Very, very interesting....

[JeffDunne]

The current board I think would have already sent it to the AFL from my understanding as they have to do it in advance. It is obviouly projections based on what they usually get for sponsorships and so on.

Well if they already have then will they give us the courtesy of seeing it?

I very much doubt they will and for good reason. The same as I wouldn't expect any prospective board to do so.

I would however love to see the clubs forecasts on memberships and sponsorships for next season and how that compares with this year.

[plugger66]

The current board I think would have already sent it to the AFL from my understanding as they have to do it in advance. It is obviouly projections based on what they usually get for sponsorships and so on.

Well if they already have then will they give us the courtesy of seeing it?

I very much doubt they will and for good reason. The same as I wouldn't expect any prospective board to do so.

I would however love to see the clubs forecasts on memberships and sponsorships for next season and how that compares with this year.

The difference is one will already be approved. the other is approved by nobody so I think SFF should give us some sort of projections.

[plugger66]

JD I can understand why you think the current board should replaced even if I dont fully agree but can you please explain what SFF are actually offering because apart from great players on the board and they spend more on football I cannot see much at all.

[JeffDunne]

How do you know it's been approved?

How do you know one's been submitted?

What's the forecast for memberships next year? Sponsorship income? Other income?

If you're going to be pushing the incumbents barrow, surely you can answer all of these questions?

[plugger66]

How do you know it's been approved?

How do you know one's been submitted?

What's the forecast for memberships next year? Sponsorship income? Other income?

If you're going to be pushing the incumbents barrow, surely you can answer all of these questions?

I know because every club forward submits to the AFL. I dont know its been approved but common sense would suggest the AFL are happy with it or they wouldnt back RB. How would I know any of the other stuff. Red Herring by you because you cannot come up with an answer to my question so I will take it you are backing the new board because to great players are on it and they will spend more money.

[JeffDunne]

LOL, so what you are demanding of the challengers you cannot answer for the incumbents?

Commn sense would suggest it? Right.

You don't even know what or if it's been submitted but you'll use your "common sense" to believe it.

You're not only a hypocrite but you're ignorant.

FWIW, I'm not backing anyone at this stage, feel free to find where I have . In fact, most of my posts on SFF have been criticial. But as usual, people here will see everything as being pro-one or anti the other. Personality driven much?

I want to hear what everyone has to say, but it's clear many here that are attacking the challengers are trying to hold them to a far higher level of accountability than they are the incumbents.

[plugger66]

LOL, so what you are demanding of the challengers you cannot answer for the incumbents?

Commn sense would suggest it? Right.

You don't even know what or if it's been submitted but you'll use your "common sense" to believe it.

You're not only a hypocrite but you're ignorant.

FWIW, I'm not backing anyone at this stage, feel free to find where I have . In fact, most of my posts on SFF have been criticial. But as usual, people here will see everything as being pro-one or anti the other. Personality driven much?

I want to hear what everyone has to say, but it's clear many here that are attacking the challengers are trying to hold them to a far higher level of accountability than they are the incumbents.

There are many attacking the challengers. Are you serious. There is a few. There are many more attacking the incumbents because we can see what they have done. Good or Bad. The challengers IMO need to offer more than past players and they will spend more so that is why I think the need to give us some figures.

[Mr Magic]

I want to hear what everyone has to say, but it's clear many here that are attacking the challengers are trying to hold them to a far higher level of accountability than they are the incumbents.

Jeffrey, isn't it incumbent on any challenger to an existing Board to show the members(voters) why they deserve to be voted in, and the existing Board voted out?

The very nature of a 'challenge' is to say, we are better because......, therefore you should elect us.

SFF seems to have taken the tack of saying
We are better, just elect us' and asking the members to virtually take them at 'face value' because we are trustworthy.

As I have posted previously (many would say ad nauseum) I have no problem with SFF other than their exhortation to give them our proxies before they have given us details of their plans.

I'm not prepared to give RB my proxy without him giving me details as to why his Board would be better than SFF so why should I or anybody else accept less from SFF?

But it would appear that this is all a moot point anyway as Ashjam has advised in another thread that SFF appear to almost have enough proxies already so you and I or anybody else who hasn't been swayed by their arguments are disenfranchised.

[JeffDunne]

MM, drop the condescending 'Jeffery' if you want a serious discussion.

Both sides are effectively saying "trust us" as is the case in all elections.

One is saying trust us on our track record, the other saying trust us on who we are and what we are proposing.

Neither will give you a concrete plan going forward because both can't. They can give you targets, they can give you a plan, but ultimately they will be judged on who people trust the most. They don't call them Forwaed Estimates for nothing. The incumbents have the advantage of incumbency but it also comes with a liability (again like all elections), but ultimately a vote is always a vote on who you trust more.

I think it's the height of arrogance for people to be attacking members for where they may or may not put their trust. If people want to take the challengers on face record and put their trust in them based on the personalities involved, they have every right to do so. Same is true for people that want to stick with the incumbents. You might not trust the challengers based on their track record and clearly you don't, but don't insult people's intelligence simply because they don't agree with you.

[Mr Magic]

MM, drop the condescending 'Jeffery' if you want a serious discussion.

Both sides are effectively saying "trust us" as is the case in all elections.

One is saying trust us on our track record, the other saying trust us on who we are and what we are proposing.

Neither will give you a concrete plan going forward because both can't. They can give you targets, they can give you a plan, but ultimately they will be judged on who people trust the most. They don't call them Forwaed Estimates for nothing. The incumbents have the advantage of incumbency but it also comes with a liability (again like all elections), but ultimately a vote is always a vote on who you trust more.


I think it's the height of arrogance for people to be attacking members for where they may or may not put their trust. If people want to take the challengers on face record and put their trust in them based on the personalities involved, they have every right to do so. Same is true for people that want to stick with the incumbents. You might not trust the challengers based on their track record and clearly you don't, but don't insult people's intelligence simply because they don't agree with you.

Wasn't being condescending.

And where have I insulted anybody's intelligence?
And just because I don't agree with you on all things is a reason to accuse me of something I haven't done?

[joffaboy]

One is saying trust us on our track record, the other saying trust us on who we are and what we are proposing.

But JD that is the whole point.

Neither will give you a concrete plan going forward because both can't.

But the incumbants dont need to put forward a plan. The FFS came out an specifically attacked the incumbanst lack of spending and lack of revenue growth.

It has specifically stated that it spend more and will fund this by increased revenue.

Why is it too much to ask for the detail on these proposals?

The incumbants are not the ones calling for an EGM and spill of all positions.

So it is the challengers responsibility to gives us all the information on how they will spend more and make more revenue.

Again I ask why is this too much to ask for?

The whole syndicate name Footy First infers that it will put footabll before finances. This rings alarm bells financially.

the intention is no doubt good and honourable, but to specifically attack a board on its financial performance (profits made through cutting expenditure rather than growing revenue) and then give nothing but motherhood statements is highly irresponsible and is incredibly arrogant and sneaky.

Oh BTW I totally agree on the thrust of the above critisism by FFS. I just want to know how they are going to go about doing it.

At the moment I feel had.

They can give you targets, they can give you a plan, but ultimately they will be judged on who people trust the most. They don't call them Forwaed Estimates for nothing. The incumbents have the advantage of incumbency but it also comes with a liability (again like all elections), but ultimately a vote is always a vote on who you trust more.

Thats perfectly correct. All Budgets ad financial plans are crystal ball gazing to some respect. However they are also based on reasonable and fair assumptions, past business experience, and prevailing market conditions, so they are not just accounting fabrications.

Really, I am crying out for FFS to come up with a viable and financially responsible financial forward forecast, and it cant be just for fin year 2008. It has to be a strategy plan going forward at least three years to have any credibility.

The incumbants can point to their achievements, ad say that now they have achieved stability financially, they can spend more on the football dept - whhich they have say they would do.

I think it's the height of arrogance for people to be attacking members for where they may or may not put their trust. If people want to take the challengers on face record and put their trust in them based on the personalities involved, they have every right to do so.

On the other side of the coin JD it is the height of the mob mentality to attack members who have simply asked to see in detail what the FFS has to offer financially. This has happened for the past week.

Like you I have been accused of having an agenda ( of being pro Butters) even though I have posted countless times that I would like to see a viable alternative to him in place.

But I want to see a viable alternative and part of that is the alternative is financially credible. So far I have seen none of this.

Same is true for people that want to stick with the incumbents. You might not trust the challengers based on their track record and clearly you don't, but don't insult people's intelligence simply because they don't agree with you.

What about the alternative JD, members who dont want Butters or his spivs, however wont fall for the smoke and mirrors, flicking the switch to vaudiville, all singing, all dancing, bread and circuses of a glossy phamphlet, a bunch of proclimations, a couple of ex greats, and the feeling that we have a bunch of white knight messiahs ready to ride in and save the day.

In a Keatingism, to me they are all tip and no iceberg. I know whose intelligence is being insulted JeffDunne.

[JeffDunne]

jb, I think there's many people - myself included - that don't trust Rod & those close to him for a variety of reasons. To win that trust back they'll not only need a plan, but they'll need to kick some goals between now and the vote. Others will disagree, but that's my position and my reading on many others.

Communication, or lack of, has been one of their greatest failings (IMO)

The challengers know this and I suspect the incumbents do too. Hence why Rod's men want the AFL and not the members to decide.

I don't trust the AFL to look after our interests & I don't trust the incumbents to respect the right of members. They can pull all the projections they want out of their arse but many people will judge them based on "what have you done for me lately?".

So far the challengers are winning support because of their willingness to embrace the membership. They aren't in a position to have sponsors committed, they aren't even in a position to have a membership marketing campaign in place. They too can pull projections out of their arse but ultimately IMO people will decide based on trust.

The incumbents won't win back trust by siding with the AFL or having discredited journalists push their case. They must embrace the membership and up until now they have done the opposite and have been downright insulting.

[The Peanut]

at....not andrew are you.....?????

stinger, i can promise you 100% that my name is not andrew either. i do not post here under any other name.

AT

. . . but have you posted here before under a very well known and largely respected name?