Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[drysdale demon 4,837]

18 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Why?

Because Hawk is saying things you don't like?

I'll say it again, Rennick said installing candidates into casual vacancies was not an approach the board said they wanted to take (despite doing it for years) as members had told them they were against it.

They have just done what Rennick said they wouldn't do again... against the wishes of members.

You or I don't owe the board anything. By holding the board accountable, you are not attacking the club. You are protecting the club from unaccountability.

Hawk the demon is not revealing everything.

[He de mon 942]

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

They don't have to disclose anything, it's an anonymous forum where we discuss the MFC. I don't take much interest in club politics or the board but this court case has shown we've been basically running a closed shop at board level. I also find it incomprehensible that our CEO can refuse a donation from a paid up member as has been suggested here. Can anyone on here seriously say that the club as a whole hasn't dropped the golden egg that our 21 Premiership offered? We've got issues from top to bottom all playing out in the public arena, we currently look like the problem child, I've no doubt sponsors are scratching their heads.

The problem is that we are only getting one side of the story. H2D might be right, but he is saying stuff that no one can challenge. These are his version of events. I’m all for accountability, but if you are going to throw mud you can at least be transparent about your agenda H2D.

[Supreme_Demon 3,897]

I received another email from Peter Lawrence and Deemocracy today.

It relates to surveys done about the concerns that Melbourne members have with the Melbourne Football Club.

This survey was then submitted to the Melbourne Football Club Board.

It will be interesting how the interim President Brad Green responds to this survey. He did acknowledge receiving it at least. However, he has (understandly) been busy with other matters.

Ideally, Brad Green arranges to meet with Peter Lawrence to reconcile these issues. Better meeting with him than Joe Gutnick in my opinion. I just would like to see an amicable outcome reached.

I should note that I am neutral and not on the side of Peter Lawrence or the Melbourne Football Club Board. I am just telling people about the email.

Edited October 1 by Supreme_Demon

[Roost it far 8,570]

14 minutes ago, He de mon said:

The problem is that we are only getting one side of the story. H2D might be right, but he is saying stuff that no one can challenge. These are his version of events. I’m all for accountability, but if you are going to throw mud you can at least be transparent about your agenda H2D.

I'm pretty sure what H2D is saying largely revolves around court transcripts so the mud he's throwing comes from there??

[He de mon 942]

2 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I'm pretty sure what H2D is saying largely revolves around court transcripts so the mud he's throwing comes from there??

Was Pert refusing a donation part of the court transcripts?

[Hawk the Demon 1,028]

12 minutes ago, He de mon said:

Was Pert refusing a donation part of the court transcripts?

Happy to help you out - from the judgment itself:

In closing submissions, Mr Peters also referred to (a) the fact that certain members of the board had attempted to dissuade Mr Lawrence from contesting elections; and (b) the decision of the board to no longer accept donations or player sponsorship from Mr Lawrence, which he described as the club’s “punishment” of Mr Lawrence for his continuing to run in elections.

[Roost it far 8,570]

15 minutes ago, He de mon said:

Was Pert refusing a donation part of the court transcripts?

Ooops!

[58er 6,538]

2 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Ooops!

Well it makes sense as it is not a good look and virtually bordering on conflict of interest given the circumstances. 

[Supreme_Demon 3,897]

4 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Happy to help you out - from the judgment itself:

In closing submissions, Mr Peters also referred to (a) the fact that certain members of the board had attempted to dissuade Mr Lawrence from contesting elections; and (b) the decision of the board to no longer accept donations or player sponsorship from Mr Lawrence, which he described as the club’s “punishment” of Mr Lawrence for his continuing to run in elections.

Not very democratic if this is true.

Unfortunately Peter Lawrence doesn't seem to have enough rank-and-file member support regardless.

However, as I previously mentioned in my other post, I hope that Brad Green and Peter Lawrence can sit down and have a meeting and sort out a lot of these problems. Disunity and ongoing drama doesn't help at all with the stability of the Melbourne Football Club.

[He de mon 942]

7 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Happy to help you out - from the judgment itself:

In closing submissions, Mr Peters also referred to (a) the fact that certain members of the board had attempted to dissuade Mr Lawrence from contesting elections; and (b) the decision of the board to no longer accept donations or player sponsorship from Mr Lawrence, which he described as the club’s “punishment” of Mr Lawrence for his continuing to run in elections.

I have been fairly ambivalent about changes to the board, and I am still not convinced they have made the best decisions for the club. 
What I will say is your obvious attempts at swaying opinion on here has crystallised my opposition to Lawrence joining the board.

[He de mon 942]

29 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

 

Edited October 1 by He de mon
Misquoting

[Supreme_Demon 3,897]

2 minutes ago, He de mon said:

This was not the judgement. This was closing submission by his lawyer. This is why you can’t be trusted.

You're quoting the wrong person there.

I didn't say that.

[He de mon 942]

7 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

You're quoting the wrong person there.

I didn't say that.

My bad. Not sure what happened there

[Hawk the Demon 1,028]

9 minutes ago, He de mon said:

This was not the judgement. This was closing submission by his lawyer. This is why you can’t be trusted.

It is Paragraph page 145 of the judgment. Yes, it is the judge's summary of closing submissions, but the statements made here and in affidavits and under cross examination were not challenged by the MFC.

Are you suggesting that the prohibition of donations and player sponsorships is not true?

[Supreme_Demon 3,897]

1 minute ago, He de mon said:

My bad. Not sure what happened there

All good.

I just want all this drama and animosity resolved at the Melbourne Football Club. It is incredibly frustrating.

How things have unravelled so quickly since 2021 (a mere 3 years ago) really boggles my mind!

We need to be a stable football club to give us the best opportunity to win more Premierships.

[He de mon 942]

2 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

It is Paragraph page 145 of the judgment. Yes, it is the judge's summary of closing submissions, but the statements made here and in affidavits and under cross examination were not challenged by the MFC.

Are you suggesting that the prohibition of donations and player sponsorships is not true?

I am suggesting that we haven’t heard the other side of the story.

[He de mon 942]

This is a good unbiased analysis of the judgement.

https://associations.net.au/news/sector-news/2024/fair-or-oppressive-federal-court-rules-on-melbourne-football-club-board-conduct-and-bylaws.html

[Hawk the Demon 1,028]

5 minutes ago, He de mon said:

This is a good unbiased analysis of the judgement.

https://associations.net.au/news/sector-news/2024/fair-or-oppressive-federal-court-rules-on-melbourne-football-club-board-conduct-and-bylaws.html

Nice segue, so I take it that you now accept the truth about the prohibition on donations and player sponsorships.

From your helpful link, is the key takeaway:

Boards should take this judgement as a reminder to listen to dissenting members and address any concerns that arise with the membership as a whole.

Could not have expressed it better myself.

[He de mon 942]

11 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Nice segue, so I take it that you now accept the truth about the prohibition on donations and player sponsorships.

I didn’t say that at all.

15 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

From your helpful link, is the key takeaway

This was my takeaway

The judge found that the MFC’s election rules were reasonable and made in good faith. The Court agreed that the Board’s actions were aimed at ensuring fairness in the elections, preventing any one candidate from having an unfair advantage, and protecting the Club’s reputation

[mauriesy 7,352]

So despite agreeing, as I understand it, to the first three points of Mr Lawrence's case, namely:

• The practice of fulfilling casual vacancies before shortly before an election where those appointed then nominate for the upcoming election,
• Failing to properly notify all members when nominations for board elections were open,
• Board endorsement of the existing directors running for election

The board has now gone back to the previous practice of fulfilling casual vacancies before an election and endorsing existing directors.

Along with the Oliver trade mess of 2023-24, the Petracca mess in 2024, the JS affair, the Oliver trade talk again now, board resignations, the diminished performance this year, the lack of independence in the review, the other court cases, and the continual delay to a training base (it's still just a concept), tell me why the board is doing such a great job?

Just interested as a "neutral supporter" observer in all this.

, 

 

Edited October 1 by mauriesy

[Diamond_Jim 12,624]

Will Pert get a please explain following the Age article suggesting that he's been shopping Oliver around to other clubs.

Even if authorised its amateur hour.... (use an untraceable source)

Three other club and industry sources with knowledge of trade discussions said that Gary Pert, the Melbourne CEO who has been running two reviews into the club, recently made contact with a number of teams about whether they had an interest in trading for Oliver.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-inside-story-how-word-spread-that-oliver-was-on-the-market-again-20241001-p5kevi.html

Edited October 1 by Diamond_Jim

[Ollie fan 3,468]

1 hour ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Not very democratic if this is true.

Unfortunately Peter Lawrence doesn't seem to have enough rank-and-file member support regardless.

However, as I previously mentioned in my other post, I hope that Brad Green and Peter Lawrence can sit down and have a meeting and sort out a lot of these problems. Disunity and ongoing drama doesn't help at all with the stability of the Melbourne Football Club.

Lawrence will not sort anything out until he is on the board - and if that ever happens, goodbye to stability and sound administration.

[Adam The God 30,403]

8 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

Lawrence will not sort anything out until he is on the board - and if that ever happens, goodbye to stability and sound administration.

You call what we have 'sound administration' and 'stability'?

F M D.

Edited October 1 by Adam The God

[Ollie fan 3,468]

18 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

You call what we have 'sound administration' and 'stability'?

F M D.

I know a few things: we have been a top team from 2020 until about July 2024, when injuries piled up and we couldn't cope. I also know that our membership got to 75,000 which was previously unheard-of. I know that a lot of star players renewed contracts long term. I know that at last there is a realistic prospect of a home base in a relatively central location. I know that I don't care a fig for"dee-mocracy"; i just want something to barrack for when I go to the games - which I regularly do.

That is enough for me.

[Older demon 2,779]

54 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Will Pert get a please explain following the Age article suggesting that he's been shopping Oliver around to other clubs.

Even if authorised its amateur hour.... (use an untraceable source)

Three other club and industry sources with knowledge of trade discussions said that Gary Pert, the Melbourne CEO who has been running two reviews into the club, recently made contact with a number of teams about whether they had an interest in trading for Oliver.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-inside-story-how-word-spread-that-oliver-was-on-the-market-again-20241001-p5kevi.html

I read this as well, and now the club regrets doing so, as Clarry has been happy to exercise his rights to look elsewhere. If Pert did do this, I would like to know on whose authority. Any wonder MaClure stated that Clarry was feeling like he wasn't wanted anymore.

It will be an interesting B&F Friday night. Pert wasn't there last year. I wonder if he will attend. If he shopped Clarry around he should be sacked on the spot.