Kate Roffey

[demosaw 1,001]

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. 

[Cranky Franky 2,009]

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.

[Tracca 838]

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!

[Farmer 872]

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 .

[JJJ 1,191]

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… 

[BDA 22,651]

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

[Farmer 872]

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 !

[BDA 22,651]

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

[Ollie fan 3,340]

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.

[Kent 2,904]

5 minutes ago, BDA said:

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

Lawrence v MFC [2024] FCA 945.pdf

[Magnus 45]

This has been messy and I hope we can get some clean air for a while. However I am extremely concerned about our contact details being given to a member (email & address) this is wrong and I find a bizarre part of the corporation act.

I hope it is not used & deleted.

[george_on_the_outer 7,546]

14 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

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

 

Wrong.  AAMI was instituted by the Stynes board. Cranbourne by Stynes/McLarty. 

It is the current boards inaction for the past 10 years that has been the problem.

[pewpewpew 738]

14 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.

Pot who has never looked in a mirror calls kettle black.

[old55 23,298]

I've been posting here for a long time and people will have formed their views on the value of my content, but I think it's fair to say, as the artist formerly known as Pollyanna, I'm generally very supportive of the club.  But not in this instance.

I've come to know Peter Lawrence since he started to campaign for greater transparency and democracy in our board elections.  I've found him to be of high moral character, someone with broad ranging views that I admire.  He's intelligent, empathetic and generous.  His actions in this matter are all about making the Melbourne Football Club better and not at all about self-agrandisement.  He's paid a big cost reputationally and financially in his quest for a better club and he has directly sought to minimise the costs to MFC.

As @Dr Don Duffy said, the board "won" this action against Lawrence but only after they adopted 4 of the 5 changes he was promoting during the course of the court action.

It doesn't reflect well on this board that they couldn't find a way to accommodate a capable and passionate person like Peter Lawrence and ended up in court twice with outcomes almost totally in favour of his original positions.

[Adam The God 29,941]

2 hours ago, Farmer said:

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 .

So in other words, the board has done the classic 2024 PR move of let's say being deceitful to members vis a vis remuneration of costs and are simply hoping everyone forgets that they've wasted time and money fighting against better governance.

37 minutes ago, old55 said:

I've been posting here for a long time and people will have formed their views on the value of my content, but I think it's fair to say, as the artist formerly known as Pollyanna, I'm generally very supportive of the club.  But not in this instance.

I've come to know Peter Lawrence since he started to campaign for greater transparency and democracy in our board elections.  I've found him to be of high moral character, someone with broad ranging views that I admire.  He's intelligent, empathetic and generous.  His actions in this matter are all about making the Melbourne Football Club better and not at all about self-agrandisement.  He's paid a big cost reputationally and financially in his quest for a better club and he has directly sought to minimise the costs to MFC.

As @Dr Don Duffy said, the board "won" this action against Lawrence but only after they adopted 4 of the 5 changes he was promoting during the course of the court action.

It doesn't reflect well on this board that they couldn't find a way to accommodate a capable and passionate person like Peter Lawrence and ended up in court twice with outcomes almost totally in favour of his original positions.

My view and experience too, @old55.

[roy11 3,818]

16 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”. 

To be fair, i don't think there's been that much cheerleading in this thread.

There's a longstanding thread about training grounds where displeasure is often raised about the lack of action from the board. So there is criticism of the board on here, some may not delve too deep into the regulatory side of things - I'll read the judgment on this particular matter over the weekend to get a better understanding.

Only defending i will do is I think Kate Roffey got some unnecessary criticism on here for not talking about Petracca -I don't think she really needs to comment about click bait journalists, she's clearly got more important and pressing tasks to deal with.

[Farmer 872]

3 minutes ago, roy11 said:

To be fair, i don't think there's been that much cheerleading in this thread.

There's a longstanding thread about training grounds where displeasure is often raised about the lack of action from the board. So there is criticism of the board on here, some may not delve too deep into the regulatory side of things - I'll read the judgment on this particular matter over the weekend to get a better understanding.

Only defending i will do is I think Kate Roffey got some unnecessary criticism on here for not talking about Petracca -I don't think she really needs to comment about click bait journalists, she's clearly got more important and pressing tasks to deal with.

Whilst critical of our president on the other matter I agree with you.  Not appropriate for her to get involved on football issues 

[roy11 3,818]

4 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

So in other words, the board has done the classic 2024 PR move of let's say being deceitful to members vis a vis remuneration of costs and are simply hoping everyone forgets that they've wasted time and money fighting against better governance.

To be fair I dont think the comment re: costs was too deceitful. They email said;

The club will now seek recovery of its legal costs from Mr Lawrence

And thats what they'll be seeking whether by negotiation with Mr Lawrence or through Submissions to the Court.

[Jaded No More 68,815]

1 hour ago, Farmer said:

Whilst critical of our president on the other matter I agree with you.  Not appropriate for her to get involved on football issues 

100%

I have my own thoughts on our board, and certainly they are far from perfect, Kate included.

But what I do like is that our board stays far away from football matters in a public sense. Brad Green would be the only board member who should have any type of involvement in the footy department, given his experience.

Kate and the rest of the board should be concentrating on governing the club, not running commentary on every players' trade status for goodness sake. 

[Cyclops 504]

2 hours ago, old55 said:

I've been posting here for a long time and people will have formed their views on the value of my content, but I think it's fair to say, as the artist formerly known as Pollyanna, I'm generally very supportive of the club.  But not in this instance.

I've come to know Peter Lawrence since he started to campaign for greater transparency and democracy in our board elections.  I've found him to be of high moral character, someone with broad ranging views that I admire.  He's intelligent, empathetic and generous.  His actions in this matter are all about making the Melbourne Football Club better and not at all about self-agrandisement.  He's paid a big cost reputationally and financially in his quest for a better club and he has directly sought to minimise the costs to MFC.

As @Dr Don Duffy said, the board "won" this action against Lawrence but only after they adopted 4 of the 5 changes he was promoting during the course of the court action.

It doesn't reflect well on this board that they couldn't find a way to accommodate a capable and passionate person like Peter Lawrence and ended up in court twice with outcomes almost totally in favour of his original positions.

Well said old55. I certainly don't agree with some of the treatment of Mr Lawrence.

We have one Demonlander who has confessed to stalking Mr Lawrence with the use of various email identities. Childish and dangerous. Another Demonlander inciting the use of bricks.

What have we come to?

[whatwhat say what 22,522]

tbh i think a lot of peter's complaints were warranted but the approach he took did him no favours

[BDA 22,651]

4 hours ago, Kent said:

Lawrence v MFC [2024] FCA 945.pdf 382.98 kB · 18 downloads

These judgements really should include an executive summary. I'll have to set aside an afternoon to get through all that.

[Sir Why You Little 36,859]

6 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

tbh i think a lot of peter's complaints were warranted but the approach he took did him no favours

Spot on

[DeesignerAU 382]

19 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

They’re all culpable imo.

true, and if that wretched board from 1996 had their way we'd be in the middle of building new facilities at Dingley..... as the Melbourne Hawks

[Ferghus31 94]

Totally Agree But  the Board should Demand a FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE Audit and Examination of the Football Operations in all Areas and if the result is damming CHANGE NO PERSON SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE Coach to the Boot studder