1 hour ago, Dante said:

Well I went to breakfast with one of the club fundraisers, Pert was supposed to be there but had to pull out, and was asked if I'd like to contribute to the building of a RECOVERY POOL which they had planned. That was about a month and a half ago and they haven't asked me for my contribution yet. I got a copy of the projected construction, they hadn't started at that stage.

They certainly got that built pretty quickly.

I think Perty said that the recovery pool will be completed by June 2023.!!

7 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

I think Perty said that the recovery pool will be completed by June 2023.!!

Maybe Demon3165 is so busy talking he doesn't have timer to listen.

I'd be surprised if it was ready by then, they were relying on 100 people contributing to the cost and as I said, I  haven't been asked for my contribution as they.

Edited February 21, 20232 yr by Dante

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1272991/gary-pert-facilities-update-agm?videoId=1272991&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1676933089001

8 hours ago, rpfc said:

Hang on a second - we go to Caulfield or wherever - is that our ‘home’ is it the G? 

This is where we ties ourselves in knots about what exactly we are looking for.

I thought we needed elite training facilities, forgive me for not being sentimental to a literal fault.

We need both. I thought Pert articulated it well, it's clearly a key objective for him and the Board let's hope they can deliver something in the coming years.

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Not that figure. I was asking where you got the travel time from. You wrote:

 "...the rest of the population travel large distances to work everyday 8-9 hours a day in peak hour ..."

 

 

lmfao do think only people work 10min down the road I know plenty of people that have big commutes for long periods of time, at one stage in my working lifeI i traveled from East Bentleigh to Epping every day building brick kilns, so why is it different for players to travel but not for the normal working folk and how many days a week are they doing that?

I thought that was a good update from Pert.

I'm glad we're considering other options besides the MGC precinct. We've been a long time trying to convince stakeholders and the state government to give us a spot there. If it was possible, it would have happened by now.

Personally, I think Caulfield is a great option. I hope we end up there.

26 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We need both. I thought Pert articulated it well, it's clearly a key objective for him and the Board let's hope they can deliver something in the coming years.

I too thought Pert articulated the conundrum well. There is progress being made, but there are a lot of stakeholder and the State Gov has asked for confidentiality. This probably helps with ensuring other ‘interested parties’ don’t come out of woodwork. It’s a delicate process that needs to be well managed. Casey will always be retained, but there is no intention to pursue that as a permanent solution, because the pillars tht have been established revolve around a ‘footprint’ in the inner city. We’ve invested a lot in this pursuit, I think Pert and Roffey will see it through

2 hours ago, demon3165 said:

lmfao do think only people work 10min down the road I know plenty of people that have big commutes for long periods of time, at one stage in my working lifeI i traveled from East Bentleigh to Epping every day building brick kilns, so why is it different for players to travel but not for the normal working folk and how many days a week are they doing that?

You could probably do East Bentleigh to Epping in 4 .5 hours in a horse and cart,
when did you say you worked there?

9 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

I too thought Pert articulated the conundrum well. There is progress being made, but there are a lot of stakeholder and the State Gov has asked for confidentiality. This probably helps with ensuring other ‘interested parties’ don’t come out of woodwork. It’s a delicate process that needs to be well managed. Casey will always be retained, but there is no intention to pursue that as a permanent solution, because the pillars tht have been established revolve around a ‘footprint’ in the inner city. We’ve invested a lot in this pursuit, I think Pert and Roffey will see it through

Well written KITP and Dr Gonzo.

I have for the last 3/4 years posted this reason as outlined by Gary Pert for no decisions yet on our base for facilities.

But the level of impatient posting on D/L completely disregarding these factors is completely over the top and ignoring the real reasons. 

I hope now the rebel rousers put their posts on the back burner and take notice.  Simply their enthusiasm whole meaning well is completely misguided and time is needed to choose the right location . 

We will only get ONE chance to succeed and the scatterbrain comments on this topic are mostly waste of time and any breath. 

Contrary to all opinion both Kate and Perty have delivered on 8/9 out of 10 ticks on our strategy Plan and I believe they will deliver in their own time a far better result than the restless and cynical left field dreamers who have no idea of how delicate a decision this base is for the future of our Club. 

11 hours ago, demon3165 said:

so why is it different for players to travel but not for the normal working folk

I guess for the reason they are not normal working folk.

I'm not disagreeing with you and in an ideal world that would be the case.

...but in a world where players are treated as special & above us normal folk is it any wonder that some behave as prima donnas.

11 hours ago, demon3165 said:

lmfao do think only people work 10min down the road I know plenty of people that have big commutes for long periods of time, at one stage in my working lifeI i traveled from East Bentleigh to Epping every day building brick kilns, so why is it different for players to travel but not for the normal working folk and how many days a week are they doing that?

Sigh...

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I guess for the reason they are not normal working folk.

I'm not disagreeing with you and in an ideal world that would be the case.

...but in a world where players are treated as special & above us normal folk is it any wonder that some behave as prima donnas.

Plus we all spent so much time in our own houses and areas recently, most of them would rather die than take a trip across town now. 

7 hours ago, 58er said:

Well written KITP and Dr Gonzo.

I have for the last 3/4 years posted this reason as outlined by Gary Pert for no decisions yet on our base for facilities.

But the level of impatient posting on D/L completely disregarding these factors is completely over the top and ignoring the real reasons. 

I hope now the rebel rousers put their posts on the back burner and take notice.  Simply their enthusiasm whole meaning well is completely misguided and time is needed to choose the right location . 

We will only get ONE chance to succeed and the scatterbrain comments on this topic are mostly waste of time and any breath. 

Contrary to all opinion both Kate and Perty have delivered on 8/9 out of 10 ticks on our strategy Plan and I believe they will deliver in their own time a far better result than the restless and cynical left field dreamers who have no idea of how delicate a decision this base is for the future of our Club. 

Many thnaks for this post 58er (and others along the same line)

As an experieneced land/building development professional on Crown Land I don't envy Pert's task.

My last project involved securing State apporval for the Crown land project, design development, consultaion with Community and Stakeholders and securing the $10M in funds to build from State and Federal resources.

It took 10 years for the outcome.

I have no doubt the team on this are doing their best. It will get done but first hand comments to me from some team members recently at a function noted Casey was "world Class" and wanted for nothing.  It will have to do for now.

Go Dees.

It seems the main discussion arising from the AGM surrounds the home base, with spirited discussion about it on this thread.

I was interested in some governance aspects of the meeting, namely:

1. Very little advertising/prompting of members re the meeting on the website.

2. Very little information about how the live-stream would work - no questions taken from those who viewed from afar.

3. At the meeting, no copy of last year's AGM minutes available.

4. Problems with the audio on the live stream and then it cut out before Question Time and the Members' Resolution count?

5. No numbers disclosed re the Board Election (just percentages - why?) and yet the website has published the FOR/AGAINST figures for the Members' Resolution of 1575/1868 (45.7%/54.3%), a total of 3,443 votes.

6. Reed and McCoy polled 22.6% and 19.8% respectively. They had no chance - no electioneering allowed and an endorsement for the three candidates by the Board to ALL MEMBERS on the Friday before the election closed.

7. And yet more than double that percentage of voters sent a message to the Board that they want fair, open and transparent elections. Will they hear the message? Or will they listen to the 1,868 (maybe 4% of the voting base?) who said 'you can choose who you want'.

23 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

It seems the main discussion arising from the AGM surrounds the home base, with spirited discussion about it on this thread.

I was interested in some governance aspects of the meeting, namely:

1. Very little advertising/prompting of members re the meeting on the website.

2. Very little information about how the live-stream would work - no questions taken from those who viewed from afar.

3. At the meeting, no copy of last year's AGM minutes available.

4. Problems with the audio on the live stream and then it cut out before Question Time and the Members' Resolution count?

5. No numbers disclosed re the Board Election (just percentages - why?) and yet the website has published the FOR/AGAINST figures for the Members' Resolution of 1575/1868 (45.7%/54.3%), a total of 3,443 votes.

6. Reed and McCoy polled 22.6% and 19.8% respectively. They had no chance - no electioneering allowed and an endorsement for the three candidates by the Board to ALL MEMBERS on the Friday before the election closed.

7. And yet more than double that percentage of voters sent a message to the Board that they want fair, open and transparent elections. Will they hear the message? Or will they listen to the 1,868 (maybe 4% of the voting base?) who said 'you can choose who you want'.

While I don't agree with much of what you argue regarding the election process, I'm grateful for this post as it tells me some things I didn't know. In particular, the votes for Reed and McCoy. I assume you mean that they received 22.6% and 19.8% of votes cast, which, seems to me to be a large number for non-incumbents when the club is in a good position. They should be pleased with that result. 

And while the site published the figures for the Members' Resolution, it was poorIy presented as it didn't say which of the two numbers was for and which against - only that the necessary threshold of 75% wasn't reached.

20 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I don't agree with much of what you argue regarding the election process, I'm grateful for this post as it tells me some things I didn't know. In particular, the votes for Reed and McCoy. I assume you mean that they received 22.6% and 19.8% of votes cast, which, seems to me to be a large number for non-incumbents when the club is in a good position. They should be pleased with that result. 

And while the site published the figures for the Members' Resolution, it was poorIy presented as it didn't say which of the two numbers was for and which against - only that the necessary threshold of 75% wasn't reached.

Correct - they present the results as a percentage of voters who placed a tick next to each candidate's name.

It would be so much simpler to just list the total number of ticks received.

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Correct - they present the results as a percentage of voters who placed a tick next to each candidate's name.

It would be so much simpler to just list the total number of ticks received.

Try again next. LOL

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

It seems the main discussion arising from the AGM surrounds the home base, with spirited discussion about it on this thread.

I was interested in some governance aspects of the meeting, namely:

1. Very little advertising/prompting of members re the meeting on the website.

2. Very little information about how the live-stream would work - no questions taken from those who viewed from afar.

3. At the meeting, no copy of last year's AGM minutes available.

4. Problems with the audio on the live stream and then it cut out before Question Time and the Members' Resolution count?

5. No numbers disclosed re the Board Election (just percentages - why?) and yet the website has published the FOR/AGAINST figures for the Members' Resolution of 1575/1868 (45.7%/54.3%), a total of 3,443 votes.

6. Reed and McCoy polled 22.6% and 19.8% respectively. They had no chance - no electioneering allowed and an endorsement for the three candidates by the Board to ALL MEMBERS on the Friday before the election closed.

7. And yet more than double that percentage of voters sent a message to the Board that they want fair, open and transparent elections. Will they hear the message? Or will they listen to the 1,868 (maybe 4% of the voting base?) who said 'you can choose who you want'.

Not to be flippant, but they are going to listen to 90% of members who don’t give a fig about this stuff. 

Also, your last point, will they listen to to 4% or the 3.5%?? Creating your own strawman there…

23 hours ago, Mickey said:

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1272991/gary-pert-facilities-update-agm?videoId=1272991&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1676933089001

That was an excellent update from Pert

Thanks for putting it up. He reads Demonland i have no doubt. He fully understands the frustration 

 

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I assume you mean that they received 22.6% and 19.8% of votes cast

This does my head in.  I  think it means that there was a tick against the candidates name on ballots cast, with each ballot containing 3 votes.

Now in another place it has been stated that Roffey got 94% of the vote. To look at it another way 6% of voters didnt vote for Roffey.  (And 77.4% didnt vote for Reed and 80.2% didn't vote for McCoy)

Anyone know what the other 2 candidates got?

I think...

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

It would be so much simpler to just list the total number of ticks received.

Hear, hear.

On 2/21/2023 at 8:37 PM, BDA said:

I thought that was a good update from Pert.

I'm glad we're considering other options besides the MGC precinct. We've been a long time trying to convince stakeholders and the state government to give us a spot there. If it was possible, it would have happened by now.

Personally, I think Caulfield is a great option. I hope we end up there.

Caulfield has so many, perfect options and would be an ideal location for the MFC alongside so much sporting history and reasonable access routes. 

8 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Caulfield has so many, perfect options and would be an ideal location for the MFC alongside so much sporting history and reasonable access routes. 

well without any detailed plans and acceptance it's a long way from being "perfect"

but it does look appealing

 

12 hours ago, Jontee said:

This does my head in.  I  think it means that there was a tick against the candidates name on ballots cast, with each ballot containing 3 votes.

Now in another place it has been stated that Roffey got 94% of the vote. To look at it another way 6% of voters didnt vote for Roffey.  (And 77.4% didnt vote for Reed and 80.2% didn't vote for McCoy)

Anyone know what the other 2 candidates got?

I think...

One way to look at it is that Rennick and Kendall polled around 4,500/4,600 ticks (my guess) on the coat-tails of the President, with  just over 6,000 voting in total (less than 15% of voting members bothered).

Those inclined to vote for Reed and McCoy probably gave Roffey their third tick, giving her that 94% figure.

The main takeaway is that most members didn't bother (not helped by the Candidates being muzzled by the MFC Election Rules).

The move to electronic voting did not seem to increase the vote materially from the past two years (an increase of less than 1,000). So it is still the 'oldies', who filled in the postal ballot in the last two years, who are voting.

On 2/20/2023 at 11:34 PM, Dante said:

If the facilities we have are so good, why are we pursuing other options.
 

The point was addressed by Pert.  If we wanted to base ourselves out in the outer suburbs we could have done that years ago.  However as the Melbourne Football Club the aim is to have our base in the inner city area that is our own and not shared. We have fantastic facilities at Casey Fields, however it is outer suburban.  The spending for facilities was needed because our VFL/W teams will be based there, and our AFLW team plays home games there, so that is a long term investment.  We have access to fantastic facilities at AAMI Stadium however it is shared with Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Storm.