2 hours ago, Demonland said:

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

Hi Demonland my take on the Kate Roffe thread is that it is no longer about Kate but a general punch up Re: Mr Lawrence Law Case, can we please separate these two threads as I feel that Kate is taking hits that aren’t necessarily hers and that the MFC Board need to address this issue at our next AGM rather than a public punch up on Demonland. Thanks.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

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?

I read it that it was the opinion of the board that trying to nominate to be on the board without being asked would be considered by them “adversarial”.

Nominations are allowed it’s just they didn’t like it.

8 minutes ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

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). 

Correct Delightfulplay. Even the City Councils on sell your information.

I had 15 phone calls last week up until 8pm about hot water services. I never give my details out and yet they had my name, address and telephone number. Not one of them knew the source of that information.

You can block emails at any time 

Edited August 24, 2024Aug 24 by Cyclops

6 minutes ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

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). 

Well aware of things like this DP. I have digital bank accounts that do the same type of job (disposable one use cards) for online use. It’s more the principle 

Data breaches are becoming far too common 

I wouldn’t ask for 70,000 emails and addresses, that’s where i would stop, but others would do it because they can…

On 23/08/2024 at 13:58, BDA said:

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

An Exec summary would mean that the gist of the judgement can be read and understood in 7.5 minutes. Can you imagine the impact on that for next year's holiday in Europe and the lease payments on the new Bentley?

23 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Not me Cap'n, just don't like somebody who won't accept the umpire's decision

You'd be spew'in about Tommy Mac a week ago then.

1 hour 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 

That train left the station 15 years ago.

Edited August 24, 2024Aug 24 by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

15 hours 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 

Your personal info is out there anyway, no matter what you allow or disallow.

Do you get unwanted/unsolicited emails and calls? I do regularly and there is basically no way to stop them.

I regularly block spam callers and emailers and they just use other names and addresses.

It should have nothing to do with you stopping MFC membership, that would be the least of the problem in this area.

 

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Your personal info is out there anyway, no matter what you allow or disallow.

Do you get unwanted/unsolicited emails and calls? I do regularly and there is basically no way to stop them.

I regularly block spam callers and emailers and they just use other names and addresses.

It should have nothing to do with you stopping MFC membership, that would be the least of the problem in this area.

 

That line of argument would support a surveillance state proponent.

It’s the principle and about informed consent. 
 

Just because someone has your email from a data leak or by scraping sites doesn’t invalidate the desire to control its release by entities with whom you have a relationship. 

Re any president - they come and they go, usually with reputation diminished. That is the lot of public office. I admire Roffey's ability to keep out of football matters - that is a massive plus.  Time will tell on the other important off field matters.

 

16 hours ago, dees189227 said:

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

Yes I was there. She didn’t say anything of substance. Lots of motherhood statements and looking forward to 2025.  She kept to her little group of friends most of the night as did Pert. 

It was an awful event really. The mood around the club is terrible. 

5 minutes ago, JJJ said:

Yes I was there. She didn’t say anything of substance. Lots of motherhood statements and looking forward to 2025.  She kept to her little group of friends most of the night as did Pert. 

It was an awful event really. The mood around the club is terrible. 

Thanks for the update J.

On 23/08/2024 at 09:02, 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

Does that include someone , say, whose platform was delivering spanking new - state of the art facilities ? Asking for a friend.

On 23/08/2024 at 13:53, whatwhat say what said:

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

Was he left with much choice ? Suspect not.

45 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Thanks very much for the information JJJ.

I know it's editorialising somewhat, but did you have a feeling from the room in terms of the former players, coterie and other close connections in regards to Kate? Would not be surprised if there was some malcontent and rumblings from those in that closer circle.

I think it’s fair to say that some of those influential groups mirror what you see on Demonland. Some are ‘company guys’ who tow the line but there are plenty of people who are pushing for a review and operational change.

Im tipping an interesting next few months for the entire club.

On 22/08/2024 at 14:09, #11-TonyAnderson said:

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

 

On 22/08/2024 at 16:13, He de mon said:

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

Are we suggesting Hawk The Demon is Peter L?

1 hour ago, JJJ said:

Yes I was there. She didn’t say anything of substance. Lots of motherhood statements and looking forward to 2025.  She kept to her little group of friends most of the night as did Pert. 

It was an awful event really. The mood around the club is terrible. 

Keeping to one’s group doesn’t sound like particularly good leadership?

I saw her standing at the race when we were coming off.

I wonder if she'll speak to trac

On 23/08/2024 at 17:34, titan_uranus said:

Related to that, I noticed the following parts of the judgment:

1. The judge accepted that the board acted bona fide and without collateral motive, balancing the club's interests against Peter's. That is contrary to what I believe Peter has argued, and what I know some on here have argued (i.e. that the board had ulterior motives, designed to protect them or their boys/girls club)
2. Peter persisted with the litigation because he wants the club to allow candidates for election to be able to go on radio and TV and give interviews in which they are permitted to disparage not just the current board, but members, players, the club at large and other candidates. The club's board and governance is important, but not important enough that we should be having candidates running a Trump v Harris style debate in public, bringing the club to the forefront of the media where we've been spending far too much time of late
3. Both the club and Peter were faintly criticised by the judge for comparing the club's rules to other club's. The judge made it clear that is irrelevant. 

There's no doubt the club's election rules are in a better place now than they were 2 years ago, and for that Peter deserves credit, but the ends do not always justify the means.

PS: there's also no doubt the board has failed in a number of its own KPIs (so to speak). The home base situation is a debacle.

Titan, that was a reasonably fair summary but I think you have misinterpreted a couple of things.  I also think the election rules would not have changed without Peter’s case, so in this circumstance the ends might justify the means.  

Your first point, also being what Kate wrote, was that the Judge stated the club had acted “bona fide and without collateral motive, balancing the club's interests against Peter's”. This is misleading without context. The Judge clearly stated that he was only commenting on the very final minor outstanding point of dispute.  Not behaviour of the club before the case or during it.   Several other rules had been changed on the fly by MFC after the claim was filed.  So on the very final point regarding “electioneering” remained. On the final day of the trial the Judge asked the parties to try and agree this rule, the club amended the rule, Peter proposed an alternative rule, the club changed the rule to what they amended and filed an affidavit informing the Judge.  It was only this that the Judge considered in his Judgement and stated the club acted without collateral motive, not anything else.  Kate’s letter to members is embarrassingly disingenuous.  

Your second point is that Peter persisted with the litigation because he wanted to be able to disparage the board.  If you read the judgement, this was the final outstanding point by the last day of the trial and the exchange made it clear that Peter wanted the ability to provide “constructive criticism”.  The board agreed and added this to the rule but left disparage in.  Peter believed “disparage” was too broad and open to including “constructive criticism”.  I suspect Peter would be OK with the final result, but as this negotiation happened after the trial while the Judge was preparing his judgement, it just ran out of time to finish and MFC adopted their proposal. So MFC also changed this rule (after the trial).  Your claim that Peter persisted because he wants to disparage the club is factually incorrect.

I don’t have an axe to grind either way.  I’ve never met Peter.  But there is no doubt our election rules are now a lot better because of him.  He probably desperately wants to get on the board, and I don’t care if he never gets on, but there is no doubt in my mind that at some stage members will be thankful for what Peter has done.  That time will be when we have a board that is not performing, is hanging on because of egos, and everyone except them can see change is needed.  A bit like what happened at Collingwood in 2021-22.  These new rules make change possible.

Considering what Kate wrote in her letter, it’s 100% understandable Peter would want to also send a letter to members to explain what has happened.  If Kate had written a letter fairly explaining the case then Peter probably wouldn’t feel the need to defend his actions.

 

8 hours ago, Redleg said:

Your personal info is out there anyway, no matter what you allow or disallow.

Do you get unwanted/unsolicited emails and calls? I do regularly and there is basically no way to stop them.

I regularly block spam callers and emailers and they just use other names and addresses.

It should have nothing to do with you stopping MFC membership, that would be the least of the problem in this area.

 

You are correct, but it really gets me angry 

like when Clive Palmer was sending me text messages at 7:30 am a few years back. He should have been given the Electric Chair!!

5 hours ago, JJJ said:

I think it’s fair to say that some of those influential groups mirror what you see on Demonland. Some are ‘company guys’ who tow the line but there are plenty of people who are pushing for a review and operational change.

Im tipping an interesting next few months for the entire club.

Great…🥃

22 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You are correct, but it really gets me angry 

like when Clive Palmer was sending me text messages at 7:30 am a few years back. He should have been given the Electric Chair!!

I’m far more concerned with data scraping by data brokers and whatever Facebook is doing (even though I have a grey account), and with what vision companies are doing (particularly with images people take where me /my family are in them and they are posted to their socials without consent )

4 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

I’m far more concerned with data scraping by data brokers and whatever Facebook is doing (even though I have a grey account), and with what vision companies are doing (particularly with images people take where me /my family are in them and they are posted to their socials without consent )

Yep. It’s relentless.

I have a good mate who works for a Cybersecurity Company, he can’t say a lot, but it is a huge problem that is going to get a lot bigger in the next few years

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

That time will be when we have a board that is not performing, is hanging on because of egos, and everyone except them can see change is needed.  A bit like what happened at Collingwood in 2021-22.  These new rules make change possible.

That time is now.

Time for board changes and more IMO. Surely, the disingenuous way the president painted this in her email is enough to tell us time should be up for this group.

Huge failure on the home base and their weird and controlling decision making around election rules and board matters.

I want our premiership winning coach to have the backing of the board, which is why I initially liked Kate and wanted board stability. But the way they've told members to vote the last three years is a disgrace.

10 hours ago, Watson11 said:

Titan, that was a reasonably fair summary but I think you have misinterpreted a couple of things.  I also think the election rules would not have changed without Peter’s case, so in this circumstance the ends might justify the means.  

Your first point, also being what Kate wrote, was that the Judge stated the club had acted “bona fide and without collateral motive, balancing the club's interests against Peter's”. This is misleading without context. The Judge clearly stated that he was only commenting on the very final minor outstanding point of dispute.  Not behaviour of the club before the case or during it.   Several other rules had been changed on the fly by MFC after the claim was filed.  So on the very final point regarding “electioneering” remained. On the final day of the trial the Judge asked the parties to try and agree this rule, the club amended the rule, Peter proposed an alternative rule, the club changed the rule to what they amended and filed an affidavit informing the Judge.  It was only this that the Judge considered in his Judgement and stated the club acted without collateral motive, not anything else.  Kate’s letter to members is embarrassingly disingenuous.  

Your second point is that Peter persisted with the litigation because he wanted to be able to disparage the board.  If you read the judgement, this was the final outstanding point by the last day of the trial and the exchange made it clear that Peter wanted the ability to provide “constructive criticism”.  The board agreed and added this to the rule but left disparage in.  Peter believed “disparage” was too broad and open to including “constructive criticism”.  I suspect Peter would be OK with the final result, but as this negotiation happened after the trial while the Judge was preparing his judgement, it just ran out of time to finish and MFC adopted their proposal. So MFC also changed this rule (after the trial).  Your claim that Peter persisted because he wants to disparage the club is factually incorrect.

I don’t have an axe to grind either way.  I’ve never met Peter.  But there is no doubt our election rules are now a lot better because of him.  He probably desperately wants to get on the board, and I don’t care if he never gets on, but there is no doubt in my mind that at some stage members will be thankful for what Peter has done.  That time will be when we have a board that is not performing, is hanging on because of egos, and everyone except them can see change is needed.  A bit like what happened at Collingwood in 2021-22.  These new rules make change possible.

Considering what Kate wrote in her letter, it’s 100% understandable Peter would want to also send a letter to members to explain what has happened.  If Kate had written a letter fairly explaining the case then Peter probably wouldn’t feel the need to defend his actions.

In relation to the quoted line about acting in good faith, whilst the line comes in the analysis of the rules that were left to be decided by the judge, the paragraph and surrounds don't link that phrase solely to those rules. I don't know that the judge would have been so unequivocal on that issue if he had privately thought to himself that the club's conduct in relation to the other rules wasn't in good faith etc. It's at least open for debate I'd have thought, so I'm not sure I misinterpreted anything there.

Then in relation to the second point, the judgment shows that Peter rejected the amendment the club ultimately made, which was to make it clear that the phrase "disparage" does not include reasonable constructive criticism. I find it hard to see what Peter thought was wrong with that amendment, which is precisely what the judge said.

I agree though that it obviously came at the conclusion of the trial, so had he agreed with the amendment it wouldn't have made a difference to the fact that the trial had already occurred. But this wasn't the only rule left for the judge to consider. There was still at that point no agreement on the rules relating to giving interviews and using social media. So you've had a go at me for something "factually incorrect" but I'm not sure your post is completely correct either.

Regardless, what I meant to focus on in my first post (but which I see on reflection was not clear) was less the disparagement point and more the point about being able to give interviews on TV and radio and post on social media. Combined, the effect of what he was seeking was the ability to go on radio/TV and criticise the club. As I said, I don't think that is something he ever should have sought in the first place.

When I said the ends don't always justify the means, what I meant was that the outcome of this case, which should largely be seen as a win for him, doesn't mean that his actions can be stripped of any sense of entitlement or selfishness which would otherwise attach to them. But I completely accept that our election rules are better now. I also completely agree that Roffey's email was disgracefully misleading.