MFC Annual General Meeting tonight 20/2/2023 at 6:30pm

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:00 AM, old dee said:

Good question, hopefully someone will enlighten us. 

Melbourne Olympic Park Trust

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:17 AM, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Why do we have offices at AAAMI park but then have zero advertising rights around the precinct? That's a question I'd like answered. We are not even included on the official tenants banner that is situated at the front of the stadium. Where is the signage at the MCG, advertising the ground as our home?  We have no home. Nothing to identify with. There is zero brand exposure for the MFC. If we are to grow the supporter base, it's marketing 101 to have brand exposure. We have ZERO! That is the importance of a home base. The residents of CASEY could not give a rats t0ssbag about AFL. You could remain there for another 10 years and you'd be unlikely to get 1000 additional members. Meanwhile, we are moving further from our heartland areas and engaging less with our traditional supporter regions. That is a massive issue! That is why it needs fixing!

Our administration office is not based at AAMI, it's based in the Southern Stand of the MCG.  There is an annexed office space used by the football department.  

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:28 AM, Cyclops said:

I think Kate was  saying the facilities were great for the AFL side. Pert said that the change rooms for AFLW would be built soon.

The change rooms were being developed from end of last year.  It's why we couldn't play any finals games at Casey.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

On 2/21/2023 at 3:27 PM, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

The shops are across a four lane road and barely walking distance. It’s a plaza with shops akin to something in Midwest America. Sorry jaded, your area has no appeal … except to low income families and migrants. I bet the red rooster is a big hit on Friday nights. 
 

melbournes home attendance last year was actually very good. Ranks 2 overall if you look at it from a percentage of members perspective. Also higher than many others. So that is a myth. 

You're a classist snob

Edited February 22, 2023 by Katrina Dee Fan

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

On 2/21/2023 at 4:57 PM, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

 

 

I also think we should look outside the box. I’d be looking at Caulfield. I’d be looking at the Mornington Peninsula, which is now connected by Peninsula Link. 

Casey Fields is too far so let's look at Mornington Peninsula?  Seriously?

[old dee 23,871]

14 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Casey Fields is too far so let's look at Mornington Peninsula?  Seriously?

Seems like an angry child lashing out at everyone KDF. Humour of the day. My spell check wanted to change you to KFC. 

[Cyclops 511]

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Our administration office is not based at AAMI, it's based in the Southern Stand of the MCG.  There is an annexed office space used by the football department.  

Katrina, therein lies part of the problem. If administration was moved to Casey then we would need to look for replacement admin staff. The admin were hired as CBD workers and may live north or west and travel to Casey every day would be difficult. The difficulty would also be for some of the volunteers.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

6 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Katrina, therein lies part of the problem. If administration was moved to Casey then we would need to look for replacement admin staff. The admin were hired as CBD workers and may live north or west and travel to Casey every day would be difficult. The difficulty would also be for some of the volunteers.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that.  I'm merely correcting some misinformation here.  I was responding to a post here that the club's office were at AAMI.  They're not, they're at the MCG.  There is no plan, though, to move admin base to Casey, that has never been on the agenda.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

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.

The primary objective of the electronic vote was to reduce costs.  In the past postal votes cost a fortune, electronic voting is significantly more cost effective.  

I have to say, HTD, your constant pontificating about how bad the club is being run is getting rather tiresome.  Now it's about how many people vote.  How about you look at the percentages of other clubs' members voting at AGM and come back to us. 

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Seems like an angry child lashing out at everyone KDF. Humour of the day. My spell check wanted to change you to KFC. 

Some people on this forum have nothing better to do other than [censored] and moan about the club. It's getting boring.

[Guest]

On 2/21/2023 at 3:27 PM, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

The shops are across a four lane road and barely walking distance. It’s a plaza with shops akin to something in Midwest America. Sorry jaded, your area has no appeal … except to low income families and migrants. I bet the red rooster is a big hit on Friday nights. 
 

melbournes home attendance last year was actually very good. Ranks 2 overall if you look at it from a percentage of members perspective. Also higher than many others. So that is a myth. 

 

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

You're a classist snob

Thanks Kat. Saved me the time and effort. 

[Demon17 5,202]

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

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.

It is reasonable to assume the following:

1. Those who voted in the Resolution, likely also voted for the Directors. You wouldn't bother to do one and not the other given the ease of the system. Thus only probably 10% of members voted.

2. Those 10% are likely to be engaged enough in the issue to bother. Like me. The election process was not an 'above the line' process, so just because someone voted Roffey, (like me) doesn't mean they were slack enough to vote for remaining incumbents or that their vote was then preferenced to the other incumbents. I read the statements and researched, and concluded those new candidates had less experience to be on the Board of a $60M plus business.

3. The electronic process was designed to save 100's of thousands on dollars and move us into the 21st century, a byproduct of more votes delivered isn't related. Look at the last State election. Lowest turnout and informals in history. Maybe Dees fans are a sample of the Vic electorate at large. Logic says this is possible.

4. yes, most members (90% ish) didn't bother. If a candidate can't convince me in 500 words of their background then they miss my vote.  Being a died-in-the -wool demon tragic doesn't cut it at Board level. The last thing we want is emotional decision-making on most Board matters. Save that enthusiam for game day like me. 

And Kate.

See you at moorabbin

[Jaded No More 68,973]

49 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Katrina, therein lies part of the problem. If administration was moved to Casey then we would need to look for replacement admin staff. The admin were hired as CBD workers and may live north or west and travel to Casey every day would be difficult. The difficulty would also be for some of the volunteers.

How many admin staff work from home now? At least partially? I would say most if not all.

[poita 3,902]

1 hour ago, Cyclops said:

Katrina, therein lies part of the problem. If administration was moved to Casey then we would need to look for replacement admin staff. The admin were hired as CBD workers and may live north or west and travel to Casey every day would be difficult. The difficulty would also be for some of the volunteers.

Everyone seems to be under the misconception that the MCG is in the centre of Melbourne. It's not - the population centre of Melbourne is somewhere around Glen Iris, so the MCG is already to the north or west for more than half of Melbourne's population.

I live in the city of Kingston, which is pretty close to what you would consider Melbourne's traditional heartland area. I can guarantee you that I could get to Casey in less time than I could get to the MCG, particularly in peak hour, and the drive would be much more relaxing going against the traffic.

My point is that for players who are living in the bayside or south east suburbs, which is likely to be a significant percentage, the trip to Casey is no more than the trip to the MCG and possibly less. If Casey is to be the future of the club as a training hub, so be it. I can't see that it is the deterrent that some people are making it out to be.

[drysdale demon 4,837]

1 hour ago, Demon17 said:

It is reasonable to assume the following:

1. Those who voted in the Resolution, likely also voted for the Directors. You wouldn't bother to do one and not the other given the ease of the system. Thus only probably 10% of members voted.

2. Those 10% are likely to be engaged enough in the issue to bother. Like me. The election process was not an 'above the line' process, so just because someone voted Roffey, (like me) doesn't mean they were slack enough to vote for remaining incumbents or that their vote was then preferenced to the other incumbents. I read the statements and researched, and concluded those new candidates had less experience to be on the Board of a $60M plus business.

3. The electronic process was designed to save 100's of thousands on dollars and move us into the 21st century, a byproduct of more votes delivered isn't related. Look at the last State election. Lowest turnout and informals in history. Maybe Dees fans are a sample of the Vic electorate at large. Logic says this is possible.

4. yes, most members (90% ish) didn't bother. If a candidate can't convince me in 500 words of their background then they miss my vote.  Being a died-in-the -wool demon tragic doesn't cut it at Board level. The last thing we want is emotional decision-making on most Board matters. Save that enthusiam for game day like me. 

And Kate.

See you at moorabbin

 In racing parlance Hawk the Demon is whipping a dead horse I reckon.

Edited February 23, 2023 by drysdale demon
spelling

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

5 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

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.

Can you please stop pushing a personal agenda against the MFC Board. It is getting very tiresome and disrespectful. 
You lost the Election Fair and Square.

PL. cost the Club a lot of money for zero gain. Electronic voting was bought in to save costs. Sadly PL ruined that 

Deemocracy has been defeated 

QED

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,893]

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

How many admin staff work from home now? At least partially? I would say most if not all.

Why would they?  There are no restrictions anymore.

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

4 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

The primary objective of the electronic vote was to reduce costs.  In the past postal votes cost a fortune, electronic voting is significantly more cost effective.  

I have to say, HTD, your constant pontificating about how bad the club is being run is getting rather tiresome.  Now it's about how many people vote.  How about you look at the percentages of other clubs' members voting at AGM and come back to us. 

Katrina, you will find that I was merely providing Jontee with some facts to answer his legitimate question regarding the presentation of the voting numbers. Happy to discuss any of those facts which you may dispute.

Oh, and the muzzling during the election is also an indisputable fact (it's in the MFC Election Rules) - as was pointed out by Jo McCoy's question to the Board at the meeting - oh, but those watching the live stream didn't get to hear that.....

So they didn't get to hear from Jo DURING the election and (unless you were at the G on Monday night) you don't get to hear from her AFTER the election. Nice one.

 

[Supreme_Demon 3,899]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I voted for Phil Reed among one of the three vacant board positions, but he simply never got enough votes. I have accepted that. Furthermore, I have faith that the MFC Board under the leadership of MFC President Kate Roffey are doing a wonderful job overall.

My bigger issue was any update on the construction of our new Home Base, something I am obsessive about. Nevertheless, I accepted MFC CEO Gary Pert's detailed explanation about the Home Base. I will bide my time on this issue until the next MFC AGM and ask again then.

However, I will say that I was watching the MFC AGM online via live stream though. I was disappointed that it cut out before the "Q&A" commenced. I am sure I wasn't the only one perplexed with the abrupt ending of the live stream. But I am understanding that there may have been technical issues.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but never heard back, if anybody could please let me know what questions were asked and what the responses were from the MFC Board it would be greatly appreciated.

[Jaded No More 68,973]

3 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Why would they?  There are no restrictions anymore.

Because most people post Covid are choosing to work from home where possible. 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,809]

3 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

I don't have a dog in this fight. I voted for Phil Reed among one of the three vacant board positions, but he simply never got enough votes. I have accepted that. Furthermore, I have faith that the MFC Board under the leadership of MFC President Kate Roffey are doing a wonderful job overall.

My bigger issue was any update on the construction of our new Home Base, something I am obsessive about. Nevertheless, I accepted MFC CEO Gary Pert's detailed explanation about the Home Base. I will bide my time on this issue until the next MFC AGM and ask again then.

However, I will say that I was watching the MFC AGM online via live stream though. I was disappointed that it cut out before the "Q&A" commenced. I am sure I wasn't the only one perplexed with the abrupt ending of the live stream. But I am understanding that there may have been technical issues.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but never heard back, if anybody could please let me know what questions were asked and what the responses were from the MFC Board it would be greatly appreciated.

It was such bad luck that the live stream cut out just before interesting questions were asked.

Amazing coincidence , really.

[BDA 22,875]

Pert provided a comprehensive update in my view. My only criticism is that he should have done it earlier. I back Kate and this board to sort out the home base question in time.

I’m glad this election is over so we can all focus on the footy. I suggest any threads discussing the election are closed. We’ve discussed to death.

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

4 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

I don't have a dog in this fight. I voted for Phil Reed among one of the three vacant board positions, but he simply never got enough votes. I have accepted that. Furthermore, I have faith that the MFC Board under the leadership of MFC President Kate Roffey are doing a wonderful job overall.

My bigger issue was any update on the construction of our new Home Base, something I am obsessive about. Nevertheless, I accepted MFC CEO Gary Pert's detailed explanation about the Home Base. I will bide my time on this issue until the next MFC AGM and ask again then.

However, I will say that I was watching the MFC AGM online via live stream though. I was disappointed that it cut out before the "Q&A" commenced. I am sure I wasn't the only one perplexed with the abrupt ending of the live stream. But I am understanding that there may have been technical issues.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but never heard back, if anybody could please let me know what questions were asked and what the responses were from the MFC Board it would be greatly appreciated.

I suggest you ask the MFC Company Secretary to produce minutes of the meeting - something comparable to what the MCC produces would be nice - which would then include a summary of the Q&A. Minutes of last year's meeting were not available at the registration desk, and the Chair cited a resolution of an AGM in 1980 at item 2 to take the minutes of the previous year's meeting as read.

My understanding is that the Company Secretary is required to produce minutes within 30 days of the meeting. Let's hope they will be placed on the Club's website under the Governance tab.

There were around 6 or 7 questions, with the last question being from Jo McCoy, suggesting that the Club provide some type of members' forum or platform for respectful debate around the Board election. My recollection was that the President suggested that she would have a coffee with Jo.....or something like that?

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

1 hour ago, BDA said:

Pert provided a comprehensive update in my view. My only criticism is that he should have done it earlier. I back Kate and this board to sort out the home base question in time.

I’m glad this election is over so we can all focus on the footy. I suggest any threads discussing the election are closed. We’ve discussed to death.

Your considered contribution to this thread is to close it down? I guess you were quite pleased that the live stream stopped as Question Time commenced? You probably didn't want to hear from those pesky members daring to ask questions.

45.7% of members who voted on the Members' Resolution want open, fair and transparent elections - not enough though - BDA says let's just move right along.....

The Company Secretary just announced the result - no comment or reaction from the Chair or the Board?

[BDA 22,875]

8 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Your considered contribution to this thread is to close it down? I guess you were quite pleased that the live stream stopped as Question Time commenced? You probably didn't want to hear from those pesky members daring to ask questions.

45.7% of members who voted on the Members' Resolution want open, fair and transparent elections - not enough though - BDA says let's just move right along.....

The Company Secretary just announced the result - no comment or reaction from the Chair or the Board?

You're the most tedious poster on this forum. Get a life you malcontent. Our teams are winning flags and all you can do is [censored] and moan incessantly about the board.

You're painful. And back on ignore.