2 hours ago, #11-TonyAnderson said:

I'm interested in Hawk the Demon's take on this judgement.

He is probably too busy wondering where he is going to get the funds to pay for legal costs.

4 hours ago, reynolds46 said:

Can we all email the club and ask for the personal address and email of Peter Lawrence so we can provide him with our thoughts on his legal proceedings?

I did have his personal email account but he has changed it probably because I emailed him using one of my many email accounts pretending to be a supporter of his and leading him up the garden path.

I just wish he would go away.

Good to see the board cheer squad out in full force. 

Disingenuous email from Roffey.

Let’s have a look at the balance sheet since the Peter Jackson-built team roared to premiership glory in 2021.

Looking first at the Peter Lawrence score, he sought to bring the constitution within cooee of 21st century governance principles. He did at least cause term limits for directors and electronic voting to come into being. 

In the current matter, he did ask the board to amend the provisions of the election rules that were poor governance. When they refused he commenced proceedings in the Federal Court. Should never had come to this, but they then proceeded to jettison 4 out of 5 of the offending provisions as the case proceeded. So why did they spend hundreds of thousands maintaining a defence against the indefensible? Our money, Ralph. That was after blowing another small fortune in the Supreme Court on a previous matter that had a poor prognosis of success. Again, we got to the same outcome that could have been achieved without the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

Turning to the board’s record, apart from the above, we were told that our home base in the MCG precinct is a “non-negotiable”; any questions about progress on this were met with “Can’t talk, commercial in confidence”. After kicking that can down the road at various AGMs we pop up with the “Let’s go to Caulfield” idea. 

And at the AGM we were told that our next Strategic Plan would be out in February. Crickets on that front as we move to September. This is a board and senior management that only reacts when it gets a metaphorical cattle prod to its body, and then claims proactivity in getting to the result that they are forced into. After spending lots of our money. 

Yes, All Hail Roffey and Pert. Personally I cheer for the footy love of my life, the Dees, not board members who over the journey have been “here today, gone tomorrow”. 

I’m not Roffey’s biggest fan……..far from it (the fact we are no closer to finding a new home base is farcical, imo), however, I’m grateful she is not a noisy president that needs to give her 2c on all things football.

Actions speak louder than words, unfortunately for Roffey & the board, there seem to be no actions to speak of.

2 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

I’m not Roffey’s biggest fan……..far from it (the fact we are no closer to finding a new home base is farcical, imo), however, I’m grateful she is not a noisy president that needs to give her 2c on all things football.

Actions speak louder than words, unfortunately for Roffey & the board, there seem to be no actions to speak of.

I agree, I prefer a quiet president that works quietly and fastidiously in the background, but as you say, it's very quiet in the background!

2 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I agree, I prefer a quiet president that works quietly and fastidiously in the background, but as you say, it's very quiet in the background!

Here’s hoping it’s because they actually have something in the works, as opposed to the many before them who produced nothing.

We the members are going to need to see real progress soon, or the board needs to fall on their sword (though I don’t want this Lawrence fella stepping in, as he has his own agenda too it seems).

1 hour ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

Good to see the board cheer squad out in full force. 

Disingenuous email from Roffey.

Let’s have a look at the balance sheet since the Peter Jackson-built team roared to premiership glory in 2021.

Looking first at the Peter Lawrence score, he sought to bring the constitution within cooee of 21st century governance principles. He did at least cause term limits for directors and electronic voting to come into being. 

In the current matter, he did ask the board to amend the provisions of the election rules that were poor governance. When they refused he commenced proceedings in the Federal Court. Should never had come to this, but they then proceeded to jettison 4 out of 5 of the offending provisions as the case proceeded. So why did they spend hundreds of thousands maintaining a defence against the indefensible? Our money, Ralph. That was after blowing another small fortune in the Supreme Court on a previous matter that had a poor prognosis of success. Again, we got to the same outcome that could have been achieved without the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

Turning to the board’s record, apart from the above, we were told that our home base in the MCG precinct is a “non-negotiable”; any questions about progress on this were met with “Can’t talk, commercial in confidence”. After kicking that can down the road at various AGMs we pop up with the “Let’s go to Caulfield” idea. 

And at the AGM we were told that our next Strategic Plan would be out in February. Crickets on that front as we move to September. This is a board and senior management that only reacts when it gets a metaphorical cattle prod to its body, and then claims proactivity in getting to the result that they are forced into. After spending lots of our money. 

Yes, All Hail Roffey and Pert. Personally I cheer for the footy love of my life, the Dees, not board members who over the journey have been “here today, gone tomorrow”. 

Thanks Peter

1 hour ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

Good to see the board cheer squad out in full force. 

Disingenuous email from Roffey.

Let’s have a look at the balance sheet since the Peter Jackson-built team roared to premiership glory in 2021.

Looking first at the Peter Lawrence score, he sought to bring the constitution within cooee of 21st century governance principles. He did at least cause term limits for directors and electronic voting to come into being. 

In the current matter, he did ask the board to amend the provisions of the election rules that were poor governance. When they refused he commenced proceedings in the Federal Court. Should never had come to this, but they then proceeded to jettison 4 out of 5 of the offending provisions as the case proceeded. So why did they spend hundreds of thousands maintaining a defence against the indefensible? Our money, Ralph. That was after blowing another small fortune in the Supreme Court on a previous matter that had a poor prognosis of success. Again, we got to the same outcome that could have been achieved without the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

Turning to the board’s record, apart from the above, we were told that our home base in the MCG precinct is a “non-negotiable”; any questions about progress on this were met with “Can’t talk, commercial in confidence”. After kicking that can down the road at various AGMs we pop up with the “Let’s go to Caulfield” idea. 

And at the AGM we were told that our next Strategic Plan would be out in February. Crickets on that front as we move to September. This is a board and senior management that only reacts when it gets a metaphorical cattle prod to its body, and then claims proactivity in getting to the result that they are forced into. After spending lots of our money. 

Yes, All Hail Roffey and Pert. Personally I cheer for the footy love of my life, the Dees, not board members who over the journey have been “here today, gone tomorrow”. 

Maybe she hasn't done that stuff cos she's been too busy dealing with [censored] legal stuff

Peter Lawrence reminds me of some on here.

He only wants what he wants and sulks and pouts when other members don't agree.

I don't mind other posters on here having differing opinions, I just want to be allowed to have mine.

Can't wait for him to post me another letter, will give me the opportunity to return it in the same condition as the last one.

We have a training ground in two locations at the moment and good facilities.

We don't have our own through the inaction of Boards 20 or 30 years ago, not today's who are trying to play catch up

 

 

23 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Thanks Peter

Thanks Kate.

If anyone's going to the final presidents dinner I'd be interested in hearing what she has to say. 

I'd love for her to come out & have a swing at some of these stories that have been circling 

21 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

.

We don't have our own through the inaction of Boards 20 or 30 years ago, not today's who are trying to play catch up

They’re all culpable imo.

40 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I think these things are often more complex than being simply one side or the other. I guess like football topics, and indeed football itself, we have a human tendency to take sides. The matter of Peter Lawrence vs The MFC Board would be no different I assume. It's extremely difficult to have full contextual discussion about things like this on a footy board where all have us have a million things to say and want to get our points across as quickly as we can.

I think the best us as exterior to the matter can hope for is that Peter isn't alienated from the football club he clearly loves and has financial supported; but is able to move on now for the good of everyone, but also his actions may bring about some change that may have been needed and ignored otherwise. I'm hoping by the time we start preseason we can have clear air for all the myriad of things the club has had to deal with the last 12-24 months and all involved can focus on what's best, and what we all can agree on - The Demons rising up the ladder (and perhaps finding a home base).

Well said. Hopefully the other legal matter  which seems to grow new heads on the eve of each season since 2021 into perpetuity is resolved soon and the outcomes of the Caulfield Racecourse feasibility study are announced.

Personally I would have liked some fire and passion from our leaders but I get the feeling that the club has circled the wagons and dug in for a fight. Perty came out strong and quashed the Petracca rumours and the Football Dept have locked in Gawn & Viney and also publicly put their arms around Clayton for all to see that he is a much loved and wanted player. I admire that as a team they have refuted all the gossip, shown the press for what they are and sent them on their way and at the same time removed the angst, stress and disharmony in “most” of the supporter group. As for Kate she speaks so well and has obviously had her hands full with non football distractions, however I feel confident that if anyone can get us Caulfield it will be Kate but like all on here I will be bitterly disappointed if we fail again. As mentioned previously Time will Tell.

If we each get an unwanted complain-a-gram in the post from Lawrence (he has all our membership details!) and he has put a return address on them then we should each tape it to a brick and return it to sender.

9 hours ago, demosaw said:

If we each get an unwanted complain-a-gram in the post from Lawrence (he has all our membership details!) and he has put a return address on them then we should each tape it to a brick and return it to sender.

You want to put a brick through someone who wants to end poor governance and an elitest closed shop in your football club, because they send you an email?

Peter is a passionate Melbourne supporter that wanted better from Melbourne and that included greater checks and balances at board and governance level.

Meanwhile, Kate became a Melbourne supporter 10 something years ago.

I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here.

Edited August 22, 2024Aug 22 by Adam The God

Just now, Adam The God said:

You want to put a brick through someone who wants to end poor goverence and an elitest closed shop in your football club? 

Peter is a passionate Melbourne supporter that wanted better from Melbourne and that included greater cheques and balances at board and governance level.

Meanwhile, Kate became a Melbourne supporter 10 something years ago.

I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here.

Not putting a brick through anything but the post. I don’t want to hear his grievances. 

49 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

You want to put a brick through someone who wants to end poor governance and an elitest closed shop in your football club, because they send you an email?

Peter is a passionate Melbourne supporter that wanted better from Melbourne and that included greater cheques and balances at board and governance level.

Meanwhile, Kate became a Melbourne supporter 10 something years ago.

I'm not sure people really understand what's going on here.

Didn’t think I'd ever agree with you but you are correct. 

It would never have come to this if the Club was more open instead of hiding behind technicalities.

Its gone from being an old boys network to an old boys & girls network.

More power to Peter.

12 hours ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

Good to see the board cheer squad out in full force. 

Disingenuous email from Roffey.

Let’s have a look at the balance sheet since the Peter Jackson-built team roared to premiership glory in 2021.

Looking first at the Peter Lawrence score, he sought to bring the constitution within cooee of 21st century governance principles. He did at least cause term limits for directors and electronic voting to come into being. 

In the current matter, he did ask the board to amend the provisions of the election rules that were poor governance. When they refused he commenced proceedings in the Federal Court. Should never had come to this, but they then proceeded to jettison 4 out of 5 of the offending provisions as the case proceeded. So why did they spend hundreds of thousands maintaining a defence against the indefensible? Our money, Ralph. That was after blowing another small fortune in the Supreme Court on a previous matter that had a poor prognosis of success. Again, we got to the same outcome that could have been achieved without the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

Turning to the board’s record, apart from the above, we were told that our home base in the MCG precinct is a “non-negotiable”; any questions about progress on this were met with “Can’t talk, commercial in confidence”. After kicking that can down the road at various AGMs we pop up with the “Let’s go to Caulfield” idea. 

And at the AGM we were told that our next Strategic Plan would be out in February. Crickets on that front as we move to September. This is a board and senior management that only reacts when it gets a metaphorical cattle prod to its body, and then claims proactivity in getting to the result that they are forced into. After spending lots of our money. 

Yes, All Hail Roffey and Pert. Personally I cheer for the footy love of my life, the Dees, not board members who over the journey have been “here today, gone tomorrow”. 

Hi Peter!

13 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Peter Lawrence reminds me of some on here.

He only wants what he wants and sulks and pouts when other members don't agree.

I don't mind other posters on here having differing opinions, I just want to be allowed to have mine.

Can't wait for him to post me another letter, will give me the opportunity to return it in the same condition as the last one.

We have a training ground in two locations at the moment and good facilities.

We don't have our own through the inaction of Boards 20 or 30 years ago, not today's who are trying to play catch up

 

 

I urge you to read the judgment. Indeed I urge all of us to read it. It reveals a shameful history by the club admin.  It reveals that in order to meet the absolutely reasonable claims by Lawrence, the Board adopted not 1, not 2 , not 3, but 7 sets of amended rules. It has made massive changes to Rules which were outrageous and oppressive . Whilst Lawrence has certainly been seeking a spot on the Board the changes now made will go some way to enabling ANY MEMBER to put his or her name forward. The Board set up a committee OF BOARD MEMBERS to vet applications by candidates to run for election . They gave way on this, the vetting committee now has a majority of independent members.

the statement by Roffey suggests that the Club has an order for costs against Lawrence. It does not . There is NO ORDER FOR COSTS , the judge urging the parties to confer on this question. 
Again, just read the judgment , I suspect you will be shocked if you do .

The board and the king makers that surround it need a good kick up the clacker. Roffey is one of those that needs a kick.

I was pleasantly surprised to see some of the changes that Peter wanted made.

Digital voting is a must these days… 

it's very difficult to get the balance right between fair and open processes and avoiding having nuffies trying to get on the board.

15 minutes ago, BDA said:

it's very difficult to get the balance right between fair and open processes and avoiding having nuffies trying to get on the board.

I agree with you. By and large “ nuffies “ don’t get elected. But the Board was in the habit of  selecting someone to fill a casual vacancy shortly before an AGM, instead of at the AGM. Its self appointed vetting committee would then endorse sitting Board members for the election.  Just one example of a practice which IMV does not pass the smell test. Please read the judgment !

4 minutes ago, Farmer said:

I agree with you. By and large “ nuffies “ don’t get elected. But the Board was in the habit of  selecting someone to fill a casual vacancy shortly before an AGM, instead of at the AGM. Its self appointed vetting committee would then endorse sitting Board members for the election.  Just one example of a practice which IMV does not pass the smell test. Please read the judgment !

Included in my definitions of nuffies are self-aggrandising types. Make promises they can't keep. Populist politicians. There's plenty of them about and they do get elected.

also, do you mind posting a link to the judgment Farmer? I'd like to have a read

Please please please can't we move in from all of this now? If Lawrence wants to stand for election he can do so; if he wins he wins and if he loses he loses.