is a "legal entity". I do not have a Constitution. Am I breaking the law?







dennis denuto could tell you

[Country Member]

chammond: some good comments but I don't necessarily agree. Some of your retorts seem to lack a bit of knowledge regarding public companies limited by guarantee, and the concept of members as opposed to shareholders. Anyway, lets hope all these areas are clarified if this thing proceeds.
I'm sure, based on your tone, that you do indeed have a constitution!

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by chammond

I own three companies, none of which has a Constitution.

All 3 do per section 134 of the Corporations Act 2001.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Country Member
chammond: some good comments but I don't necessarily agree. Some of your retorts seem to lack a bit of knowledge regarding public companies limited by guarantee, and the concept of members as opposed to shareholders. Anyway, lets hope all these areas are clarified if this thing proceeds.
I'm sure, based on your tone, that you do indeed have a constitution!

Touche! :)

[chammond]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
All 3 do per section 134 of the Corporations Act 2001.

Well I'm not a practising lawyer, so I'm not going to run the risk of being seen to give legal advice.

However, if you read sections 134, 135, 198E, and 201F of that Act, I think you will see that a Constitution is not a requirement, but an option.

[Country Member]

Not a requirement for PRIVATE (proprietary) companies but required for PUBLIC companies (such as SSL).

[swansrock4eva]

I thought the definition of a public company was one that listed shares on the market though? Or is that just in science-based companies?

[Country Member]

There are different categories of public company, including those limited by guarantee (that is, most "not for profit"/charitable organisations) and which don't have shares/shareholders, and those that issue shares, which can then become listed on the stock exchange etc or remain unlisted.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
I thought the definition of a public company was one that listed shares on the market though? Or is that just in science-based companies?

To be listed on the stock exchange you need to be a public company, but you don't need to list to be public.