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

    • FEATURE: 1925

      A hundred years ago today, on 2 May 1925, Melbourne kicked off the new season with a 47 point victory over St Kilda to take top place on the VFL ladder after the opening round of the new season.  Top place was a relatively unknown position for the team then known as the “Fuchsias.” They had finished last in 1923 and rose by only one place in the following year although the final home and away round heralded a promise of things to come when they surprised the eventual premiers Essendon. That victory set the stage for more improvement and it came rapidly. In this series, I will tell the story of how the 1925 season unfolded for the Melbourne Football Club and how it made the VFL finals for the first time in a decade on the way to the ultimate triumph a year later.

        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: West Coast

      Saturday’s election night game in Perth between the West Coast Eagles and Melbourne represents 18th vs 15th which makes it a tough decision as to which party to favour. The Eagles have yet to break the ice under their new coach in Andrew McQualter who is the second understudy in a row to confront Demon Coach Simon Goodwin who was also winless until a fortnight ago. On that basis, many punters might be considering to go with the donkey vote but I’ve been assigned with the task of helping readers to come to a considered opinion on this matter of vital importance across the nation. It was almost a year ago that I wrote a preview here of the Demons’ away game against the Eagles (under the name William from Waalitj because it was Indigenous Round).  I issued a warning that it was a danger game, based on my local knowledge that the home team were no longer easybeats and that they possessed a wunderkind generational player in Harley Reid who was capable of producing stellar performances playing among men a decade and more older than he.  At the time, the Eagles already had two wins off the back of a couple of the young man’s masterclasses and they had recently given the Bombers a scare straight after their Anzac Day blockbuster draw against the then reigning premiers.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 08

      Round 08 of the 2025 AFL Season kicks off on Thursday with a must-win game for the Bombers to stay in touch with the top eight, while the struggling Roos seek a morale-boosting upset. Friday sees the Saints desperate for a win as well if they are to stay in finals contention and their opponents the Dockers will be eager to crack in to the Top 8 with a win on the road. Saturday kicks off with a pivotal clash for both sides asthe Bulldogs look to solidify their top-eight spot, while Port seeks to shake their pretender tag. Then the Crows will be looking to steady their topsy turvy season against a resurgent Blues looking to make it 4 wins on the trot. On Election Night a Blockbuster will see the ladder-leading Pies take on the Cats, who are keen to bounce back after a narrow loss. On Sunday the Sydney Derby promises fireworks as the Giants aim to cement their top-eight status, while the Swans fight to keep their season alive. The Hawks, celebrating their centenary, will be looking to easily account for the Tigers who are desperate to halt their slide. The Round concludes on Sunday Night with a top end of the table QClash with significant ladder implications; both Queensland teams are in scintillating form. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons?

      • 148 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: West Coast

      The Demons hit the road in Round 8, heading to Perth to face the West Coast Eagles at Optus Stadium. With momentum building, the Dees will be aiming for a third straight victory to keep their season revival on course. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 563 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Richmond

      The fans who turned up to the MCG for Melbourne’s Anzac Day Eve clash against Richmond would have been disappointed if they turned up to see a great spectacle. As much as this was a night for the 71,635 in attendance to commemorate heroes of the nation’s past wars, it was also a time for the Melbourne Football Club to consolidate upon its first win after a horrific start to the 2025 season. On this basis, despite the fact that it was an uninspiring and dour struggle for most of its 100 minutes, the night will be one for the fans to remember. They certainly got value out of the pre match activity honouring those who fought for their country. The MCG and the lights of the city as backdrop was made for nights such as these and, in my view, we received a more inspirational ceremony of Anzac culture than others both here and elsewhere around the country. 

        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Richmond

      The match up of teams competing in our great Aussie game at its second highest level is a rarity for a work day Thursday morning but the blustery conditions that met the players at a windswept Casey Fields was something far more commonplace.They turned the opening stanza between the Casey Demons and a somewhat depleted Richmond VFL into a mess of fumbling unforced errors, spilt marks and wasted opportunities for both sides but they did set up a significant win for the home team which is exactly what transpired on this Anzac Day round opener. Casey opened up strong against the breeze with the first goal to Aidan Johnson, the Tigers quickly responded and the game degenerated into a defensive slog and the teams were level when the first siren sounded.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All