Notice of special general meeting

Well Whispy if the SANFL is probably going to cut off advanced payments anyway as you say,why on earth would we allow them to run the show?
This is what is wrong with the whole league in my opinion. The SANFL should be run by the clubs and do their bidding on the clubs behalf. Not the other way around. The SANFL in my view just does what the AFL wants it too and is nothing but a lap dog. IE AFL reserves, Chanel 7 broadcasts which is more about watching AFL reserves , even selling off Footy park to developers.
About time we stood on our own two feet IMHO.

The SANFL tipped about $13million into Port Adelaide to prop them up, money that they will never get back. I know this isn't comparing apples with apples but Port are not beholden to the SANFL in the way some posters are suggesting we should be, having received whatever fraction of that amount we have.
It's the SANFL's role to do this - support clubs.

TAAARS wrote:Well Whispy if the SANFL is probably going to cut off advanced payments anyway as you say,why on earth would we allow them to run the show?
This is what is wrong with the whole league in my opinion. The SANFL should be run by the clubs and do their bidding on the clubs behalf. Not the other way around. The SANFL in my view just does what the AFL wants it too and is nothing but a lap dog. IE AFL reserves, Chanel 7 broadcasts which is more about watching AFL reserves , even selling off Footy park to developers.
About time we stood on our own two feet IMHO.

Couldn't agree with you more TAAARS, the SANFL are way out of line. Surely we should be protecting the independence of our Club. The SANFL appears to be playing a large role in this proposed Constitutional change. We are told that the Board passed the resolution unanimously but this means nothing if they were under pressure to do so. The Board may not have had a choice, but we do. Vote "No".

aldo russian wrote:The SANFL tipped about $13million into Port Adelaide to prop them up, money that they will never get back. I know this isn't comparing apples with apples but Port are not beholden to the SANFL in the way some posters are suggesting we should be, having received whatever fraction of that amount we have.
It's the SANFL's role to do this - support clubs.

Well said, Aldo Russian. The SANFL hierarchy have forgotten their role in their quest for power.

The main effect of the proposed Constitutional changes is to reduce the members' voting rights. Although members can vote for 2 Board positions, the holders of those positions will have shorter terms and cannot be elected President. Undeniably, it would create a two-tiered, unequal Board membership which is highly undesirable for proper governance.

whispy wrote:
Well this is going to be interesting to see how members vote.. The Axis, as highlighted in yellow in your comment, you are correct that the club was on it's knees. But who gave us a helping hand to get back up? i believe it was the SANFL. They don't want to see us die off as a club, they are only doing what they think is best going forward. How much longer to we have to wait to say we are no longer in the red? It's been going on for far too long now, always in debt and if the no vote gets the nod, we will always remain in debt. The WAFC cannot go it alone financially. The SANFL will probably cut future advanced payments for us to pay off creditors knocking on the door, it wasn't long ago i was told that Cleanaway was refusing to pick up our bins because we couldn't pay the bill.
Anyway, it's just my opinion, please don't shoot me down for voting in favour of YES. It's about the club's survival is what i care about and if it means losing voting rights then so be it.  I can only remember voting once in the last 8 years anyway.

Merry Christmas to you all.  

Hi mate,

Nobody is going to shoot you down for stating your opinion in fact discussion of both sides of the arguement is crital and welcome IT IS YOUR RIGHT ---- however, when any off us post comments on this chat site then quite rightly other posters may wish to comment or discuss ---- strickly within  site guidelines eg no abuse.

I agree with your comment that the SANFL has helped this club greatly and i personally different to many others find it difficult to believe they have any hidden agenda to reduce the number of original clubs at this time ---- the SANFL agenda may change in the future.

I totally disagree with any notion that the SANFL cannot make errors as thier history is littered with bad decisions which at the time the SANFL made these decision  officials from many of the clubs and many supporters objected and advised the decision was wrong which was proven ----- remember the SANFL master plan for west, south and sturt to change all thier home games to Adelaide Oval ---- this masterstroke of stupidity badly affected sturt and south for many years ----  luckily. The West Adelaide Finacial members stopped the rogue and out of control management committee at the vote ---- if this present direct  attack on members control of the club is supported then members cannot protect the club from a rouge board and any similarly poorly concieved changes to operation.

You have previously raised the issue of not remembering voting for board members and have been responded to by several poster however i will repeat that advice for you. Each year prior to the AGM the board calls for nominees for election ---- where the amount of nominees exceed the amount of positions the a members vote is held ---- however where the amount of nominees is the same or less than postions available then those nominees are appointed unapposed consistent with the present constitution ---- hence no members vote required.

Merry and a safe christmas to you too mate

TAARS AND ALDO great posts my friends.

In reguard to SANFL help and assistance to founder clubs debt issue then yes they have provided support which is much respected and sppreciated by all of the clubs members.


I am not aware of any occasion where the SANFL has provided any funding to directly pay off a club debt hence improving a clubs overall cash flow position due to removal of costs servicing a debt  --- may have happened but i cannot remember any examples.

What the SANFL has done is to be open to any oportunity to work with clubs on changes/procedures or other assistance aimed at reduction of debt levels and also improved business efficiency. They also provide active support by means such as but not limited too loan of senior SANFL staf (welcome to our present CEO) or forward payment of clubs future finacial entitlements and it is this later assistance that needs discussion.

It needs to be clearly understood that forward payment of clubs future finacial entitlements is not given free of charge and, consistent with normal business practice, does come with a "form of interest payment" normally consisting off non-negotiable terms or conditions attached.

In many cases that whilst these non-negotiable terms or conditions attached may make sense from a business approach often do not show an understanding of other SANFL responsibilities in relationship to improved attendance at games,  higher quality of level of  teams and increased membership at clubs.  ------- A recent example was the reduced salary caps applied to Westies, South and the bays which whilst making finacial sense did not meet nor enhance key components of the SANFL responsibility   ----- in our case this directly lead to the loss of a very good player from the competition and has placed us in a difficult position to compete with other clubs in recruiting affecting our ability to draw more members or improved attendance which surely works against debt reduction efforts.

As i have posted previously, i strongly believe this is clearly an SANFL initiative supported by an independent SANFL funded and controlled audit most likely bias to the SANFL base position being given to the board to consider and implement changes.

I firmly believe that the board was placed under severe pressure to develop and put to members for consideration changes consistent with the SANFL position and the potentially bias audits recomendations. This pressure was in the form of potential conditions being placed on all future support in a range of areas which given the boards responsibility to the clubs long term future they did and such have met the SANFL conditions thus protecting the club.

REJECT THIS DIRECT ATTACK ON MEMBERS CONTROL OF OUR CLUB.

REMEMBER ALL GAINS IN THIS PROPOSAL CAN BE ACHIEVE UNDER THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION.

SEND A MESSAGE TO THE SANFL AND OTHER CLUBS MEMBERS.

Hi Everyone

As you may have heard there will be a Special General Meeting held next Monday at the WAFC.

I agree with the KPMG report, the WAFC current board & the highly regarded & respected sub committee of David Shipway, John Kantilaftas, Adrian O’Dea, Graeme Barton & John Levy….We need significant and swift change to drive this club forward.

Our continued signficant reliance on the SANFL & Wolfpack handouts is not sustainable. It is critical that we have a strong board with the right skillsets & Great & Strong Leadership.

If you love the club and want it to be a lot better, I urge you to attend or failing that please fill out the attached proxy form (I can be your proxy) and mark X in the FOR box and return to me by Thursday. Given, we need 3 out of 4 votes to get this change, your vote is critical & valued. Please forward this to other WAFC members...

Please feel free to contact me to discuss…

Lets help Make Westies Great Again!!!!

Thanks & Kind Regards

Troy Abbott
0407 272 166

[quote="Jamo"]Hi Everyone


I agree with the KPMG report, the WAFC current board & the highly regarded & respected sub committee of David Shipway, John Kantilaftas, Adrian O’Dea, Graeme Barton & John Levy….We need significant and swift change to drive this club forward.

Our continued signficant reliance on the SANFL & Wolfpack handouts is not sustainable. It is critical that we have a strong board with the right skillsets & Great & Strong Leadership.

If you love the club and want it to be a lot better, I urge you to attend or failing that please fill out the attached proxy form (I can be your proxy) and mark X in the FOR box and return to me by Thursday. Given, we need 3 out of 4 votes to get this change, your vote is critical & valued. Please forward this to other WAFC members...

I have been following this discussion overthe past few weeks and cannot see any strong argument for a yes vote. I 'love the club and want it to be a lot better' and agree that 'our continued signficant reliance on the SANFL & Wolfpack handouts is not sustainable', however I fail to see how a yes vote will change this. If the arguments are compelling, where are they. I was disappointed to read the post above which implies that if members vote no then their love for the club is questionable.
'We need significant and swift change to drive this club forward'. I would like to know specifically what these swift and significant changes will be and more to the point, how the hell the proposed changes will bring this about. So far the only arguments for a yes vote are broad and vague. I have heard mention of 'specific skillsets' and 'young professionals', but these are not arguments, merely buzz words.
I would be happy to vote yes if something can convince me to do so, otherwise I'll be voting no.
Go the Bloods

Bruce Cameron,

Thank you for your post and i strongly endorse them. I too note the limited reasons apart from catch word for changes especially as to why control of the club needs to be taken from the members.

I have always had full respect for those past and present board members who have taken on a challenging unpaid role for the betterment of our club and members. However sadly, i am starting to believe that some NOT ALL board members believe members should be seen not heard and just pay thier membership.

Jamo,

thanks for posting Troy Abbotts communication to members encouraging them to vote.

i totally support Troys call for all finacial members to vote on Monday night and those that cannot attend send in a PROXY VOTE.

I also endorse Troy or any existing board member encouragiing members to vote and for them to act as the assigned proxy member for PROXY votes.

i am perturbed however in the inference that could lead members to believe Troy is acting as the assigned proxy person for YES votes only as i believe he or other board members should be clearly stating that REGUARDLESS HOW ONE VOTES they will act as the assigned proxy vote

As a life member i will not support any proposal that takes effective control of the club from the members.

Most if not all the proposed gains can allready be achieved within the existing constitution without reducing or attacking the members control of the club.

The proposed board will comprise of 7 member which 2 are member elected board members but this is blatant insulting lip service when one considers there will be 5 direct appointed board members. Further, no member elected board member can be President again members have no control of thier club.

The sub committee of David Shipway, John Kantilaftas, Adrian O’Dea, Graeme Barton & John Levy are all highly regarded & respected but this committee was asked to produce recomendations based on the SANFL funded KPMG report and recomendations which they did.

I say again, most if not all the proposed gains can be achieved within the existing constitution without reducing or attacking the members control of the club.

If any finacial member wishes to discuss in private or talk to me direct on the mobile then feel free to PM me. I will send my mobile number via PM as i do not wish to post on an open forum as i am sure you all understand.

THIS PROPOSAL IS A THINLY DISGUSED TAKE OVER OF THE CLUB AT THE EXPENSE OF MEMBER HAVING ANY CONTROL OF THE CLUB NOTHING MORE

I agree wholeheartedly with bruce cameron. Troy Abbott's post does not set out any argument as to how or why this change would benefit the club, it's basically a "Trust us, we know what we're doing" approach.
And no one proposing a yes vote has addressed the issue that concerns most of us, namely the members' loss of control over the Board.

aldo russian wrote:I agree wholeheartedly with bruce cameron. Troy Abbott's post does not set out any argument as to how or why this change would benefit the club, it's basically a "Trust us, we know what we're doing" approach.
And no one proposing a yes vote has addressed the issue that concerns most of us, namely the members' loss of control over the Board.

I agree Aldo Russian. This "Trust us, we know what we're doing" approach is not a sound argument for changing our constitution.

A couple of extracts from the Frequently Asked Questions article about the Special Meeting on the club's website:

"From its enquiries and own observations, there are a number of well qualified potential board members who would be happy to be considered for a board position, but who may not put their name forward in the event that they were forced to go through a process of competing for other better known candidates in a general election."

I assume they mean competing 'with' better known candidates rather than 'for' them, but either way they don't sound like terribly robust candidates if they wouldn't do the job unless they can avoid the election process.

Secondly, regarding why we need 3 year terms:

"In the case of other Nominated Positions, (particularly those that involve skills other than football such as finance or marketing) it takes some time for new board members to understand the way SANFL Clubs operate."

Right, so these 'well qualified potential board members' don't understand how SANFL clubs operate. And this is the 'Yes' case?

aldo russian wrote:A couple of extracts from the Frequently Asked Questions article about the Special Meeting on the club's website:

"From its enquiries and own observations, there are a number of well qualified potential board members who would be happy to be considered for a board position, but who may not put their name forward in the event that they were forced to go through a process of competing for other better known candidates in a general election."

I assume they mean competing 'with' better known candidates rather than 'for' them, but either way they don't sound like terribly robust candidates if they wouldn't do the job unless they can avoid the election process.

Secondly, regarding why we need 3 year terms:

"In the case of other Nominated Positions, (particularly those that involve skills other than football such as finance or marketing) it takes some time for new board members to understand the way SANFL Clubs operate."

Right, so these 'well qualified potential board members' don't understand how SANFL clubs operate. And this is the 'Yes' case?

Finally, an attempt to explain the benefits of the proposed changes. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any. Members are being asked to vote yes for what? A number of potential board members have been identified by the board. So, why can't they stand for election by members? Surely, there are benefits in an election process which involves a larger number of candidates than there are positions for them. Usually, board members are elected unapposed. As Aldo points out these can't be 'very robust characters' if they fear an election process and furthermore, why would a talented individual need years to understand how SANFL clubs operate.
The argument for a yes vote is almost non existent.

Well, i think the club needs a change, I want what's best for the club and if John Kantilaftas recommends voting yes, then that's good enough for me. Unless members here think John Kantilaftas isn't qualified enough to know what's best for the club.

Perhaps John should nominate for the Board, and let the MEMBERS decide! Great respect for John and his other career duties, no question!!

Errr whispy,

Where has kantilafras recomended voting yes as i am not aware of him doing so anywhere

I think you are getting mixed up with his role as part of the the sub-committee consisting of David Shipway, John Kantilaftas, Adrian O’Dea, Graeme Barton & John Levy are all highly regarded & respected.

This committee was asked to produce recomendations based on the SANFL funded KPMG report/recomendations which they did nothing more.

Obviously they all support the committee recomendations as they wrote them however in no way does this say or suggest that they agree or disagree with the SANFL funded KPMG report/recomendations.

Totaly different thing my friend.

Thank you for your comments and i am really happy for you in your life style choice to just accept what you are told and not research for yourself ---- makes life so much easier

I totally disagree with any notion that the SANFL and thier consultants cannot make errors and that we should just trust them.

The SANFL history is littered with poor judgement and decisions many based on bias consultants reports as i believe this latest master stroke is.

At the time the SANFL made these decision  officials from many of the clubs and many supporters objected and tried advised that these decisions or directions were wrong but all were ignored by the SANFL. Sadly, in time it was proven that the SANFL was wrong.

Remember the SANFL master plan for west, south and sturt to change all thier home games to Adelaide Oval ---- this masterstroke of stupidity badly affected sturt and south for many years.

Luckily, the West Adelaide Finacial members stopped the foolish and out of control management committee of the time at the vote.

If this present direct attack on members control of the club is supported then members cannot protect the club from a rogue  board and stop any similarly poorly concieved changes from occuring.

Do we have someone more interested in their own position at the club and are afraid of losing that position
The club is bigger than a person
I will vote for what is the best interest of the club

Then you will vote for Members, Y'now, WEST ADELAIDE members, electing THEIR Board, Hotdip.

Admin wrote:NOTICE:

This thread is for discussion about the Special General Meeting.

Please treat it with respect.  Posting information which appears to be of a confidential nature and is also contentious, is disturbing and not in the best interests of the Football Club.  It will not be tolerated.

We are all supporters of our great football club.  Do not denigrate it or the volunteers who work for  it.

HOTDIP

I reposted above from board administrator for your information and suggest you quickly edit your cowardly keyboard warrior post which denigrates a club volunteer before you get a holiday from here.

I must say that i am absolutely thrilled that you are going to vote for what is best for the club as this is clearly a NO VOTE. 😁😁

Hi Everyone,



Further to Troys email of yesterday I agree with his comments totally.



Having previously spent two years as the finance director of the club & being part of a Wolfpack briefing a couple of weeks ago I am acutely aware of the need to create a sustainable business model. To achieve this sustainability we need the very best people in place to make sure that this can be achieved, that is why the proposal at next Mondays SGM must succeed!



For too long and I was guilty of this in my time as finance director we have focused on achieving a cash profit each year and disregarded the depreciation that accumulates on the assets of the club, we have unfortunately been doing this for the past decade or more. We now have tired aging facilities in need of urgent upgrade which requires that the business of West Adelaide be run the very best it can.



Personally knowing all five members of the sub-committee appointed to search & recruit the necessary board members I have know doubt that they all understand the importance of the decisions that they must make, BUT before they can make those decisions Monday must succeed! So if you can't make Mondays meeting please send Troy your proxy so we can get this proposal across the line.



GO THE BLOODS!



Regards





Dean Withers

Director | Chartered Accountant

Jamo wrote:Hi Everyone,



Further to Troys email of yesterday I agree with his comments totally.

Having previously spent two years as the finance director of the club & being part of a Wolfpack briefing a couple of weeks ago I am acutely aware of the need to create a sustainable business model. To achieve this sustainability we need the very best people in place to make sure that this can be achieved, that is why the proposal at next Mondays SGM must succeed!

So why can't these 'very best people' be elected to the board so that members know who/what they are voting for. Why can't they address the members on Monday night? Surely the members have a right to know and have a say. Growing the membership is crucial if the club operations are going to become sustainable in the future. Having well maintained up to date facilities and improved on field performances are just two ways of achieving this, but existing members need to have a voice and asking them to vote yes at Monday night's meeting doesn't seem to do that. There have been around 120 posts on this topic, which is a good sign, but no one yet has put forward a solid argument for the yes vote.
Go the Bloods!!

Hotdip, posters were warned about personal attacks and not keeping to the topic .

We won't suspend you, but absolute final warning.

Please keep your attacks on volunteers to yourself and your little group, it only hurts you and the club.

Oldfella wrote:Errr whispy,

Where has kantilafras recomended voting yes as i am not aware of him doing so anywhere

I think you are getting mixed up with his role as part of the the sub-committee consisting of David Shipway, John Kantilaftas, Adrian O’Dea, Graeme Barton & John Levy are all highly regarded & respected.

This committee was asked to produce recomendations based on the SANFL funded KPMG report/recomendations which they did nothing more.

Obviously they all support the committee recomendations as they wrote them however in no way does this say or suggest that they agree or disagree with the SANFL funded KPMG report/recomendations.

Totaly different thing my friend.

Thank you for your comments and i am really happy for you in your life style choice to just accept what you are told and not research for yourself ---- makes life so much easier

Err Oldfella..have a look at Sturt , i believe it's their model we want to change to or very similar to...6 years ago they were on their knees and backs to the wall, look at them now, do some research, 2 premierships later, back to back, financially stable and with a CEO who does a fantastic job, i haven't heard of one Sturt member complain about their voting rights. Another point i'd like to make, how long before the SANFL has stopped issuing the golden eggs from the sale of Footy park that keeps us afloat? That won't last forever.
To me, it seem like there's a bit too much scaremongering on this site from the same members, most replies are repetitive and are in fact insulting the intelligence of those who disagree.
I'm waiting for the usual gang to arrive to shoot me down or threaten me with a holiday.
In case i do get a holiday from this forum, have a nice Christmas and a happy new year.