2 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

I read the email and watched the little video from Deemocracy.

Unfortunately, Peter Lawrence doesn't have enough support to get things going in the direction he wants and has probably annoyed many Melbourne Demons members with his emails and flyers etc.

Nevertheless, I do agree that an independent/external review of the Melbourne Football Club is required. Particularly, in relation to the current fiasco that is going on with if Christian Petracca will stay a Demon or go to another Victorian Club. Losing Christian Petracca will be just as devastating as losing Ronald Dale Barassi at the end of 1964 in my opinion. It will definitely upset many young Demons supporters.

There is also the lingering frustration of how our issue of not having a proper Home Base (now expected to be at Caulfield Racecourse) has dragged on and on for decades now!

Whether or not an independent/external review actually happens at the Melbourne Football Club is another story altogether. It may open a very ugly can of worms....

Or help dismantle a very recent successful club, but what the f we are unhappy so let’s torch the place.

14 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

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.

No sorry, you don't get out of it that easy, what issues need reviewing, you and other posters say there are major issues with the club, what are they?

1 hour 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.

A point lost on some 😉

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

No sorry, you don't get out of it that easy, what issues need reviewing, you and other posters say there are major issues with the club, what are they?

I do get out of it Saty because until now I have never mentioned a review only about elections.

Nor have I said there are any issues only that a panel could identify them is there were any.

Your not on your game Saty. 

50 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?"

You have confidence in the current board. On what do you base that confidence. You sound like you are close to the club so I'm happy to hear why you think the board is doing ok. genuine question i'm not trying to be difficult.

and just to be clear

1. i wouldn't vote to have Peter Lawrence on the board. He's a passionate supporter and has done a lot for the club but he doesn't have the credentials for the job. And he certainty should not be part of any review of the club.

2. i'm in favour of board stability. but only for so long. The home base, for example, is a promise that has not been delivered on. There has to be accountability at some stage.

3. Ego driven or not the club is involved in 2 legal cases. the judgment in the case brought by Peter Lawrence does not paint the club in a favourable light. And the comms around this to members was very disingenuous to say the least. Thats a red flag in my book.

And as i've said i don;t understand why regular reviews are a bad thing. If Peter Jackson was to review the club tomorrow, what would be wrong with that? He knows the place and knows what is best practice in running a footy club. I don't see the problem. I really don't.

 

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 someone crossing a line and going to court to get my private details which I hold very sacred.

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

 

Edited August 28, 2024Aug 28 by Guest

3 hours 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?

The club sent an email regarding this a week or so ago. They advised that they were legally required to provide members email details. 

Fine. I'll do it.

6 weeks, 3,000 pw, plus 2,000 expenses.

Anthropologists come cheap but if you want your culture reviewed, why would you go to yet another lawyer for ten times as much?

1 hour ago, Cyclops said:

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

A  Iam 74 at the end of the week and have been a paid up member of the redlegs supprters group for the last 42 years the above does not apply, I would be surprised if he sent me one after I contacted him last year.

4 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

A  Iam 74 at the end of the week and have been a paid up member of the redlegs supprters group for the last 42 years the above does not apply, I would be surprised if he sent me one after I contacted him last year.

Congratulations on both achievements.

Is this really the week to punch on over administrative issues?*

* unless trying to capitalise on cranky fans

4 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Apologies Demonland. I did try to summize the cultural issues section without crossing into risky territory, but I can completely understand you don't wish to go into it even without details. Thank you for editing out the risky bits but keeping the rest of the post. Appreciated.

So you want a board to interfere with the football department and list management then, we have 2 home bases won a flag with them, as it has been mentioned before the club didn’t instigate these actions as for information that's your opinion not mine i don'tneed to be spoon-fed with info just to be happy, all I can say glad you are not on the board running the club.

3 hours ago, demon3165 said:

And what gross failings are those, please list them with facts not hearsay?

Good heavens. You only have to read last week’s judgment to see how appallingly the Board has behaved .  I cite one example, following the ridiculously triumphant statement from the President. “ we will pursue Lawrence for our costs “. If they do, they will look even more stupid. . In fact I’m hoping they do so, in order to see what a truly independent person, Justice O’Callaghan has to say about the matter 

3 hours ago, demon3165 said:

And what gross failings are those, please list them with facts not hearsay?

 

2 hours ago, BangBnagBang said:

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

I promise you mate, it’s most unlikely he will be ordered to. He won the 2022 case in the Supreme Court, the MFC had to pay his costs 

I've heard more from Peter Lawrence in one day then I have from Kate Roffey in 12 months.

I like this guy.

1 hour ago, Cyclops said:

I do get out of it Saty because until now I have never mentioned a review only about elections.

Nor have I said there are any issues only that a panel could identify them is there were any.

Your not on your game Saty. 

Sorry, no surely elections are part of the review?

And a panel to identify if any, I thought. a lot of posters on here know what they are, they just can't say.

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I've heard more from Peter Lawrence in one day then I have from Kate Roffey in 12 months.

I like this guy.

Easily pleased then, I heard from Kate Roffey a couple of weeks ago

17 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Good heavens. You only have to read last week’s judgment to see how appallingly the Board has behaved .  I cite one example, following the ridiculously triumphant statement from the President. “ we will pursue Lawrence for our costs “. If they do, they will look even more stupid. . In fact I’m hoping they do so, in order to see what a truly independent person, Justice O’Callaghan has to say about the matter 

 

Sorry I thought it was a draw in the judgement and any successful litigant always pursues costs.

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I've heard more from Peter Lawrence in one day then I have from Kate Roffey in 12 months.

I like this guy.

I filled it out and voted for an independent review.

Just now, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

I filled it out and voted for an independent review.

Me too.

5 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Sorry, no surely elections are part of the review?

And a panel to identify if any, I thought. a lot of posters on here know what they are, they just can't say.

Your clutching at straws to make your point valid Saty. In old terms you are having a bob each way.

I never mentioned reviews or a review in conjunction with elections.

Actually after the court decision last week election issues are almost done with except for 1 issue.

5 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Your clutching at straws to make your point valid Saty. In old terms you are having a bob each way.

I never mentioned reviews or a review in conjunction with elections.

Actually after the court decision last week election issues are almost done with except for 1 issue.

I haven't got a point I am asking what is going to be reviewed and why you are on this topic,  I thought you could enlighten me or do you think there shouldn't be a review, your thoughts?

17 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Easily pleased then, I heard from Kate Roffey a couple of weeks ago

Since then the club has imploded and we've heard nada you liniment sniffer.

12 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

I filled it out and voted for an independent review.

Of what? if you voted for it, you must know what is wrong, care to elucidate?

Lack of membership?

Lack of sponsorship?

Massive debt?

Being taken to court by a so called supporter?

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I haven't got a point I am asking what is going to be reviewed and why you are on this topic,  I thought you could enlighten me or do you think there shouldn't be a review, your thoughts?

Pickett and Tracc want to leave, thats a start...