Kate Roffey

[beelzebub 23,168]

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.

[JJJ 991]

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.

[Dee Zephyr 19,145]

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?

[Superunknown 4,046]

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?

[dees189227 12,017]

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

I wonder if she'll speak to trac

[Watson11 2,190]

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.

 

[Sir Why You Little 36,569]

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!!

[Sir Why You Little 36,569]

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…🥃

[Superunknown 4,046]

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 )

[Sir Why You Little 36,569]

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

[Adam The God 29,243]

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.

[titan_uranus 24,548]

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.

[picket fence 16,624]

Has she left the building yet?? HOPEFULLY SOON!

[layzie 32,686]

When we're talking about Kate's email do we mean the one in Jan 2022 or was there one in the last week regarding this? Can't find anything from her recently. 

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,624]

25 minutes ago, layzie said:

When we're talking about Kate's email do we mean the one in Jan 2022 or was there one in the last week regarding this? Can't find anything from her recently. 

There was an email last week

[layzie 32,686]

7 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

There was an email last week

Didn't receive it.

Not the club's fault though, happens a lot with this address. 

[FreedFromDesire 563]

Just now, layzie said:

Didn't receive it.

Not the club's fault though, happens a lot with this address. 

I think this news article on the club website was the same as the email:

Board Update | Melbourne Football Club

[Watson11 2,190]

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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 am not sure how you could interpret the line about acting in good faith to be about the MFCs conduct broadly.  The Judge specifically stated in para 130"The result is that the only remaining issue necessary for me to determine is whether the affairs of the MFC have been conducted in a manner contrary to the interests of members as a whole or oppressively to Mr Lawrence and other non-preferred candidates by reason of the restrictions, as they now exist in the current version of the election rules, on “electioneering”.

Then paras 131-140 are a lot of legal case history as to what "oppressive" means.  Para 141 is MFCs view on why the rule re electioneering is required.

Para 141 is the statement from the judge that the directors acted in good faith and the para specifically refers to the election rules "In my view, the directors of the club acted bona fide, without collateral motive. They had regard to relevant considerations, and they balanced the interests of the members of the club as a whole as against the interests of a particular member (here, Mr Lawrence). In my view, the reasons given by the board in respect of the electioneering rules are founded upon matters which permitted it reasonably to adopt the electioneering rules in their current form....."

The Judge could not have been more clear that he was only referring to the clubs conduct in relation to the final rule that was in dispute.

 

[reynolds46 1,034]

On 15/08/2024 at 18:44, reynolds46 said:

FWIW I have just emailed the following to the president, most likely it will have no impact but I felt I had to send it because i have had a gutful of this 

Hi Kate

I have never written a letter to the football club before but felt compelled to due to the current noise and rumours surrounding the club and I believe it is time to request some sort of response from the president and not just be content with the well written but standard company line message from the CEO Gary Pert. I have been a supporter of the MFC for 56 years and a member since 2002 despite not living in Melbourne since 1992. I was like all of our long-suffering supporters delighted that were finally able to break the premiership drought in 2021 and been delighted with the club's progress over the last few years. It is expected that the that level of performance cannot continue for ever and eventually there had to be a decline in form but what we are currently experiencing as supporters should not have been expected. The perception of a club in decline both on and off the field with ongoing concerns regarding key players and continual concerns around culture is something supporters shouldn't been expecting so soon after reaching the pinnacle of success.  The thought of our only ever Norm Smith Medalist wanting to leave the club and this being leaked to the media could be the final straw for many supporters and destroy the momentum the MFC was in becoming and remaining a respected club.  Watching Simon Goodwin having to respond to all this noise during his pre-game press conference was unfair and he did a sterling job but really the club should be doing a hell of a lot more to defuse this noise and provide the supporter base with the confidence that the club is united and in control and strong enough to not only survive this current mess but to actually go on the offensive and show the world that the MFC isn't the meek victim it has shown itself to be for the majority of my life.  I will continue to pay my family membership regardless but my fear is the next generation that we finally were getting on board will be lost forever.

 

FWIW

Received the following standard response from the club, not Roffey herself, yesterday of all days.

Thanks for your email and for contacting the Melbourne Football Club.

 

It’s incredibly important for the Club that our leaders are hearing from our members and supporters, which is why these inboxes have been created.

 

Whilst Kate Roffey will endeavour to respond to as many emails as possible, that won’t always be physically possible.

 

While the 2024 AFL season hasn’t been the one we would’ve hoped for, the focus is now on understanding what is required to move forward. There have been conversations with many of our leaders, Christian Petracca included, over recent weeks, about our opportunities for growth. These conversations, which are a regular part of footy, have been open and constructive, and stem from how we can get better as a football club. Our leaders are committed to working together to find a path forward, towards improvement for the 2025 season.

 

Thanks for your continued support.

  

[Dingo 1,007]

On 25/08/2024 at 12:01, 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.

 

Thank you very much