Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden
  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    Posting unsubstantiated rumours on this website is strictly forbidden.

    Demonland has made the difficult decision to not permit this platform to be used to discuss & debate the off-field issues relating to the Melbourne Football Club including matters currently being litigated between the Club & former Board members, board elections, the issue of illicit drugs in footy, the culture at the club & the personal issues & allegations against some of our players & officials ...

    We do not take these issues & this decision lightly & of course we believe that these serious matters affecting the club we love & are so passionate about are worthy of discussion & debate & I wish we could provide a place where these matters can be discussed in a civil & respectful manner.

    However these discussions unfortunately invariably devolve into areas that may be defamatory, libelous, spread unsubstantiated rumours & can effect the mental health of those involved. Even discussion & debate of known facts or media reports can lead to finger pointing, blame & personal attacks.

    The repercussion is that these discussions can open this website, it’s owners & it’s users to legal action & may result in this website being forced to shutdown.

    Our moderating team are all volunteers & cannot moderate the forum 24/7 & as a consequence problematic content that contravenes our rules & standards may go unnoticed for some time before it can be removed.

    We reserve the right to delete posts that offend against our above policy & indeed, to ban posters who are repeat offenders or who breach our code of conduct.

    WE HAVE BUILT A FANTASTIC ONLINE COMMUNITY AT DEMONLAND OVER THE PAST 23 YEARS & WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CLUB WE LOVE & ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.

    Thank you for your continued support & understanding. Go Dees.


Constitutional Review



Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That sounds extremely stressful and hopefully you were able to sort things out in the end albeit with a few extra grey hairs and hours of lost productivity.

Were the hackers able to get into your email account (ie were they able to circumvent the password) or was just having your email address enough to do the damage?

I don't remember now. It's not enough to just right down someone's email address. There is some hack where they introduce a trojan program that gets into the data behind your email address. There's DNS's and IP's. Nasher would probably laugh out loud at me saying that because I really don't know what I'm talking about other than they exist behind your emals. That's what the cyber security guy told me who was helping me. He also advised once this is done there's nothing you can do about it. It usually runs down over time. Every now and then I still get emails from people this has happened to more than 10 years ago.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rjay said:

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members.

It was the right thing to do.

This I can't agree with.  The club has over 66,000 members.  It is not their responsibility to facilitate such requests to members.  To what end?  Peter, like every other member, was given an opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the consultation like any other member was.  In fact I know for a fact Peter was afforded more attention from David Rennick than other members, in that he met with him one on one to discuss his proposals on a number of occasions.  To say he was denied an opportunity is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  

Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc?  If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members.  There are 66,000 members at the club!  One member is not more entitled than any other.  And as stated a number of times, to what end?  His model was not up for election.  The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 11:08 AM, Neil Crompton said:

I think you have made your point Nev, can you please now let it go?

Haha you're like a dog with a bone. I bet you were either an inside mid or a lockdown defender back in your day.

 

On 10/24/2022 at 11:10 AM, Lord Nev said:

Yeah fair enough, will do.

And funnily enough I was a lockdown defender! haha

mmm

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

 

Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc?  If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members.  There are 66,000 members at the club!  One member is not more entitled than any other.  And as stated a number of times, to what end?  His model was not up for election.  The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

Edited by george_on_the_outer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

In all due respect, actions speak louder than words

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them?

Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members.  I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals.

In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors.  The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve.  In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections.  The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them.  Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances.

The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature.  

Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would.  The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't.

Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson.  This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly.  A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle.  It was a small but very symbolic thing.

As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him.  His treatment has been disgraceful.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Love 2
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

This I can't agree with.  The club has over 66,000 members.  It is not their responsibility to facilitate such requests to members.  To what end?  Peter, like every other member, was given an opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the consultation like any other member was.  In fact I know for a fact Peter was afforded more attention from David Rennick than other members, in that he met with him one on one to discuss his proposals on a number of occasions.  To say he was denied an opportunity is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  

Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc?  If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members.  There are 66,000 members at the club!  One member is not more entitled than any other.  And as stated a number of times, to what end?  His model was not up for election.  The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

 

14 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

 

15 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them?

Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members.  I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals.

In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors.  The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve.  In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections.  The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them.  Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances.

The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature.  

Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would.  The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't.

Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson.  This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly.  A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle.  It was a small but very symbolic thing.

As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him.  His treatment has been disgraceful.  

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

  • Like 4
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tim said:

 

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

Did Peter Lawrence ever consider that the other 66,000 members didn't want their address and email address disclosed? I can assure you that the board would have felt a greater backlash if they did as Peter Lawrence requested without a court challenge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Did Peter Lawrence ever consider that the other 66,000 members didn't want their address and email address disclosed? I can assure you that the board would have felt a greater backlash if they did as Peter Lawrence requested without a court challenge.

You have no understanding of the situation obviously.

He never wanted the addresses in the first place, he was asking for the club to send out the information.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rjay said:

You have no understanding of the situation obviously.

He never wanted the addresses in the first place, he was asking for the club to send out the information.

I don't, because I'm not part of the Peter Lawrence cult.

So once he had the addresses, did he not think that it's intrusive to utilise them? As others have said, he could have conveyed his message through other means.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mo64 said:

I don't, because I'm not part of the Peter Lawrence cult.

So once he had the addresses, did he not think that it's intrusive to utilise them? As others have said, he could have conveyed his message through other means.

I've never met Peter Lawrence and wouldn't know him if I fell over him.

There's a couple of things I don't like here.

One is how he has been misrepresented.

...and the other the blind loyalty to a board who should not be above criticism.

I well remember the CS days (some here had blind loyalty to that administration) and understand we must remain vigilant or could quite easily head back there again.

EFC were set for a dynasty in 2000 and what happened?

  • Like 5
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rjay said:

I've never met Peter Lawrence and wouldn't know him if I fell over him.

There's a couple of things I don't like here.

One is how he has been misrepresented.

...and the other the blind loyalty to a board who should not be above criticism.

I well remember the CS days (some here had blind loyalty to that administration) and understand we must remain vigilant or could quite easily head back there again.

EFC were set for a dynasty in 2000 and what happened?

You and others still haven't answered the question. Why did he feel the need to access other members private details rather than convey his message through other means? 

I'm more wary of such an individual than the current board, who were democratically elected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mo64 said:

You and others still haven't answered the question. Why did he feel the need to access other members private details rather than convey his message through other means? 

I'm more wary of such an individual than the current board, who were democratically elected.

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

So now you know how the rest of us feel when we received the Deemocracy email and mail.

If you received an email from NT Tourism, then I'm assuming all members will receive it. How do you know the club supplied it? We do receive Spam emails based on Google searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim said:

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

I raised this earlier with @Slartibartfast - is there a copy of the judge's ruling/reasons/orders anywhere?

The three major Deemocracy supporters on here - yourself, Slarti and @george_on_the_outer - have all described the court case as (in different terms) a slam dunk in Lawrence's favour. It may well have been, but as I said earlier if it was that clear-cut why didn't the judge decide it straight away on the Wednesday, and why was it then described as a possible "test case"? It is of course possible that Lawrence offered the alternative of the Club sending the Deemocracy material out because he'd received legal advice that he might possibly not succeed in getting access to the members' email addresses?

I have no idea what the answer to those questions is because I'm not an expert, I wasn't there and haven't seen any ruling/reasons etc.. As such, you may well be 100% right that it was a slam dunk, but I'd love to see the reasons/ruling to see how bad the Club's defence was, or alternatively whether it might have perhaps been more nuanced. Simply saying the court found in Lawrence's favour therefore it was "pig-headed" or "disgraceful" for the Club to defend the application is hindsight-reasoning on its own, without knowing more.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim said:

 

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible.

 

Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

It was Joey from Moe

And it was a terrible faux pas from Kate, who up until that point I'd thought was doing a great job

Snobbish and unnecessary 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mo64 said:

So now you know how the rest of us feel when we received the Deemocracy email and mail.

If you received an email from NT Tourism, then I'm assuming all members will receive it. How do you know the club supplied it? We do receive Spam emails based on Google searches.

Now that I look at it the email was sent out by the Club!  Wow, they could have done the same with Deemocracy and saved us all the trouble!

How's your democracy going Mo?  Dodged that one didn't you!🙃

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


23 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003.  That's democracy for you.

And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address.  It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

This is what's being missed by many

The requirements for increasing member support on Nominations, and I suspect also a consequence of formalising the Nominations subcommittee, are aimed at reducing likelihood of having contested elections 

If what you say is true - largely in response to 1 contested election in 20 years.... Where electronic voting reduces costs anyway...

And as one person questioned on the night - why different from so many other Clubs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Did Peter Lawrence ever consider that the other 66,000 members didn't want their address and email address disclosed? I can assure you that the board would have felt a greater backlash if they did as Peter Lawrence requested without a court challenge.

Assuming you are a member... then,

You are a member of the club, not a customer of a business 

You signed up and agreed to what it means to be a member. Having your details on the member roll, and those details being available in relation to the business of the club is part of that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mo64 said:

the current board, who were democratically elected.

Co Opting your mates, while at the same time denying members the right to stand, may be your type of democracy, but it certainly ain’t mine.

 

Edited by Redleg
  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should a member get to have the club send something to us on their behalf?

I barely want the sponsors to send me stuff; unless it’s 40% of New Balance remainder stock…

That is not a good argument to criticise the club for pushing back on that request.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, I what a snorefest this change to the constitution was - if he influenced the club to do that preamble - great. He should have walked home then. 

But to spend all your capital - and I mean all your capital - on pushing against these no brainer changes. 

This bloke needs a PR person or to listen to better advice. 

Absolutely obvious this would be the reaction and that it was not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    DEPTH CHARGE by Whispering Jack

    The jubilation on the coach’s face as he danced a celebratory jig by the playing bench after the final siren sounded to record his team’s four-point victory over the Demons when the teams last met, said it all.    On that rainy Friday night at the Adelaide Oval, Ken Hinkley’s young midfield secured much more than four points on offer. The victory over one of the big dogs of the competition after a succession of wins over some of its lesser lights gave his team respect and validation fo

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 5

    TRAINING: Monday 25th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Demon Dynasty & Kev Martin were trackside at Gosch's Paddock today to bring you their observations from training. DEMON DYNASTY'S TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Kade Chandler's left knee heavily strapped. BBB, Spargs & Jake Lever also in rehab group. Jake Bowey solo running separate kicking/sprint/agility drills. Super fine morning / early arvo at Gosch's for the boys to blow out some cobwebs. Choco initially had the light duties / rehab group

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    HIBERNATING by KC from Casey

    When they locked up the rooms for summer at the end of last year’s football season, the rooms gathered cobwebs, the atmosphere became dense and the place developed a sleepy feel. They opened up the rooms to let Casey out to play on Sunday but the team was still hibernating and they missed the bulk of the opening quarter. By the time they worked out it was game on, their opponents from Box Hill had accumulated five goals and, if the game wasn’t over, it might as well have been. For a se

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    A FORK IN THE HAWK by George on the Outer

    For too long in the past, Demon fans became habitually sick and tired of watching the Hawks hand out thrashings to their side. But Melbourne’s empahtic 55-point win at the MCG on Saturday has truly put a fork in the Hawk and turned that history well and truly on its head. The Demons have now won nine of their last ten encounters with the other result, a draw.     And like a fork, it was the multi-pronged options that Melbourne had all across the ground.  It certainly helped that Hawthorn

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports 8

    PREGAME: Rd 03 vs Port Adelaide

    The Demons head on the road for the next 2 weeks as they travel to Adelaide to play Port on Saturday and then have a 5 Day break before facing the Crows in the Gather Round. With injuries to May and Lever who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 264

    PODCAST: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 25th March @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we analyse the Demons victory at the MCG against the Hawks in the Round 02. You 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. Listen & Chat

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 46

    VOTES: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    Last week Steven May took the lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Jack Viney. Clayton Oliver & Max Gawn round out the Top 4. Your votes for the win/loss against/to the Hawks. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 50

    POSTGAME: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The Demons cruised to an easy 55 point win over the Hawks at the MCG but but paid a heavy toll on the injury front with Steven May & Jake Lever possibly sidelined for a number of weeks.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 357

    GAMEDAY: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    It's Game Day and after mixed results in the first two weeks of the season the Demons have the opportunity to capitalise on their good form last week when they take on the Hawks at the MCG today.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 437
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

  • Podcast 

  • Podcast 

  • Podcast Stream 


    Open Stream in
    New Window
        TuneIn    Opens in New Tab
  • Support Demonland  



  • 2021 Premiership  

  • Social Media 

  • Non MFC Games  

    NON-MFC: Round 03

    Discussion of all the other games that don't involve the Demons in Round 03 ... READ MORE

    Demonland | Round 03

  • Match Preview      

    DEPTH CHARGE by Whispering Jack

    The jubilation on the coach’s face as he danced a celebratory jig by the playing bench after the final siren sounded to record his team’s four-point victory over the Demons when the teams last met, said it all ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 27

  • Latest Podcast      

    PODCAST: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The boys dissected the clinical thrashing of Hawks praising the immense performance of Christian Petracca whilst lamenting the injury toll to our defensive unit ... LISTEN

    Demonland | March 26

  • Training  

    Monday, 25th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Demon Dynasty & Kev Martin were trackside at Gosch's Paddock today to bring you their observations from training ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 25

  • Casey Report      

    HIBERNATING by KC from Casey

    When they locked up the rooms for summer at the end of last year’s football season, the rooms gathered cobwebs, the atmosphere became dense and the place developed a sleepy feel. They opened up the rooms to let Casey out to play on Sunday but the team was still hibernating and they missed the bulk of the opening quarter ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 25

  • PreGame      

    PREGAME: Rd 03 vs Port Adelaide

    The Demons head out on the road for the next 2 weeks as they travel to Adelaide to play Port on Saturday and then have a 5 Day break before facing the Crows in Gather Round. With injuries to May and Lever who comes in and who goes out? ...READ MORE

    Demonland | March 28

  • Match Report      

    A FORK IN THE HAWK by George on the Outer

    For too long in the past, Demon fans became habitually sick and tired of watching the Hawks hand out thrashings to their side. But Melbourne’s empahtic 55-point win at the MCG on Saturday has truly put a fork in the Hawk and turned that history well and truly on its head ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Post Game      

    POSTGAME: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The Demons cruised to an easy 55 point win over the Hawks at the MCG but but paid a heavy toll on the injury front with Steven May & Jake Lever possibly sidelined for a number of weeks ...READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Votes      

    VOTES: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    Last week Steven May took the lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Jack Viney. Clayton Oliver & Max Gawn round out the Top 4. Your votes for the win/loss against/to the Hawks. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Game Day      

    GAMEDAY: Round 02 vs Hawthorn

    It's Game Day and after mixed results in the first two weeks of the season the Demons have the opportunity to capitalise on their good form last week when they take on the Hawks at the MCG today ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Training  

    Friday, 22nd March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatcher Kev Martin and I attended the Captain's Run at Gosch's Paddock on this lovely sunny morning to bring you the following observations from the training session ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 22

  • Training  

    Tuesday, 19th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin & Walking Civil War attended Tuesday morning's training session at Gosch's Paddock to bring you the following observations ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 19

  • Training  

    Saturday, 16th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin and Dee Zephyr wandered down to Gosch's Paddock on Saturday morning to bring you their observations from the Captain's Run in the lead up to Sunday's Round One match against the Bulldogs ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 16

  • Farewell  

    Angus Brayshaw Retires

    After 167 games including the drought breaking Premiership Angus Brayshaw has made the heart breaking decision to medically retire from football as a result of a series of serious head knocks over his nearly decade of footy. We wish Gus all the best and he'll always be a hero at Demonland ... READ MORE

    Demonland | February 22

  • Latest Podcast  

    PODCAST: Koltyn Tholstrup Interview

    I interview the Melbourne Football Club’s newest recruit Koltyn Tholstrup to have a chat about his journey from the farm to the Demons, his first few weeks of preseason training, which Dees have impressed him on the track and his aspirations of playing Round 1 ... LISTEN

    Demonland | December 14

  • Latest Podcast  

    PODCAST: Jason Taylor Interview

    I interview the Melbourne Football Club's National Recruitment Manager Jason Taylor to have a chat about our Trade and Draft period, our newest recruits, our recent recruits who have yet to debut as well as those father son prospects on the horizon ... LISTEN

    Demonland | November 27

  • Next Match 

    .

    Round 03

       vs   

    Saturday 30th March 2024
    @ 07:30pm (AO)

  • MFC Forum  

  • Match Previews & Reports  

  • Training Forum  

  • AFLW Forum  

  • 2024 Player Sponsorship

  • Topics

  • Injury List  


      PLAYER INJURY LENGTH
    Jake Lever Knee Test
    Clayton Oliver Hand Test
    Oliver Sestan Concussion Test
    Steven May Ribs 1 Week
    Lachie Hunter Calf 1 Week
    Daniel Turner Hip 2-3 Weeks
    Charlie Spargo Achilles 2-4 Weeks
    Shane McAdam Hamstring 3-5 Weeks
    Jake Bowey Shoulder 7 Weeks
    Jake Melksham ACL 12-14 Weeks
    Joel Smith Suspension TBA

  • Player of the Year  


        PLAYER VOTES
    1 Christian Petracca 27
    2 Steven May 25
    3 Max Gawn 21
    4 Jack Viney 20
    5 Bayley Fritsch 19
    6 Clayton Oliver 18
    7 Christian Salem 12
    8 Blake Howes 11
    9 Jack Billings 10
    9 Alex Neal-Bullen 10

        FULL TABLE
  • Demonland Interviews 



  • Upcoming Events 

×
×
  • Create New...