Disappointed to receive the Club email stating that the AGM next month will return to a its original formal nature devoid of nearly all of its recent Information Night aspects . Other than meeting the players and listening to a "brief football report" there's apparently not much else other than formalities . Just when many of us are regaining our enthusiasm , this is shaping as a public relations disaster .

Because it's obviously been working so well?

I don't go the AGM because I'm not too interested in hearing sugar coated statements or listening to members ask ridiculous questions.

I'd argue that unless you plan on changing something with the club by having some kind of influence then there's not a lot of benefit of getting worried about what they do or don't tell you.

Also what information do you want that hasn't been made available. Football wise there's not a lot that isn't public knowledge about where Roos is taking us. Off field it's Jackson doing the same

I think its a good idea. The club is in good hands atm and everyone needs to focus on football.

I think its a good idea. The club is in good hands atm and everyone needs to focus on football.

Which is all the more reason why the football information aspect of the evening is so important. A good balance between the administrative and football sides is what most people want. Very few have had the opportunity to hear Paul Roos' vision for the club in the future (apart from the brief grabs on the news) and most would prefer to ask him or our new recruiting manager questions than anything else even if balance sheets and bottom lines are also vitally important to the club.

Which is all the more reason why the football information aspect of the evening is so important. A good balance between the administrative and football sides is what most people want. Very few have had the opportunity to hear Paul Roos' vision for the club in the future (apart from the brief grabs on the news) and most would prefer to ask him or our new recruiting manager questions than anything else even if balance sheets and bottom lines are also vitally important to the club.

Sounds like Mushroom farming at work to me WJ

Disappointed to receive the Club email stating that the AGM next month will return to a its original formal nature devoid of nearly all of its recent Information Night aspects . Other than meeting the players and listening to a "brief football report" there's apparently not much else other than formalities . Just when many of us are regaining our enthusiasm , this is shaping as a public relations disaster .

lol

No it isn't. Unless by 'PR Disaster!' you mean about 20 Landers will complain on here...

Which is all the more reason why the football information aspect of the evening is so important. A good balance between the administrative and football sides is what most people want.

Agree Jack. I would be tending to not cut back on opportunities for engagement with supporters given the predicament we are seeking to put behind us.

I haven't been to an AGM for twenty years or so.....If I need to find out the financials, it will be reported in the media or the club web site the day after.......If I want to know how the players are going I get training reports here on Demonland or go to training myself....I don't need to attend to hear..."All the boys are training well and we hope to have a great season"

I don't need to attend to hear some disgruntled supporters asking some inane questions to which the clubs replies will never be satisfactory to them

I trust (maybe stupidly) in the Admin of the club and the football dept to be attempting to get this club out of the mire, and if I can help with membership or donation then I will happily.

The AGM's that I have attended were boring and political but I understand that all clubs need to have them....

Attaching football content to the AGM was a great way of getting people to attend. Taking the footy content from the AGM is a great way of getting people to stay away.

The AGM covers a pretty awful period of our history. Tanking penalties, AFL bailouts, CEO/coach/President changes, massive financial losses and dreadful on field performances. Some nasty questions could be asked.

I wonder why they want it kept low key............

I'm fully behind the changes that have occurred but I must say it still pizzes me off that three directors who presided over a shocking period of our history where the Board were front and centre in its cause are still there. I'd like to see them do the proper thing and resign. How they can look the membership in the eye is beyond me.

Yes, good tactic to keep crowds away by lowering footy content.

Either way, I don't care much.

Have not yet attended an AGM and don't intend to anytime soon, barring exceptional circumstances.

What is the point?

I can get the same info by staying at home, and I don't have to suffer the frustration of textbook deflection of the tough questions, if they even get asked.

And to what end?

Attaching football content to the AGM was a great way of getting people to attend. Taking the footy content from the AGM is a great way of getting people to stay away.

The AGM covers a pretty awful period of our history. Tanking penalties, AFL bailouts, CEO/coach/President changes, massive financial losses and dreadful on field performances. Some nasty questions could be asked.

I wonder why they want it kept low key............

I'm fully behind the changes that have occurred but I must say it still pizzes me off that three directors who presided over a shocking period of our history where the Board were front and centre in its cause are still there. I'd like to see them do the proper thing and resign. How they can look the membership in the eye is beyond me.

You know, at some point the bloodshed has to end.

At some point, people have to get over Gardner's perceived failures, Szondy's perceived ineptitude, Gutnick's perceived conspiratorial nature, Ridley's perceived treacherousness, and anything else people have issues with pre 1996...

I liked the fact that three of Gardner's board hung around when Stynes took over, and I have no problem with keeping a few of the old Board around if they, and their compeers, believe they can contribute.

Changes have been made, personnel has improved, relationships have been restored, and faith renewed - do we not agree?

If we do, then any more desires of people to leave based on the guilt of presence or association, is a tad petty.

If we do, then any more desires of people to leave based on the guilt of presence or association, is a tad petty.

Based on incompetence.

If we do, then any more desires of people to leave based on the guilt of presence or association, is a tad petty.

It's no biggie for me. I reckon if you've got a good CEO then the Board are a lot less important. But we called coaches, CEO's, players and others to account when they don't do a good job. Why should those three be any different? And the job they did was less than ordinary.

It still looks like there is a pre-season update and introduction of new players so there may still be some footy content, but obviously it appears to be greatly reduced from previous years.

I don't think reducing the footy content is a great idea.

Other than the fact that it is a good opportunity to hear directly from the club after the off-season period and to catch up with other loyal supporters - and given what this club has served up to its fans over the last seven years it is really the least that can be done - at the very heart of the business of the club is football. It's why the club exists and why there are 30 odd thousand members. It is not something that should be ignored.

That being said, I have felt that the last couple of years the 'footy content' part of the night has been a massive disappointment.

Mark Neeld in his addresses gave no insight into what had been happening at the club during the off-season or plans for the season ahead, while the introduction of new recruits and interviews with the players (can't remember exactly who conducted this part) were nothing more than a bunch of inane questions that a primary school student could have thought up. It was a far cry from the members information nights of the 2000s when Neale Daniher went into great detail about the list and his plans and where he saw the side currently and where he wanted it to go. I found those sessions particularly interesting but recently it has been much more underwhelming.

I've felt that about the footy content of most club functions for years.

I've paid money to go to breakfasts and lunches, where I've heard no more than a standard presser.

I have come to expect a lot less than it seems others do.

I'm not a Foundation Member but a mate of mine is and I recall that at one of the dinners he said they had a presentation from Todd Viney in which Todd showed them how the FD were benchmarking each of our players against the best in the AFL in their various positions. It looked at various player attributes - marking, kicking etc etc and scored each attribute. This then indicated what areas each player needed to concentrate on to improve.

It was the sort of stuff I would have found very interesting because it provided information on so many levels. My mate is a footy fanatic and a knowledgeable one who has been involved in footy clubs for a long time. He knows his shyte. His comment?

Boring - lost the audience - too much detail.

My point is that one size doesn't fit all. I complained about the Commencement Dinner in 2012 that there was no footy content and it was mainly a historical look at our past. There was no indication from the FD speakers about what we should expect. Naturally I was shouted down on this site but I do agree with Scoop that it would be nice for some presentation from the FD at some stage for members who have an interest beyond "and here is Christian Salem. What school did you go to Christian?"

People criticize Neale Daniher for his "clock" but few said his presentations weren't interesting.

I was under the impression all of the previous board had been replaced.

But 3 survive still.

Must be the luckiest humans on the planet to survive that train wreck.

Amazing.

Some of the rubbish posted in this topic really sums up some posters..........it's quite easy.............. DON'T GO to the AGM

I have been to the last 5, don't have a problem with whatever content is presented

Because it's obviously been working so well?

I don't go the AGM because I'm not too interested in hearing sugar coated statements or listening to members ask ridiculous questions.

I'd argue that unless you plan on changing something with the club by having some kind of influence then there's not a lot of benefit of getting worried about what they do or don't tell you.

Also what information do you want that hasn't been made available. Football wise there's not a lot that isn't public knowledge about where Roos is taking us. Off field it's Jackson doing the same

So you must be psychic then to know what transpires?

I am so looking forward on here to a few years time when we again win the Premiership, there is bound to be a complaint that the captain and the coach didn't hold the trophy correctly on the podium...........sheeesssshhhhh

Edited January 22, 201411 yr by Satyriconhome

Based on incompetence.

That would be the guilt by association...

It's no biggie for me. I reckon if you've got a good CEO then the Board are a lot less important. But we called coaches, CEO's, players and others to account when they don't do a good job. Why should those three be any different? And the job they did was less than ordinary.

Holding a body of individuals to account does not mean they all must make way. We have found that moving on a head coach, two line coaches, two assistant line coaches, a CEO, and 3 Board members is enough for a renewal of some substance.

Why must we damn Rawlings, Nichol, Mahoney, Taylor, O'Donnell, Viney, Lamb, Howcroft, Trotter, and Spargo for having the temerity to want to, and be allowed to, stick around to help their club?

It's no biggie for me. I reckon if you've got a good CEO then the Board are a lot less important. But we called coaches, CEO's, players and others to account when they don't do a good job. Why should those three be any different? And the job they did was less than ordinary.

We don't really know what those who remain on the Board from the older ticket have contributed. The logic of saying all must go because the Board performed poorly is as logical as saying Nathan Jones should be delisted because the footy team has performed dreadfully since he joined the club.

.. don't have a problem with whatever content is presented

That would be the guilt by association...

Holding a body of individuals to account does not mean they all must make way. We have found that moving on a head coach, two line coaches, two assistant line coaches, a CEO, and 3 Board members is enough for a renewal of some substance.

Why must we damn Rawlings, Nichol, Mahoney, Taylor, O'Donnell, Viney, Lamb, Howcroft, Trotter, and Spargo for having the temerity to want to, and be allowed to, stick around to help their club?

No it would be incompetence, association would be if I blamed anyone that hung around with board members. These guys weren't associated they were and still are board members.

Edited January 22, 201411 yr by rjay

.. don't have a problem with whatever content is presented

Meaning I don't have a problem with what is presented, but I may have with the information contained in the content, and I am one of the members who usually asks a ridiculous question......that the master receives telepathically

I won't be able to attend but if like to know whether we've been able to raise the $450k needed so the AFL can match it - unless it's been mentioned and I've missed it?

I'm pretty sure that's already happened.

Can't remember where I saw Peter Jackson say it.