Kennett future MelbourneFC President?

[sue 9,151]

Sue I always had the view that Jk's comments about mergers etc were aimed at stirring the MFC up and getting it moving.

In the absence of any alternative I am prepared to listen to his views.

I think he is sincere in his reasons for offering himself.

Gosh, that's a very rose-coloured glasses view of his statements over the last few years. I wish I had your confidence. If he does get the job I hope you are right, but I see no evidence that when he made those statements that he was actually trying to help us. Seems most unlikely in view of the circumstances of the time from the Hawks perspective (expansion clubs etc).

I agree in the absence of any alternatives, he may be a gamble worth taking. But I'll wait to see what he proposes and what alternatives there are before grasping his feet as the next Messiah as some seem to be doing. We've had enough of that as many posters have said.

[Damo 3,405]

While I feel for you, we are all going through it in many ways. Thanks for the reply though and I hope you will re-consider.

I wish it were possible to see on Demonland who are members as I believe those are the voices and opinions most rate.

[sue 9,151]

This might be interesting for discussion by those not immediately pro-Kennett, maybe even by those who are.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-17/afl-doesnt-want-me-at-melbourne-kennett

Kennett says it would be a disaster if the AFL ran the MFC (instead of him) though he doesn't elaborate why it would be a disaster.

I wonder how many of us really care who runs the MFC as long as we are competitive and the rules of our association don't change (such that we can't vote against a merger for example)?

[rpfc 28,832]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-17/afl-doesnt-want-me-at-melbourne-kennett

Evidently, he has the same view as I do - the AFL doesn't want him at Melbourne.

He makes an interesting point but I don't think it aides his cause - he argues that being behoven to the AFL will lead to some decisions that are not in the best interests of the club. But the answer to that isn't a former Hawthorn supporter. Surely it is a Melbourne supporter (or supporters) being in charge.

Oh, and he could only find 3 Dees apparently - he wants a 4-man Board to be installed by the AFL (so no member involvement there) and headed by Kennett.

Edited June 17, 2013 by rpfc

[old dee 23,908]

I think I got the point. I don't see any real effort so far, but then I only read the papers etc (yes I do). Maybe he has done something substantial behind the scenes. I have no way of knowing yet. I too want to see deeds not words.

As to the members voting at some stage which you express some doubt will happen: Of course we will vote at the next AGM where the Board that is being constructed behind the scenes will be up for endorsement or replacement.

Sue unless there are alternatives there will be no vote.

Over the last six year I have attended every AGM there has never been a vote for board Positions

The simple reason no one challenged the incumbents.

The MFC probably does not need a bun fight for positions on the board.

What we need is a large change of board members, we need orderly change.

If that happens I will be satisfied.

[sue 9,151]

Sue unless there are alternatives there will be no vote.

Over the last six year I have attended every AGM there has never been a vote for board Positions

The simple reason no one challenged the incumbents.

The MFC probably does not need a bun fight for positions on the board.

What we need is a large change of board members, we need orderly change.

If that happens I will be satisfied.

I agree, But OldDee, you're nit-picking a bit. Our right to vote is not being taken away. If we hate the Board put in and we don't come up with an alternative to vote for, then we deserve what we get,

[Redleg 41,712]

I agree, But OldDee, you're nit-picking a bit. Our right to vote is not being taken away. If we hate the Board put in and we don't come up with an alternative to vote for, then we deserve what we get,

Agree. Casual Board members filling vacancies are there only until the next AGM and can be challenged, as can all other Board members up for re-election.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,099]

Does anyone really believe there won't be an alternative ticket running this time? This board has presided over the descent of our club into madness. What they are doing right now is reshuffling in an attempt to keep the same group in power, even if they have a few different figureheads. We need to see a total clean-out at the top. I hope Jeff does put together a rival ticket. He'll have my vote.

[Adam The God 30,539]

Does any Melbourne member know who the Melbourne members are that want Jeff Kennett as President? Why don't they show their faces?

The members as a group, 'own' the MFC. Not a select group of faceless individuals.

And as far as Jeff Kennett being 'sincere', the only thing sincere about him is his sincere desire to be on the front pages again.

I believe Kennett will make a statement tomorrow.

[Sir Why You Little 37,239]

I believe Kennett will make a statement tomorrow.

Good. Do you have that on any authority or just a hunch.

Personally i do not want to wait till February to get this old girl running again.

Once we know who is on Jeffrey Gibbs ticket decisions can be formed.

[old dee 23,908]

I agree, But OldDee, you're nit-picking a bit. Our right to vote is not being taken away. If we hate the Board put in and we don't come up with an alternative to vote for, then we deserve what we get,

Yep

Sorry I must have given you the wrong impression.

I was not suggesting our vote was taken away.

Just stating that if no one stands there is no vote required.

Edited June 17, 2013 by old dee

[old dee 23,908]

Good. Do you have that on any authority or just a hunch.

Personally i do not want to wait till February to get this old girl running again.

Once we know who is on Jeffrey Gibbs ticket decisions can be formed.

The way things are going wyl I don't get the feeling we are going to have to wait till February.

I do not think the current board are dummies.

Poor operators perhaps but they know the writing is on the wall.

I believe most of them will resign in the next couple of months if not sooner.

I reckon the AFL have already seen to it.

Then again I thought we were on the right track in 2010

[Adam The God 30,539]

Good. Do you have that on any authority or just a hunch.

Personally i do not want to wait till February to get this old girl running again.

Once we know who is on Jeffrey Gibbs ticket decisions can be formed.

I apparently missed this today:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jeff-kennett-says-afl-doesn8217t-want-him-to-become-melbourne8217s-president/story-fni5f91a-1226665063831

As far as I was aware he would make a statement on Tuesday, but obviously Neeld's sacking must have forced his hand to speak on radio today. Seems like a statement on Tuesday would now be redundant.

[CBDees 3,167]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-17/afl-doesnt-want-me-at-melbourne-kennett

Evidently, he has the same view as I do - the AFL doesn't want him at Melbourne.

He makes an interesting point but I don't think it aides his cause - he argues that being behoven to the AFL will lead to some decisions that are not in the best interests of the club. But the answer to that isn't a former Hawthorn supporter. Surely it is a Melbourne supporter (or supporters) being in charge.

Oh, and he could only find 3 Dees apparently - he wants a 4-man Board to be installed by the AFL (so no member involvement there) and headed by Kennett.

Voting for boards vs a consensus stable unified board is not necessarily the smartest way to go. If we had multiple tickets and the most high profile Melbourne candidates (Ox, Wells, etc) got up we could well end up with a dysfunctional board at loggerheads with each other's viewpoints. Personally I would prefer to see Kennett with a small hand-picked team.

[angrydee 842]

For once I support the AFL. At least they're prepared to throw in a few bucks. What's Kennett prepared to give?

[beelzebub 23,384]

would all seem somewhat moot now as the 'transition appears to be locked in"

my god I hope we're getting the right bloke

[DeeZee 7,445]

The AFL would never let Kennett be President.

Loose lips sink ships.

[beelzebub 23,384]

The AFL would never let Kennett be President.

Loose lips sink ships.

but allowed him to be at Hawthorn !!!

[Sir Why You Little 37,239]

Any word from "Good for Victoria"? Still love to know who backed him.

[beelzebub 23,384]

Im surprised ( but then maybe not ) that no mention is made of Kennetts open letter in the Hun today.

[Tricky 341]

Im surprised ( but then maybe not ) that no mention is made of Kennetts open letter in the Hun today.

In the online version?

Can't see it easily - any chance of link BB?

[Nasher 33,617]

but allowed him to be at Hawthorn !!!

Hawthorn weren't under administration. And presumably the AFL hadn't dealt with him before either.

[Sir Why You Little 37,239]

Im surprised ( but then maybe not ) that no mention is made of Kennetts open letter in the Hun today.

Just read Jeffrey's letter to us.

Cannot argue with him really.

So he waits a reply by friday....tell us who your running mates are Jeff. Maybe then the members can excert more pressure either way.

I am sure the AFL are listening to MFC members. They want us back attending games.

[rjay 25,197]

Just read Jeffrey's letter to us.

Cannot argue with him really.

So he waits a reply by friday....tell us who your running mates are Jeff. Maybe then the members can excert more pressure either way.

I am sure the AFL are listening to MFC members. They want us back attending games.

I thought he was going to tell us yesterday 'wyl'...

[Sir Why You Little 37,239]

I thought he was going to tell us yesterday 'wyl'...

So did i. He has written to the AFL instead.

Today is wednesday....