Jump to content

Constitutional review

old dee
old dee
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Posted

Today I received an email from the club telling me the first stage of the review had been completed and I could give my view on the proposed changes etc. Sadly the email does not connect to the changes as advised. Has any one else had this email and does it work? 

  • Quote
    •  
     
    13 minutes ago, old dee said:

    Today I received an email from the club telling me the first stage of the review had been completed and I could give my view on the proposed changes etc. Sadly the email does not connect to the changes as advised. Has any one else had this email and does it work? 

    maybe try a different browser?  eg Chrome instead of internet explorer if youre using that

     

    (or turn it off and back on again  😁)

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    7 minutes ago, old dee said:

    Hmm.

    It took me to a MFC login page (Ticketmaster?) entered my email and my pwd and then away it went.....

  • Quote

    Yes I received it and took part in the survey.

    I encourage everyone who has even a remote interest in these sorts of things to do this.

    There was significant debate on here during the recent Board election about a host of issues that this survey addresses, such as the tenure of directors, the way in which elections take place, and the role of sub-committees at the club.

    Now is your chance to be involved in the club's future.

  • Quote
    • Like 5

    Good review & generally excellent recommendations.  My only comment was that re The Board & Club operations I was less interested in diversity & more interested in the skills & competence of those involved.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 2
    • Haha 1
     

    I agreed with most of the amendments they proposed. The key things I commented on were

    - unsure about limiting tenure to 9 years as it may mean good operators are lost too early

    - queried whether the 9 year term limits was only for consecutive years/terms - ie can someone serve 9 years leave and then come back for another 9 years - or if someone serves one 3 year term can they only come back at a later time for a further 6 years?

    - would like to see something in the Constitution enshrining a senior indigenous role at the club either on the board or in the FD (similar to Matty Whelan's role)

    - would like to see something included around acknowledgment of indigenous culture/owners in the "inclusivity" section

    - would like to see the Constitution enshrine something regarding the MCG and surrounding area as our spiritual home not just our home ground. It is our home, the other clubs are only tenants (they may have done this but it wasn't clear)

    - queried whether the amendments related to gaming would limit our revenue options in future (I assume not but wasn't sure what these amendments were specifically in relation to)

     

    I'd be interested in any comments others may have included.

  • Quote
    • Like 5

    I had a problem with Q7 regarding Committee members, Tenure, Nominations Sub-Committee

    The summary only gave the gist of changes proposed without any substance 

    Generally the gist seems pretty positive in what is mentioned, but I feel there is a lot not mentioned, and concerned about intentions and powers of a Nominations Sub-committee and limitations on nominations - It's already a pretty closed shop and would hate it to become moreso under constitutional amendments

    Otherwise good

    Interested to hear thoughts on gender driven language changes and whether they are meaningful or just woke virtue signalling?

     

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    1 hour ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

    I had a problem with Q7 regarding Committee members, Tenure, Nominations Sub-Committee

    The summary only gave the gist of changes proposed without any substance 

    Generally the gist seems pretty positive in what is mentioned, but I feel there is a lot not mentioned, and concerned about intentions and powers of a Nominations Sub-committee and limitations on nominations - It's already a pretty closed shop and would hate it to become moreso under constitutional amendments

    Otherwise good

    Interested to hear thoughts on gender driven language changes and whether they are meaningful or just woke virtue signalling?

     

    I don't see any issue with changing the term Chairman to President. I mean our current President is a woman so would be pretty silly to call her a Chairman.

    I typically don't refer to things as woke or virtue signalling either but I cant really see that changing the language would be an issue.

    Edited by Dr. Gonzo

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Author

    Well finally got to my PC and everything worked well.

    On phone and iPad it would not show the bottom tab to get into the survey.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

    I don't see any issue with changing the term Chairman to President. I mean our current President is a woman so would be pretty silly to call her a Chairman.

    I typically don't refer to things as woke or virtue signalling either but I cant really see that changing the language would be an issue.

    I'm ambivalent about Chairman v President language 

    What about specifically mentioning AFLW team? Does the constitution already specifically mention a men's team? I doubt it, so is there a need to call out a women's team? Or both? Or none? MFC has been a pioneer of AFLW without the constitution needing to change... so why now?

    I like the call out of MFC being cornerstone of the competition and home at MCG, that's core to the club.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 1
    Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

    I'm ambivalent about Chairman v President language 

    What about specifically mentioning AFLW team? Does the constitution already specifically mention a men's team? I doubt it, so is there a need to call out a women's team? Or both? Or none? MFC has been a pioneer of AFLW without the constitution needing to change... so why now?

    I like the call out of MFC being cornerstone of the competition and home at MCG, that's core to the club.

    Depends how it's phrased I guess - I agree we are the Melbourne Football Club and that encompasses both AFL and AFLW teams so probably unnecessary to specifically refer to that. But I don't really have an issue with it.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Constitution looks fine

    It's the second amendment I've got a problem with

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1
    • Haha 3

    12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    Constitution looks fine

    It's the second amendment I've got a problem with

    Well said!

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    11 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    Constitution looks fine

    It's the second amendment I've got a problem with

    Yes, please bring American politics into a thread about the Melbourne Football Club constitution, because that's what we all really want to talk about.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    I haven't received an such email. For those who got it, did it say all members were being asked or a random group of which you happened to be chosen?

    I believe it was sent to all members but I note that in my email that I have an option where I can choose to unsubscribe from the mailing list.  Maybe that could be the problem?

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1
    On 5/25/2022 at 9:38 PM, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

    I'm ambivalent about Chairman v President language 

    What about specifically mentioning AFLW team? Does the constitution already specifically mention a men's team? I doubt it, so is there a need to call out a women's team? Or both? Or none? MFC has been a pioneer of AFLW without the constitution needing to change... so why now?

    I like the call out of MFC being cornerstone of the competition and home at MCG, that's core to the club.

    The constitution currently specifically mentions the AFL competition "and any other competition the directors choose to nominate for".

    So changing to the "men's and women's AFL competitions" means that the teams are equal in the eyes of our constitutional purpose.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    A lot of "motherhood" type changes proposed, without any real substance attached.

    Directors terms 3x3 years?  Great idea.  But given the number of current directors pushing this limit, from when will it apply?  What are the "special circumstances" which would allow longer? Who determines the "special circumstances"

    Nominations committee.  Again great idea.  Who determines who sits on the committee?  Current board members?  Needs to be completely independant and external and provide reasons for approvals or otherwise. Danger of "jobs for the boys.."

    Investment Committee.  Same again.  Who decides who sits on it.  Plenty of people think they are brilliant investors, few in reality.  Is it independant of current Board? 

    The Devil in the detail is yet to be found out.  Let's see if we are getting REAL change, and not just window dressing.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    51 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

    A lot of "motherhood" type changes proposed, without any real substance attached.

    Directors terms 3x3 years?  Great idea.  But given the number of current directors pushing this limit, from when will it apply?  What are the "special circumstances" which would allow longer? Who determines the "special circumstances"

    Nominations committee.  Again great idea.  Who determines who sits on the committee?  Current board members?  Needs to be completely independant and external and provide reasons for approvals or otherwise. Danger of "jobs for the boys.."

    Investment Committee.  Same again.  Who decides who sits on it.  Plenty of people think they are brilliant investors, few in reality.  Is it independant of current Board? 

    The Devil in the detail is yet to be found out.  Let's see if we are getting REAL change, and not just window dressing.

    On one hand, constitutions need to have motherhood statements, that is sort of their role. Changing the word Chairman to President (for example) is window dressing because it doesn't change the role. But it does signal quite clearly that we are modern and inclusive.

    On the other, and from a member survey/consultation process perspective, the support of motherhood statements could be misinterpreted as a mandate for specific wording interpretations that the survey reader did not envision. 

     

    I haven't completed the survey yet because I want to read further. A nominations committee is a standard modern practice which is often considered best practice, and certainly has its advantages (including making sure quality, suitable candidates are identified because let's be plain, how would the average member know if a candidate has the skills or is capable or of they would be able to work with the other elected board or if they are a jerk?), but there is also a big risk of introducing a systemic bias in the selection process which could present as job for the boys or result in lack of diversity of thought across the team.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    On 5/28/2022 at 10:29 AM, george_on_the_outer said:

    A lot of "motherhood" type changes proposed, without any real substance attached.

    Directors terms 3x3 years?  Great idea.  But given the number of current directors pushing this limit, from when will it apply?  What are the "special circumstances" which would allow longer? Who determines the "special circumstances"

    Nominations committee.  Again great idea.  Who determines who sits on the committee?  Current board members?  Needs to be completely independant and external and provide reasons for approvals or otherwise. Danger of "jobs for the boys.."

    Investment Committee.  Same again.  Who decides who sits on it.  Plenty of people think they are brilliant investors, few in reality.  Is it independant of current Board? 

    The Devil in the detail is yet to be found out.  Let's see if we are getting REAL change, and not just window dressing.

    Good points, George. 

    We mighty be reigning premiers, but we aren’t Best in Show in terms of our Constitution. Many would channel Blighty in saying they couldn’t give a Fat Rat’s Tossbag about the latter in light of the former. And that’s a pity because we need to be the best performing club we can possibly be in all areas of operation from the board down.

    Now is the time to be making hay, and current board members should be overseeing a constitutional renovation which addresses George’s points. True leadership in this regard would embrace this and not see it as a threat to their positions. 

    Other clubs have brought their constitutions into the 21st century along the above lines and a board confident in its own capability should be doing the same for us while we are riding high. 

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    On 5/25/2022 at 10:42 PM, faultydet said:

    Yes, please bring American politics into a thread about the Melbourne Football Club constitution, because that's what we all really want to talk about.

    Faulty- let the bloke have his joke. Everyone laughed in the metaphorical pub and now we are back to providing olddee technical assistance.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Haha 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • PREGAME: Essendon

      Facing the very real and daunting prospect of starting the season with five straight losses, the Demons head to South Australia for the annual Gather Round, where they’ll take on the Bombers in search of their first win of the year. Who comes in, and who comes out?

        • Thanks
      • 219 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 05

      Gather Round is here, kicking off with a Thursday night blockbuster as Adelaide faces Geelong. The Crows will be out for redemption after a controversial loss last week. Saturday starts with the Magpies taking on the Swans. Collingwood will be eager to cement their spot in the top eight, while Sydney is hot on their heels. In the Barossa Valley, two rising sides go head-to-head in a fascinating battle to prove they're the real deal. Later, Carlton and West Coast face off at Adelaide Oval, both desperate to notch their first win of the season. The action then shifts to Norwood, where the undefeated Lions will aim to keep their streak alive against the Bulldogs. Sunday’s games begin in the Barossa with Richmond up against Fremantle. In Norwood, the Saints will be looking to take a scalp when they come up against the Giants. The round concludes with a fiery rematch of last year's semi-final, as the Hawks seek revenge for their narrow loss to Port Adelaide. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

      • 13 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Geelong

      There was a time in the second quarter of the game at the Cattery on Friday afternoon when the Casey Demons threatened to take the game apart against the Cats. The Demons had been well on top early but were struggling to convert their ascendancy over the ground until Tom Fullarton’s burst of three goals in the space of eight minutes on the way to a five goal haul and his best game for the club since arriving from Brisbane at the end of 2023. He was leading, marking and otherwise giving his opponents a merry dance as Casey grabbed a three goal lead in the blink of an eye. Fullarton has now kicked ten goals in Casey’s three matches and, with Melbourne’s forward conversion woes, he is definitely in with a chance to get his first game with the club in next week’s Gather Round in Adelaide. Despite the tall forward’s efforts - he finished with 19 disposals and eight marks and had four hit outs as back up to Will Verrall in the second half - it wasn’t enough as Geelong reigned in the lead through persistent attacks and eventually clawed their way to the lead early in the last and held it till they achieved the end aim of victory.

        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Geelong

      I was disappointed to hear Goody say at his post match presser after the team’s 39 point defeat against Geelong that "we're getting high quality entry, just poor execution" because Melbourne’s problems extend far beyond that after its 0 - 4 start to the 2025 football season. There are clearly problems with poor execution, some of which were evident well before the current season and were in play when the Demons met the Cats in early May last year and beat them in a near top-of-the-table clash that saw both sides sitting comfortably in the top four after round eight. Since that game, the Demons’ performances have been positively Third World with only five wins in 19 games with a no longer majestic midfield and a dysfunctional forward line that has become too easy for opposing coaches to counter. This is an area of their game that is currently being played out as if they were all completely panic-stricken.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 04

      Round 4 kicks off with a blockbuster on Thursday night as traditional rivals Collingwood and Carlton clash at the MCG, with the Magpies looking to assert themselves as early-season contenders and the Blues seeking their first win of the season. Saturday opens with Gold Coast hosting Adelaide, a key test for the Suns as they aim to back up their big win last week, while the Crows will be looking to keep their perfect record intact. Reigning wooden spooners Richmond have the daunting task of facing reigning premiers Brisbane at the ‘G and the Lions will be eager to reaffirm their premiership credentials after a patchy start. Saturday night sees North Melbourne take on Sydney at Marvel Stadium, with the Swans looking to build on their first win of the season last week against a rebuilding Roos outfit. Sunday’s action begins with GWS hosting West Coast at ENGIE Stadium, a game that could get ugly very early for the visitors. Port Adelaide vs St Kilda at Adelaide Oval looms as a interesting clash, with both clubs form being very hard to read. The round wraps up with Fremantle taking on the Western Bulldogs at Optus Stadium in what could be a fierce contest between two sides with top-eight ambitions. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

        • Thanks
      • 273 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Geelong

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 7th April @ the all new time of 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect another Demons loss at Kardinia Park to the Cats in the Round 04. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Thanks
      • 62 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All