Jump to content

Kate Roffey

Ugottobekidding
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
     
    14 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

    Wonder if he is a fan of Trump. 

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

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Clap 2
    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…

  • Quote
    •  

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1
    • Haha 6

    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.  

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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 

  • Quote
    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?

  • Quote
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Clap 1

    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?

  • Quote
    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 by george_on_the_outer

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 7

    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.

  • Quote
    • Clap 1
    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 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Vomit 1
    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).

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    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). 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Like
      • 199 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Like
      • 330 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Sad
        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All