4 minutes ago, layzie said:

Ouch. 

How strange with everyone’s expectations riding on his back, who threw in the Steven Smith Red Herring in the first place????

4 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Will the results of the review be shared with members?

Let’s hope not, we don’t need anything else in the public domain 

3 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I don't believe it was a red herring, I think getting Roffey out was the primary aim, and then the next step after that was open, albeit with Smith has a preferable option. Steven has come close to challenging before I believe, so it's clearly something he has an interest in but it's understandable he's not available at the moment given his life circumstances. There will be other options come forward now.

It’s all easy to say what ever one wants to say or what one wants to believe but in the final analysis no one really knows. Everyone is just playing catch up football.!!

Paul Hopgood better put on his big boy shorts cos the president's job is his if he wants it?

4 hours ago, layzie said:

I found that a real wishy washy part of the interview saying that we didn't need an external review but that we get external advice all the time, including "one of the all blacks we had down recently". Then low and behold we're having an external review with a former All Blacks advisor.

What does this all mean? The coincidence is annoying.

The comms and PR coming out of the club has been complete garbage for a while now and we're constantly left to connect the dots. 

Everything from the club feels so reactive.

5 hours ago, He de mon said:

The problem is that the Lawrence advocates rarely participate in any other discussion apart from matters concerning the board. It feels like they are campaigning rather than being on Demonland because they love the club, and enjoy talking and reading about the footy. 

What are you talking about?

5 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Other former players to keep an eye out now for. Paul Hopgood and perhaps Andrew Leoncelli are options that may now present themselves.

Stephen Newport?

10 hours ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Hate's a strong word. Perhaps it comes across that way in some posts. 

No hate from me but definitely some disappointments. 

• Seemingly little progress with our home base project 
• Very little influence upon the media/ability to control a narrative
• The club leaks like a collander which has resulted in us getting roasted mercilessly by the media, over an over  
• Club communications possibly worst in the league 
• Spent a lot of time defending the culture/denying a culture problem - I am sure he's invested considerable time trying to improve the culture, thought it's not obvious how/where or if it's helped! 

I feel like this sums things up very well. Under PJ we looked like we had clear direction and leadership, under Pert we just haven't seemed to have a clear path of where we're going and what we're trying to achieve. Add the to that the culture concerns should be taken seriously, did the Pies have a good culture under him? I don't really think so.

We might well be stuck with him for now but he can be doing so much better, the leaks alone tell you that everything isn't ship shape.

On 08/09/2024 at 09:00, Adam The God said:

"Landing the club"? All they needed to do was accept the amendments Peter pushed and they would have saved those costs. Instead they weirdly dragged it through the courts and then accepted the majority of the changes, making the vast majority of the process redundant. 

Completely the board's fault.

I think you're a reasonable poster Adam, and I agree with you on many levels that the MFC board in some instances were stifling certain, reasonable democratic processes through their actions and by-laws.

I would personally guess they did it in an attempt to exclude disruptive elements to maintain cohesion when some big agenda issues were in play, exactly the same things everyone is complaining about elsewhere, but that they also stepped over the line on several occasions.

Still, my view is they did so in what they probably thought were the best interests of our club, rather than a blind attempt to hang onto power and an unpaid job, as is oft being portrayed. 

The thing is, they did ultimately agree to a number of revisions, but as far as my understanding goes, they didn't accept the most contentious challenge outside of the email list handover thing: that being the ability for board aspirants to make their case in the media and maybe disparage the club and incumbents while doing so. 

I think we can all agree that we're all pretty fed up with the media's current distortions: imagine that writ large with an all-out dirty-laundry fight. We are a small club, and can't easily withstand the negative press the same way that perhaps Collingwood or Carlton can.  

Some might agree and others might not, but that question also raises a whole bunch of other democratic issues, such as someone with the financial ability to wage a public campaign then having an upper-hand over others. What I'm getting at though: we have no clear idea if they went through the court process to defend against this one issue. 

The club may have agreed to some concessions pre-hearing, but were still forced to go court on that primary issue. Both parties ultimately painted the process as a win, and I think both bear some responsibility for the costs incurred by the club and not being able to sort it out through mitigation. 

I'm personally happier though that our constitution tries to prevent ugly public spats, but again, others may disagree. I take it you have met Lawrence and he has convinced you he is a great supporter of our club, but the white-anting isn't cool and he does have chips in the game beyond constitutional amendments.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

I think you're a reasonable poster Adam, and I agree with you on many levels that the MFC board in some instances were stifling certain, reasonable democratic processes through their actions and by-laws.

I would personally guess they did it in an attempt to exclude disruptive elements to maintain cohesion when some big agenda issues were in play, exactly the same things everyone is complaining about elsewhere, but that they also stepped over the line on several occasions.

Still, my view is they did so in what they probably thought were the best interests of our club, rather than a blind attempt to hang onto power and an unpaid job, as is oft being portrayed. 

The thing is, they did ultimately agree to a number of revisions, but as far as my understanding goes, they didn't accept the most contentious challenge outside of the email list handover thing: that being the ability for board aspirants to make their case in the media and maybe disparage the club and incumbents while doing so. 

I think we can all agree that we're all pretty fed up with the media's current distortions: imagine that writ large with an all-out dirty-laundry fight. We are a small club, and can't easily withstand the negative press the same way that perhaps Collingwood or Carlton can.  

Some might agree and others might not, but that question also raises a whole bunch of other democratic issues, such as someone with the financial ability to wage a public campaign then having an upper-hand over others. What I'm getting at though: we have no clear idea if they went through the court process to defend against this one issue. 

The club may have agreed to some concessions pre-hearing, but were still forced to go court on that primary issue. Both parties ultimately painted the process as a win, and I think both bear some responsibility for the costs incurred by the club and not being able to sort it out through mitigation. 

I'm personally happier though that our constitution tries to prevent ugly public spats, but again, others may disagree. I take it you have met Lawrence and he has convinced you he is a great supporter of our club, but the white-anting isn't cool and he does have chips in the game beyond constitutional amendments.  

 

 

 

I loved how you scoped that out Skuit, well thought out and worded, doesn’t matter how lofty the ideals but countered by the white anting and financial imposte on our club.

10 hours ago, Adam The God said:

What are you talking about?

What I am talking about is that there are certain posters whose only contribution to this forum is to bag the board and extol the virtues of Lawrence. It often feels like a ham fisted influence campaign.

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

I think you're a reasonable poster Adam, and I agree with you on many levels that the MFC board in some instances were stifling certain, reasonable democratic processes through their actions and by-laws.

I would personally guess they did it in an attempt to exclude disruptive elements to maintain cohesion when some big agenda issues were in play, exactly the same things everyone is complaining about elsewhere, but that they also stepped over the line on several occasions.

Still, my view is they did so in what they probably thought were the best interests of our club, rather than a blind attempt to hang onto power and an unpaid job, as is oft being portrayed. 

The thing is, they did ultimately agree to a number of revisions, but as far as my understanding goes, they didn't accept the most contentious challenge outside of the email list handover thing: that being the ability for board aspirants to make their case in the media and maybe disparage the club and incumbents while doing so. 

I think we can all agree that we're all pretty fed up with the media's current distortions: imagine that writ large with an all-out dirty-laundry fight. We are a small club, and can't easily withstand the negative press the same way that perhaps Collingwood or Carlton can.  

Some might agree and others might not, but that question also raises a whole bunch of other democratic issues, such as someone with the financial ability to wage a public campaign then having an upper-hand over others. What I'm getting at though: we have no clear idea if they went through the court process to defend against this one issue. 

The club may have agreed to some concessions pre-hearing, but were still forced to go court on that primary issue. Both parties ultimately painted the process as a win, and I think both bear some responsibility for the costs incurred by the club and not being able to sort it out through mitigation. 

I'm personally happier though that our constitution tries to prevent ugly public spats, but again, others may disagree. I take it you have met Lawrence and he has convinced you he is a great supporter of our club, but the white-anting isn't cool and he does have chips in the game beyond constitutional amendments.  

 

 

 

Not sure what sort of "chips" you are referring to Skuit. Deemocracy has been banging away on proper governance for four years.  I have read the judgment. You're not quite right about "one primary issue". You may be interested to know that the judge was forced to adjourn the hearing mid-stream (with very much a nudge nudge wink wink) to allow the Board to go away and hold a Board meeting to remove a provision in the Election Rules that prohibited Board candidates from accessing the register of members so as to communicate with other members. This provision clearly contravened the Corporations Act and the Supreme Court case Lawrence won in 2022.

I get your point about the Club wanting to avoid media circuses (they're doing a good job in that regard, right?) but a Board which adopts a rule prohibiting members from communicating with other members when a Board election is on tells you everything you need to know about their true objectives. It seems Lawrence wanted members to be able to talk to members - no media circus there.

Do you really believe we would have ended up with anything approaching reasonable election processes without the case running its full course? Effectively the judge stared the Club down and between Days 2 and 3 of the trial (11 days) the Board scuttled away to "fix up their rules").

 

On 08/09/2024 at 18:04, Hawk the Demon said:

Just to repeat the earlier post.

The $500,000 referred to earlier in the thread was 2020-22. Who knows what was spent on this last case - it went for 4 days in the Federal Court - the lawyers on this site could perhaps hazard a guess.

The Club lost the case in 2022.

Four days in the Federal Court plus all the preparatory work—  between 500- 700k IMV . Experienced silks on both sides.

and yes, it was entirely avoidable had  the Club  adopted , from the beginning, the changes it ultimately agreed  to .

Email sent to club members confirm twin reviews taking place in October - an external review of the board and the Shand, Green and Pert review of the men’s program 

mfc confirms two reviews being conducted; one by Darren Shand, brad green, and gary pert into the footy dept + one of the board itself by an external independent expert (they don't say who), involving the president and all current board members

7 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Email sent to club members confirm twin reviews taking place

Let's hope the Febeys can identify some positive steps forward for MFC.

7 minutes ago, demoncat said:

Email sent to club members confirm twin reviews taking place in October - an external review of the board and the Shand, Green and Pert review of the men’s program 

My first reaction reading the email detail was could both reviews skirt around some of the problems? Shand & Pert looking down on the football dept and the board review just looking at board members and governance. Senior management slides in between perhaps

3 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

My first reaction reading the email detail was could both reviews skirt around some of the problems? Shand & Pert looking down on the football dept and the board review just looking at board members and governance. Senior management slides in between perhaps

The line about the Shand review potentially revealing good things about the men’s program was an eyebrow raiser 

1 minute ago, demoncat said:

The line about the Shand review potentially revealing good things about the men’s program was an eyebrow raiser 

Just now, Bring-Back-Powell said:

“While [the review] will identify areas in which we need to get better, we believe it will also highlight many positive elements of our AFL program, and why we should head into next season with well-founded optimism about what we can achieve.”

This was fait accompli.

There are people in the club and on the board who are well aware that we’ve plummeted down the ladder in many areas.

This can only be seen as a positive. Shows that as a club we have some self awareness.

Dear Members,

There is no shying away from the fact that the 2024 AFL season has been a disappointing one for our football club. Our expectation was that we had the program and talent to be contending at the pointy end of the AFL season and we fell well short of this.  In addition, we have again faced our challenges off the field and these events take their toll on our people, including our members.

While it hurts to be watching the on-field action at this time of year, we must quickly switch our mindset towards moving forward, both on and off the field, to ensure our AFL team climbs back up the ladder in 2025. 

With this in mind, the club is conducting two separate reviews: one of its Board and one of its men’s football program.

The Board review follows the recent transition from Kate Roffey to Brad Green in the role of President. As is common practice, the review is being led by an external independent expert, involves the President and all current Directors, and will benchmark the Board against best practice.

The review of the men’s football department is focusing on the operations and overarching environment of the AFL program. This review is being conducted by President Brad Green, CEO Gary Pert and external consultant Darren Shand.

For more than two decades, Darren served as the All Blacks Manager and was a crucial driver in creating and maintaining the environment which shaped the New Zealand All Blacks into the world’s most successful international sports team. Throughout his time as All Blacks Manager, the team won back-to-back World Cup tournaments in 2011 and 2015, and also won the Tri Nations and subsequent Rugby Championship six times.

Darren is already familiar with our program, having spent time in the club earlier this year observing all elements of the men’s football program.

While it will identify areas in which we need to get better, we believe it will also highlight many positive elements of our AFL program, and why we should head into next season with well-founded optimism about what we can achieve.

The ambition of both review processes is to strive for excellence and to ensure, that as our game demands, we evolve to achieve sustained success.

This ambition can only be achieved with alignment and commitment to our values of trust, respect, unity and excellence.

The reviews of both the AFL program and the Board will be completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members.

Your Board, CEO Gary Pert and the club’s leaders are committed to doing all we can to make the members of this great club proud to belong and we are confident these reviews will bring key insights to assist us in delivering on this commitment.

The Melbourne Football Club Board

8 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Dear Members,

There is no shying away from the fact that the 2024 AFL season has been a disappointing one for our football club. Our expectation was that we had the program and talent to be contending at the pointy end of the AFL season and we fell well short of this.  In addition, we have again faced our challenges off the field and these events take their toll on our people, including our members.

While it hurts to be watching the on-field action at this time of year, we must quickly switch our mindset towards moving forward, both on and off the field, to ensure our AFL team climbs back up the ladder in 2025. 

With this in mind, the club is conducting two separate reviews: one of its Board and one of its men’s football program.

The Board review follows the recent transition from Kate Roffey to Brad Green in the role of President. As is common practice, the review is being led by an external independent expert, involves the President and all current Directors, and will benchmark the Board against best practice.

The review of the men’s football department is focusing on the operations and overarching environment of the AFL program. This review is being conducted by President Brad Green, CEO Gary Pert and external consultant Darren Shand.

For more than two decades, Darren served as the All Blacks Manager and was a crucial driver in creating and maintaining the environment which shaped the New Zealand All Blacks into the world’s most successful international sports team. Throughout his time as All Blacks Manager, the team won back-to-back World Cup tournaments in 2011 and 2015, and also won the Tri Nations and subsequent Rugby Championship six times.

Darren is already familiar with our program, having spent time in the club earlier this year observing all elements of the men’s football program.

While it will identify areas in which we need to get better, we believe it will also highlight many positive elements of our AFL program, and why we should head into next season with well-founded optimism about what we can achieve.

The ambition of both review processes is to strive for excellence and to ensure, that as our game demands, we evolve to achieve sustained success.

This ambition can only be achieved with alignment and commitment to our values of trust, respect, unity and excellence.

The reviews of both the AFL program and the Board will be completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members.

Your Board, CEO Gary Pert and the club’s leaders are committed to doing all we can to make the members of this great club proud to belong and we are confident these reviews will bring key insights to assist us in delivering on this commitment.

The Melbourne Football Club Board

At this stage i have no problem with this letter or the path the Club is taking. 
There will be good people inside the Club, who deserve to stay.

There will be a select few who must be moved on. 
As long as both reviews are honest and straight forward. 
 

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

At this stage i have no problem with this letter or the path the Club is taking. 
There will be good people inside the Club, who deserve to stay.

There will be a select few who must be moved on. 
As long as both reviews are honest and straight forward. 
 

Versus Crooked and Sneaky. Ha ha.!!

Just now, DeeZone said:

Versus Crooked and Sneaky. Ha ha.!!

Yes absolutely. Hard truths have to be confronted at both levels 

The Board has failed to deliver what was their main objective 

The Football Department has recruited a bunch of Casey list cloggers over the last 3 years and has a gameplan that has become outdated 

No time for hiding anything