Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[Skuit 9,932]

5 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Pretty clear that Skuit has a high opinion of the Board and the CEO and I, a simple supporter, do not. Hopefully the members will get their chance to express their opinion in respect of the former soon. 

I have a high opinion of transparency and truthfulness, and a much lesser one of politics, personal agendas and the deceitful twisting of facts. I really couldn't care less about the board, so long as the club is financially stable, they work together, and mostly keep their nose out of football department stuff. 

[rpfc 28,043]

On 16/09/2024 at 18:59, Hawk the Demon said:

Gee you don't think much of our poor old voting members do you? That elitist approach you have just outlined has led to how many Court cases recently? - just finished one (how much did that cost?) to make changes to election processes that were obvious, continued  just to stop Board candidates being interviewed by Gerard Whateley. And three cases on the go at the moment - one against 4 Board members, a second against 7 Board members and a single one against the current Vice President. Not to mention the worst facilities in the AFL. A Board that has jettisoned two Presidents in three years. I can see the AFL looking over proceedings at Melbourne and saying "everything's just fine!".

I am comfortable with my opinion of ‘low information group’ that some are trying to entrust with electing a balanced and capable corporate board, and I have a lower opinion of those that would utilise for their own ends the incidence of dubious court cases against certain individuals.

I would not crow about the AFL’s opinion of the club leadership, any intervention from here will dramatically decrease the likelihood of your mate Lawrence getting on the board.

You may continue your crusade.

[Hawk the Demon 738]

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.

[daisycutter 29,292]

1 hour 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 certainly winning our hearts and minds, hawk, with your gentle persuasions

[Ollie fan 3,041]

1 hour 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.

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.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:34 by Ollie fan

[Hawk the Demon 738]

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.

[waynewussell 4,851]

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

[titan_uranus 24,558]

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.

[Hawk the Demon 738]

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"
 

[He de mon 871]

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.

[rpfc 28,043]

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. 

[Fromgotowoewodin 1,497]

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.. 

[Ollie fan 3,041]

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.

[Mel Bourne 4,388]

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. 

[titan_uranus 24,558]

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.

[Whispering_Jack 29,149]

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

[Skuit 9,932]

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? 

[Hawk the Demon 738]

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. 🙂

[drysdale demon 4,677]

4 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I am not being paid to post on this site,

You may not personaly being paid.