No rights

[Binmans PA 26,294]

why spend 200 bucks a year on a membership ticket if we have no rights to vote, if you think I'm the only one out of 33,000 members that feels that way then your SLOWER than I thought.

Because for me it's not about the right to vote. It's about keeping my club afloat. Without memberships, the AFL would eventually shut us down. Common sense really.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

rubbish, more like fascism...

but its a benevolent dictatorship, as the Nort-hern Stand Can Never give us a top shelf FOOTY Board... they've tried for nigh on 50 - 55 Years, miserably..... let them sell themselves, to the Chinese instead.

Does the Chinese had a good Mid Field?

[FarNorthernD 5,848]

Individually our board members look outstanding. CEOs and self starters with a variety of talent. Somewhere it has fallen down as a collective

As others have said the AFL does seem to be on our side this time although I think we can thank our lucky stars that this came to a head towards the beginning of the media agreement rather than towards the end

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Individually our board members look outstanding. CEOs and self starters with a variety of talent. Somewhere it has fallen down as a collective

As others have said the AFL does seem to be on our side this time although I think we can thank our lucky stars that this came to a head towards the beginning of the media agreement rather than towards the end

Dumb and Dumber!

That what I call the MFC Board and Previous CEO.

Shame on you ALL!

[mjt 640]

Because for me it's not about the right to vote. It's about keeping my club afloat. Without memberships, the AFL would eventually shut us down. Common sense really.

Your a lapdog, anyone that trusts the AFL is brain dead, oh wait I forgot who I was replying to.

[Whispering_Jack 28,023]

Your a lapdog, anyone that trusts the AFL is brain dead, oh wait I forgot who I was replying to.

Are you planning on having a holiday mjt?

[FarNorthernD 5,848]

Your a lapdog, anyone that trusts the AFL is brain dead, oh wait I forgot who I was replying to.

It is not about trust. It just so happens that it is in their interest to keep us viable and competitive

[mjt 640]

Are you planning on having a holiday mjt?

Yeah to the MCG in about 10mins, didn't realise it was an way game, that sucks.

[H_T 2,941]

What a sad and pitiful situation. Clubs that stand up to the AFL get best service and best deals, those that don't they're invariably wiped by the AFL in some fashion. Whether that be by fixturing or some other aspect(s) of significance.

18 months ago this club was debt free and about to appoint an experienced coach. That's what they intended and expressed as such. What caused the backflip? Excited by a simple impressive presentation? A reference off Mick?

Mis-management.

Sometimes you've got to go with what you know, and our coach search committee f-ed up.

Particularly after G.Lyon being told by P.Roos at the time that it might be worth giving R.Lyon a call. Somehow that's being overlooked and hiding behind C.Kelly is all the rage.

We have 33,000 odd members, - 36,500 in better times and we can't manage to fulfil a board on our own.

It's the clubs and members that own the comp and revenue. Not the AFL, they are the body that administers it. And we as members of Melbourne - given many responses to this thread - are rolling over to the AFL. Why? Because we've f'ed up one too many times recently, our list is as low as the feeling and its time to put it in the too hard basket? Let the AFL appoint and replace everyone?

Two years ago, even one year ago you wouldn't have read such responses here. Tells me as much the fight in many is gone.

[Carrot Top 947]

Tells me as much the fight in many is gone.

The fire might not be there but the ember is. Just give us 12 months of not being kicked by the club we love. It's not much to ask, and we'll pay it all back and then some. It's hard. Too many false dawns and snake oil cures have been sold to us. Of course we're gun shy. That doesn't mean we don't care though. It just means that we've accepted the reality that our club cannot be fixed from within.

[beelzebub 22,264]

We have 33,000 odd members,

Indeed ....some are quite odd

not you nor I of course..lol

Edited June 22, 2013 by belzebub59

[Pates 9,537]

why spend 200 bucks a year on a membership ticket if we have no rights to vote, if you think I'm the only one out of 33,000 members that feels that way then your SLOWER than I thought.

Do you honestly pay for a membership JUST to have the right to vote? I know I don't, it's a small part, but mainly it's to support the club financially and be recognised as a part of the club.

I don't think I've voted for anything to do with the MFC.

[furious d 447]

Can anyone show me where AD is quoted saying we won't get a vote? No, because it never happened.

[Tricky 337]

Can anyone show me where AD is quoted saying we won't get a vote? No, because it never happened.

Exactly, in fact he has said exactly the opposite.

What we have is a conditional lifeline, a powerful one.

Those who would like to, can vote against the AFL appointed board when the time comes.

In the interim we are yet to understand the detail of any alternative that would rival what we are being offered.

[H_T 2,941]

Can anyone show me where AD is quoted saying we won't get a vote? No, because it never happened.

No one said it did happen.

[mjt 640]

Do you honestly pay for a membership JUST to have the right to vote? I know I don't, it's a small part, but mainly it's to support the club financially and be recognised as a part of the club.

I don't think I've voted for anything to do with the MFC.

I pay my membership so the club can operate, but as members we seem to have given up our right to vote, those are obviously the strings attached to the 3million, I'm stoked the AFL are willing to help but it would be nice to have a say as shareholders on who's going to lead, the AFL obviously must have someone who they think is the ideal candidate.

[timD 994]

What a sad and pitiful situation. Clubs that stand up to the AFL get best service and best deals, those that don't they're invariably wiped by the AFL in some fashion. Whether that be by fixturing or some other aspect(s) of significance.

18 months ago this club was debt free and about to appoint an experienced coach. That's what they intended and expressed as such. What caused the backflip? Excited by a simple impressive presentation? A reference off Mick?

Mis-management.

Sometimes you've got to go with what you know, and our coach search committee f-ed up.

Particularly after G.Lyon being told by P.Roos at the time that it might be worth giving R.Lyon a call. Somehow that's being overlooked and hiding behind C.Kelly is all the rage.

We have 33,000 odd members, - 36,500 in better times and we can't manage to fulfil a board on our own.

It's the clubs and members that own the comp and revenue. Not the AFL, they are the body that administers it. And we as members of Melbourne - given many responses to this thread - are rolling over to the AFL. Why? Because we've f'ed up one too many times recently, our list is as low as the feeling and its time to put it in the too hard basket? Let the AFL appoint and replace everyone?

Two years ago, even one year ago you wouldn't have read such responses here. Tells me as much the fight in many is gone.

Isn't it a case of changing strategy? We've tried appointing our own a lot. We've had some success doing so but it has been pretty compromised lately. After some years of failure, is it not smart to re-think how we find people for the club if the method we've used does not work?

[Grapeviney 8,871]

Tells me as much the fight in many is gone.

It's been replaced by the fear that if we try to do it ourselves again we'll f#$k it up and wipe the club out of existence before the decade is out.

[Binmans PA 26,294]

Your a lapdog, anyone that trusts the AFL is brain dead, oh wait I forgot who I was replying to.

On ya. I love reading your insightful contributions to Demonland.

[titan_uranus 22,631]

What a sad and pitiful situation. Clubs that stand up to the AFL get best service and best deals, those that don't they're invariably wiped by the AFL in some fashion. Whether that be by fixturing or some other aspect(s) of significance.

18 months ago this club was debt free and about to appoint an experienced coach. That's what they intended and expressed as such. What caused the backflip? Excited by a simple impressive presentation? A reference off Mick?

Mis-management.

Sometimes you've got to go with what you know, and our coach search committee f-ed up.

Particularly after G.Lyon being told by P.Roos at the time that it might be worth giving R.Lyon a call. Somehow that's being overlooked and hiding behind C.Kelly is all the rage.

We have 33,000 odd members, - 36,500 in better times and we can't manage to fulfil a board on our own.

It's the clubs and members that own the comp and revenue. Not the AFL, they are the body that administers it. And we as members of Melbourne - given many responses to this thread - are rolling over to the AFL. Why? Because we've f'ed up one too many times recently, our list is as low as the feeling and its time to put it in the too hard basket? Let the AFL appoint and replace everyone?

Two years ago, even one year ago you wouldn't have read such responses here. Tells me as much the fight in many is gone.

What exactly do you want, H_T?

Do you want the members to decide who the President will be? Or the other members of the Board? Do you want us to say no to the AFL? Would you rather we didn't ask the AFL in the first place?

[H_T 2,941]

Isn't it a case of changing strategy? We've tried appointing our own a lot. We've had some success doing so but it has been pretty compromised lately. After some years of failure, is it not smart to re-think how we find people for the club if the method we've used does not work?

Can't you still embrace a change in strategy by having a re-think and still have full control? Or is this just a case of the training wheels put on for the interim? I understand the AFL administering the game, but must it be they who rubber stamp "superseded" or "approved", why can't it be any of the incumbent? Ie. Freeman.

It's evident what is occurring given the letter from Fitzpatrick to Kennett.

[timD 994]

I think that the change in strategy I was talking about concerned the appointment of staff. For some time, the MFC have not appointed people on the basis of them being the best. Maybe we need someone else to do that - like a consultancy.

I'm very uncomfortable with a takeover but I'm conscious we've got it wrong a lot and I don't know how to do it right.