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? 

Worked fine for me. 

And me

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  😁)

5 minutes ago, Jontee said:

And me

Hmm.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

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 May 25, 20222 yr by Dr. Gonzo

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.

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.

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.

Constitution looks fine

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

12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Constitution looks fine

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

Well said!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

 

 

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.

Didn’t get the email.