In 2028 the Crows and Power will have the chance to have ‘democratically’ elected boards, Graham Cornes has doubt they will take it
The Adelaide Crows and Port Power will have the opportunity to have ‘democratically’ elected boards in the near future and Graham Cornes writes what he believes will happen.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
“The team for all South Australians.” It’s been a successful marketing slogan for the Adelaide Football Club, although it does grate on those who follow Port Adelaide or, for some unknown reason, another AFL club.
However, the figures don’t lie. A Roy Morgan poll established that the Crows had a supporter base of over 650,000 people, a significant proportion of those who follow Australian rules football.
Attendances will tell the story too, and even in these tough times the attendances at Crows home games are always healthy.
However, there is a downside to having such a high profile and being so popular: everyone wants a piece of you. You could call it identification by association. Jump on board and people will notice you.
Politicians are particularly adept at this strategy. They are very keen to be associated with the good news but the news is not always good. It is then when the critics emerge. They still get high-profile media coverage – because it’s the Crows.
Politicians can use their parliamentary privilege to criticise, whether that criticism be informed or ignorant. One Nation MLC, Sarah Game, who I am reminded of while writing this piece, has done great work for charities such as the Little Heroes Foundation and men’s mental health, is the latest.
As reported in last week’s Sunday Mail, Ms Game called for an enquiry to “investigate how the AFL has taken control of both AFL clubs in South Australia and to adopt measures to ensure that both clubs are given control of the club, including the right to democratically appoint all board members.”
It’s an educated guess to think she specifically had the Adelaide Football Club in her sights, particularly when she later referenced the Crows 2018 camp. Had Ms Game taken the time to check with Adelaide chairman, John Olsen, he could have told her that the AFL has “never interfered or refused a Crows board nomination. The decision has always been local.”
Contrary to what Ms Game says, the Crows definitely have control of their club. It is true that the AFL does retain corporate oversight of both the Crows and Port Adelaide, but there is a very good reason for that.
When the Crows and Port Adelaide entered the AFL, both licences were paid for and owned by the SANFL. Coincidental to the move from Football Park to Adelaide Oval the licences were sold back to each AFL club.
Given the seemingly endless funds that the SANFL had already pumped into Port Adelaide, it insisted that the AFL guarantee both loans. In the Crows case it was $11.326 million, while Port’s was substantially less at $6.98 million.
Not a bad investment considering the initial outlay by the SANFL for the Crows licence was $4 million. However, with over $18 million at risk, the trade-off was that the AFL retained corporate oversight of both the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs.
Yes, it has the power to veto but never has it used it. When those loans are repaid in 2028 that arrangement will be terminated. Maybe that will clear the way for a totally member-elected board but as the saying goes: “be careful what you wish for.”
AFL clubs are big businesses these days with revenues and expenditures close to $100 million. In the Crows’ case they also have the impending project at Thebarton which will require an oversight of at least $100 million.
Port, on the other hand, is a good-news story. It has quietly and efficiently invested $30 million in its recent developments around the Alberton precinct. It has paid back the AFL debt for its licence and reduced its $12.5 million debt to a $2.5 million bank loan - without any restrictions or interference from the AFL.
It’s a great advertisement for ensuring a board has a breadth of talent and qualifications. Both clubs are overseen by boards comprised of individuals with diverse qualifications and abilities that might not otherwise have been appointed if it was simply a popularity contest between members.
Of course, this recent focus on the clubs’ corporate structure coincides with a slump in on-field performances. Like, it’s the board’s fault that the Crows have not been able to live up to pre-season expectations.
No one is complaining about the Sydney Swans’ corporate structure and they have exactly the same arrangement with the AFL. Ms Game is demanding the Crows board be “democratically” elected.
In theory, democracy is a great system, but it is too easily manipulated – look at party-room plots and counterplots. In the example of football clubs they are vulnerable to disruption by vested-interest groups.
For instance, Melbourne at the moment is faced with legal action from a former chairman. Richmond had its difficulties, and if we go back even further, you add Hawthorn, North Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and even Carlton.
All have had board-room ructions initiated by member-elect candidates.
In Adelaide and Port Adelaide’s cases candidates and board nominees are overseen by an independent panel before any appointment is made. Diversity and a breadth of professional qualifications are ensured.
The composition of the Crows board is not without its members’ input. There are two member-elected positions on the Adelaide (and Port’s board). The main complaint from the disgruntled members is that there are not enough people on the Crows board with a football background.
Since the retirement of member-elected ex-player, Rod Jameson, there is only Mark Ricciuto, a long-term board appointee, with a football background.
Jamo’s place on the board was taken by Imelda Lynch, an eminently qualified board director. Captain and chair of the Glenelg Golf Club, she also sits on five other boards. Her expertise in corporate campaigning and lobbying was evident as she captured over 36 percent of the on-line vote for the position. Not so much football though.
Surprisingly and disappointingly there was no other candidate with a football background for that position. Neither did Graeme Goodings, the incumbent member-elected board member face opposition from a “football” person when he was successfully re-elected in March this year.
If having more football experience is such an issue with the members, why wasn’t someone with such qualifications encouraged to nominate? Are the members really that uninterested to care? Or do they simply want to criticise after the fact?
Ms Game’s sudden concern for the Crows is perplexing as, from out of the blue, she also has called for the SafeWork SA investigation into the Crows camp of 2018 to be made public.
Why? SafeWork SA, you may recall, became involved after another grandstanding politician, Greens MP, Tammy Franks, then a member of the state’s Occupational Health and Safety Committee, demanded SafeWork SA investigate the camp which had been subjected to unfounded hysterical allegations.
It was an obvious abuse and waste of resources that could have better been used protecting workers in genuinely unsafe conditions.
Unsurprisingly it eventually cleared the Adelaide Football Club of any breaches of workplace safety. But Ms Game is not satisfied. She wants the confidential report made public.
In 2028 the Crows and Port Adelaide will have the opportunity to have “democratically” elected boards. I doubt they will take it.
Democracy isn’t perfect. After all, only four percent of the total vote can win you a seat in South Australia’s upper house.
More Coverage
Time to have a Musk-style tsar to slash our bloated bureaucracy
With our living standards plummeting perhaps it’s time we had our own system similar to DOGE, the agency now being run by Elon Musk, writes James Morrow.
I’ve never seen anything like this before – or since
It was an event so terrible and enormous that it’s still burned into our minds 20 years later, writes Jessica Adamson.