A column in today's Herald Sun by Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett - you might have heard of him: former Premier; shy, retiring type - makes for fascinating reading, not necessarily for Kennett's proposed panaceas for the game, but for his revelations about how the league is run.

In short (according to Jeffrey Gibb), it's a mini-dictatorship.

The bombastic former Premier, it is true, has had a long-running feud with AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou about the sometimes-shabby way the clubs are treated by head office and also the trickle of information which eventually works its way down to the clubs some time after decisions are made at HQ.

He is the one president who continually challenges the AFL about due process, better consultation, greater transparency and an acknowledgment that it's the clubs who remain the 'shareholders' of the AFL - not the Commission - and it was they who set up an independent commission in the first place.

Now, he says, the tail is often wagging the dog.

Kennett is worth listening to on these matters because the club over which he presides, Hawthorn, is big and ugly enough to look after itself - that is, it does not owe its existence to AFL handouts - and he himself has had some experience of running a fairly big organisation. It's called the state of Victoria. (Though critics will say it's a bit rich for Kennett to whine about transparency and consensus given the sometimes-autocratic way he ran the state.)

Still, the point Kennett makes is this: six Victorian clubs, plus Port Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and the league's two new franchises receive special financial assistance - or have all or part of their financial arrangements - guaranteed by the AFL. That's 11 of the 18 clubs who are dependent to some degree on the league.

As a result, they are reluctant to question Demetriou and co about decisions they make, let alone offer up any criticisism. They have, instead, become tame and toothless poodles who virtually roll over on command.

They understand it's not good for business to get the executive off-side; that disobedience can come at a price. Because, as well as controlling the purse-strings, the AFL can wield its annual season fixture as a big and powerful stick.

The league can, should it so desire, punish miscreant clubs through its match scheduling: more trips interstate and Sunday twilight matches, fewer Friday night games and the national exposure that brings and, of course, fewer games against the bumper clubs Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton.

In a column notable for its plain speaking, Kennett also outlines four risks he sees as possibly threatening the well-being of the AFL:

1) An uneven competition. He wants teams to play each other twice during the season. Any other arrangement is unfair, especially when AFL scheduling is driven by attendances and TV ratings.

2) The financial viability of all clubs, a key task for the league now its coffers are brimming with broadcast rights money.

3) The 'hubris' of the AFL Commission, reflected in its occasionally off-hand treatment of clubs and the way it brooks no dissent.

4) How the players fare in the new round of pay negotiations, and whether they're happy with the share of the broadcast rights pie they end up with.

''The AFL, as I have acknowledged here, is the "best in show" when it comes to sports administration here in Australia. But there are signs of hubris that to me represent the fourth risk,'' Kennett wrote in the Herald Sun.

''Attending a presidents' meeting is like being called into a classroom and fed information you haven't seen, while being given no time to consider the facts or the ramifications of the material presented. If you have the audacity to question an issue, you are invariably frowned upon.

''While the clubs agreed to set up the commission to independently administer the league, the clubs remain the "shareholders" of the league, and their views are given scant acknowledgment, particularly by the administration of the AFL.

''This in turn is partly because the majority of clubs are dependent on the goodwill of the AFL for financial support, and the leaders of the clubs certainly do not want to earn the wrath of an AFL executive.

''Why is this a risk? Because not all knowledge and best practice is in the minds of the AFL Commission and administration. I have been witness to some appalling behaviour when the AFL does not get its way. But now is not the time to get personal. Suffice to say the future success of the AFL requires genuine consultation and respect from - and to - all components of the game.

''The AFL now employs close to 400 people - approximately more than the administrations of five to six clubs.

''When addressing the future of the game, the AFL must therefore be prepared to review its own size and costs. They pay themselves very well and are driven in part by bonuses that relate to a number of factors. The success of the AFL is acknowledged, but that success is also for me the fifth risk.''

It might be heresy to raise these issues - at a time when the mutual backslapping over the broadcast rights bonanza has reached a crescendo - but someone needs to add a dose of reality to proceedings. Even if it means the Hawks will have to play their home games in Nar Nar Goon next year.