Constitutional Review

[george_on_the_outer 7,573]

4 minutes ago, dxwal said:

I’ve got a business idea and MFC members are the ideal client base. Can I have access to the member email list to shill my [censored]?

No because that is not a proscribed purpose under the Corporations Act. 

However, the MFC can provide you with the email addresses for marketing purposes, since members have already agreed to that when they signed up ( even if they don't know it). 

[dxwal 32]

Disclosing email addresses isn’t covered under the corporations act either….

[Ugottobekidding 1,181]

As far as I am concerned, most of the board has been there too long.

[Ollie fan 3,370]

I think it’s just what we need during their successful period, with a “premiership window” – an administration squabble.

 

Great.🤬😤

[kev martin 9,808]

Here is my two cents worth, possibly no sense. The hierarchy continues on its merry way. Choose A or B, and thanks for your participation in “democracy” (sarcasm).

What I would want, if they are serious about representing me, would be to have got the constitution sent out, with the articles that will be changed, disposed of and added, highlighted.

Though I want them to go further and allow me to vote not only on constitution, but on all matters pertaining to MFC. The board could be a kind of legal entity that draws up the articles and “such” based on a petition or a need, a true servant to the masses. They could also include capacity for veto, oversight, and displacement from office. As I see it, the board and inner circle have control and us plebs merely give a say to route A or B.

Any constitutional changes worry me, especially in a climate where moves towards dictatorship is advanced. I know giving all decisions to the people is fraught with dangers, such as instability, misdirection, unforeseen consequences, time consuming, but that is the folly of a full democracy and not of emperors.

I am realistic and know what I advocate will never happen, but that is my opinion on how to govern. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by kev martin

[george_on_the_outer 7,573]

1 hour ago, dxwal said:

Disclosing email addresses isn’t covered under the corporations act either….

Yes it is, and confirmed in yesterdays court case.

[Fritta and Turner 4,345]

54 minutes ago, Ugottobekidding said:

As far as I am concerned, most of the board has been there too long.

So are you advocating 6 year terms for directors?

[Sir Why You Little 36,982]

What a lame piece of Spam. 
Costing the Club $1000’s

Time to F off Mr Lawrence 

[Demonland 71,614]

 

[Sir Why You Little 36,982]

Hands up to all those who have ever sent a group email or forwarded an email to another group of email addresses?

This is such a shocking waste of money, the Supreme Court!!! I mean, really 

Are you paying all the costs out of your own pocket Lawrence?

[daisycutter 29,604]

right or wrong, i think mr lawrence picked the wrong hill to die on

not very politically astute of him

[jnrmac 20,055]

On 10/19/2022 at 6:59 AM, DeelightfulPlay said:

Except it would likely be a breach of privacy laws by the Club to do so...

err no. i believe its actually part of the Corporations Act 2001

COmpanies and managements don't like giving people access to it and make as hard as possible. 

[jnrmac 20,055]

There is history behind this. Lawrence nominated last year and the club refused his request to put his case to members.

The club actually behaved very poorly and is looking to stymie and genuine nominations other than the ones they want.

Not sure they are as inclusive as they make themselves out to be

 

[Ugottobekidding 1,181]

1 hour ago, Jontee said:

So are you advocating 6 year terms for directors?

No, just stating some deadwood... But members have hardly ever had a say. Only seen two elections in my time.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

22 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

There is history behind this. Lawrence nominated last year and the club refused his request to put his case to members.

The club actually behaved very poorly and is looking to stymie and genuine nominations other than the ones they want.

Not sure they are as inclusive as they make themselves out to be

Inclusive means you're open to different races, genders, sexualities and on and on... It doesn't mean you accept any random unqualified supporter as a member of the board.

[ucanchoose 1,816]

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

It contained very similar content to the one from the club in regards to the court case, ie “we tried really hard to avoid this but waaaah unreasonable other party”. The only difference is one came from a @melbournefc email address and the other didn’t, and that is colouring your perception.

Nothing is colouring my perception.  Both sides are to blame for this.  I don't have much faith in the board to do what's best for the club.   To me it's all about the closed loop they want to preserve

[Spaghetti 264]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Yes it is, and confirmed in yesterdays court case.

No, the court didnt "confirm" that. Without having seen the judgement, they must have interpreted the requirement to hand over a member's "address" as including both their postal address and email address.

When these provisions were first drafted, emails wouldn't have even been a thing. The court is merely interpreting the word and requirement from a modern perspective. 

Sucks for the majority of us that would never want our details handed over to someone like this guy.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,772]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Inclusive means you're open to different races, genders, sexualities and on and on... It doesn't mean you accept any random unqualified supporter as a member of the board.

Yes only the things on your list... not things on anyone else's list... or others' opinions or anything like that! 

Lecturing others on what's inclusive and what's not... Haha, 🤣 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

[GM11 776]

6 minutes ago, ucanchoose said:

Nothing is colouring my perception.  Both sides are to blame for this.  I don't have much faith in the board to do what's best for the club.   To me it's all about the closed loop they want to preserve

Why?

[daisycutter 29,604]

lots of panties getting knotted

sky is about to fall

[Ugottobekidding 1,181]

23 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Inclusive means you're open to different races, genders, sexualities and on and on... It doesn't mean you accept any random unqualified supporter as a member of the board.

He has as much qualifications as the others by the looks. Most on the board are just corporate fat cat bean counters.

[jnrmac 20,055]

50 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Inclusive means you're open to different races, genders, sexualities and on and on... It doesn't mean you accept any random unqualified supporter as a member of the board.

No one is saying does. You clearly don't understand how a Board process works

I can nominate for the board of a publicly listed company. I then get the opportunity to put forward my case and the shareholders vote on it. In some cases for large cap companies there is a Board Nominations Committee that will vet candidates and this is usually open and transparent.

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by jnrmac

[jnrmac 20,055]

43 minutes ago, Spaghetti said:

No, the court didnt "confirm" that. Without having seen the judgement, they must have interpreted the requirement to hand over a member's "address" as including both their postal address and email address.

When these provisions were first drafted, emails wouldn't have even been a thing. The court is merely interpreting the word and requirement from a modern perspective. 

Sucks for the majority of us that would never want our details handed over to someone like this guy.

Outstanding post

Haven't seen the judgement yet pontificating on what it said

Emails were certainly around when the Corporations Act 2001 was drafted.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

No one is saying does. You clearly don't understand how a Board process works

I can nominate for the BHP Board. I then get the opportunity to put forward my case and the shareholders vote on it.

 

And do you think that BHP would send around your messages for you to all their shareholders because 'inclusiveness'?

Is that how a board process works?

[jnrmac 20,055]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

And do you think that BHP would send around your messages for you to all their shareholders because 'inclusiveness'?

Is that how a board process works?

Suggest you go and read up up and how it works in the real world