25 minutes ago, Mika98_99 said:

• 100 people have approached to join the Board in his time - it does not appear that any of which have ever made it on the Board. Made a comment during the Q&A segment that a person can join sub-committees/working groups so the President can see if he can work with them and vice versa. Sounded like he was on a bit of a power trip at this stage. 

Thanks for the excellent summary.

So he wants to vet potential Board candidates.  mfc isn't his private law practice.  It is our club and he can't run it like a fiefdom.

The more info that is coming out about the Board election and the AGM the more concerned I am about Bartlett's appropriateness for the role and therefore the direction of our beloved football club.

 

As an aside he needs to tell members why it is so critical we are in the MCG precinct.  I'm not advocating a move to Casey.  But there are other options within 5km of the MCG.  Other MCG tenant clubs not located in the precinct do very well.  I think his obsession to be located there is part of the 'power trip' you refer to.  And will cost us with funding, members etc etc.

Kennett had the right idea when he introduced fixed term for club Presidents.  Stand down, give someone else a go and then stand for election at the end of that person's term.

As it is Bartlett has achieved precious little in 8 years and I don't call giving up Leighoak revenue an achievement.

 

30 minutes ago, Mika98_99 said:

Observations from last night:

• President is keen for people to get in touch with him or other board members to express interest to join working groups/sub-committees. Said that 2-3 working groups would be formed in addition to the 5 sub-committees, but did not indicate what they would be. Assume this has only come about as a result of Peter Lawrence's challenge and wanting to project inclusiveness.
• Flagged changes to the club's constitution to make it contemporary and meet club requirements. Referenced that the constitution requires a postal vote for an election and would look to change to make it electronic. Any changes will need to come back to the members.
• Q&A section was pre-selected question unlike the standard AGM with open questions from the floor. 

Thanks for the snapshot Mika.

Its apparent to me from what I have read from fellow posters that what was dished up last night symbolizes an administration  that is in a real funk and bereft of ideas.. Am I reading correctly that the only tangible notion put forward was the  consideration of adding more sub-committes? Good grief! 

3 hours ago, deevotee said:

As a supporter group, I believe we are not alone in the often stated dissatisfaction with the President's performance or lack of results. The discussions we are having in this forum are so important. The consensus may continue to build that the off-field inertia is remedied by Bartlett stepping aside. This solution is immediately facing the next issue of who on the Board should step up? 

Nobody steps up. 

Put in a 'Committee of Administration' like shareholder's or banks do with companies or governments do when the incumbents are incompetent or lacked achievements over an extended period; this has happened to a number of Local Government Councils.

Bartlett has had 8 years with little to show for it.  And for mine too many mis-steps.  8 years is long enough to make some sort of positive impact.  He hasn't

If what you say about including MCC affiliates in our member numbers is correct it is very concerning.  Not so much that they are included but if the club has changed the basis of counting members it should be disclosed otherwise it is deceptive.

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero
Added the word 'changed' to for the sentence to make sense

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Nobody steps up. 

Put in a 'Committee of Administration' like shareholder's or banks do with companies or governments do when the incumbents are incompetent or lacked achievements over an extended period; this has happened to a number of Local Government Councils.

Bartlett has had 8 years with little to show for it.  And for mine too many mis-steps.  8 years is long enough to make some sort of positive impact.  He hasn't

If what you about including MCC affiliates in our member numbers it is very concerning.  Not so much that they are included but if the club has the basis of counting members it should be disclosed otherwise it is deceptive.

No positive impact?

First preliminary final in 15+ years. 
Brand correctly re-aligned after CS debacle.

Financials in best shape for decades. Debt free. 
Increased attendance, sponsorship, revenue.

What were you expecting exactly? The progress on the home base is slow but I agree with GB that we should not rush our home base which will be a 100+ year home. 

9 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

No positive impact?

First preliminary final in 15+ years.  Two years later the club said we overachieved!

Brand correctly re-aligned after CS debacle. What does that even mean?

Financials in best shape for decades. Debt free.   At what cost?  We sold off a valuable asset (Leighoak) and gave up an on-going annual revenue stream.

Increased attendance, sponsorship, revenue.  Increased off an exceptionally low base and there was one really good year that has not been sustained.  I would contend that much of those achievements were by Peter Jackson.  We have gone backwards since he left at the end of 2018, our one good year.

What were you expecting exactly? The progress on the home base is slow but I agree with GB that we should not rush our home base which will be a 100+ year home.   I don't mind not rushing it but it seems the President is wedded to only one option.  At the time of PJ's departure there were 3-4 viable options on the table.  I would like to hear what they were and why we must be in the 'MCG Precinct'.  It is Board ego or other genuine club interests driving the location?

See my comments in the body of your post.

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

LH even thought I don’t agree with the MFC wanting to be close to the G I can understand their position.

The question I have is it realistic ? 
I guess as a doubter I could be proved wrong any day but my personal desire is for the FD to have the best facilities to enable them to achieve their best on field results.

Where that facility is I do not care, now that probably puts me in the minority. 
I would like to see it take place at the earliest date and before I leave this earth but ever year that passes makes that harder to imagine. 
Can the MFC please do two things in the next couple of years.

Get the bloody facility under way and play finals regularly.

If those are not achieved this administration will join the honour board of administrations we have endured over the last 56 years.

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by old dee

5 hours ago, deevotee said:

Regarding the Clubs membership and on the topic of waffle, Pert through in two half sentences a couple of numbers related to MCC members nominating the MFC affiliation. I got the impression that a small donation is made to our club as a result. Does anyone know this detail.

Critically, he dropped the number of MCC members in this sentence of 12,000. I'll stop the waffle! The Financials say the Melbourne membership dropped from 50,000 to 40,000 over 2020 and Covid. I now believe our Club is counting MCC affiliates and our true membership is around 28,000.

Repeat, I believe the MFC membership is currently 28,000.  We are being treated like mushrooms.

 

46 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

If what you say about including MCC affiliates in our member numbers is correct it is very concerning.  Not so much that they are included but if the club has the basis of counting members it should be disclosed otherwise it is deceptive.

What is counted in the membership is MCC members who are also MFC members. And so they should be. I think you will find that out of the 20k?? MCC members who affiliates themselves with supporting MFC there are 12K who are MFC financial members.

25 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

No positive impact?

First preliminary final in 15+ years. 
Brand correctly re-aligned after CS debacle.

Financials in best shape for decades. Debt free. 
Increased attendance, sponsorship, revenue.

What were you expecting exactly? The progress on the home base is slow but I agree with GB that we should not rush our home base which will be a 100+ year home. 

All of those things are important Dannyz.  But other than 2018 we have continued the tradition of being irrelevant to the competition. As Peter Jackson said the reason for our existence is to win games of football. In the final analysis we have again failed the main reason we exist. 

It was like the information night all over again in one important area.

Our coach appeared for 1 minute and looked like he was forced to appear.

I hope is more motivating to the team but last night he looked like he was on death row. 

4 hours ago, Travis Boots said:

Not wanting to defend him or anything but i “think” this may all tie in with an annoucement on Goschs Paddock becoming an exclusive training/administration facility for the round ball code 

4 hours ago, old dee said:

That would leave us up that famous creek. 

On the contrary.  IF this is true it means the current area being used by Victory ( 2 or 3 soccer fields alongside Olympic boulevard) becomes available.  If the rugby pitch used by Rebels is included it opens up a huge area for development. 

Is it true, is it possible?

However, I'm also getting tired of the "it's under discussion" line.  Bartlett has been on the board for 7 years.  To be commenced  by 2023 means all the planning and design has to be completed within the next 12 months. 

If a definitive plan/design is not available by the next AGM, out will go this Board and we finish up where we have been for the past 60 years...homeless!!

 

6 minutes ago, old dee said:

All of those things are important Dannyz.  But other than 2018 we have continued the tradition of being irrelevant to the competition. As Peter Jackson said the reason for our existence is to win games of football. In the final analysis we have again failed the main reason we exist. 

I understand but he who presides over the board can only do so much to impact on field performance. 

His governance has overseen significant improvements to the FD. 

1 hour ago, Dannyz said:

No positive impact?

First preliminary final in 15+ years. 
Brand correctly re-aligned after CS debacle.

Financials in best shape for decades. Debt free. 
Increased attendance, sponsorship, revenue.

What were you expecting exactly? The progress on the home base is slow but I agree with GB that we should not rush our home base which will be a 100+ year home. 

I would say he is riding on Jackson's coat tails here...and that falling out has cost us.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

See my comments in the body of your post.

Leighoaks is a pokies joint LH. I’m not sorry that people now realise its unethical to be profiting from gambling. And anyways, if we hadn’t sold it we’d be borrowing from AFL HQ to keep us afloat. I don’t ever want to be beholden to HQ.

It’s been raised elsewhere but this idea that we should be developing alternative revenue streams is a furphy. We’re a football club and that’s where 100% of our focus should be. Winning premierships attracts sponsors, members and bigger game day crowds. On field success will drive our financial success and stability. If we happened to be involved in a sector thats been badly hit by covid such as hospitality we’d be tipping member money into those enterprises to keep them afloat. What a waste that would be.

I’m not sure what was so compelling about the MGC precinct compared to other sites. I’m certainly not wedded to it. Peter Jackson was very adamant as well so it wasn’t just Bartlett in favor.

There’s only one off-field KPI that matters as far as this board is concerned. Deliver a home base. If concrete plans aren’t in place by the next AGM then Bartlett will have to go.

8 hours ago, RigidMiddleDigit said:

I would be interested to know Bartlett's actual words when he appeared to put the new home back on the state government. There's nothing from him and Pert on the official website. Does anyone have the full quote? 

 

The board and Pert have been played like a harp by the state govt for years on end. We need some actually smart business operators who can negotiate this crucial need and deliver. 

Not a smug clown like Pert who is incapable of operating a computer. 

5 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I was basically supportive of the Board until I learned the lengths they went to to stop a fair election.  Their approach to others offering their candidacy was plainly hostile which is not the way it should be and seeds distrust from members.

 

Can you explain, since I am feeling like Sergeant Schulz on this topic?

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by RigidMiddleDigit

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

How does the MFC get Fed Funding?

That is the Crux of all this

Become a marginal electorate

20 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Become a marginal electorate

The MFC is viewed as a club of silver tails. So expect way less support than a St Kilda or Footscray. 

17 minutes ago, old dee said:

The MFC is viewed as a club of silver tails. So expect way less support than a St Kilda or Footscray. 

By whom?

To be frank Old Dee, I believe that to be somewhat of a myth. 

Along with a home base, what the club needs more than anything else is members.

1 hour ago, Grimes Times said:

 

What is counted in the membership is MCC members who are also MFC members. And so they should be. I think you will find that out of the 20k?? MCC members who affiliates themselves with supporting MFC there are 12K who are MFC financial members.

The official financial membership of our Melbourne Football Club of those who are eligible to vote is a fundamental right to know.

And we don't!

We also don't know how many of those members voted in the Directors ballot.

We also don't know the number of votes received by each of the candidates and that is also a fundamental right to know.

To withhold that information leaves me, and I believe all of us, unable to determine if the dis-endorsed candidate received more votes as an individual than the box trifecta put forward by the President.

Can the Club please enlighten its members ?

9 minutes ago, Commissioner Dreyfus said:

what the club needs more than anything else is members.

besides a home base what this club needs more than anything else is premierships or at least some sustained finals appearances. Increased membership and financial stability are all ultimately dependent on what happens on the field

Do you believe that as members eligible to vote, that you were given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the AGM?

Participation in this respect is the opportunity to vote in a fair and open ballot.

 

1. The interactive Q+A chat function was deactivated

2. The set piece questions were preferentially selected or not answered

3. Claims the election process was not fair or open were further enforced by the withholding of voting data.

 

 

1 hour ago, Better days ahead said:

Leighoaks is a pokies joint LH. I’m not sorry that people now realise its unethical to be profiting from gambling. And anyways, if we hadn’t sold it we’d be borrowing from AFL HQ to keep us afloat. I don’t ever want to be beholden to HQ.

It’s been raised elsewhere but this idea that we should be developing alternative revenue streams is a furphy. We’re a football club and that’s where 100% of our focus should be. Winning premierships attracts sponsors, members and bigger game day crowds. On field success will drive our financial success and stability. If we happened to be involved in a sector thats been badly hit by covid such as hospitality we’d be tipping member money into those enterprises to keep them afloat. What a waste that would be.

I’m not sure what was so compelling about the MGC precinct compared to other sites. I’m certainly not wedded to it. Peter Jackson was very adamant as well so it wasn’t just Bartlett in favor.

There’s only one off-field KPI that matters as far as this board is concerned. Deliver a home base. If concrete plans aren’t in place by the next AGM then Bartlett will have to go.

BDA : I have no issue with the relinquishment of an insidious revenue source of income from gambling. 

But it is no furphy raising alternative revenue streams when the equivalent to the forgone gambling income, based on the year before Covid is in the order of $200 for each financial voting member each year.     That is not going to happen.  So where is the alternative revenue stream ?   Any ideas welcome. The Board has had none so far.

7 hours ago, deevotee said:

Love it Rab !

I couldn't stop thinking of the Flying Nun.

Whatever, not a good look for a Chairman.  Ooops  I mean SNAG El Presidenteee

He's looking more like Sir Les Patterson by the day. 

52 minutes ago, Commissioner Dreyfus said:

By whom?

To be frank Old Dee, I believe that to be somewhat of a myth. 

Along with a home base, what the club needs more than anything else is members.

Myth or not CD that is how we are viewed like it or not. I have numerous Pies,  Tigers and Bomber member friends,  they all call toffs from the MCC. The  MFC is viewed as an off shoot of the MCC we have had numerous Liberal party members / leaders as board members and Office holders over the years. A number of X players have been liberal members of parliament in Vic and TAS. Our members are predominately conservative. A Labour government would know there is hardly any votes in the MFC. 

 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

The MFC is viewed as a club of silver tails. So expect way less support than a St Kilda or Footscray. 

Irrelevent in today’s market OD