Jump to content

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor Interview  

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor Interview 

New MFC Board Member


Hawk the Demon
 Share


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

We get lots of direct emails from the Club Katrina. This week we got one announcing the retirement of a director and the appointment of a  new director. We got another regarding a gift guide for Christmas. Did we get an email advising voting members that you have until next week to nominate another member to the Board? No.

Buy the HeraldSun on the one day the relevant ad appears and read the Classifieds.

Look, I know you love the Club and the Board Katrina, but not advising members of important deadlines for nominations shows a lack of fairness, openness and transparency. Let's get better in that area.

And yet you knew about the ad in the Herald Sun. Clearly then it's not a secret, is it?

Just wondering, did you take the opportunity this year to participate in any of the members forums and put in your input for the constitutional changes?  Did you raise this point?  You can't say given the plentiful opportunities the club had this year allowing members to provide feedback that you were denied any opportunity to do so.  Just wondering if you did.

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

7 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Members are sent with a notification of the AGM a booklet with candidate statements.  That gives all candidates, incumbent or not, the same equal opportunity to communicate to members who they are and what they stand for.  The reason for the "no electioneering" is to prevent candidates with access to greater resources than others giving themselves an unfair advantage, and to prevent some of the ****stirring we're currently seeing with the Hawthorn election at the moment.

hmmmm, you're cherry-picking a bit there kat

one could argue that for a board member (voluntary unpaid position) that it would be quite desirable to attract someone with lot of good resources (not just money). of course with the right skills/experience too.

anyway, a vetted 300 word outline is hardly sufficient for general members to make informed decisions

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

hmmmm, you're cherry-picking a bit there kat

one could argue that for a board member (voluntary unpaid position) that it would be quite desirable to attract someone with lot of good resources (not just money). of course with the right skills/experience too.

anyway, a vetted 300 word outline is hardly sufficient for general members to make informed decisions

So a candidate who is a multimillionaire with excessive resources can give themselves an unfair advantage to electioneer however way they like with things like billboards, full page ads in the paper, etc etc etc, even though they may be a [censored] candidate, over someone with minimal access to such resources, who couldn't possibly afford to compete to get the same level of exposure, but who could be a perfect candidate?  Wouldn't that create the very result a lot of people are arguing against here? Way to promote the "rich boys club" DC.  Besides, you can say a lot more in a 300 word statement than you can in an expensive full page colour ad in the Herald Sun.

 

Edited by Katrina Dee Fan
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

So a candidate who is a multimillionaire with excessive resources can give themselves an unfair advantage to electioneer however way they like with things like billboards, full page ads in the paper, etc etc etc, even though they may be a [censored] candidate, over someone with minimal access to such resources, who couldn't possibly afford to compete to get the same level of exposure, but who could be a perfect candidate?  Wouldn't that create the very result a lot of people are arguing against here? Way to promote the "rich boys club" DC.  Besides, you can say a lot more in a 300 word statement than you can in an expensive full page colour ad in the Herald Sun.

 

if you had read my previous posts you would see that i had clearly stated i don't approve of open slather electioneering.

there is a huge choice of electioneering options between none + a vetted 300 word statement and open slather electioneering

i don't think i can make it any clearer than that

re my comment on "resources" i just said "one could argue" and  "not just money" and also "with the right skills/experience too". so it was a bit more nuanced than you chose to interpret. it's not a simple binary issue.

bottom line for me is i don't think the current restrictions on candidates allows me sufficient opportunity to make a considered decision. I'm not in any way dissatisfied with the board (quite the opposite) or calling for any sort of revolution.  just trying to intellectually and dispassionately discuss one aspect of board elections which i think is lacking and could be improved on.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

if you had read my previous posts you would see that i had clearly stated i don't approve of open slather electioneering.

there is a huge choice of electioneering options between none + a vetted 300 word statement and open slather electioneering

i don't think i can make it any clearer than that

re my comment on "resources" i just said "one could argue" and  "not just money" and also "with the right skills/experience too". so it was a bit more nuanced than you chose to interpret. it's not a simple binary issue.

bottom line for me is i don't think the current restrictions on candidates allows me sufficient opportunity to make a considered decision. I'm not in any way dissatisfied with the board (quite the opposite) or calling for any sort of revolution.  just trying to intellectually and dispassionately discuss one aspect of board elections which i think is lacking and could be improved on.

You contradicted yourself, and then said "I can't make it any clearer than that.

You show objection to the 300 word statement, which is open to all candidates, and you object to open electioneering.  So your point of view is clear as mud.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

You contradicted yourself, and then said "I can't make it any clearer than that.

You show objection to the 300 word statement, which is open to all candidates, and you object to open electioneering.  So your point of view is clear as mud.

i said clearly there are options between no "electioneering" and full open-slather "electioneering"

that is fairly clear and not contradictory

what i didn't give was any solutions/suggestions between those two extremes......simply because i haven't put any detailed thoughts into it.....i left it open for others to make suggestions

 

just off the top of my head, some suggestions might be to allow  greater than 300 words, to provide a club moderated forum to allow candidates to answer member questions, to allow candidates to email members, to allow candidates to start a social media platform with defined limits etc etc.   i'm not advocating any one of these, just tying to illustrate there could be controlled methods to allow candidates more access to members to advance their credentials for election.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

if you had read my previous posts you would see that i had clearly stated i don't approve of open slather electioneering.

there is a huge choice of electioneering options between none + a vetted 300 word statement and open slather electioneering

i don't think i can make it any clearer than that

re my comment on "resources" i just said "one could argue" and  "not just money" and also "with the right skills/experience too". so it was a bit more nuanced than you chose to interpret. it's not a simple binary issue.

bottom line for me is i don't think the current restrictions on candidates allows me sufficient opportunity to make a considered decision. I'm not in any way dissatisfied with the board (quite the opposite) or calling for any sort of revolution.  just trying to intellectually and dispassionately discuss one aspect of board elections which i think is lacking and could be improved on.

Agree 100% DC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

You had better get moving - the invitation just landed today and you have 8 (now 7) days, incluidng the weekend, to get your 20 nominations sorted. Before you do that I suggest you read the Election Rules carefully. The term "Returning Officer" is mentioned at least 30 times. You had better get to know him well.....

 

Don't have time. Someone here must... An insider would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i said clearly there are options between no "electioneering" and full open-slather "electioneering"

that is fairly clear and not contradictory

what i didn't give was any solutions/suggestions between those two extremes......simply because i haven't put any detailed thoughts into it.....i left it open for others to make suggestions

 

just off the top of my head, some suggestions might be to allow  greater than 300 words, to provide a club moderated forum to allow candidates to answer member questions, to allow candidates to email members, to allow candidates to start a social media platform with defined limits etc etc.   i'm not advocating any one of these, just tying to illustrate there could be controlled methods to allow candidates more access to members to advance their credentials for election.

A little birdie told me that all of these very sensible options were suggested to the 'powers that be' for last year's election. Every single one rejected. Maybe this year?

Current Election Rules on the website suggest an increase to 500 words...... the phrase 'kicking and screaming' comes to mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

So a candidate who is a multimillionaire with excessive resources can give themselves an unfair advantage to electioneer however way they like with things like billboards, full page ads in the paper, etc etc etc, even though they may be a [censored] candidate, over someone with minimal access to such resources, who couldn't possibly afford to compete to get the same level of exposure, but who could be a perfect candidate?  Wouldn't that create the very result a lot of people are arguing against here? Way to promote the "rich boys club" DC.  Besides, you can say a lot more in a 300 word statement than you can in an expensive full page colour ad in the Herald Sun.

 

How did that work out for the guy who has tried that at the last few State and Federal elections? Don't undersetimate the intelligence of the members, if they are informed. Your example of 'an external candidate with minimal access to resources' I can gaurantee you will get nowhere near the members based on our MFC Election Rules.........not to mention the processes that go on behind the scenes.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2022 at 9:12 AM, Katrina Dee Fan said:

We have a great board.  If you disagree with that, go join Collingwood where you'd be lucky if you can get a vote in, or Hawthorn, which is having the most devisive AGM electioneering going on, with Kennett being at the heart of it.

Katrina this seems a little harsh to me.  The idea is not be better than the worst but the best of the best.

I think there are two ways to view Board Appointments.  The first is "let the board do it" because that will promote harmony and they are in the best position to judge what they need and who could provide that input.  I find this quite compelling in certain aspects but my experience from the dealings I've had with collective decision making bodies is that they benefit from diversity of ideas and what I might call "a black hat" in the room.  The black hat is someone who challenges things and prevents groupthink.  If you don't have this the Board can become lazy, unimaginative and complacent.  I hope they recognize this but I'm not sure they do.

The second way is allowing the members to have a genuine say in who sits on the Board.  This of course is the democratic way and also has its dangers because the people that appeal to the membership may be totally unsuited to sitting on the board.  It's where a serious process of review needs to happen prior to the nomination of candidates and this process needs to be totally independent from the sitting Board.  At the moment it isn't.

I think we have a hybrid at the moment where we say we have the second way but we really have the first.  You can't have the second way and then say candidates only have 500 words to communicate their position whilst allowing the President to communicate pages of lobbying for her/his preferred candidates.

There are valid benefits for both ways but what frustrates me is people who sit on either side defend to the death the behavior of their side and demonize those on the other side.  It's just not that simple and there are complicated pros can cons.  It's very short sighted to ignore this.

My view is this Board want it both ways and as a member I don't like that.  They want us to think we have a say when we don't. Let's just be honest about it and stop this hybrid we have.

  • Like 6
  • Love 1
  • Clap 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

The second way is allowing the members to have a genuine say in who sits on the Board.  This of course is the democratic way and also has its dangers because the people that appeal to the membership may be totally unsuited to sitting on the board.  It's where a serious process of review needs to happen prior to the nomination of candidates and this process needs to be totally independent from the sitting Board.  At the moment it isn't.

Why do I get the sneaky feeling you feel this way because your mate hasn't been an 'approved candidate' as such in the past...

Also, not sure how you have a 'totally independent' group determining the things you've already said the board would know best themselves in terms of what strengths and experience need to be added.

It's also a pretty big assumption to claim the current board are suffering from 'group think'. This is a group of very experienced professionals who do an unpaid job in service of the footy club they love. I find it hard to believe your claims that they suffer from a lack of alternate opinions and the conversations wouldn't be robust, and our results over the last few years would back that up.

Can you also please provide the examples of where the president has exceeded 500 words about a board candidate and sent 'pages of lobbying' to members? Accusing the president of breaking the clubs laws around elections is a very serious thing to do, so I'm guessing you have your evidence at the ready.

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Slarti and Daisy here. The arguments are well reasoned, non-inflammatory and in the interests of transparency, fairness and sound corporate governance. I get that most supporters have no interest in the board. I generally don't either, but would like to know we're doing the right thing without fear or favour. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Why do I get the sneaky feeling you feel this way because your mate hasn't been an 'approved candidate' as such in the past...

Also, not sure how you have a 'totally independent' group determining the things you've already said the board would know best themselves in terms of what strengths and experience need to be added.

It's also a pretty big assumption to claim the current board are suffering from 'group think'. This is a group of very experienced professionals who do an unpaid job in service of the footy club they love. I find it hard to believe your claims that they suffer from a lack of alternate opinions and the conversations wouldn't be robust, and our results over the last few years would back that up.

Can you also please provide the examples of where the president has exceeded 500 words about a board candidate and sent 'pages of lobbying' to members? Accusing the president of breaking the clubs laws around elections is a very serious thing to do, so I'm guessing you have your evidence at the ready.

A six-pager from our former President on 14 January 2021, complete with endorsement of the four incumbents punctuated with asterisks, emboldened names and tick marks - a few little examples below for your delectation Lord Nev. I haven't counted the words ...Candidates were only allowed 150 words back then. This is what happens when a Board has 'absolute discretion' around elections. Happy reading:

14 January 2021

.....the Board was delighted to announce the appointment of former club captain Brad Green and real estate/property lawyer David Rennick to fill those two vacancies as casual appointments to the Board pursuant to the Club’s Constitution. These appointments are both central to the immediate priorities of the Board and reflect the future direction and strategic plans of the Club.

As is the case with every appointment to a casual vacancy, each of these directors are required to offer themselves for election by the members ahead of the next Annual General Meeting and are required to be nominated by two members.

Mohan Jesudason and Steve Morris are current board directors and have made significant contributions in their time on the Board. Mohan Jesudason is an experienced director with significant commercial experience including in the telecommunications industry. He was also formerly a director of Racing Victoria and an executive with TAB Corp. Mohan, in addition to his role on the Nominations and Remuneration Sub-Committee and his general board duties, continues to play a significant role in our strategy to exit gaming. He also increases board diversity which is important.

Steve Morris is also an experienced director and company Chairman – specialising in capital raising. He has been a club director since 2015. Steve has assisted the football department by raising $250,000 through the supporters group “The Lunch Club”. Steve currently serves on the Nominations and Remuneration Sub-Committee and our Investment Committee, which both have critical roles going forward.

Endorsement of Candidates

You will have received a separate communication providing the details of the MFC Annual General Meeting on 15 February 2021 and concerning a contested board election. Our current Board is united and functions well. We have taken steps to avoid a costly contested election but every member has the right to be nominated for a board position with the support of not less than two members and we are respectful of that right.

As part of this election process, the Board is formally endorsing each of the following four candidates:

Brad Green;
David Rennick;
Mohan Jesudason; and
Steve Morris.

The Board is of the view that these four candidates, along with myself as Chairman, Vice-Chair Kate Roffey, David Robb, and John Trotter, will provide the best mix of the necessary skills and diversity of experience for the future. The endorsed Board, if elected, will continue as a committed and strong team focused on the best interests of the Club and all its members and stakeholders, as we hopefully emerge from the global pandemic and deliver on our Strategic Plan (please see the Club website for the complete list of board skills/experience and for the detail contained in the Strategic Plan).

Importantly, each of these board endorsed candidates bring broad experience in, and a network of relationships across local, interstate, and international jurisdictions. More information about their backgrounds has been and will continue to be available on our website for all current directors.

Peter Lawrence has nominated to become a director of the Club. Mr Lawrence is a keen, committed and valued club supporter but, in line with the comments above, the Board does not support his election and recommends that members vote for the four board endorsed candidates.

 

The Board endorsement of Brad Green, David Rennick, Mohan Jesudason and Steve Morris has been approved by unanimous vote of all members of the Board not standing for election or re-election.

Under my leadership since 2013, the Board has been unified and collaborative and our achievements reflect that. We encourage members to vote only for the board endorsed candidates to enable this team to complete the tasks before them, which include the objectives regarding on field success.

While undertaking the important work around strategy, in 2021 the current Board is committed to reviewing a number of aspects of our governance and engagement approach. While our constitution has served us well for many years, we need to make sure it is fit for purpose for the future. We will also undertake some important work around diversity. We are committed to building an even stronger board going forward, that is fully representative of all areas of our great Club.

 

Finally, we ask that you vote as follows in the coming election and return your voting slip by no later than 5 February 2021, approving only four out of the five candidates for the four positions:

Peter Lawrence

Brad Green*  

Mohan Jesudason*

David Rennick*

Steve Morris*

* Board endorsed candidate.

Glen Bartlett
Chairman
Melbourne Football Club

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

A six-pager from our former President on 14 January 2021, complete with endorsement of the four incumbents punctuated with asterisks, emboldened names and tick marks - a few little examples below for your delectation Lord Nev. I haven't counted the words ...Candidates were only allowed 150 words back then. This is what happens when a Board has 'absolute discretion' around elections. Happy reading:

Nowhere in there is there a more than a 150 word endorsement of a candidate. That was the rule at the time correct?

Can you point out specifically which section use more than 150 words to lobby for a specific candidate and therefore have broken the rules? I know you said you haven't actually counted, but if you an Slarti above are insinuating the president has broken the rules then you will probably have to be a bit more accurate there.

Most (unbiased) people in this thread seem to agree that it's not harmful that the board recommend candidates based on the mix of skills needed for the board to function at it's best capacity, so long as the actual rules are fair, and the above pretty clearly lays out the reasoning for that and provides the board's recommendation all within the laws surrounding the election. Can you point out what I may have missed that is to the contrary?

I do appreciate your attempt to label it a "six-pager" when in fact, the majority of the letter focuses on the 2020 season, financial results, the strategic plan etc.

Members Update and Board Election

I also note you left out the bit where your mate (or is it you?) had been communicated with by the Nominations Sub-Committee on numerous occasions.

Mr Lawrence’s nomination has been reviewed by the Remuneration and Nominations Sub-Committee in accordance with the Club's Constitution. The Chairman and Chair of the Nominations and Remuneration Sub-Committee have met with and corresponded with Mr Lawrence on a number of occasions. Mr Lawrence is also known to other directors.

Seems like he got a pretty fair shake there, perhaps he just wasn't suited? I'm sure I'm not the only voting member who discovered that more clearly during the recent legal proceedings where my contact details were obtained by him. Possibly even more telling is that it's mentioned Lawrence is known to some of the directors yet he didn't receive a single vote from the board.

Was probably fortunate you/your mate even made it passed the review hey? I mean, given this evil board has "absolute discretion" and all.

 

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

58 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Nowhere in there is there a more than a 150 word endorsement of a candidate. That was the rule at the time correct?

Can you point out specifically which section use more than 150 words to lobby for a specific candidate and therefore have broken the rules? I know you said you haven't actually counted, but if you an Slarti above are insinuating the president has broken the rules then you will probably have to be a bit more accurate there.

Most (unbiased) people in this thread seem to agree that it's not harmful that the board recommend candidates based on the mix of skills needed for the board to function at it's best capacity, so long as the actual rules are fair, and the above pretty clearly lays out the reasoning for that and provides the board's recommendation all within the laws surrounding the election. Can you point out what I may have missed that is to the contrary?

I do appreciate your attempt to label it a "six-pager" when in fact, the majority of the letter focuses on the 2020 season, financial results, the strategic plan etc.

Members Update and Board Election

I also note you left out the bit where your mate (or is it you?) had been communicated with by the Nominations Sub-Committee on numerous occasions.

Mr Lawrence’s nomination has been reviewed by the Remuneration and Nominations Sub-Committee in accordance with the Club's Constitution. The Chairman and Chair of the Nominations and Remuneration Sub-Committee have met with and corresponded with Mr Lawrence on a number of occasions. Mr Lawrence is also known to other directors.

Seems like he got a pretty fair shake there, perhaps he just wasn't suited? I'm sure I'm not the only voting member who discovered that more clearly during the recent legal proceedings where my contact details were obtained by him. Possibly even more telling is that it's mentioned Lawrence is known to some of the directors yet he didn't receive a single vote from the board.

Was probably fortunate you/your mate even made it passed the review hey? I mean, given this evil board has "absolute discretion" and all.

 

Long response Lord Nev. You wanted evidence of pages "lobbying to members". You have it. Then you head off elsewhere. 

This message was written by the Chairman at the time. If I was one of the four incumbents (including the two that had just been appointed to fill casual vacancies - a time-honoured technique) I would have been pretty happy with those glowing endorsements, including running under Election Rules (changed two weeks after the First set had come out) that effectively gagged candidates.

It's up to Demonlanders whether to believe everything else that was written in that 14 January 2021 missive, including the language that the Board was 'unified and collaborative'. Three months later the Chairman was gone and our current President eventually advised us in June 2022

“Primarily, we would like to address the club’s change of presidency in April 2021. It was the unanimous decision of the board to request Glen resign as president,”

Just three months after he (with the unanimous agreement of the other three non-particpating Board members) had endorsed the other four incumbents.

Anyway - back to Slarti's point, it's all about a decent process of compiling the Board. Have that and all members will be happy and as Roger Mellie said he would then know 'that we're doing the right thing without fear or favour'.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Long response Lord Nev. You wanted evidence of pages "lobbying to members". You have it. Then you head off elsewhere. 

This message was written by the Chairman at the time. If I was one of the four incumbents (including the two that had just been appointed to fill casual vacancies - a time-honoured technique) I would have been pretty happy with those glowing endorsements, including running under Election Rules (changed two weeks after the First set had come out) that effectively gagged candidates.

It's up to Demonlanders whether to believe everything else that was written in that 14 January 2021 missive, including the language that the Board was 'unified and collaborative'. Three months later the Chairman was gone and our current President eventually advised us in June 2022

“Primarily, we would like to address the club’s change of presidency in April 2021. It was the unanimous decision of the board to request Glen resign as president,”

Just three months after he (with the unanimous agreement of the other three non-particpating Board members) had endorsed the other four incumbents.

Anyway - back to Slarti's point, it's all about a decent process of compiling the Board. Have that and all members will be happy and as Roger Mellie said he would then know 'that we're doing the right thing without fear or favour'.

No, I wanted evidence of the election laws being broken - neither you or "Slartibarfast" have provided that, despite your insinuations.

You seem to now be moving the goal posts along to Bartlett, who I'm no huge fan of, but that's yet another sign that you just have a personal vendetta against the board that has no solid basis, just grievances. It's sad that you can't enjoy this period of success that they have helped bring along due to that.

A very strange time to be such a disgruntled supporter.

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

17 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

No, I wanted evidence of the election laws being broken - neither you or "Slartibarfast" have provided that, despite your insinuations.

You seem to now be moving the goal posts along to Bartlett, who I'm no huge fan of, but that's yet another sign that you just have a personal vendetta against the board that has no solid basis, just grievances. It's sad that you can't enjoy this period of success that they have helped bring along due to that.

A very strange time to be such a disgruntled supporter.

Not at all. Just focussed on a proper process. Having five sets of Election Rules in two years is the very definition of 'moving the goal posts'. We must be better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Not at all. Just focussed on a proper process. Having five sets of Election Rules in two years is the very definition of 'moving the goal posts'. We must be better than that.

Fair enough.  Lets start by not changing the election rules for the next 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rolling Stone said:

I'm not sure if this discussion is achieving anything bar people getting stuff off their chests.

With repsect, I think there's a bit more to it than that - it's about how our Board is compiled in good times, mediocre times or bad times. And it's in those bad times when you look around to see what can be done and members find that they are stymied by an 'absolute discretion' in the Constitution and Election Rules that prevent change.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

With repsect, I think there's a bit more to it than that - it's about how our Board is compiled in good times, mediocre times or bad times. And it's in those bad times when you look around to see what can be done and members find that they are stymied by an 'absolute discretion' in the Constitution and Election Rules that prevent change.

uh ... okay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hawthorn Board Elections have been loud and perhaps not to everyone's taste, but it looks pretty clear that their members have had a clear say. Whilst voting Gowers in, only one of the other three Hawks for Change endorsements was elected - Merlino.

I don't know much about the merits of the various candidates but the process seems to demonstrate that when members were given information about candidates, they didn't just vote like sheep.

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

23 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

The Hawthorn Board Elections have been loud and perhaps not to everyone's taste, but it looks pretty clear that their members have had a clear say. Whilst voting Gowers in, only one of the other three Hawks for Change endorsements was elected - Merlino.

I don't know much about the merits of the various candidates but the process seems to demonstrate that when members were given information about candidates, they didn't just vote like sheep.

Yeah that's been a real model process.... 🙄

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   3 members

  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    TRAINING: Monday 30th January 2023

    PICKET FENCE'S TRAINING REPORT NO SHOWS JACK VINEY, MATT JEFFERSON, CHRISTIAN SALEM. Also Did not see ADAM TOMLINSON  INJURIES MODIFIED DUTIES MAX, JOEL SMITH, ANB, AMW,( NO 47 Not sure who ) and during training CLARRY ( More on this latter)  SKILLS , DRILLS AND MANOUVERS After warm ups and Run Throughs, players broke of into 3 Groups doing a variety of Close in Handball through traffic to hit clean target with players pressuring. One on one groundh

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 25th January 2023

    DEMONLAND’S TRAINING REPORT Rehab Group: Lever (in runners but kicking the ball well and seems to be moving well), Max (not present), Melksham, Howes, AMW, J Smith - then later joined by the following not participating in contract drills/Match SIM - Brown, Spargo, D Turner, Verrall, Adams  Stafford was out early with Grundy & Verrall doing ruck drills.  White Guernseys: May, Bowey, Trac, JVR, Rivers, Sestan, Nibbler, Kozzie, Grundy, Hunter, Harmes, Fritsch, Laurie, Jord

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 23rd January 2023

    WIZARD333'S TRAINING REPORT I went down and it was locked out for first hour but could see through fence then allowed in. Max Gawn ran laps — it looks like a 3 to 4 week injury. Andy Moniz-Wakefield ran laps. Blake Howes was taken off late as was on restricted minutes. Adam Tomlinson loudest on track and a leader - surprised me but won't be in best 25. Jake Lever on bike and walking up n down stairs, yelling out as he does. Melky copped a niggle so ran laps but

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Friday 20th January 2023

    TOUGH KENT'S TRAINING REPORT I journeyed out to Casey today and was fortunate enough to watch two quarters of match simulation. Here is a brief rundown of random occurrences/thoughts. First of all, there was no Jake Lever (ankle) or Joel Smith involved. AMW is still in rehab and was running strongly. It was Blue (Probables) v Red (Possibles) JvR was in blue. Ben Brown, T-Mac, Hibbo and Tom Sparrow were in red. Gus Brayshaw started at half back for blue and stayed there all game.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 18th January 2023

    DEE ZEPHYR'S TRAINING REPORT Morning all. First time at Goschs for a while, there’s a scoreboard set up which I’ve never seen here before. Possible match sim? Williams yelling out to players to get their hands off hips during drills. Gus looks fine to me. Absolutely., first two mins of match sim and his kicking is exquisite on both sides. He’s moving incredibly well.  Some observations from a match sim drill that lasted about 15-20 mins. The purpose se

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 16th January 2023

    STINGA'S TRAINING REPORT Went with a friend to watch training this morning.  They have 3 sets of temporary grandstands set up next to the rooms for spectators and get a good view of everything. Fritsch was the only absentee and J Smith was on the bike for the whole session. Everyone in their own numbers except JVR in 44,   Kye Turner is 47 and Burgoyne 33. Started off with goal kicking which has been described before. Then an agility routine where where they ducked aroun

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Friday 13th January 2023

    REDLEGS23'S TRAINING REPORT Got to training about 9:50 & headed off by 11:30. Rehab / Light Drills: • Jed Adams • Kyah Farris-White • Will Varrall • I think i spotted Joel Smith, but could be wrong. The above doing light drills. Andy Moniz-Wakefield & Trent Burgoyne doing seperate laps / runs for the whole session. James Harmes, Angus Brayshaw & Steven May all started with the main group but then progressed to light duties / laps for the remainder of th

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 11th January 2023

    WAYNE WUSSELL'S TRAINING REPORT Haven’t noticed Oliver, Petracca and Hunter, just about everyone else accounted for. Petracca here! J Smith striding out in rehab. BB taking lots of shots on goal after session marking in goal square v Stafford Younger players tending to float short passes to leading forward (D Smith, 33, 39, KF-S) while Petracca, Viney, Kossie, ANB shoot hard and low bullets Harmes, Verall, & Adams doing agility, ball handling JVR stand out in te

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Monday 9th January 2023

    DEESPENCER'S TRAINING REPORT The 4 unsighted Kozzy, Petty, Hunter and Oliver . Lots of players in different numbers making it confusing. Brayshaw mostly doing some kick to kick and repeat jogging with Adams and Verrell. May and Harmes were in more drills then pulled out for light stuff. Burgoyne, Deak and Joel Smith on light duties. Joel did some solid repeat sprints. AMW on the watt bike. For a solid period they split in to 3 groups. Group A did a drill from the half fo

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...