Email from Peter Lawrence

[whatwhat say what 22,054]

1 hour ago, JJJ said:

 

We seem to promise a lot at board level and deliver 3/5’s of FA. Least of all any plan and/or strategy. And we do this under the veil of darkness or secrecy.

well, i would argue, that in the last strategic plan the club achieved 4 of the 5 outcomes stated

the one glaring omission was the home base

but, as per other threads, that ain't for want of trying...

[Kent 2,854]

2 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I very very much agree with the idea of an external review, and I have a gut feel we may only be a matter of months away from a board challenge, my reference is only into the timing of Mr Lawrence sending this out right now. I would have been much more receptive to hearing from him if he had left a bit of breathing space for us members given what we've endured the last couple of weeks. To me that speaks to an inability to be measured and considered.

That's the point isn't it the current mob are not managing over the last couple of weeks

[FreedFromDesire 583]

3 minutes ago, Kent said:

That's the point isn't it the current mob are not managing over the last couple of weeks

Without us knowing all the ins and outs of the recent events it's very difficult to say definitively I would have thought?

Other matters of course are clear indicators the current board have not managed things well, but again, I'm not defending the board at all and believe a challenge will be incoming at some stage, my issue is with the timing of this from Mr Lawrence and what it says about his ability in terms of wanting to be a board member.

Edited August 28 by FreedFromDesire

[Roost it far 7,340]

Change is coming.

[Kent 2,854]

Just now, Roost it far said:

Change is coming.

Bring it on Roost

[Jaded No More 67,590]

1 minute ago, Roost it far said:

Change is coming.

Make Melbourne Great Again?

 

[demon3165 2,564]

7 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I very very much agree with the idea of an external review, and I have a gut feel we may only be a matter of months away from a board challenge, my reference is only into the timing of Mr Lawrence sending this out right now. I would have been much more receptive to hearing from him if he had left a bit of breathing space for us members given what we've endured the last couple of weeks. To me that speaks to an inability to be measured and considered.

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.

[Satyriconhome 10,339]

4 minutes ago, smurf said:

It's surprising how worked up people are getting over an email, as if they don't already receive hundreds of spam emails every day or week.

Let's put things in perspective: it's just an email, not someone showing up at your house and digging through your personal belongings.

You have options—delete the email if it's not your cup of tea, or take a moment to open it and read what a passionate Dees supporter has to say about the current state of our club.

Are you genuinely satisfied with how our club is being managed at the moment?

If your answer is "Yes," then I have to say—your indifference or lack of concern for the club's future is contributing to the very issues we're facing.

But if you think everything is fine and we don't need an external review, then let me tell you, you might as well prepare to see your favorite players wearing a [censored] Collingwood jumper.

That's the level of complacency you're endorsing.

Our membership level is still close to 65000, apart from the 2 Saturday games were our so called supporters didn't bother to show (I might review as to why they are so complacent), we should make an operating profit.

The sponshorship, both corporate and individual is nearly full.

Our season on the field was a bit of a failure, due to a myriad of issues within the playing list, injury, form etc, had nothing to do with the Board.

Everybody is continually banging on about the Home Ground, if the Board from 30 years ago had got going and purchased or leased the land then, we would have one, the actual cost of land if we don't have one on hold at the moment is astronomical when you are competing with property developers.

Yarra Park was considered, but unfortunately the good citizens of East Melboure [censored] on that one, no fault of the board, same with the area near Marvel, could not compete with the developers.

If Tracc comes out and says he wants a trade, then I will believe it, of course nobody on here has ever changed their jobs because they didn't like the environment/culture and whatever other buzz word is in use at the time.

Caulfield is a massive undertaking which will take time.

Am I satisified with how things are going, generally yes, disappointed with the season, but already looking forward to the new season, with the young talent we have on board, signed and sealed.

Will I renew my membership, yes, will I continue to sponsor 1 and a bit players yes, do I support the club yes, do I whinge and whine for a living no.

[roy11 3,651]

59 minutes ago, reynolds46 said:

but is this the best way to go about it? 

Sums up Melbourne FC in 2024 tbh aha

[Satyriconhome 10,339]

45 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

DeeZone, you do realise that Kate Roffey was only elected to the board last year for the first time. In fact for 10 or 12 years before 2021 no board member was elected. No elections were held in that period until Mr Lawrence nominated in 2021.

Any board members before that time have well and truly gone.

Yes they were, they were elected unopposed, it is only since Lawrence decided that a vote has taken place and HE HAS LOST.

[pitmaster 3,442]

Thanks to those who alerted me to the possibility it was in my spam folder. Moved it.

I, like a few others here, have met Peter and I can vouch for his passion for the club and his willingness to put his own resources into the place.

He is a genuine Demon fan and I cannot understood why the club - the board actually - adopted such a blocking strategy with him.

That does not mean I necessarily endorse everything he says, but he is fair dinkum about wanting the best for the club.

[Dr Don Duffy 76]

23 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I very very much agree with the idea of an external review, and I have a gut feel we may only be a matter of months away from a board challenge, my reference is only into the timing of Mr Lawrence sending this out right now. I would have been much more receptive to hearing from him if he had left a bit of breathing space for us members given what we've endured the last couple of weeks. To me that speaks to an inability to be measured and considered.

You have been a reasonable and fair correspondent on these matters, FFD, and I can see why you would say that. Two points I would make here are that he has been active on these matters of better governance for a number of years now (and his efforts have been responsible for meaningful change in that regard, for which we should be grateful), so it’s not as though he’s coming out of the blue; and secondly (and related to that), the board came out with a very poor email within an hour of the handing down of the Federal Court decision, and I can see why he would see the need to provide some correction to that material. 

Not suggesting that this is your motive FFD, but politicians and those wishing to avoid scrutiny trot out the phrase “Now is not the time to…(insert name of action that’s needed)”, generally when there is a bit of crisis around, which is often exactly the time where a clear-headed and external review is needed.

Edited August 28 by Dr Don Duffy

[Adam The God 29,285]

42 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I'm very middle of the road for all things on this matter. There has been good done, but also faults on both sides. I very much respect Peter's contribution to the club and dedication.

However, the timing and content of this email just further emphasizes he does not know how to 'read the room'. To send this right now, at a time most Melbourne supporters would be sick of being punched down on, and to include a 'call to action' which I'm sure he will use for his own purposes and potentially not just for the stated outcome; paints him in a poor light in regards to being a level headed leader.

Peter, if you happen to read Demonland, I very much agree with the idea of an external review and I have my own issues with the current board, but please, going forward, take some time to have a breath and consider things before taking such actions in the future. Timing and tact are important. We have work to do now, not more battles to create.

I disagree. 

Many people on Demonland seem to want change.

It's pretty clear on and off the field we need change.

I don't trust the club to do an unbiased internal review. We need a top down external review.

[demon3165 2,564]

21 minutes ago, smurf said:

It's surprising how worked up people are getting over an email, as if they don't already receive hundreds of spam emails every day or week.

Let's put things in perspective: it's just an email, not someone showing up at your house and digging through your personal belongings.

You have options—delete the email if it's not your cup of tea, or take a moment to open it and read what a passionate Dees supporter has to say about the current state of our club.

Are you genuinely satisfied with how our club is being managed at the moment?

If your answer is "Yes," then I have to say—your indifference or lack of concern for the club's future is contributing to the very issues we're facing.

But if you think everything is fine and we don't need an external review, then let me tell you, you might as well prepare to see your favorite players wearing a [censored] Collingwood jumper.

That's the level of complacency you're endorsing.

As I have asked somebody else to do what are problems with the board, list them and explain why, not hearsay just facts please.

[mo64 5,469]

18 minutes ago, smurf said:

It's surprising how worked up people are getting over an email, as if they don't already receive hundreds of spam emails every day or week.

Let's put things in perspective: it's just an email, not someone showing up at your house and digging through your personal belongings.

You have options—delete the email if it's not your cup of tea, or take a moment to open it and read what a passionate Dees supporter has to say about the current state of our club.

Are you genuinely satisfied with how our club is being managed at the moment?

If your answer is "Yes," then I have to say—your indifference or lack of concern for the club's future is contributing to the very issues we're facing.

But if you think everything is fine and we don't need an external review, then let me tell you, you might as well prepare to see your favorite players wearing a [censored] Collingwood jumper.

That's the level of complacency you're endorsing.

Smurf, I'm all for an external review, but I see a "No" response to the email as an endorsement of Peter Lawrence Deemocracy, which could not be further from the truth.

I'm all for change, but Peter Lawrence's efforts seem to be ego driven, rather than what's best for the club.

 

[Cyclops 502]

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Yes they were, they were elected unopposed, it is only since Lawrence decided that a vote has taken place and HE HAS LOST.

Sorry to disagree Saty but as there was no election held they were not elected at all. Those board members, Ms Roffey included, were selected not elected to the board.

This has happened right up till this time where retiring board members are replaced early by the board and up until recently no election was held.

Recently, with a number of nominations to handle the nominees are vetted by a panel of mainly board members. Of about 10 recent outsider nominations only 1 has been deemed suitable. All of the board nominees have been deemed suitable as you would expect.

With the changes now made the vetting panel will be more independent.

[Satyriconhome 10,339]

1 minute ago, Cyclops said:

Sorry to disagree Saty but as there was no election held they were not elected at all. Those board members, Ms Roffey included, were selected not elected to the board.

This has happened right up till this time where retiring board members are replaced early by the board and up until recently no election was held.

Recently, with a number of nominations to handle the nominees are vetted by a panel of mainly board members. Of about 10 recent outsider nominations only 1 has been deemed suitable. All of the board nominees have been deemed suitable as you would expect.

With the changes now made the vetting panel will be more independent.

Elected unopposed, means they were elected to the board, nobody disagreed,

[Satyriconhome 10,339]

15 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

Thanks to those who alerted me to the possibility it was in my spam folder. Moved it.

I, like a few others here, have met Peter and I can vouch for his passion for the club and his willingness to put his own resources into the place.

He is a genuine Demon fan and I cannot understood why the club - the board actually - adopted such a blocking strategy with him.

That does not mean I necessarily endorse everything he says, but he is fair dinkum about wanting the best for the club.

Best for the club? Like taking them to court? Yeah right.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WiseDeeMan said:

I know him and he's a very nice guy who is very passionate about the club....just like you and I.

I do believe this board needs some accountability and we need an independent review across the entire club. Its a normal and legal process he has gone through to collect emails.  Each to their own, but I don't recommend blindly trusting this board, nor should you blindly trust Peter.  But do know, he has the best interests at heart.  Whilst I don't fully understand it all, to my knowledge, many things he brought up were successful through a court of law. 

No.

He's not a nice guy.  He is obviously a fanatic and that has caused him to cross a line.

I didn't give him my email address.  Any person who sends me unsolicited emails and obtains my details without my permission gets no support from me.

I agree that the club needs  a well run and independent review.   

I do not want clowns like this bloke representing me.

 

[Cyclops 502]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Elected unopposed, means they were elected to the board, nobody disagreed,

Elected means they were voted upon. No members voted. You can't get elected if no-one votes for you.

[mo64 5,469]

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Best for the club? Like taking them to court? Yeah right.

That was my response to the email.

[Satyriconhome 10,339]

Whoops forgot to quote, but elected unopposed

 

In order for a poll of votes to happen; you need more candidates to be nominated than there are seats. In an English parish council for example, there might be 7 councillors to be elected, yet only five villagers get nominated. In this example, everyone who was nominated is automatically elected unopposed.

Edited August 28 by Satyriconhome

[zeldacat 53]

I just completed the survey with an emphatic NO. What is alarming is that you don't get any confirmation of what you've registered in a formal email.. eg. "you're reply has been received....etc". When you complete the Survey, all it says is "Thank you! - and the Yes/No vote is on default YES.....be aware.  I sent him an email asking what the hell!  He has got our emails by default from the Club, they had no choice but to provide them to him. Somehow, a Court ruling doesn't seem to get through to him.

Edited August 28 by zeldacat

[FreedFromDesire 583]

26 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I disagree. 

Many people on Demonland seem to want change.

It's pretty clear on and off the field we need change.

I don't trust the club to do an unbiased internal review. We need a top down external review.

Just to again clarify, I also want those things.

Perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough, but I've put it in multiple posts now and don't wish to clog up the thread.

[JJJ 1,001]

6 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Whoops forgot to quote, but elected unopposed

 

In order for a poll of votes to happen; you need more candidates to be nominated than there are seats. In an English parish council for example, there might be 7 councillors to be elected, yet only five villagers get nominated. In this example, everyone who was nominated is automatically elected unopposed.

I think this whole thing started because it was a closed shop to even get nominated for the board. I remember sitting at a function where the current board of the day (2018ish) stated the reason for this was stability.

But, the idea of elected officials unopposed for a significant period of time doesn’t sit well with me. 

As I said, I haven’t supported Peter historically but that doesn’t mean he is wrong in this case.

I’d support an external review as I think it will show us where we are going wrong but I also wouldn’t feel super comfortable with him winning a seat on the board. Can’t start fractured.