Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[Dr Don Duffy 102]

Edit

Edited October 3 by Dr Don Duffy

[Dr Don Duffy 102]

14 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Why couldn't Kate Roffey sit down with Peter Lawrence and reconcile things BEFORE they got to court? Or did they hate eachother's guts? Was there a huge personality clash between the two of them?

Anyway, I hope Brad Green can "break bread" with Peter Lawrence and sort out these issues with him.

SD, as I indicated in my previous post the only option for Lawrence was to institute the court proceedings that he did. The alternative was to do nothing and leave the bad practices in place. I understand that some senior people have sought to mediate between him and the board, but the board has not been open to such mitigation although Lawrence was happy to participate. 

Lawrence has been proven right by the outcomes in his decisions, but the board’s decision-making has been poor. They have essentially folded to most of his requests after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

14 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

However, my only condition to supporting him is if he is willing to pay back the court costs that the Melbourne Football Club had to pay. Why? Because we as paying Melbourne members had to unwillingly endure that cost..

My understanding is that Lawrence offered to pay the court costs for the Supreme Court case that he won in 2022 (another case that totally shouldn’t have been contested by the club, given the clear state of the law on the issue that was contested). However the club rejected that offer, and soon after that Pert told Lawrence that the club would not accept any more donations from him. Shameful behaviour, and nicely done on our behalf by them. More poor decision-making. 

For heaven’s sake, a good board would take control of the situation, manage it and use Lawrence’s energy and commitment rather than continually punching on with him.

[Supreme_Demon 3,629]

1 hour ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

SD, as I indicated in my previous post the only option for Lawrence was to institute the court proceedings that he did. The alternative was to do nothing and leave the bad practices in place. I understand that some senior people have sought to mediate between him and the board, but the board has not been open to such mitigation although Lawrence was happy to participate. 

Lawrence has been proven right by the outcomes in his decisions, but the board’s decision-making has been poor. They have essentially folded to most of his requests after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

My understanding is that Lawrence offered to pay the court costs for the Supreme Court case that he won in 2022 (another case that totally shouldn’t have been contested by the club, given the clear state of the law on the issue that was contested). However the club rejected that offer, and soon after that Pert told Lawrence that the club would not accept any more donations from him. Shameful behaviour, and nicely done on our behalf by them. More poor decision-making. 

For heaven’s sake, a good board would take control of the situation, manage it and use Lawrence’s energy and commitment rather than continually punching on with him.

That's a damning indictment on the Melbourne Football Club Board, if true.

Why wouldn't you try and resolve this peacefully? It sounds like there is a lot of bad blood between the Board and Peter Lawrence.

I just hope Brad Green can speak to Peter Lawrence and sort this out otherwise this issue will continue to fester and may even cause more expensive court cases to eventuate!

My only question to Peter Lawrence (if he reads this discussion forum?) is does he support the building of a Home Base for the Melbourne Football Club at the Caulfield Racecourse? This is a paramount issue that we all need to support and make sure gets completed in our lifetimes.

 

[Dr Don Duffy 102]

27 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

That's a damning indictment on the Melbourne Football Club Board, if true.

Why wouldn't you try and resolve this peacefully? It sounds like there is a lot of bad blood between the Board and Peter Lawrence.

I just hope Brad Green can speak to Peter Lawrence and sort this out otherwise this issue will continue to fester and may even cause more expensive court cases to eventuate!

My only question to Peter Lawrence (if he reads this discussion forum?) is does he support the building of a Home Base for the Melbourne Football Club at the Caulfield Racecourse? This is a paramount issue that we all need to support and make sure gets completed in our lifetimes.

 

SD, as I said in a previous post I was able to access his phone number when he first ran for the board. Feel free to PM me for the details if you want to make contact with him.  

[Supreme_Demon 3,629]

12 minutes ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

SD, as I said in a previous post I was able to access his phone number when he first ran for the board. Feel free to PM me for the details if you want to make contact with him.  

All good.

I found his contact details in an old email.

 

In any case, I hope that Brad Green makes the effort to reconcile with Peter Lawrence for the sake of unity and shared love of the Melbourne Demons.

[beelzebub 23,264]

Taken recently  at a MFC "strategy" meeting.......

[Hawk the Demon 868]

I notice the "now famous" former MFC member Ricky Dunn is getting a petition together to ensure the Pert review is in fact an independent review - via Reddit.

[Foopy on the telly 527]

I just don’t understand how it’s got to the point that the board has apparently been making all of these ‘bad’ decisions. 
 

They have a governance code to go by, which by all reports was overhauled with the involvement of the AFL 11 years ago. Has this changed? And if not, why are they going against their governance code if they are in fact performing poorly?

[Demonland 70,953]

 

[Adam The God 29,832]

On 03/10/2024 at 13:08, Supreme_Demon said:

That's a damning indictment on the Melbourne Football Club Board, if true.

Why wouldn't you try and resolve this peacefully? It sounds like there is a lot of bad blood between the Board and Peter Lawrence.

I just hope Brad Green can speak to Peter Lawrence and sort this out otherwise this issue will continue to fester and may even cause more expensive court cases to eventuate!

My only question to Peter Lawrence (if he reads this discussion forum?) is does he support the building of a Home Base for the Melbourne Football Club at the Caulfield Racecourse? This is a paramount issue that we all need to support and make sure gets completed in our lifetimes.

 

It is true and it's bizarre decision making. Like dragging things through the Federal Court earlier this year, only to accept almost all of Peter Lawrence's recommendations anyway.

Edited October 4 by Adam The God

[Supreme_Demon 3,629]

Yes, well it was a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Something the Melbourne Football Club don't have the luxury to afford.

I note that interim President Brad Green spoke about "unity" at the Melbourne Football Club last night.

Hopefully he can offer the "olive branch of peace" to Peter Lawrence so that all of this can be resolved.

If he can sit down and meet Joe Gutnick for a coffee then he can do the same with Peter Lawrence.

[Ted Lasso 19,067]

6 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

From "Best culture in 40 years" to "No stone unturned in review" all within 12 months... - A Gary Pert story.

[Fritta and Turner 4,255]

34 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Yes, well it was a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Something the Melbourne Football Club don't have the luxury to afford.

I note that interim President Brad Green spoke about "unity" at the Melbourne Football Club last night.

Hopefully he can offer the "olive branch of peace" to Peter Lawrence so that all of this can be resolved.

If he can sit down and meet Joe Gutnick for a coffee then he can do the same with Peter Lawrence.

I think Peter wants more than a coffee

[Supreme_Demon 3,629]

6 minutes ago, Fritta and Turner said:

I think Peter wants more than a coffee

Lunch then?

 

I understand he wants to join the Melbourne Football Club Board, but so would I, if I was a multimillionaire. But we can't always get what we want.

 

[Roost it far 8,039]

1 hour ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Lunch then?

 

I understand he wants to join the Melbourne Football Club Board, but so would I, if I was a multimillionaire. But we can't always get what we want.

 

The bit I don't get is his potential donations are also being snubbed. Surely that's not in anyone's favour?

[Supreme_Demon 3,629]

7 hours ago, Roost it far said:

The bit I don't get is his potential donations are also being snubbed. Surely that's not in anyone's favour?

Agreed.

That's just mean-spirited and counter productive for the entire Melbourne Football Club.

 

[rpfc 28,164]

5 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Agreed.

That's just mean-spirited and counter productive for the entire Melbourne Football Club.

 

Is it? Or is that you only know the ‘truth’ burnished by PL and his hacks on here? And that you are making judgements and assumptions based on not much more than reports and court filings.

[Fritta and Turner 4,255]

16 hours ago, Roost it far said:

The bit I don't get is his potential donations are also being snubbed. Surely that's not in anyone's favour?

Accepting the donations places the club in a moral bind, especially from a donor who has taken legal action against the club.

[Ouch! 2,258]

16 hours ago, Roost it far said:

The bit I don't get is his potential donations are also being snubbed. Surely that's not in anyone's favour?

Rarely are donations provided with absolutely pure philanthropic intent behind them. It often has intent or purpose for how or what the money is used for. Perhaps even as innocent as having the ear of someone in influence. 

I don't know this person at all, however I've received e-mails and it probably is a smart thing to not have any strings attached whilst things play out.

[M_9 2,062]

12 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Rarely are donations provided with absolutely pure philanthropic intent behind them. It often has intent or purpose for how or what the money is used for. Perhaps even as innocent as having the ear of someone in influence. 

I don't know this person at all, however I've received e-mails and it probably is a smart thing to not have any strings attached whilst things play out.

Agree. We don't know if there are strings attached and, if so, what they might be. I wouldn't want PL's money if a condition was 'Oliver goes'.

[Demons1858 1,741]

PL seems determined to get on the board one way or another. There are elections for that and he now gets access to the contact lists and so he can put himself forward and whatever happens time to respect members decision ... he hasn't it appears been able to get support of influential people that can support his ambitions

Edited October 6 by Demons1858

[Ollie fan 3,252]

18 hours ago, Roost it far said:

The bit I don't get is his potential donations are also being snubbed. Surely that's not in anyone's favour?

If he is trying to buy his way in to the board, that is not acceptable.

[I'va Worn Smith 971]

Have I missed it?  Or does the CEO's B&F address NOT feature on the MFC websiste?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,066]

3 hours ago, M_9 said:

Agree. We don't know if there are strings attached and, if so, what they might be. I wouldn't want PL's money if a condition was 'Oliver goes'.

Do you really think that would be the case?

[M_9 2,062]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Do you really think that would be the case?

TBH I know nothing of PL's gripe. He's obviously determined to get a position on the board, and the current board appears equally determined that he doesn't. There must be a reason for the opposition to him from the likes of Pert et al. I guess if I'd taken the time to read his policy statement I'd know. But I didn't, so I don't.