12 hours ago, rjay said:

 

Dear Donald had to be moved on kicking a screaming.

 

He aint moved on. And he won't. Physically yes, but not mentally. 

Edited February 16, 20214 yr by binman

10 minutes ago, binman said:

He aint moved on.

Let's not jump onto this one 'bin'...but I mostly agree.

Maybe my wording should have been moved out.

I think what '@Baghdad Bob' had to say in a previous post is more relevant to the topic at hand.

Just now, rjay said:

Let's not jump onto this one 'bin'...but I mostly agree.

Maybe my wording should have been moved out.

However, I think what '@Baghdad Bob' had to say in a previous post is more relevant to the topic at hand.

 

37 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.

 

 

36 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.

 

Interesting Bob.

Havent heard from old mate Hazy Shade of Grinter for a while. These are the threads he used to pop up in, wonder who he was and what happened to him!?

.

Edited February 16, 20214 yr by rjay

38 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.

 

Interesting food for thought. I notice, though, that you made no comment about Peter Lawrence's candidacy even though you worked with him. Should we draw any conclusions from that omission?

1 hour 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.

I went to Junction Oval a couple of times when i was down in Melb, but you couldn't really call it a home like the Lexus center, Waverley, Princess Park, Whitten Oval, Moorabin etc.

Homeless since 1858.

It's very frustrating seeing all these other clubs getting grants and what not and we end up with f all.

We've waited this long for a club house facility the board better hold out and get exactly what this club needs and wants.

35 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.

 

Thanks Baghdad Bob for providing this additional information on the process. During the election process it did seem strange that the independent candidate did not have a platform so members could hear from him outside of the election material and so now that clears the matter up.

It raises the question, what was it that the Board became so worried about that they needed to change the election rules after the process had started? 

Based on last night's announcement that the endorsed candidates had been successful, I wonder if we will actually be told how the voting went for each candidate? Presumably if the endorsed candidates did very well, the Board would want this message to get out to send a clear message. 

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Interesting food for thought. I notice, though, that you made no comment about Peter Lawrence's candidacy even though you worked with him. Should we draw any conclusions from that omission?

My thoughts on Peter are posted earlier in this thread.  But these are my personal views.  What happened in the election is just wrong, that's the issue.

1 hour 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.

I'd take a glass of milk as long as its served out of a MFC purpose-built complex with exceptional club house facilities no soup.?

3 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

My thoughts on Peter are posted earlier in this thread.  But these are my personal views.  What happened in the election is just wrong, that's the issue.

I'm conscious that your main issue is the process.

However, your views of Peter Lawrence can't be found in this thread. Are they somewhere else or has the deep state now sanitised this thread? 

1 minute ago, Win4theAges said:

I'd take a glass of milk as long as its served out of a MFC purpose-built complex with exceptional club house facilities no soup.?

I will take good complex for player training. Stop. The rest is not important. Happy to bring my own chair to sit and watch them train and I don't care where it is.

54 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.

 

 

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

I will take good complex for player training. Stop. The rest is not important. Happy to bring my own chair to sit and watch them train and I don't care where it is.

Do you want the club to make money Old Dee? Walk in and buy Merch without going to the G on a gameday, have a meal, orange juice, see the club memorabilia on the walls, trophies in the cabinet in a complex of our own.

It is important Old Dee.

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm conscious that your main issue is the process.

However, your views of Peter Lawrence can't be found in this thread. Are they somewhere else or has the deep state now sanitised this thread? 

Apologies.  They were in the other Election thread.

 

 

2 hours ago, Win4theAges said:

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

Do any other clubs offer these four features?

28 minutes ago, Win4theAges said:

Do you want the club to make money Old Dee? Walk in and buy Merch without going to the G on a gameday, have a meal, orange juice, see the club memorabilia on the walls, trophies in the cabinet in a complex of our own.

It is important Old Dee.

I remain unconvinced that the club would make money from a social club. 

59 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

Absolutely spot on.A friend of mine sent a text to P L making the same point.Peter got back to him after the voting finished and said he would like to talk to my mate Dave.He is happy to talk and I might invite myself along!

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

I voted for Lawrence.

Don’t like getting told who to vote for.

Particularly when we have had no success.

Edited February 16, 20214 yr by Super Demon

Congratulations Brad Green welcome back former skipper and one of my favourites after that game against Carlton all those years ago.!!!!!!!

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I remain unconvinced that the club would make money from a social club. 

Agreed. There is only one way to do it. 
The Players Meals area/kitchen becomes a Members Cafe/Bar before and after games

 

1 hour 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.

 

Thanks for the insight BB. I have no inside info with regards to the MFC board, but I do know that it isn't particularly applauded within the walls of the MCC boardroom. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

3 minutes ago, A F said:

Thanks for the insight BB. I have no inside info with regards to the MFC board, but I do know that it isn't particularly applauded within the walls of the MCC boardroom. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

can you expand on why "it isn't particularly applauded within the walls of the MCC boardroom"?

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

can you expand on why "it isn't particularly applauded within the walls of the MCC boardroom"?

I've noted this before, but we're viewed as grovelers that just take our grant from the MCC Foundation and toddle off. There isn't a great sense of trying to work too closely with the MCC. Maybe that's fine, but that's what I've heard. I also can't speak for the entire board, but the sentiment is certainly within the board room.