1 minute ago, pewpewpew said:

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

Personal insult way to go.

Imploded in what way?.

Tracc has actually stated he wants out?

A lot of hyperbole about the email.

Cant fault his desire to bring the club into contemporary governance.

Full independent review now - the club looks like it is imploding.

 

37 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Sorry, I'm really not sure at all what you're talking about here.

Another poster asked what an external review would address and I provided a starting list of issues.

Sorry I apologise I thought it was you saying again sorry.

4 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

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

Stated by both of them. Or just rumour/hearsay.

If I hear them say it and the reasons, then I will make call, no individual is bigger than the team.

Edited August 28, 2024Aug 28 by Satyriconhome

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Personal insult way to go.

Imploded in what way?.

Tracc has actually stated he wants out?

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Stated by both of the. Or just rumour/hearsay.

If I hear them say it and the reasons, then I will make call, no individual is bigger than the team.

So what has occured in the past week hasn't concerned you at all?

41 minutes ago, Farmer said:

You only have to read last week’s judgment to see how appallingly the Board has behaved .

Appalling is a stretch surely. Judge accepted their actions were reasonable and left it to the parties to sort out the costs.

As someone who pays membership fees I would expect the club look to push them onto Lawrence as he brought the case, I’d prefer my fees pay footballers and coaches than lawyers.

Doesn’t seem all that controversial to me. 

I found the email in my spam folder. (Gmail)

Anyway as I have read the judgement the following statement from Mr Lawrence left me curious :

As he delivered the decision, Justice O’Callaghan indicated his “preliminary view” that it was “relatively clear” that each party should bear its own costs.

Can I just point out that the above is not in the published judgement so I assume Justice O'Callaghan made some remarks in court.

In terms of an independent review I am not sure how that can be achieved; if it is trully independent then neither of the current MFC or Deemocracy should be involved.

However a review of some description needs to be undertaken as this season turned to hell before round 1.

 

12 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

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?

Your obviously happy with the way things are travelling? @Satyriconhome

4 hours ago, demon3165 said:

There will always be challengers and that's also a good thing, as for a review yes, but only for the football department and that's where it is needed.

You really think it's only the FD that needs to be reviewed?

The media are having pot shots at us...if Peter Jackson was still CEO would it be open season on Melbourne?

I think not.

The problems are much greater than just the FD.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the stench of something rotten at our club will not go away. 

An independent review is the only way this can be addressed. Just get it done and hopefully we can move forward.

 

Having read the judgment and the election rules I now understand the case better. Ridiculous that it went all the way to court, from both sides I guess. 

That said, now sure how he feels he has the power to demand an independent review? By whom? In to what? 

The board should review the CEO, that’s their job. They shouldn’t need any help doing it.

The CEO should review the football program and bring in outside football expert help if needed. 

Richo and Goodwin should review their teams of staff and the players.

I’m struggling to see just where this review is needed or will be helpful.

The President needs to make a statement when the appropriate offseason reviews are done and changes made or arranged. Until then, unity is vital and stirring things up when you lose isn’t. 

Edited August 28, 2024Aug 28 by DeeSpencer

19 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?

Yes Saty. In a previous post I said that given the current climate a review would be ideal.

This has been strengthened by the report tonight that Kozzie is also unhappy 

If the review turns up nothing then there a double win.

1 The club is seen to be addressing concerns 

2 Nothing to see here.

10 minutes ago, Fritta and Turner said:

I found the email in my spam folder. (Gmail)

Anyway as I have read the judgement the following statement from Mr Lawrence left me curious :

As he delivered the decision, Justice O’Callaghan indicated his “preliminary view” that it was “relatively clear” that each party should bear its own costs.

Can I just point out that the above is not in the published judgement so I assume Justice O'Callaghan made some remarks in court.

In terms of an independent review I am not sure how that can be achieved; if it is trully independent then neither of the current MFC or Deemocracy should be involved.

However a review of some description needs to be undertaken as this season turned to hell before round 1.

 

Your paragraph is correct. The judge said it in court.

 he delivered the decision, Justice O’Callaghan indicated his “preliminary view” that it was “relatively clear” that each party should bear its own costs.

Can I just point out that the above is not in the published judgement so I assume Justice O'Callaghan made some remarks in court.

In terms of an independent review I am not sure how that can be achieved; if it is trully independent then neither of the current MFC or Deemocracy should be involved.

Our club has turned to 💩 and we are all turning on each other as a result of it.

Whilst Roffey and Pert sit in front of their log fires with a glass of red and look out of their balconies, over looking the sunset like nothing is wrong.

23 minutes ago, rjay said:

You really think it's only the FD that needs to be reviewed?

The media are having pot shots at us...if Peter Jackson was still CEO would it be open season on Melbourne?

I think not.

The problems are much greater than just the FD.

 

Do you think I give a toss what the media says no, they get this reaction from people jumping from one thing to another.

Go Peter Lawrence 

59 minutes ago, rjay said:

You really think it's only the FD that needs to be reviewed?

The media are having pot shots at us...if Peter Jackson was still CEO would it be open season on Melbourne?

I think not.

The problems are much greater than just the FD.

 

But what are the problems?

1 hour ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Your obviously happy with the way things are travelling? @Satyriconhome

Should have seen him back in 2013 prior to Neeld sacking.

Everything was all sweet and rosy according to him and would constantly criticise anyone who voiced for Neelds sacking during that period.

Went awfully quiet afterwards when Neeld got the sack.

 

5 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Should have seen him back in 2013 prior to Neeld sacking.

Everything was all sweet and rosy according to him and would constantly criticise anyone who voiced for Neelds sacking during that period.

Went awfully quiet afterwards when Neeld got the sack.

 

Deluded individual.

We've been given the chance to get the club back on track and vote for an independent review and you've got people who paid good money for this tragic 15 months on and off field having a hissy fit over being sent an email. 🤦‍♂️

26 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

But what are the problems?

Like them or not we have a real problem with the football media.

Is what they are saying correct?

Who would know.

Maybe some is, maybe some isn't.

We do have a credibility problem with them though and it also seems that there are lose lips around the club.

We are losing the PR battle and that's a head office issue.

Communication.

There have been a few legal issues also at play but we're not going to get into those.

It wouldn't hurt to have a complete review from top down.

If everyone is at the top of their game what's to lose?

...and if they aren't, then what's to lose?

We sort it out and get better.

Edited August 28, 2024Aug 28 by rjay

Don’t necessarily agree with this guys tactics, but I agree with an external review 

12 minutes ago, rjay said:

Like them or not we have a real problem with the football media.

Is what they are saying correct?

Who would know.

Maybe some is, maybe some isn't.

We do have a credibility problem with them though and it also seems that there are lose lips around the club.

We are losing the PR battle and that's a head office issue.

Communication.

There have been a few legal issues also at play but we're not going to get into those.

It wouldn't hurt to have a complete review from top down.

If everyone is at the top of their game what's to lose?

...and if they aren't, then what's to lose?

We sort it out and get better.

This. 

What do you think our commercial partners are thinking with the kitchen on fire, perceived or otherwise, and no leadership from the club?

The answer to that is pretty obvious. The “any coverage is good coverage” no longer applies. Corporations don’t like to be associated with organisations that aren’t considered standard bearers.

A bit of leadership, a review and some transparency would go a long way.

42 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Should have seen him back in 2013 prior to Neeld sacking.

Everything was all sweet and rosy according to him and would constantly criticise anyone who voiced for Neelds sacking during that period.

Went awfully quiet afterwards when Neeld got the sack.

 

Neeld and Craig were crucified by the players who ran the show, and when Roos and Jackson came in they could not have their way, now I'm not saying Neeld was a good couch but when players do not want to conform trouble happens, starting to wonder if this is the case in Tracs decisions.