"The Melbourne Football Club confirms that members have elected to appoint the four board endorsed candidates to the Board. 

Mohan Jesudason and Steven Morris have been re-elected to the Board, and Brad Green and David Rennick have been elected for their first term."

7 minutes ago, Demonland said:

"The Melbourne Football Club confirms that members have elected to appoint the four board endorsed candidates to the Board. 

Mohan Jesudason and Steven Morris have been re-elected to the Board, and Brad Green and David Rennick have been elected for their first term."

I'm a bit disappointed in this result...but we move on.

Congrats to Brad Green  for being elected on the board. An ex captain of our great club and a good all round person. Will be an asset to the board with his football background.

Edited February 15, 20214 yr by nosoupforme

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

I'm a bit disappointed in this result...but we move on.

Why’s that? Having a United board is very important for the stability of the footy club.

I wonder if they used dominion vote counting machines 

6 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Why’s that? Having a United board is very important for the stability of the footy club.

Like the Football Department it was time to get another view...

It's unhealthy to keep with the status quo for too long, particlulary when we don't have results to show.

I don't think having one new board member that hasn't been hand selected by the board would lead to instability unless they had something to hide.

Good news stability is what we need and we got it.

Find us a home.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I'm a bit disappointed in this result...but we move on.

Plus 1.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Like the Football Department it was time to get another view...

It's unhealthy to keep with the status quo for too long, particlulary when we don't have results to show.

I don't think having one new board member that hasn't been hand selected by the board would lead to instability unless they had something to hide.

Wow, that is some serious Trumpism there. So are we trying to cover up serious matters like a poor culture towards ethnic minorities? Let's storm the MCG and make it known we are as big a group of redneck idiots. While I wasn't against the independent candidate I also thought the timing was wrong. A stable Board that are on the same page with some fresh faces is what I hoped for. Anyone who thinks that Brad Green doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart is a moron. Whether the Board makes the right decisions going forward will be a matter of debate however we have voted and now it is up to the PASSIONATE Red and Blue Board Members to deliver. If they don't we will get another opportunity to hold them accountable, but at the moment, as members, we must simply get behind them. GO DEES

 

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Like the Football Department it was time to get another view...

It's unhealthy to keep with the status quo for too long, particlulary when we don't have results to show.

I don't think having one new board member that hasn't been hand selected by the board would lead to instability unless they had something to hide.

Conversely I don’t think one new board member would have the significant influence you’re seemingly alluding to. 
What did the new guy have in terms of offering a ‘different view’?

47 minutes ago, dworship said:

Wow, that is some serious Trumpism there. So are we trying to cover up serious matters like a poor culture towards ethnic minorities? Let's storm the MCG and make it known we are as big a group of redneck idiots. While I wasn't against the independent candidate I also thought the timing was wrong. A stable Board that are on the same page with some fresh faces is what I hoped for. Anyone who thinks that Brad Green doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart is a moron. Whether the Board makes the right decisions going forward will be a matter of debate however we have voted and now it is up to the PASSIONATE Red and Blue Board Members to deliver. If they don't we will get another opportunity to hold them accountable, but at the moment, as members, we must simply get behind them. GO DEES

 

What a strange comment...and post by the way.

Talk about Trumpism...you've made some very odd accusations.

If you read my first post you would see that I said I was disappointed with the result but we move on.

Dear Donald had to be moved on kicking a screaming.

48 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Conversely I don’t think one new board member would have the significant influence you’re seemingly alluding to. 
What did the new guy have in terms of offering a ‘different view’?

Maybe not but it's always good to have a different set of eyes...I would have preferred that but it didn't fall the way I would have liked, no big deal, we move on.

I wasn't alluding to any significant influence by the way...

It would have been good to have another stable presence that wasn't hand picked by the current board.

12 hours ago, ding said:

Find us a home.

Oldest professional sporting club in the world and we still don't have a home of our own.

Where fellow dees can come and have a feed,beer and watch their team train.

f me.

13 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Why’s that? Having a United board is very important for the stability of the footy club.

In general that is true however if you are just maintaining the "old boys club" like the AFL Then it may not be the case.

The only major mistake I can see this board has made is renewing the coach's contract before a ball had been bounced in 2019.

11 hours ago, dworship said:

While I wasn't against the independent candidate I also thought the timing was wrong

I'm of the same view. Bartlett has made some bullish comments about the new home project so if there isn't substantial progress made in the next 12 months on this front i'll be advocating for a spill. 

As for the home, either get the MGC precinct project off the ground or except reality, stop wasting time and find a different location (Port Melbourne for mine)

 

3 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

I'm of the same view. Bartlett has made some bullish comments about the new home project so if there isn't substantial progress made in the next 12 months on this front i'll be advocating for a spill. 

As for the home, either get the MGC precinct project off the ground or except reality, stop wasting time and find a different location (Port Melbourne for mine)

 

When are you running Bda? you can count on my vote.

45 minutes ago, Win4theAges said:

Oldest professional sporting club in the world and we still don't have a home of our own.

Where fellow dees can come and have a feed, beer and watch their team train.

f me.

We did have a training ground at the junction oval in St Kilda for a number of years in  the mid 80s into the early 90s and the worst facilities. Shared with St Kilda cc.  On a Thursday at training from 5.00 pm onwards many supporters that turned up would  be able to meet up inside a reception area near the scoreboard city end with seats and tables Every now and again some ex footballers would come for a look. The front was all glass so you can watch the guys training. 

 There was food and drinks but l don't remember if they served alcohol.

Edited February 16, 20214 yr by nosoupforme

3 minutes ago, nosoupforme said:

We did have a training ground at the junction oval in St Kilda for a number of years in  the mid 80s into the early 90s and the worst facilities. Shared with St Kilda cc.  On a Thursday at training from 5.00 pm onwards many supporters that turned up would  be able to meet up inside a reception area near the scoreboard city end with seats and tables Every now and again some ex footballers would come for a look. The front was all glass so you can watch the guys training. 

 There was food and drinks but l don't remember if they served alcohol.

Yes it was the best option but the Government wanted to make it the home of cricket as well as us not having two cents to rub together to make it better.

Congratulations to Brad Green. 

11 hours ago, rjay said:

What a strange comment...and post by the way.

Talk about Trumpism...you've made some very odd accusations.

If you read my first post you would see that I said I was disappointed with the result but we move on.

Dear Donald had to be moved on kicking a screaming.

Maybe not but it's always good to have a different set of eyes...I would have preferred that but it didn't fall the way I would have liked, no big deal, we move on.

I wasn't alluding to any significant influence by the way...

It would have been good to have another stable presence that wasn't hand picked by the current board.

You have stirred up a bit of a hornets nest here rjay,but lets move on

11 minutes ago, old dee said:

Yes it was the best option but the Government wanted to make it the home of cricket as well as us not having two cents to rub together to make it better.

 

16 minutes ago, nosoupforme said:

We did have a training ground at the junction oval in St Kilda for a number of years in  the mid 80s into the early 90s and the worst facilities. Shared with St Kilda cc.  On a Thursday at training from 5.00 pm onwards many supporters that turned up would  be able to meet up inside a reception area near the scoreboard city end with seats and tables Every now and again some ex footballers would come for a look. The front was all glass so you can watch the guys training. 

 There was food and drinks but l don't remember if they served alcohol.

In the 90s, before they had big nets behind the goals, it was fun to retrieve the footys at the scoreboard end while the players were having goal kicking practice. Sort of kick-to-kick with the boys. Great fun.

14 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Good news stability is what we need and we got it.

We had stability with the Stynes and McLardy boards....

Stability is not an end in itself.

What we need are the best people in the right positions...

Hopefully we have that.

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

We had stability with the Stynes and McLardy boards....

Stability is not an end in itself.

What we need are the best people in the right positions...

Hopefully we have that.

Not so sure it was stable rjay it used to leek like a sieve which is usually a good indicator of people having different views.

 

Okay, here is what you need to know about the MFC Directors Election recently held.

The constitution of the Club gives the Board absolute discretion to determine how elections are run.

Board rules were established quite some time ago allowing electioneering so long as materials were cleared by the company secretary.  This would allow candidates to state their positions on issues to the membership giving the membership knowledge of candidates and their policies and an ability to make an informed choice.

However once Peter Lawrence announced he would run for election the Board issued new rules  declaring that there would be no electioneering and that candidates would be limited to 150 words outlining their qualifications and policy positions.

Any person who broke these rules would be disqualified from being a Director of the Club.

Subsequently in January all members received an email from Glen Bartlett, well in excess of 150 words, outlining his and the Club view on who should be elected.  Peter Lawrence was excluded.

When I contacted Peter Lawrence (who was the only candidate to supply an email and telephone number in his 150 word bio) to confirm he was the Peter Lawrence I once worked with I received the following reply:

“It is me. Hope you’re well.  Candidates are precluded from talking about the election- the only communication we can have with members is what is contained in the 150 word election statement. Regards Peter”

This situation raises many issues, not least why members were precluded from communicating with Directors, who represent us, to canvas their qualifications and policy positions.

This was not a fair and open election but one manipulated by the current Board to achieve their desired outcome.

I don’t know any of the current Board members other than one dinner with Brad Green who I voted for and think is an outstanding candidate. 

What I know is the Board has denied the members the opportunity to fairly evaluate candidates and have orchestrated a situation where only their chosen candidates had a realistic chance of success.  These actions by our Board do not sit with the principles of democracy and I for one now have reason to distrust them.

What are they hiding?

If any Board member reads this and wants to discuss it with me PM me with your mobile number and I’ll provide my identity and give you an opportunity to respond.

This behavior by the Board is utterly disgraceful and bitterly disappointing.

13 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Okay, here is what you need to know about the MFC Directors Election recently held.

 

The constitution of the Club gives the Board absolute discretion to determine how elections are run.

 

Board rules were established quite some time ago allowing electioneering so long as materials were cleared by the company secretary.  This would allow candidates to state their positions on issues to the membership giving the membership knowledge of candidates and their policies and an ability to make an informed choice.

 

However once Peter Lawrence announced he would run for election the Board issued new rules  declaring that there would be no electioneering and that candidates would be limited to 150 words outlining their qualifications and policy positions.

 

Any person who broke these rules would be disqualified from being a Director of the Club.

 

Subsequently in January all members received an email from Glen Bartlett, well in excess of 150 words, outlining his and the Club view on who should be elected.  Peter Lawrence was excluded.

 

When I contacted Peter Lawrence (who was the only candidate to supply an email and telephone number in his 150 word bio) to confirm he was the Peter Lawrence I once worked with I received the following reply:

 

“It is me. Hope you’re well.  Candidates are precluded from talking about the election- the only communication we can have with members is what is contained in the 150 word election statement. Regards Peter”

 

This situation raises many issues, not least why members were precluded from communicating with Directors, who represent us, to canvas their qualifications and policy positions.

 

This was not a fair and open election but one manipulated by the current Board to achieve their desired outcome.

 

I don’t know any of the current Board members other than one dinner with Brad Green who I voted for and think is an outstanding candidate. 

 

What I know is the Board has denied the members the opportunity to fairly evaluate candidates and have orchestrated a situation where only their chosen candidates had a realistic chance of success.  These actions by our Board do not sit with the principles of democracy and I for one now have reason to distrust them.

 

What are they hiding?

 

If any Board member reads this and wants to discuss it with me PM me with your mobile number and I’ll provide my identity and give you an opportunity to respond.

 

This behavior by the Board is utterly disgraceful and bitterly disappointing.

 

I’m not saying its right but its not unusual for an incumbent board to run a process like this.

Now that the election has passed do you intend to contact Peter again to get some more background details and whether he intends to form a ticket for a proper challenge next year. If he wants another run he needs to start getting his message out now.