Email from Peter Lawrence

[Satyriconhome 10,878]

2 minutes ago, BDA said:

I got the email

Too much noise around our club for too long.

The instinct for self-preservation is as strong in organisations as it is in individuals. No one likes being reviewed but regular reviews are good governance.

I voted in favour of an independent review. If conducted properly it can only be a good thing. Terms of reference key. Get the best in the business and empower them to leave no stone unturned.

 

 

Review what though? List the issues, nobody has up to now and the reason they need to be reviewed.

And cue.......

 

 

Edited August 28 by Satyriconhome

[drysdale demon 4,833]

1 hour ago, Stretch Johnson said:

I am guessing all members received the email.

My question is who is he and how in a hell full of demons did he get my email address?

He didn't send me one, it is not in junk, I feel unwanted.

[Red But Mostly Blue 4,547]

SO conflicted on this one.

I don't like how Peter has done this, and there certainly seems to be (despite assertions to the contrary) an element of ego here. I also am not happy with Peter taking us the court following a pretty turbulent period for the club - with other court time during this period - and the board/coach/culture noise...

... but, I am also not happy with how the year went, and there are obviously a multitude of reasons for that - of which bad luck is no doubt a part - but certainly not the sole reason for the poor season. Maybe there is a culture thing, maybe there isn't. Maybe the Board is great, maybe it isn't. Maybe the answer is, as it usually is, somewhere in the middle, and there are things we could do differently, or better. But we won't know until there is a review. A proper review, not one conducted internally, which isn't worth even the digital comms it will be contained in. 

I am also against the establishment remaining the establishment because they prevent outsiders, non-establishment, folk - the peasants - from being a part of these boards - which are usually appointed due to who you know/where you studied/worked etc. So there's that. The whole unopposed/unelected thing is a little off for me. 

Anyway, there's no final view in my post if you're looking for one. Just wanted to unhelpfully point out that this is a real pickle. But, yeah, super annoying to have our details shared under operation of the law. But I get it (both sides). Kind of.

Unhelpful post over.

[daisycutter 29,616]

well i didn't get the email, and i normally get all club email so they must hold my correct email address

[Cyclops 511]

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I always received a letter or email or proxy form, as there were only 3 nominees or whatever for 3 positions, elected unopposed, not sure which bit you are not getting.

Sorry Saty, I don't  get any of it. Seems your email or letter was received after the election that was never gazetted or held. You can't be elected without an election.

[BangBnagBang 694]

I'lll listen to him when he pays the 1000 of dollars back to the club for the court cost

[Guest]

Let's not conflate the issues. 

1. The club needs at lot of work.  I want to see a good review.

2.What I don't need is some peanut going to court to get my private details which I hold very sacred.

The last thing I want is to have said peanut responsible for point 2 to have anything to do with the running of my football club.

Edited August 28 by Guest

[BDA 22,755]

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Review what though? List the issues, nobody has up to now and the reason they need to be reviewed.

And cue.......

 

 

Why do you need issues to have a review? I’m reviewed annually. My firm is reviewed every 3 years.

if the review shows a clean bill of health then great. Everybody can pipe down.

seeng as you did ask the club embroiled in legal cases and wasting valuable and scarce resources on legal costs is reason enough to question the boards judgment. What’s going on with the home base. Comms from Pert and Kate recently have been disingenuous to say the least. We’re in the media every day one the week.

there are plenty of reasons. 

 

 

[demon3165 2,718]

3 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Sorry Saty, I don't  get any of it. Seems your email or letter was received after the election that was never gazetted or held. You can't be elected without an election.

If there are no challenges to the current board members during an election and are restanding or anyone filling a position then they are elected to the board unopposed. 

[demon3165 2,718]

1 minute ago, BDA said:

Why do you need issues to have a review? I’m reviewed annually. My firm is reviewed every 3 years.

if the review shows a clean bill of health then great. Everybody can pipe down.

seeng as you did ask the club embroiled in legal cases and wasting valuable and scarce resources on legal costs is reason enough to question the boards judgment. What’s going on with the home base. Comms from Pert and Kate recently have been disingenuous to say the least. We’re in the media every day one the week.

there are plenty of reasons. 

 

 

Oh so the home base is on this board is it, at the moment we have 2 and won a premiership so let's see how caulfield works out, Lawrence brought this one on himself not the board as for the other not sure if that's still going, as for the media who cares the write what they want to write just remember we had one journo say people were leaving and those people resigned to the club.

[Roost it far 8,273]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Bring it on Roost

It’s just my vibe, I have no inside knowledge.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Make Melbourne Great Again?

 

More like winter in a Game of Thrones kind of way. 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,239]

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well i didn't get the email, and i normally get all club email so they must hold my correct email address

Mine went to spam dc.

[daisycutter 29,616]

2 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Mine went to spam dc.

lol ... i wasn't complaining ... just a little curious

[Satyriconhome 10,878]

32 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Sorry Saty, I don't  get any of it. Seems your email or letter was received after the election that was never gazetted or held. You can't be elected without an election.

It is sent out with the notification of the AGM, which I have attended every year for the last 15.

[Satyriconhome 10,878]

30 minutes ago, BDA said:

Why do you need issues to have a review? I’m reviewed annually. My firm is reviewed every 3 years.

if the review shows a clean bill of health then great. Everybody can pipe down.

seeng as you did ask the club embroiled in legal cases and wasting valuable and scarce resources on legal costs is reason enough to question the boards judgment. What’s going on with the home base. Comms from Pert and Kate recently have been disingenuous to say the least. We’re in the media every day one the week.

there are plenty of reasons. 

 

 

It was not the Club that started the legal issues, we have 2 driven by 2 egos who think they have been wronged.

What do you want Pert to say "we have nothing to report on the Home Base" If there is progress I assume we will be informed, probably during the AGM unless Lawrence and his little band of sycophants try and disrupt it again with meaningless questions.

What are the reasons?, nobody has said what they are and I am not expecting anybody to provide any, it is just mob rule.

A clean bill of health for what?

"What do we want?"...."Er' When do want it?"..."What?"

Edited August 28 by Satyriconhome

[Jaded No More 68,915]

Only those who have something to hide, refuse to open the curtains. 

Every good organisation with as many share holders as ours, should undertake regular reviews, regardless of performance. And any review should be done independently and without agendas. 

[Cyclops 511]

8 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

It is sent out with the notification of the AGM, which I have attended every year for the last 15.

OK, Saty. Look at our constitution. These people who you say are "elected unopposed" without the benefit of an election are in fact "deemed to be elected". Look it up or refer to the transcription of one of 15 AGM'S you have attended.

Edited August 28 by Cyclops

[demon3165 2,718]

5 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

It was not the Club that started the legal issues, we have 2 driven by 2 egos who think they have been wronged.

What do you want Pert to say "we have nothing to report on the Home Base" If there is progress I assume we will be informed, probably during the AGM unless Lawrence and his little band of sycophants try and disrupt it again with meaningless questions.

What are the reasons?, nobody has said what they are and I am not expecting anybody to provide any, it is just mob rule.

A clean bill of health for what?

"What do we want?"...."Er' When do want it?"..."What?"

I have asked 2 people to provide facts about the board and got nothing, people go on heresy as fact or listen to the media and assume it's true, anyone just show facts.

[Cyclops 511]

48 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

He didn't send me one, it is not in junk, I feel unwanted.

The email, of course, was not sent to those under 18 years of age? Nor was it sent to those who are not financial.

[demon3165 2,718]

9 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Only those who have something to hide, refuse to open the curtains. 

Every good organisation with as many share holders as ours, should undertake regular reviews, regardless of performance. And any review should be done independently and without agendas. 

We are not shareholders...

A stakeholder is anyone who is impacted by a company or organization's decisions, regardless of whether they have ownership in that company. Shareholders are those who have partial ownership of a company because they have bought stock in it. All shareholders are stakeholders, but not all stakeholders are shareholders.

Edited August 28 by demon3165

[Demon17 5,188]

2 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

“Independent review” is a myth.

we didn’t drag ourselves out of the mud with independent reviews, the AFL put Jackson and Roos in charge and they ran the club as a proper club should run. Maybe we need change at the footy department but a review won’t tell you that. The board and CEO need to make their judgements and act on them, which we can’t do at the current time with all the noise going on as it would be an absolute feeding frenzy from the journos. 

 

Then in late 2020 after a poor year just missing finals, Pert conducted an INTERNAL footy dept. review.

Flag next year.  Iv'e seen enough of big 4 consultants to advise avoiidng the etxernal process.  Unless you want to write a big cheque for something that we already know.

Only Christian can dig himself out of this hole.

All other clubs are collapsing to demands on long term contacrs being torn up.

Dees aren't. Where I come from a deal is a deal. Hold firm Dees and set the standard of maturity here.

AFL is so second rate in terms of culture.

e.g why can't players nominate their next club in the prior season to signal their intentions.  ? You contract for 6 years you play out your time.

Why won't the likely 30 or so gay players come out (not that they need to), but they would fear the consequenses of the AFL public trolls.

 

[layzie 33,801]

Let me have a think about it. 

[Satyriconhome 10,878]

Again, a list of the issues that need reviewing, not the footy department, and not hearsay.

The Footy Department will have an end of season review, to try and figure out what went wrong, maybe it was Pert and Roffey taking the midfield/forward connection, or coaching the centre square stoppages, I knew we shouldn't have involved them. But seriously the footy review has already started, Stafford, Schache, Ferris White out, some of the young players re signed to longer deals etc etc.

[hardtack 10,537]

I suspect that Peter Lawrence is a member of Demonland and possibly(?) engaging in this thread. Could @Demonland please reveal the name under which Mr Lawrence does post on these forums… surely he couldn’t object, all things considered!

[Cyclops 511]

5 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Again, a list of the issues that need reviewing, not the footy department, and not hearsay.

The Footy Department will have an end of season review, to try and figure out what went wrong, maybe it was Pert and Roffey taking the midfield/forward connection, or coaching the centre square stoppages, I knew we shouldn't have involved them. But seriously the footy review has already started, Stafford, Schache, Ferris White out, some of the young players re signed to longer deals etc etc.

I thought the idea of a review is identify whether it be internal or external and the departments to be included.

Invite a panel to do the review.

The panel to identify issues and offer recommendations 

The board and club to then decide on what recommendations to adopt.

Sounds deal to me given the current climate.