Kate Roffey

[Superunknown 4,246]

34 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

He will only ever be satisfied if he gets on the Board. Wonder if he is a fan of Trump. I would never vote for a supporter who takes my Club to court

The frequent reference to Trump is quite odd and oft misused I think. It’s generally unhelpful.

[dees189227 12,515]

Anyone know what she said in tonight's presidents dinner

[Cranky Franky 2,270]

Has Peter Lawrence got a GoFundMe page because I would donate to help pay his legal costs

[Dr Don Duffy 105]

14 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Wonder if he is a fan of Trump. 

Paraphrasing US election VP candidate Tim Walz: “Weird post!”

[Satyriconhome 10,880]

1 hour ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

Paraphrasing US election VP candidate Tim Walz: “Weird post!”

The whole Peter Lawrence situation is weird, he got nominated, didn't get the votes, had a sulk, took the club to court, didn't win, sulked, wants to ask 'us' for his support, if he doesn't get it he will sulk again no doubt, if he wants to waste money, give it to charity. They might name something after him, that is obviously something he needs to make his life complete.

I just find him rather sad.

[The Demon Duck 56]

I believe my 72 years on this planet, including 51 years teaching, qualifies me to be a fair judge of character.

And so, having met and conversed with Peter Lawrence on a number of occasions, I concur with the views of old55, that Peter is "capable, intelligent, empathetic, generous and passionate."

As for the president, my only personal experience with her is when she failed to respond to a letter I wrote, but to me she is ever present in good times , but notably absent otherwise.

I believe she and her board have run a shamefully "closed shop" at election times, resisting all reasonable reforms urged by Peter until generally legally or otherwise coerced to concede, culminating in this week's self obsessive and misleading "victory lap" email.

My regard for the CEO was also diminished by his infantile and obsessive display at the AGM.

As for the board's successes since 2021, precisely what have they achieved?

I know Peter is ever present at at the Demons AFL, VFL and AFLW games, all over Australia,  but how about the board?

I have no objections to those who reasonably disagree with Peter's actions, but I say do not doubt his motives, and the vitriolic abuse by some is symptomatic of those who have not met him, made themselves aware of what he's about, nor are interested enough in our club to care..

Somebody on this forum has asserted that Peter will never achieve board status, but I say "don't bet on it!"

When the Kate Roffeys and Gary Perts of this world have moved on, Peter Lawrence will still be in there pitching, for the Red and the Blue he loves and for which he has already sacrificed so much.

Interesting times await.

[Demonland 74,443]

NB: We have heard from the CEO on radio last week and via a letter to the members.

[Sir Why You Little 37,458]

5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

NB: We have heard from the CEO on radio last week and via a letter to the members.

It’s incredible how Media representatives don’t check simple things, before blabbing off

He’s right about Roffey though, i haven’t heard a single word out of her for over a year. No doubt she will be all over the AFLW…

[Swooper Northey 499]

Kate disappoints me. From a supporters perspective, I think she's been an absent leader. When she does appear publicly, I feel she lacks a certain humility and some of her comments are off key. Leaders need to stand up in good times and bad.

[The heart beats true 18,201]

19 hours ago, BDA said:

MMGA Make Melbourne Great Again! 

I’d support any candidate who wants to build a wall around the MCG and keep Collingwood supporters out.

[Rossmillan 589]

4 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

The whole Peter Lawrence situation is weird, he got nominated, didn't get the votes, had a sulk, took the club to court, didn't win, sulked, wants to ask 'us' for his support, if he doesn't get it he will sulk again no doubt, if he wants to waste money, give it to charity. They might name something after him, that is obviously something he needs to make his life complete.

I just find him rather sad.

Really?

It seems to me all he wanted was a reasonable chance to put forward a case to the voting members as to why he would be a better candidate.

He was not given that chance.

I don’t know the bloke, but it sure seems like all he asked for was a democratic election process.  
 

I read the judgement and it sure seems like his requests were fair and reasonable.  

[Sir Why You Little 37,458]

10 minutes ago, Rossmillan said:

Really?

It seems to me all he wanted was a reasonable chance to put forward a case to the voting members as to why he would be a better candidate.

He was not given that chance.

I don’t know the bloke, but it sure seems like all he asked for was a democratic election process.  
 

I read the judgement and it sure seems like his requests were fair and reasonable.  

You are probably right, but his modus operandum absolutely sucked 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

He’s right about Roffey though, i haven’t heard a single word out of her for over a year. No doubt she will be all over the AFLW…

Yes, she will.

Something wrong with that?

[george_on_the_outer 7,875]

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You are probably right, but his modus operandum absolutely sucked 

Unfortunately there was no other option.  Despite numerous implorings from members, including at last years AGM, the Board would not engage, and so the only option is through the legal system. 

Where they firstly had the legislative requirements of Corporations law shown to them in no uncertain manner, and then secondly withdrew their opposition to Peters amendments and changed the voting rules in 4 out of 5 situations prior to the judge deciding on the 5th. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,458]

2 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Unfortunately there was no other option.  Despite numerous implorings from members, including at last years AGM, the Board would not engage, and so the only option is through the legal system. 

Where they firstly had the legislative requirements of Corporations law shown to them in no uncertain manner, and then secondly withdrew their opposition to Peters amendments and changed the voting rules in 4 out of 5 situations prior to the judge deciding on the 5th. 

I understand that George. But asking for Members private information was not on

[layzie 34,528]

I'm up to page 20, will need a couple of goes at this. 

What I'm taking from this is that nominations were not allowed from non-directors  unless they were directly challenging the chair?

[george_on_the_outer 7,875]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I understand that George. But asking for Members private information was not on

Not only allowable under corporations law, but that same information has been given by everyone who buys a membership..... to the AFL and anyone they choose to pass it on to....it's not private any more.

Edited August 24, 2024 by george_on_the_outer

[Sir Why You Little 37,458]

Just now, george_on_the_outer said:

Not only allowable under corporations law, but that same information has been given by everyone who buys a membership..... to the AFL and anyone they choose to pass it on to....it's not private.

So there is another clause that needs changing…

the whole thing stinks and just adds more to our annus horriblous ‘24

[Cyclops 512]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I understand that George. But asking for Members private information was not on

I don't believe Mr Lawrence asked the members for private information. In fact he legally asked the club who refused without knowlege of Mr Lawrence's corporate right to do so. It went to court and the court had no option but to ask the club to provide it. In a stalling action the club wanted to send the emails but that was denied. The club then asked the AFL for a members file. The AFL has the members data and clubs need to provide a reason to interrogate it. Hence the membership numbers are so wrong.

[old55 23,864]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I understand that George. But asking for Members private information was not on

Let's keep the facts straight. Lawrence asked for members' email addresses so he could send his electoral message out and the club refused to provide them. OK Lawrence said, you send my message out for me and the club again refused. So Lawrence took them to court and won.

[Cyclops 512]

6 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

The whole Peter Lawrence situation is weird, he got nominated, didn't get the votes, had a sulk, took the club to court, didn't win, sulked, wants to ask 'us' for his support, if he doesn't get it he will sulk again no doubt, if he wants to waste money, give it to charity. They might name something after him, that is obviously something he needs to make his life complete.

I just find him rather sad.

Saty you must know Mr Lawrence very well to know that he sulked so many times. I am glad he had you as you put your arm around him at these times. How good are you to now give him financial advice. A true Demon Bro.

[Sir Why You Little 37,458]

8 minutes ago, old55 said:

Let's keep the facts straight. Lawrence asked for members' email addresses so he could send his electoral message out and the club refused to provide them. OK Lawrence said, you send my message out for me and the club again refused. So Lawrence took them to court and won.

Yes i know.

It still doesn’t impress me that my personal information can be given out to anyone. I don’t approve and will be a consideration before i renew my Membership 

[DeelightfulPlay 2,724]

18 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

I don't believe Mr Lawrence asked the members for private information. In fact he legally asked the club who refused without knowlege of Mr Lawrence's corporate right to do so. It went to court and the court had no option but to ask the club to provide it. In a stalling action the club wanted to send the emails but that was denied. The club then asked the AFL for a members file. The AFL has the members data and clubs need to provide a reason to interrogate it. Hence the membership numbers are so wrong.

To be fair - the legislation only refers to the right to receive the "address" of voting members, so it was an unsettled point of law whether this included email addresses.  The Club could either comply and risk falling afoul of APP 6 of the Privacy Act (although arguably lower risk unless the OAIC took enforcement action and the club couldn't make out the "authorised by law" exemption argument) or not comply and run the risk of Peter Lawrence taking legal action (which most might decide against but Peter Lawrence did decide to do, as we know).

[dees189227 12,515]

So no one went to the presidents function last night to hear what she said?

I wonder what she'll say at the B&F

[DeelightfulPlay 2,724]

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know.

It still doesn’t impress me that my personal information can be given out to anyone. I don’t approve and will be a consideration before i renew my Membership 

There are plenty of moments these days where interacting with an organisation involves giving some form of personal information beyond that which may be reasonably necessary.  I recommend using services like Duck Duck Go and the like to have some control over this (you can hide your email address and create generic throwaway email addresses for use on newsletters etc, but still receive your email in your normal inbox).