Jump to content

Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

Demons11
Demons11
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

20 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

Hawk, first of all, why don't you answer some of the questions about your direct involvement in this matter? Your failure to do so is absolutely telling.
 

Secondly, you seem to forget that whilst concessions were made along the way in the trial, ultimately Lawrence continued to pursue the case in the eventually fruitless pursuit of the opportunity to drag Melbourne through a public circus every time there is an election. He lost on that point. As far as most members are concerned, I think we are particularly glad that he did because there is enough bad media about the football club in any event. In defending this position, MFC  incurred costs; yes, they didn't recover them from Lawrence, but he didn't recover his costs from them either. He appears to be a rich man determined to spend whatever it takes to pursue his personal ambitions. Do most of us find that appealing? No.

 

Anyway, with the somewhat good news about a home, I expect all of this Lawrence rubbish will get forgotten, and not a moment too soon.

 

Making the reasonable assumption that he spent something similar to the Club on legals in this case (and he had a history of donating generously to the Club before the CEO told him those donations were no longer welcome) I reckon the Club starts about $1.4 million behind on the foundations for Caulfield. What a shame - all of that to avoid a Board candidate being interviewed by Gerard Whateley - no other Victorian AFL Club prevents that. Maybe raises a few questions about the personal ambitions of the Board incumbents as they review themselves. Ollie, I don't think this will be forgotten when the financials for this year drop and the Q&A opens at the AGM.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    I wish Demonland adopted some of the MFC Board regulations so certain posters could be rejected for representing selfish objectives!

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    13 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Making the reasonable assumption that he spent something similar to the Club on legals in this case (and he had a history of donating generously to the Club before the CEO told him those donations were no longer welcome) I reckon the Club starts about $1.4 million behind on the foundations for Caulfield. What a shame - all of that to avoid a Board candidate being interviewed by Gerard Whateley - no other Victorian AFL Club prevents that. Maybe raises a few questions about the personal ambitions of the Board incumbents as they review themselves. Ollie, I don't think this will be forgotten when the financials for this year drop and the Q&A opens at the AGM.

    Without commenting on the cost that has been incurred to get to this point, and the impact that has on the club, the bold is incorrect and you know it Hawk. 

    You have substantial "high ground" against the club after its highly misleading and disingenuous email following the judgment, but comments like this erode it.

  • Quote
    •  
    5 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

    Without commenting on the cost that has been incurred to get to this point, and the impact that has on the club, the bold is incorrect and you know it Hawk. 

    You have substantial "high ground" against the club after its highly misleading and disingenuous email following the judgment, but comments like this erode it.

    Please explain how those words are not correct?

    Candidates may not be "giving an interview that is transmitted to the general public by way
    of the media, including radio, television, blog or vlog"
     

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Making the reasonable assumption that he spent something similar to the Club on legals in this case (and he had a history of donating generously to the Club before the CEO told him those donations were no longer welcome) I reckon the Club starts about $1.4 million behind on the foundations for Caulfield. What a shame - all of that to avoid a Board candidate being interviewed by Gerard Whateley - no other Victorian AFL Club prevents that. Maybe raises a few questions about the personal ambitions of the Board incumbents as they review themselves. Ollie, I don't think this will be forgotten when the financials for this year drop and the Q&A opens at the AGM.

    I am curious to know what your association is to the Lawrence ticket? You bleat about transparency and yet you remain silent when asked reasonable questions about your involvement. It isn’t a difficult question to answer.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    3 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    A balanced and capable Board? This is a Board that spent $650,000 "winning" a case which adopted pretty much all of the sensible changes to election rules and processes that were proposed in October last year. And in their triumph, they told members - don't worry we'll chase the bloke to recover costs. What did they get? Zero. Don't think there will be any flashy announcements about that development.

    You’re excellent at creating a straw man to argue with. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Are you charging by the post for this campaign work @Hawk the Demon? Hopefully it’s not a success fee for getting the Lawrence ticket up at the AGM cos I’m getting the sense popularity is going backwards each time you recycle the same material on here.. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Making the reasonable assumption that he spent something similar to the Club on legals in this case (and he had a history of donating generously to the Club before the CEO told him those donations were no longer welcome) I reckon the Club starts about $1.4 million behind on the foundations for Caulfield. What a shame - all of that to avoid a Board candidate being interviewed by Gerard Whateley - no other Victorian AFL Club prevents that. Maybe raises a few questions about the personal ambitions of the Board incumbents as they review themselves. Ollie, I don't think this will be forgotten when the financials for this year drop and the Q&A opens at the AGM.

    That assumes that Lawrence would have given the money he spent on costs, to the club. I have no reason to believe that,  although I accept he has been a generous donor (? Trying to buy his way on to the board?)

     

    Anyway, you will have read the other posters telling you you are going backwards - and until you tell us the truth about your involvement with Lawrence, I am sure that  will continue.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    40 minutes ago, Skuit said:

     

    But in a surprise twist, I previously wrote a published article about Sally's career history in glowing terms, including a reference to her time at Arthur Andersen.

    That should give you enough of a hint as to my own identity, so now you can get to work on a strategy to undermine my reputation as well. 

     

    I’m enjoying how this thread is becoming like the end of a Scooby Doo episode. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 3
    • Clap 1
    6 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Please explain how those words are not correct?

    Candidates may not be "giving an interview that is transmitted to the general public by way
    of the media, including radio, television, blog or vlog"
     

    What's not correct is the insinuation that "all of that" was to avoid board candidate being interviewed by Gerard Whateley, as if that was the only thing Lawrence sought in what was left of the dispute to be decided by the judge.

    The combination of his desire to have the disparagement clause removed (having rejected a compromise offered by the club for reasons which made no sense to the judge) and the ability to campaign on all forms of media (including social media) was to have a far wider impact than simply being interviewed by someone. 

    What's lost in the "but the judge accepted his position on that was reasonable" argument is that the judge also accepted the club's position on those issues is reasonable too. It was, and remains, reasonable for the club to have decided that we don't want board candidates going on radio, or TV, or online, and effectively mouthing off at the club, its directors, and other board candidates.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2

    7 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

    Could posters please avoid the personal stuff and try to keep the discussion friendly and constructive?

    I'll stand down. But a random question: if it was proven that someone was being paid to post on this site, would that be in contravention of the forum rules? It's a bit blurry, but I see that under Demonland's guidelines an unauthorised advertisement could cop a $1,000 bill in the mail. Is that per post? 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
    2 hours ago, Skuit said:

    I'll stand down. But a random question: if it was proven that someone was being paid to post on this site, would that be in contravention of the forum rules? It's a bit blurry, but I see that under Demonland's guidelines an unauthorised advertisement could cop a $1,000 bill in the mail. Is that per post? 

    Thank you for standing down Skuit. And Whispering Jack, I am not being paid to post on this site, so please don't send me a bill. 🙂

  • Quote
    On 18/09/2024 at 14:20, daisycutter said:

    you're certainly winning our hearts and minds, hawk, with your gentle persuasions

    Just wondering if anyone knew how our external reviews were going? We know Darren Shand is helping out Gary Pert and Brad Green reviewing the Football Department. Anyone know who the unnamed "external independent expert" is who is helping the Board examine itself?

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    6 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Just wondering if anyone knew how our external reviews were going? We know Darren Shand is helping out Gary Pert and Brad Green reviewing the Football Department. Anyone know who the unnamed "external independent expert" is who is helping the Board examine itself?

    I expect they are going - and I sincerely hope that the outcomes are dealt with quietly, behind the scenes, as previously discussed, and as recommended by Malcolm Speed, which would have the pleasing side effect of not letting you and your crony Lawrence - and you still haven't come clean about the nature of your relationship with him, by the way - give the media fodder for further abuse and destabilisation of the club and its administration.

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    22 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Just wondering if anyone knew how our external reviews were going? We know Darren Shand is helping out Gary Pert and Brad Green reviewing the Football Department. Anyone know who the unnamed "external independent expert" is who is helping the Board examine itself?

    Mick Gatto

  • Quote
    • Haha 3
    4 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Just wondering if anyone knew how our external reviews were going? We know Darren Shand is helping out Gary Pert and Brad Green reviewing the Football Department. Anyone know who the unnamed "external independent expert" is who is helping the Board examine itself?

    Probably end up buried in the top draw like Cam Schwab's "Andrews Report" that never saw the light of day.

    Explosion Reaction GIF

  • Quote
    4 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

    I expect they are going - and I sincerely hope that the outcomes are dealt with quietly, behind the scenes, as previously discussed, and as recommended by Malcolm Speed, which would have the pleasing side effect of not letting you and your crony Lawrence - and you still haven't come clean about the nature of your relationship with him, by the way - give the media fodder for further abuse and destabilisation of the club and its administration.

    "Quietly, behind the scenes". Gee that sort of approach has worked well during the last three years. Three current Federal Court cases on foot with suits against the current President (until the Board vote again later this year), the current Vice President (twice), a retiring director (twice) the immediate former President (twice), a former director and two other current directors (once).

  • Quote
    8 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    "Quietly, behind the scenes". Gee that sort of approach has worked well during the last three years. Three current Federal Court cases on foot with suits against the current President (until the Board vote again later this year), the current Vice President (twice), a retiring director (twice) the immediate former President (twice), a former director and two other current directors (once).

    You’re starting to sound like a broken record. Anyone can start a suit. Most of them don’t get to the hearing stage so why not wait to see how that pans out before adding fuel to the fire?

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    1 minute ago, Whispering_Jack said:

    Any chance we can restrict our discussion on suits to Giorgio Armani or Zegna?

    Okay, I have a couple of Zegna suits plus 4 pairs of trousers, 3 jackets and various shirts and ties.

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    • Clap 1

    I'm pretty sure Elon has taken control of Hawk's posts now, so Hawk can recover from the massive swing against him!

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 hour ago, waynewussell said:

    I'm pretty sure Elon has taken control of Hawk's posts now, so Hawk can recover from the massive swing against him!

    Wonder if he has heard of the phrase " Don't f l o g a dead horse".

    Edited by drysdale demon

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    I said a while ago that although the only sensible course - as endorsed by Speed  - would be to keep the outcome of the review confidential, there would be people on here who would insist that that is a cover -up etc, in some unknown way benefits the club to show the world any faults that are found. It looks like that has already started.

    Edited by Whispering_Jack
    Let’s keep the personal stuff out of it please

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Absolutely the findings should be kept in-house. Any personnel changes will be obvious but anything else - don't announce at all. Just implement.

  • Quote
    • Like 7

    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

    • NON-MFC: Round 05

      Gather Round is here, kicking off with a Thursday night blockbuster as Adelaide faces Geelong. The Crows will be out for redemption after a controversial loss last week. Saturday starts with the Magpies taking on the Swans. Collingwood will be eager to cement their spot in the top eight, while Sydney is hot on their heels. In the Barossa Valley, two rising sides go head-to-head in a fascinating battle to prove they're the real deal. Later, Carlton and West Coast face off at Adelaide Oval, both desperate to notch their first win of the season. The action then shifts to Norwood, where the undefeated Lions will aim to keep their streak alive against the Bulldogs. Sunday’s games begin in the Barossa with Richmond up against Fremantle. In Norwood, the Saints will be looking to take a scalp when they come up against the Giants. The round concludes with a fiery rematch of last year's semi-final, as the Hawks seek revenge for their narrow loss to Port Adelaide. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

      • 10 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Geelong

      There was a time in the second quarter of the game at the Cattery on Friday afternoon when the Casey Demons threatened to take the game apart against the Cats. The Demons had been well on top early but were struggling to convert their ascendancy over the ground until Tom Fullarton’s burst of three goals in the space of eight minutes on the way to a five goal haul and his best game for the club since arriving from Brisbane at the end of 2023. He was leading, marking and otherwise giving his opponents a merry dance as Casey grabbed a three goal lead in the blink of an eye. Fullarton has now kicked ten goals in Casey’s three matches and, with Melbourne’s forward conversion woes, he is definitely in with a chance to get his first game with the club in next week’s Gather Round in Adelaide. Despite the tall forward’s efforts - he finished with 19 disposals and eight marks and had four hit outs as back up to Will Verrall in the second half - it wasn’t enough as Geelong reigned in the lead through persistent attacks and eventually clawed their way to the lead early in the last and held it till they achieved the end aim of victory.

        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Geelong

      I was disappointed to hear Goody say at his post match presser after the team’s 39 point defeat against Geelong that "we're getting high quality entry, just poor execution" because Melbourne’s problems extend far beyond that after its 0 - 4 start to the 2025 football season. There are clearly problems with poor execution, some of which were evident well before the current season and were in play when the Demons met the Cats in early May last year and beat them in a near top-of-the-table clash that saw both sides sitting comfortably in the top four after round eight. Since that game, the Demons’ performances have been positively Third World with only five wins in 19 games with a no longer majestic midfield and a dysfunctional forward line that has become too easy for opposing coaches to counter. This is an area of their game that is currently being played out as if they were all completely panic-stricken.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Essendon

      Facing the very real and daunting prospect of starting the season with five straight losses, the Demons head to South Australia for the annual Gather Round, where they’ll take on the Bombers in search of their first win of the year. Who comes in, and who comes out?

        • Thanks
      • 212 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 04

      Round 4 kicks off with a blockbuster on Thursday night as traditional rivals Collingwood and Carlton clash at the MCG, with the Magpies looking to assert themselves as early-season contenders and the Blues seeking their first win of the season. Saturday opens with Gold Coast hosting Adelaide, a key test for the Suns as they aim to back up their big win last week, while the Crows will be looking to keep their perfect record intact. Reigning wooden spooners Richmond have the daunting task of facing reigning premiers Brisbane at the ‘G and the Lions will be eager to reaffirm their premiership credentials after a patchy start. Saturday night sees North Melbourne take on Sydney at Marvel Stadium, with the Swans looking to build on their first win of the season last week against a rebuilding Roos outfit. Sunday’s action begins with GWS hosting West Coast at ENGIE Stadium, a game that could get ugly very early for the visitors. Port Adelaide vs St Kilda at Adelaide Oval looms as a interesting clash, with both clubs form being very hard to read. The round wraps up with Fremantle taking on the Western Bulldogs at Optus Stadium in what could be a fierce contest between two sides with top-eight ambitions. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

        • Thanks
      • 273 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Geelong

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 7th April @ the all new time of 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect another Demons loss at Kardinia Park to the Cats in the Round 04. 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. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Thanks
      • 62 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All