1 hour ago, He de mon said:

i didn't get an email? When was this?

Very recently, Dr Angela Williams, effective immediately huge relevant resume, changes coming through. It’s on our MFC website, have a read.!!

54 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

That's a fair comment. I do have my personal suspicions it is very much linked to the current review however.

Testimony from the MFC Vice President in the Federal Court in May:

But you want to continue with the practice of casual vacancies for board  elections?---I wouldn’t have thought so.

Why not?---Because our members have told us that they don’t like it.

But the rules still allow for it?---It does.  

6 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Testimony from the MFC Vice President in the Federal Court in May:

But you want to continue with the practice of casual vacancies for board  elections?---I wouldn’t have thought so.

Why not?---Because our members have told us that they don’t like it.

But the rules still allow for it?---It does.  

I'm not sure of Angela's suitability for the board, but I do know that this board are continuing to insert their mates into positions of power.

And until this MO stops, how can the board expect members to trust them?

Green will then conduct some electioneering when it comes time to vote again, and tell us members who to vote for.

It's pathetic and you can see it coming a mile off.

Edited September 30, 2024Sep 30 by Adam The God

Did we literally not just go through this?

2 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

That's a fair comment. I do have my personal suspicions it is very much linked to the current review however.

She’s got her hands full with other ventures. Tabcorp is probably her main priority. 

Not sure she did much anyway.

4 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

Neither has ANYTHING that has be reported PROVEN to be CORRECT.  All there has been is scandalous hyperbole.

Support your club, not the media hacks champ.

Give me a break, you can stick your fingers in your ears and be wilfully ignorant to the issues at the club if you want but when the clubs best player in 60 years is so [censored] off that he wants to leave and when the "culture" has been allowed to deteriorate to the extent it has over the last 18 months under the watch of those running the club I prefer to hold those at the club accountable.

Supporting the club is holding them accountable, it is not being a mindless cheerleader to some of the blow-ins using it to pump up their CVs.

Edited September 30, 2024Sep 30 by Dr. Gonzo

1 hour ago, Adam The God said:

I'm not sure of Angela's suitability for the board, but I do know that this board are continuing to insert their mates into positions of power.

And until this MO stops, how can the board expect members to trust them?

Green will then conduct some electioneering when it comes time to vote again, and tell us members who to vote for.

It's pathetic and you can see it coming a mile off.

Luckily anyone wanting to run in opposition to the clubs appointed board members will have the opportunity to raise any concerns they have with the members via the media so the members know who/what they are voting for.

Oh, wait.....

2 hours ago, Adam The God said:

I'm not sure of Angela's suitability for the board, but I do know that this board are continuing to insert their mates into positions of power.

Bit of a non sequitur there? If you're not sure of her suitability, how can you assert that the board are basically just inserting their mates?

Perhaps she was chosen because she was a strong candidate? Has plenty of board experience - as opposed to the current president for example.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-angela-williams-ab717181/details/experience/

4 hours ago, Adam The God said:

I'm not sure of Angela's suitability for the board, but I do know that this board are continuing to insert their mates into positions of power.

And until this MO stops, how can the board expect members to trust them?

Green will then conduct some electioneering when it comes time to vote again, and tell us members who to vote for.

It's pathetic and you can see it coming a mile off.

What is this? 

I expect better from who I believe was Binman’s PA yeah?

As bing points out - you don’t know but you just know??

The board should be given the opportunity to balance itself and try to meet the needs of boards in this unique AFL landscape. Now you want to get rid of them and get a new ticket in? Great, then enough quality people will agree with you, the AFL will push for it, and you can vote for that or better yet create the media and pubic pressure to dissolve the board entirely. This isn’t the US sports landscape - we can do that.

But until then, they are doing what we have entrusted them to do, your ‘inklings’ notwithstanding.

With Robbo now with extra time on his hands with no AFL360, we could be lining him up for the board????

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

With Robbo now with extra time on his hands with no AFL360, we could be lining him up for the board????

Nah he’s a Bummer!!!

6 hours ago, rpfc said:

What is this? 

I expect better from who I believe was Binman’s PA yeah?

As bing points out - you don’t know but you just know??

The board should be given the opportunity to balance itself and try to meet the needs of boards in this unique AFL landscape. Now you want to get rid of them and get a new ticket in? Great, then enough quality people will agree with you, the AFL will push for it, and you can vote for that or better yet create the media and pubic pressure to dissolve the board entirely. This isn’t the US sports landscape - we can do that.

But until then, they are doing what we have entrusted them to do, your ‘inklings’ notwithstanding.

What did we entrust this Board to do?

Surely Janette Kendall could have held on for a couple of months until the AGM (she has not served two years yet). But we know why the switch takes place right now. Talk about "on the nose".

A little more from the cross examination of our Vice President:

Yeah. They said it was on the nose, didn’t they? Members said the casual vacancies was on the nose?---Yes, they did.

Yes. What did they mean by that?---it didn’t look good. It was giving – it had the potential to be seen as giving those candidates an unfair advantage. And that’s why we changed the rule.  

Well, that’s what Mr Lawrence had been saying for a couple of years, hadn’t he?---Yes.

@Hawk the Demon, where did you get the court transcript from? And the affidavit material you quoted earlier?

These aren’t publicly available documents. 

If you’re prepared to share quotes of them, why not share the entire documents with all of us?

And/or let us know how you happen to have them but the rest of us don’t?

11 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

What did we entrust this Board to do?

Surely Janette Kendall could have held on for a couple of months until the AGM (she has not served two years yet). But we know why the switch takes place right now. Talk about "on the nose".

A little more from the cross examination of our Vice President:

Yeah. They said it was on the nose, didn’t they? Members said the casual vacancies was on the nose?---Yes, they did.

Yes. What did they mean by that?---it didn’t look good. It was giving – it had the potential to be seen as giving those candidates an unfair advantage. And that’s why we changed the rule.  

Well, that’s what Mr Lawrence had been saying for a couple of years, hadn’t he?---Yes.

If you mean that they implemented a recommendation of the independent review by obtaining the retirement of and then replacing a board member who perhaps wasn't performing then that Is the point of a review.

 

 If by doing it this way they kept troublemaker Lawrence off the board, that is a great great side-effect.

 

Now when are you going to come clean about your involvement which seems to include access to transcript?

Edited September 30, 2024Sep 30 by Ollie fan

23 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

What did we entrust this Board to do?

Surely Janette Kendall could have held on for a couple of months until the AGM (she has not served two years yet). But we know why the switch takes place right now. Talk about "on the nose".

A little more from the cross examination of our Vice President:

Yeah. They said it was on the nose, didn’t they? Members said the casual vacancies was on the nose?---Yes, they did.

Yes. What did they mean by that?---it didn’t look good. It was giving – it had the potential to be seen as giving those candidates an unfair advantage. And that’s why we changed the rule.  

Well, that’s what Mr Lawrence had been saying for a couple of years, hadn’t he?---Yes.

Just what does your company and Royce have to do with Peter Lawrence and his push to get onto the board?

12 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

If you mean that they implemented a recommendation of the independent review by obtaining the retirement of and then replacing a board member who perhaps wasn't performing then that Is the point of a review.

 

 If by doing it this way they kept troublemaker Lawrence off the board, that is a great great side-effect.

 

Now when are you going to come clean about your involvement which seems to include access to transcript?

So you believe the independent review is now complete and one of the recommendations was for Janette Kendall to depart due to lack of performance? It's the 1st of October and the Board said:

"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."

And I wonder what Janette Kendall thinks about you suggesting she "wasn't performing". She sat on the Constitution Review Committee in 2022, joined the Board in December 2022 and then was Chair of the Club's Election Committee and a member of the Supporter Forum Working Group.

completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members.

1 minute ago, Hawk the Demon said:

So you believe the independent review is now complete and one of the recommendations was for Janette Kendall to depart due to lack of performance? It's the 1st of October and the Board said:

"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."

And I wonder what Janette Kendall thinks about you suggesting she "wasn't performing". She sat on the Constitution Review Committee in 2022, joined the Board in December 2022 and then was Chair of the Club's Election Committee and a member of the Supporter Forum Working Group.

completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members.

You won't answer the questions will you regarding your companies involvement and your fathers company involvement with Peter Lawrence.

7 hours ago, rpfc said:

What is this? 

I expect better from who I believe was Binman’s PA yeah?

As bing points out - you don’t know but you just know??

The board should be given the opportunity to balance itself and try to meet the needs of boards in this unique AFL landscape. Now you want to get rid of them and get a new ticket in? Great, then enough quality people will agree with you, the AFL will push for it, and you can vote for that or better yet create the media and pubic pressure to dissolve the board entirely. This isn’t the US sports landscape - we can do that.

But until then, they are doing what we have entrusted them to do, your ‘inklings’ notwithstanding.

No, I've never agreed with you on your strange want and need for the board to be an unaccountable, autocratic being.

When David Rennick, the Vice President was cross examined in May, he repeatedly said the members didn't like having casual vacancies filled just prior to an election. He even said it wouldn't be a practise they would continue, and yet they clearly still are.

It's unacceptable. It erodes trust. 

42 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

You won't answer the questions will you regarding your companies involvement and your fathers company involvement with Peter Lawrence.

DD, I can't be sure which track you are on, but it is definitely heading in the wrong direction.....so I politely suggest you stick to the topic, which is broadly about how the MFC Board is compiled on this Review thread.

38 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

DD, I can't be sure which track you are on, but it is definitely heading in the wrong direction.....so I politely suggest you stick to the topic, which is broadly about how the MFC Board is compiled on this Review thread.

You want transparency from the board but you aren't being so yourself.

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

So you believe the independent review is now complete and one of the recommendations was for Janette Kendall to depart due to lack of performance? It's the 1st of October and the Board said:

"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."

And I wonder what Janette Kendall thinks about you suggesting she "wasn't performing". She sat on the Constitution Review Committee in 2022, joined the Board in December 2022 and then was Chair of the Club's Election Committee and a member of the Supporter Forum Working Group.

completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members.

I don't know but I think it is feasible. What is less feasible is any suggestion that you are not a front for Lawrence, and you should disclose that, with details.

59 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

I don't know but I think it is feasible. What is less feasible is any suggestion that you are not a front for Lawrence, and you should disclose that, with details.

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.

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

With Robbo now with extra time on his hands with no AFL360, we could be lining him up for the board????

How about we line him up to throw tomatoes at him?

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

They don't have to disclose anything, it's an anonymous forum where we discuss the MFC. I

You have to ask yourself why an anonymous poster on here who's family's business has been associated with board challenges on at least 3 other times with at the least 2 other clubs keeps ranting on about our current board members and talking up a challenger for the last 12 months

3 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

I don't know but I think it is feasible. What is less feasible is any suggestion that you are not a front for Lawrence, and you should disclose that, with details.

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.