Has she left the building yet?? HOPEFULLY SOON!

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. 

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

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. 

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.

 

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.

  

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