Port Adelaide is launching an inaugural Member Advisory Group.
Before anything else, it’s worth acknowledging what this represents. This is a positive step. It genuinely is. For a club that recently hasn’t been known for opening itself up to its members in a meaningful way, a move like this signals a shift in thinking. It suggests a willingness to listen more, to engage more, and to recognise that members want to feel part of the club in more than just name.
That shouldn’t be dismissed.
But at the same time, it’s impossible to look at this in isolation. If you’ve been following The Black and White Noise over the past year or so, you’ll know that the idea of member voice, governance, and accountability hasn’t exactly been sitting quietly in the background. It’s been front and centre. There has been a consistent thread running through those discussions, a sense that while members are deeply invested in the club, structurally, they don’t hold real influence.
That point has been explored in detail in articles like The Facts About Member Control, which laid out clearly that under the current setup, members do not elect the majority of the board, and therefore don’t hold genuine control over the direction of the club. It was reinforced again in It’s The Constitution, which highlighted that this isn’t just a cultural issue, it’s built into the structure of how the club is governed.
That context matters, because it shapes how this latest announcement is received.
Over the past 12 to 18 months, there has been a growing push for change. Not just general dissatisfaction, but a more focused call for greater member voice, stronger accountability, and ultimately a shift towards a majority member-elected board. That push didn’t just live in supporter conversations or online forums, it found its way into the recent board election campaign, where one nominee made it a central part of their platform.
That campaign didn’t result in election to the board, but the ideas clearly resonated. They didn’t disappear when the ballots were counted. If anything, they seem to have continued to build momentum in the background. Including a recent article in InDaily.
And it’s hard not to view the introduction of a Member Advisory Group through that lens.
Now, to be fair, an advisory group can be a genuinely valuable initiative. If it is done properly, it has the potential to create a meaningful bridge between the club and its members. It can bring a wider range of perspectives into the conversation, help leadership stay connected to the lived experience of supporters, and provide a structured way for feedback to be shared and considered.
In its best form, it can build trust. Not because the club says it is listening, but because members can see that their input is influencing outcomes. That’s the key difference. It’s not about the existence of a forum for discussion, it’s about whether that discussion actually leads to change.
That is where the uncertainty sits.
Because across the AFL, there are already examples of member advisory groups. Most of them began with strong intentions and genuine enthusiasm. But over time, many have drifted into something far less impactful. They meet regularly, they have thoughtful conversations, they provide feedback, and then they wait. Sometimes their ideas are taken on board, sometimes they’re acknowledged and set aside.
Over time, they lose their edge. They become what can only be described as a toothless tiger. Something that looks like influence, but doesn’t carry the weight required to genuinely shape decisions.
That is the risk here.
Because without structural accountability, listening remains optional. A club can choose when to listen, what to act on, and what to ignore. There is no requirement to follow through, no mechanism that ensures member perspectives actually translate into outcomes.
And that brings the conversation back to governance.
There is a reason why this issue keeps resurfacing, and why it tends to generate such strong feelings. It’s not just philosophical, there is a practical, observable pattern across the competition. Seventeen of the last nineteen AFL premierships have been won by clubs with majority member-elected boards.
Not advisory groups. Boards.
That isn’t a coincidence. It reflects a model where accountability is built into the system. Where those making decisions understand clearly who they answer to, and where members have a direct line of influence through the structure of the club itself.
That kind of alignment matters. It shapes culture, decision-making, and ultimately performance.
Which is why it’s important to be clear about what this new Member Advisory Group represents. It is a step forward in terms of engagement. It is a positive signal that the club recognises the need to hear from its members more directly.
But it is not a substitute for structural change.
It does not give members control over the board. It does not ensure that their views will be acted upon. And it does not guarantee that future administrations will maintain the same level of openness or willingness to engage.
At its core, it is a communication channel. Whether it becomes something more meaningful than that will depend entirely on how it is implemented and how seriously it is taken.
The next phase will be critical. The composition of the group, the transparency around its discussions, and most importantly, the extent to which its input influences real decisions will determine whether this initiative builds trust or simply adds another layer between members and the board.
Members should absolutely engage with it. There is value in being part of the process, in contributing ideas, and in ensuring that a broad range of voices are represented. But it is equally important to remain clear-eyed about the bigger picture.
Real influence within a football club doesn’t come from being consulted. It comes from having a defined, protected role in the governance of the club. It comes from knowing that your voice has weight, not just when it is convenient, but at all times.
This announcement is progress. It reflects a shift, however small, towards recognising the importance of member voice.
But it is not the end point.
Until there is a structure in place where members have genuine, built-in power, where the majority of the board is elected by those who support and sustain the club, the fundamental dynamic remains unchanged.
Members may be listened to more often.
But they are still not the ones in control.
And for a club with the history, identity, and community connection of Port Adelaide, that distinction continues to matter.
Be encouraged by the step forward, engage with the club, but don’t let the illusion of power distract you from the real fight to regain control of our great club.
Leave a Reply