PROPOSAL: FAN-NOMINATED AUFC BOARD MEMBER

[ChillyPhilly]

(A fitting way to use my 1000th post!)

Read all of this, or at least skim through it and definitely read the bottom bit. I will keep this thread and post updates as it progresses and changes.

DOCUMENT TYPE:

SUBMISSION TO THE CURRENT CONSORTIUM OF ADELAIDE UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB FOR THE INCLUSION OF AN ADDITIONAL PARTNER TO JOIN THE CONSORTIUM. THE NEW PARTNER WILL BE FINANCIALLY BACKED THROUGH FINANCIAL MEMBER MEMBERSHIP FEES.

A lad by the name of Terence has started work on a proposal to get a fan-elected representative on the board. Essentially, financial members will be turned into a partner and seat on the board. He's going to use his '15 years' experience in writing job descriptions, creating organizational structures/policies/procedures and fixing "sick office" syndrome (which is where corporations fail due to internal turmoil)' - things I'm no expert on - to put together a document that will be pretty hard to refuse and has potential for FFA backing, both support and approval.

Terence has said that the AU board is in fact not technically a 'board', but rather a partnership, allowing its structure to be changed with little fuss. Specifically, 'a partnership agreement that they have made. It can be altered to accept another partner without problem providing the other partners agree.' Financial memberships will be used as the financial leverage, so to speak; each member will have a vote towards this elected representative.

There will be five sessions and only five sessions to progress the document. More to come.

---

I'll ask one question now and continuous of all who read this: do you support this proposal?

[Stuckey]

One of the promises of the membership committee was in the long term towards fan ownership. Considering the club came out not 24 hours ago advertising the financial membership makes me think they may (hopefully) have something up their sleeve with this finally.
But personally I see no issue with a democratically elected board member. Maybe we should wait till after the AGM to see exactly what these voting right us financial members actually have.

[sevengoals]

Sounds good to me.

[Stuckey]

One thing I was thinking. Is it right for someone to be elected to the board on the back of other people's funds? Many people wouldn't have signed up to be a member for this guy to use that money to get elected. Everyone else on the board paid their own way there. I'm still in two minds over this but part of me feels if this guy wants to find someone to be on the board he should raise the funds himself (or a group of people could) instead of just spending other people's money. I'm happy to chip in the fine someone to be on the board as an elected member of it but I personally didn't pay a membership fee for the money to be spent this way.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'm not the expert on the proposal but I don't think the election of a representative is anything like the election of a politician; i.e., funding.

[Stuckey]

I'm not the expert on the proposal but I don't think the election of a representative is anything like the election of a politician; i.e., funding.

True if it was I would probably be happier with the process. I just feel I've paid my money to go towards making the club as good as it can be. Not for some bloke to get on to the board. As I said if someone wants to be on the board that bad they need to pay their way their like the rest of them did.

I'm more then happy to listen to people appealing for funding to get on the board. But the membership fees are the clubs.

[Branston Pickle]

No support from this financial member just yet. Difficult to make an accurate judgement call on whether this is a worthwhile step for the club without a better understanding of the governance issues facing the club and the credentials of this expert.

I have no issues with a fan appointed board member, but it would be folly of a group of fans to support or not support a candidate (or even support a proposal for the appointment of a board member) without a genuine understanding of the corporate governance structures in place at the club. On the face of it, I see a better role for this gent stepping in as an external agent investigating the issues facing the issues of the club before presenting considered responses to the board. This proposal at this time suggests to me there is a specific outline of responses already in the mind of Terence. Is it not better to find out the issues before proposing a specific set of solutions?

At this point of the club's history, I think we are a couple of years away in terms of fan and corporate maturity from being able to have a constructive fan-appointed board member in place. To my mind it would be better for the club to be more considered: to do something properly at the right time for the right reasons, rather than making a knee-jerk jump toward transparency because of a group of disgruntled fans demanded it to be so. Not only would this demonstrate to me the board is forward thinking, but it would also enable a genuine role for fans in determining club affairs.

[Stuckey]

No support from this financial member just yet. Difficult to make an accurate judgement call on whether this is a worthwhile step for the club without a better understanding of the governance issues facing the club and the credentials of this expert.

I have no issues with a fan appointed board member, but it would be folly of a group of fans to support or not support a candidate (or even support a proposal for the appointment of a board member) without a genuine understanding of the corporate governance structures in place at the club. On the face of it, I see a better role for this gent stepping in as an external agent investigating the issues facing the issues of the club before presenting considered responses to the board. This proposal at this time suggests to me there is a specific outline of responses already in the mind of Terence. Is it not better to find out the issues before proposing a specific set of solutions?

At this point of the club's history, I think we are a couple of years away in terms of fan and corporate maturity from being able to have a constructive fan-appointed board member in place. To my mind it would be better for the club to be more considered: to do something properly at the right time for the right reasons, rather than making a knee-jerk jump toward transparency because of a group of disgruntled fans demanded it to be so. Not only would this demonstrate to me the board is forward thinking, but it would also enable a genuine role for fans in determining club affairs.

Definitely agree with that. I think a knee jerk reaction to the club's knee jerk reactions won't fix anything. Basically two wrongs don't make a right!

[Terence]

This proposal was not a knee jerk reaction. There was a discussion on the South End Lads Facebook page. As so often happens all over social media regarding the club, someone asks why the fans don't try to play some ownership role. The usual suggestion is for fans to contribute a sum of money to buy into the club.

It occurred to me that members and fans are in fact already paying a lot of money to the club. Members and fans money is seen as "Income" but financial partners money is considered "Financial Capital". It's all money going to the club but it seemed odd to me that these different funds have such different benefits attached to them. So I asked the question, amongst other things, why does financial capital buy a place on the board with voting rights on all club decisions but members and fans money does not?

From there I looked closer at this. I don't know how much money the club gets from members and fans over the course of a season but I'm guessing it either equals or exceeds the amount that the least contributing financial partner puts up as their share of capital. It would seem fair then that members and fans money should be given the same value, rights and respect afforded to financial partners capital.

Amongst other things, this would mean a legitimate place on the board with voting rights on all club decisions. Obviously, it would not be possible to have all members and fans sitting at the table, there would not be enough chairs to start with. A Logical process might be for members and fans to democratically elect a single representative to sit at the table.

I spent a bit of time on it and came up with a suggested process that I put up on a facebook page. I took it down 2 hours later though because I thought it would end up with me driving everything and consuming all of my time. I was also unsure of the culture of the financial members committee and reactions of fans etc. Whether or not fan/member proposals are greeted with encouragement or resistance and whether or not proposals like this had been put forward by others before and what happened in those cases.

I did not know Phil had posted here but it does not matter because my belief is that these sort of proposals should be discussed on members and fans forums anyway. It was certainly not intended as an action by myself to get myself elected to the board on the back of other peoples money. Whomever would be elected would be done through a democratic process.

In terms of the inner workings of Adelaide United's business structure, it is essentially a simple partnership structure based on a partnership agreement, it is not not a corporation. This structure is ideal for consideration of any fan ownership model because it is flexible and only requires the agreement of the partners to put it in place. This would certainly be the ideal time to push proposals of this nature.

Some financial members advised me about the AUMC Inc idea put forward by the club, but some said that it had been proposed for 2 years without much progress. Some said that they would prefer a member/fan initiated model anyway. There is some benefit in this because anything put in place by the current owners could disappear when the owners leave. If it were put in place by members/fans then there would be an onus on any incoming owners to honour the agreement or risk alienating the members/fans. There would be a greater chance of continuance through different owners. In any event, whether the current ownership has an intended model or not does not prevent members/fans from initiating their own model as well. This does not have to be an antagonistic action but rather a positive one.

The idea of a consultant going in to the club to fix all the problems is a good one, however the clubs management must display the appropriate culture that would make this worthwhile. Without going into the reasons, I do not think this would work very well and these are separate issues to the singular proposal of member/fan ownership.

The issues facing the club are pretty straightforward really, they have popped up time and time again over the course of the current ownership. They are structural issues to do with the organizational structure of the business. I could go into them but this post would be much longer and this is already enough. I would be interested in knowing roughly how much money members and fans contribute to the club over the course of a season.

It seems to me there are quite a number of disgruntled fans at the moment with their complaints revolving around one of three issues, all of which have to do with the organizational structure. Disgruntled fans are an asset because anger can be turned to positive action and is also the motivation for change. It seems to me, for a number of reasons that the time is right to put forward proposals.

[ganas]

i think this could work, but it would have to be limited to just the financial members who get a vote on who will represent them on the board. it would also be a non-paid position. make it a 2 year term. have a general election of all financial members to elect their representative. financial members would have to have their financial membership for at least 2 years before they get the voting rights on electing their representative to prevent people "stacking" numbers in their favour.
i would love to know that there is one of us representing our views, concerns and also opinions on how we believe the club should be moving forward.

i dont think it would work right away though. i think the club should make it more of an incentive though. i think i remember hearing on here that there are only approx 200-300 financial members? i may be completely wrong, but if this is true, the club could turn around and say, if we get to 1000 financial members, we will put create a position on the board for a democratically elected person to represent the financial members.
and then maybe they could create another position if say the club reaches 5000 financial members?

just my thoughts anyway.

[General Ashnak]

This proposal was not a knee jerk reaction. There was a discussion on the South End Lads Facebook page. As so often happens all over social media regarding the club, someone asks why the fans don't try to play some ownership role. The usual suggestion is for fans to contribute a sum of money to buy into the club.

It occurred to me that members and fans are in fact already paying a lot of money to the club. Members and fans money is seen as "Income" but financial partners money is considered "Financial Capital". It's all money going to the club but it seemed odd to me that these different funds have such different benefits attached to them. So I asked the question, amongst other things, why does financial capital buy a place on the board with voting rights on all club decisions but members and fans money does not?

From there I looked closer at this. I don't know how much money the club gets from members and fans over the course of a season but I'm guessing it either equals or exceeds the amount that the least contributing financial partner puts up as their share of capital. It would seem fair then that members and fans money should be given the same value, rights and respect afforded to financial partners capital.

Amongst other things, this would mean a legitimate place on the board with voting rights on all club decisions. Obviously, it would not be possible to have all members and fans sitting at the table, there would not be enough chairs to start with. A Logical process might be for members and fans to democratically elect a single representative to sit at the table.

I spent a bit of time on it and came up with a suggested process that I put up on a facebook page. I took it down 2 hours later though because I thought it would end up with me driving everything and consuming all of my time. I was also unsure of the culture of the financial members committee and reactions of fans etc. Whether or not fan/member proposals are greeted with encouragement or resistance and whether or not proposals like this had been put forward by others before and what happened in those cases.

I did not know Phil had posted here but it does not matter because my belief is that these sort of proposals should be discussed on members and fans forums anyway. It was certainly not intended as an action by myself to get myself elected to the board on the back of other peoples money. Whomever would be elected would be done through a democratic process.

In terms of the inner workings of Adelaide United's business structure, it is essentially a simple partnership structure based on a partnership agreement, it is not not a corporation. This structure is ideal for consideration of any fan ownership model because it is flexible and only requires the agreement of the partners to put it in place. This would certainly be the ideal time to push proposals of this nature.

Some financial members advised me about the AUMC Inc idea put forward by the club, but some said that it had been proposed for 2 years without much progress. Some said that they would prefer a member/fan initiated model anyway. There is some benefit in this because anything put in place by the current owners could disappear when the owners leave. If it were put in place by members/fans then there would be an onus on any incoming owners to honour the agreement or risk alienating the members/fans. There would be a greater chance of continuance through different owners. In any event, whether the current ownership has an intended model or not does not prevent members/fans from initiating their own model as well. This does not have to be an antagonistic action but rather a positive one.

The idea of a consultant going in to the club to fix all the problems is a good one, however the clubs management must display the appropriate culture that would make this worthwhile. Without going into the reasons, I do not think this would work very well and these are separate issues to the singular proposal of member/fan ownership.

The issues facing the club are pretty straightforward really, they have popped up time and time again over the course of the current ownership. They are structural issues to do with the organizational structure of the business. I could go into them but this post would be much longer and this is already enough. I would be interested in knowing roughly how much money members and fans contribute to the club over the course of a season.

It seems to me there are quite a number of disgruntled fans at the moment with their complaints revolving around one of three issues, all of which have to do with the organizational structure. Disgruntled fans are an asset because anger can be turned to positive action and is also the motivation for change. It seems to me, for a number of reasons that the time is right to put forward proposals.

Well put Terence, AUMC Inc is not what you are proposing but could easily be a part of what you are proposing

[Shane]

Putting forward a proposal to have players attend a club-sanctioned event is hard enough.

You're going to need backing and an idea of how many interested parties you have before even considering putting forward a proposal to the club.

That's going to be a fun task in itself.

Have fun with that?

[Terence]

Thanks Shane, yes I think it would be good to at least try to get different member groups onside as it goes along, might be fun! It sounds like you've had some experience trying to push something through.

Ganas, only 200-300 financial members? That's interesting to know, If constraints are also put on that group then the number of people eligible to vote could drop to 150 or lower though which would be a very low representation of members and fans. I agree though that the line of who can vote has to be drawn somewhere, perhaps it should be drawn across those who contribute something to the club as well as Financial members. I would like to get the eligible voters up to the most possible, while still being fair and manageable.

I'm not sure who would fall into the category of club contributors and I agree that if incentive can be built in as well for people to become financial members that would also be good. The two year eligibility might be too limiting for my tastes, I was thinking more of 1 year. Then they have at least proven something and the number of eligible voters will be higher.

Given that there will be different contributing groups and different levels of contribution, the only way I can see to keep that fair is to use a simple differential value voting system. Not unlike what the Board probably does, if you have a 30% share in the club your vote is worth 3 votes on the board. If you have a 20% share then 2 votes etc. This could be used in the same way with the different contributing groups.

For example:

Financial members: 3 votes
Season Ticket holders (active bay): 3 votes
Season Ticket holders: 2 votes
Active Supporter: 1 vote

To prevent polarization where different groups may only support a member in their group, and to provide incentive for greater club involvement, you could make the votes cumulative. So if you are a financial member and a season ticket holder in an active support bay then your vote would be worth 6 votes!

There are probably other contributors but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the voting system has to be manageable. There also might be a problem with even the 1 year eligibility as it does not provide incentive for new members.

Perhaps if you get financial membership and a season ticket in an active bay it's worth more (edited above example).

I guess, if it's possible, I would like to see the voting extend beyond the financial members group whilst still keeping it fair. You never know what may happen along the way, elements of it may become valuable to the AUMC Inc at some point as suggested by General Ashnak, thanks for the input to date, It seems the stumbling block at the moment would be determining who would be the eligible voters. All of this might be absurd though, not sure, have to think about it a bit more.

[Terence]

Thanks for the input everyone, so then if there was a "members group" or a group that represented all of the members and fans as best could be done, it would comprise of (in no particular order):

1. Financial Members - contact: Financial members meetings.
2. Season Ticket Holders - contact: Newsletter? STH meetings?
3. Active support: Contact - Active support group leaders.
4. Fan based social media groups - Contact: Moderators of the groups
5. Fans (half season, group match ticket holders, through the gate etc) - Contact: AUFC Facebook page?

5 distinct groups.

These groups should account for all the fans and members of AUFC, If I've missed a group, please let me know.

I'm only stuck now on contacts for "season ticket holders" and "Fans". I don't know if season ticket holders are seen as a discrete group or whether there is a group head contact, maybe they should have such a place if there is not.

A question hangs over whether "Fans" can or should be contacted since the ones who are interested in being part of an active members group will probably already be involved in a forum, active group or the AUFC Facebook page.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'm curious if the club is still willing to view STHs as 'Honorary Members'.