Notes from the 2025 AGM

This report contains the usual mix of fact, editorialising, and inadvertent blurting out of all the Club's secrets. 

Before getting into my hazy recollection two weeks after the meeting happened, it's worth reading the Club's own account of the AGM, as published on its website. It is unexpected, but welcome, that the Club has put out something which relates some details of what occurred at the AGM - it has not been the Club's usual habit to say much, if anything, about what occurs at its AGMs. Even if the level of detail is likely to be too thin to satisfy a person like myself, such a document is at least something which can (and has) now been independently archived for future reference. For example, it is worth noting that in that report of the AGM, the board has put forward its agenda for how it wants to run the Club. So, it talks about its significant investment in off-field personnel, in addition to its seeking to move closer to a full-time professional on-field environment for its senior men's program.

But let's not let the official spiel obscure the inadequacies. It remains an appalling detail that we had to wait almost two years for what is by law supposed to be an annual general meeting. At the end of the meeting the board apologised for that delay, and promised to hold the next AGM by the end of this calendar year. Of course, we've heard such promises before. I'm not particularly fond either of the way that the South Melbourne Hellas and South Melbourne FC AGMs were smushed together even more than usual, but at least the attendance was solid enough that we did not need to drag any players in from training to form a quorum, so that's a plus. There was also a healthy attendance from members of the board, which was also pleasing to see.

The quality of the minutes of the last meeting was also, by the board's own admission, poor. Worse, in context, was the quality of the financial report documents provided to members. Even putting aside the fact they were not made available to members prior to the meeting (as has been the practice and expectation in the past), it is plainly not acceptable for members to be provided to what amounted to a copy of the PowerPoint slides (which were not put up on screen due to a technical issue) in lieu of the actual detailed financial statements of the club. Whether or not most ordinary members (including your correspondent) understand the comprehensive audited financial statements that members are usually provided with is beside the point - the examination of the accounts, in their fullest audited form, is the right of every member.  

(for those who often ask this question, the Club noted that it will be using a new auditor if not for the next financial report, then for the one after, though not out of dissatisfaction with the work of the current auditor)

Insofar as the club's financial position goes, there were losses made across both the previous two financial years. The 23/24 loss was substantially worse than the 24/25 loss (the latter of which was not dire), mostly due to what has been described as a bad debt - namely money owed by the then major sponsor. Though not named on the night, it seemed to me to be a clear reference to a particular entity and person which have both since been caught up in the ongoing Shield Master Fund and First Guardian matters. As those matters are incredibly complicated and likely to be in the courts for some years to come, it would be inappropriate to say any more on any of that not only as a pleb part-time blogger, but especially as someone who works in and around the relevant courts where these matters are being dealt with. Those who are interested in keeping up with that saga can do so by reading the financial press. As a matter of workplace protocol, I preemptively declare conflicts of interest for myself when my job comes into contact with anything to do with Australian soccer; in my three and a half years in the job, it's come up more often than you'd think.

The financial position of the club is also hindered by the unsatisfactory performance of the social club. Co-president Andrew Mesorouni has made it one of his personal goals to overhaul the food service and social club experience, as referred to in the Club's own report. There are also improved deals with the tenants using the futsal court space, and hopefully announcements coming soon about new sponsors. Overall, the club's annual turnover remains at just over $2 million, so roughly where the club has been for a few years now. 

Expect that to change at the next AGM. The club has decided to go in a certain direction, which may bluntly be deemed as "go hard or go home", or more kindly as "taking more initiative". I consider it to be a form of accelerationism, where we get to find out what the ultimate future of this club is sooner rather than later. Either we wait to die slowly, or we find out if South Melbourne Hellas has the potential to become something bigger than what it has been for most of the past twenty years. People got a taste of the good life with the Australian Championship - big crowds instead of small ones, and a party atmosphere instead of a funereal one - and the Club has decided that they want more. And this is part of the problem with how relatively well the Australian Championship went for us, even in its stilted, demonstration form: people's expectations have been raised. The NPL experience looks even more sickly now. We know that while the NPL (and VPL before that) keeps us alive, it is also the thing that is slowly killing us. 

I suspect this is at least partly why the Club has ramped up not just the rhetoric on being a big club again and on "Hellas being back", but also why it has attempted to deploy the resources necessary to make that rhetoric a reality. So, we're in the OFC Pro League, and we've gone for a full-time professional setup on and off-field. We've hired and are in the process of hiring more staff - no more half-arsing it with a bit part office presence. No more having to work around the lives of semi-professional players. I think back to the club's Singapore Cup venture of 2010 and 2011. While small beans by comparison to what's going on now, the rationale behind this move is similar - we should be trying different things, and we have to try different things. The Singapore Cup runs weren't universally supported by our rank and file membership, but it's hard to say that at least the 2010 version didn't get people talking and thinking about the club in a different way.

This is a bold move, and part of the rationale for this I found particularly interesting - that we can't afford to say "no" to opportunities when they present themselves to us. Where the previous president, Nick Maikousis (who was thanked for his 30 years of service to the Club), said that we would not participate in the OFC Pro League if we did not receive outside (eg, government) funding, the current co-presidents have decided that the Club should self-fund its participation in the Pro League. To help cover the cost, the goal would is to get a cut of the not insignificant prize money on offer, as well as increase sponsorship by showcasing the club on a bigger stage. What other sponsor and grant opportunities may exist to take advantage of ventures such as this remain to be seen; but certainly part of the long-term goal is to eventually get a slice of the player transfer market by selling players to overseas clubs.

(there was also mention of the networking opportunities being created by this venture, not only with regional football powerbrokers, but also with different levels of government that we have previously had limited access to - one has to take all of this with a grain of salt, because most of us have no ability to verify anything that happens at such get-togethers)

The logistical considerations are enormous, and they can only be partly ameliorated by increased overall professionalism. Apart from the congested fixture (as covered by Manny last year, and which has only gotten worse because of the postponed game from the Auckland hub), there is the also the complicated player contract and registration protocols from having a side from the Asian confederation playing in the Oceanian confederation. While not referred to on the night, I am aware that a consultant has been assisting the club to make sure it has all its ducks lined up in a row on the regulatory front. The downside to that is, we are basically locked into this 23 man squad until the transfer window, with the exception of top-up players.

(No, Manny Aguek, whose move to Thailand has hit a stumbling block, is not coming back, at least not in the short term).

The congested fixture will mean that we will be fielding weakened lineups in several early season NPL games. Though not discussed in detail, it's quite clear that the experience of those of us who attend NPL games will suffer. It is a concern among several of us regulars that apart from the threat of a slow start to the NPL season putting us behind the eight ball - and you only have to look at Melbourne Knights' relegation last year to see how one really bad year can see things get away from you - that so much emphasis is seemingly being placed on the Pro League and Australian Championship. There are three (now four) local/home games at the start of the year (Pro League) and three at the end (Australian Championship) which matter, and the rest is something merely to be endured in the mean time.

Aside from this change of direction, there were other matters discussed. A report on our women's teams, on the power chair and blind teams, and complaints and comments made about the treatment of life members, and the ongoing issue of the quality of the catering in the social club. These are not illegitimate things to bring up, but in the greater scheme of things, these are all minor issues. I am reminded of something that former president Maikousis once said, that the Club's board needed to get to the stage where it could focus on strategy, while delegating day-to-day operation of the club to staff to help implement elements of that strategy. If Maikousis' approach (at least outwardly) was to temper expectations on a range of issues (we will get there, but we have to be patient), the current co-presidency has decided to speed things up. If the previous approach, at least in regards to the Australian Championship and/or National Second Division, was at least pretending to try and live by the maxim that a rising tide lifts all boats, then this approach also departs from that - now there's an emphasis of trying to stay ahead of other similarly placed clubs. So while other clubs are out there spending on player wages, we're out here to trying to offer players a complete package.

I came out of this meeting concerned and very much lacking in confidence that we could actually pull this off. It seems too bold, and just too much. That many games? That much cost? And yet I also felt energised by the meeting, because one of the easiest things for the Club to do - and it has done this a lot over the past twenty years - is just drift. Granted, there have been times where great energy has been directed at specific tasks (the last A-League bid comes to mind), but often the result of that is (at least perceived) neglect of the week-to-week business of the Club. There have also been occasions where we have been momentarily decisive (getting Chris Taylor in with his Thunder players), but none of that spoke to a long-term strategy. In some respects, so much of what we've tried to do is shortcut our way to a better South Melbourne Hellas. Our keener involvement in trying to build a proper National Second Division, the Pro League, the move to full time professionalism - that feels like a club trying to build some actual scaffolding for the first time in a long time. But will the experiment last long enough to attach something permanent to said scaffolding?