Email from Peter Lawrence

[dazzledavey36 54,730]

4 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

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.

Nah

Neeld was [censored].

[Dante 2,739]

6 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Peter Jackson being put in charge was essentially an independent review with the teeth to make the changes required.

And what's happened since then, we have won a flag but slipped back in to our old selves, if we could get PJ back I'd be happy with that.

[DeeSpencer 25,626]

1 hour ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

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.

Bit of hypocrisy there?

I certainly think Roffey and Pert have to demonstrate why we should stay on board with them but the worst possible thing to do now is to not let them have a chance to justify what's gone wrong (and there's a couple of things I'm not blaming them for) and how they are addressing them.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,702]

5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Bit of hypocrisy there?

I certainly think Roffey and Pert have to demonstrate why we should stay on board with them but the worst possible thing to do now is to not let them have a chance to justify what's gone wrong (and there's a couple of things I'm not blaming them for) and how they are addressing them.

Let see what they do next? Because they have had alot of things levelled against them for the mishappenings at our club.

@DeeSpencer

Edited August 28 by YesitwasaWin4theAges

[KozzyCan 764]

23 minutes ago, Dante said:

And what's happened since then, we have won a flag but slipped back in to our old selves, if we could get PJ back I'd be happy with that.

Not sure he wants the job but it amazes me we seem to have such trouble finding normal competent people to run the club. Every group have their own weird self-serving agendas.

Edited August 28 by KozzyCan

[rjay 24,910]

5 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Not sure he want's the job but it amazes me we seem to have such trouble finding normal competent people to run the club. Every group have their own weird self-serving agendas.

I think that's true and I often wonder why we didn't get his preferred option as successor.

Edited August 28 by rjay

[KozzyCan 764]

Just now, rjay said:

I think that's true and in part the reason why we didn't get his preferred option as successor.

Would be happy to take Josh Mahoney back.

[Dante 2,739]

Peter is a friend of mine in fact I'm having coffee with him tomorrow. He's a very passionate Melbourne supporter who's donated a shed load of money to the club, he's also got a lot of supporters who support his cause.

I told him at the start of the year that his popularity amongst the Demonland crowd was ordinary to say the least and perhaps he should give it a rest for a while, but he continued on anyway. Well I didn't support his attempt to get on the board, even though I thought he's make a great board member, because I think he's done his dash due to his persistence in challenging the board.

I can see his point, it's a closed shop and you only get on the board if they want you.  It seems as if they have a couple of directors resign from the board every year, before the election and they appoint temporary board members who become the board's preffered options and are generally elected because the outsiders can't get any traction. It's like the board pick their own replacements, that's not a good system. A board of yes men/women is not good in any business.

Peter has been banned from donating any money to the club, he can't sponsor any players and can't attend any functions, is that how you treat a loyal MELBOURNE supporter. It's petulance on the part of the board for daring to challenge the status quo. The Board are not the club, they are only there to serve the interests of the club and to do this is a disgrace. To deny any member the chance to donate money to the club is a joke.

Peter is asking for a full review of the club and this has my full support, for too long we've gone along and accepted the continued faillings of the club, I want this club to be a strong, not one that gets pushed around. Even if we are winning games we get no respect from the wider community because they know it won't last long.

If you don't want a review of the club, then you are not interest in the ongoing success of the club. 

 

[dazzledavey36 54,730]

4 minutes ago, Dante said:

Peter is a friend of mine in fact I'm having coffee with him tomorrow. He's a very passionate Melbourne supporter who's donated a shed load of money to the club, he's also got a lot of supporters who support his cause.

I told him at the start of the year that his popularity amongst the Demonland crowd was ordinary to say the least and perhaps he should give it a rest for a while, but he continued on anyway. Well I didn't support his attempt to get on the board, even though I thought he's make a great board member, because I think he's done his dash due to his persistence in challenging the board.

I can see his point, it's a closed shop and you only get on the board if they want you.  It seems as if they have a couple of directors resign from the board every year, before the election and they appoint temporary board members who become the board's preffered options and are generally elected because the outsiders can't get any traction. It's like the board pick their own replacements, that's not a good system. A board of yes men/women is not good in any business.

Peter has been banned from donating any money to the club, he can't sponsor any players and can't attend any functions, is that how you treat a loyal MELBOURNE supporter. It's petulance on the part of the board for daring to challenge the status quo. The Board are not the club, they are only there to serve the interests of the club and to do this is a disgrace. To deny any member the chance to donate money to the club is a joke.

Peter is asking for a full review of the club and this has my full support, for too long we've gone along and accepted the continued faillings of the club, I want this club to be a strong, not one that gets pushed around. Even if we are winning games we get no respect from the wider community because they know it won't last long.

If you don't want a review of the club, then you are not interest in the ongoing success of the club. 

 

This is damning to read.

Thanks Dante.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dante said:

Peter is a friend of mine in fact I'm having coffee with him tomorrow. He's a very passionate Melbourne supporter who's donated a shed load of money to the club, he's also got a lot of supporters who support his cause.

I told him at the start of the year that his popularity amongst the Demonland crowd was ordinary to say the least and perhaps he should give it a rest for a while, but he continued on anyway. Well I didn't support his attempt to get on the board, even though I thought he's make a great board member, because I think he's done his dash due to his persistence in challenging the board.

I can see his point, it's a closed shop and you only get on the board if they want you.  It seems as if they have a couple of directors resign from the board every year, before the election and they appoint temporary board members who become the board's preffered options and are generally elected because the outsiders can't get any traction. It's like the board pick their own replacements, that's not a good system. A board of yes men/women is not good in any business.

Peter has been banned from donating any money to the club, he can't sponsor any players and can't attend any functions, is that how you treat a loyal MELBOURNE supporter. It's petulance on the part of the board for daring to challenge the status quo. The Board are not the club, they are only there to serve the interests of the club and to do this is a disgrace. To deny any member the chance to donate money to the club is a joke.

Peter is asking for a full review of the club and this has my full support, for too long we've gone along and accepted the continued faillings of the club, I want this club to be a strong, not one that gets pushed around. Even if we are winning games we get no respect from the wider community because they know it won't last long.

If you don't want a review of the club, then you are not interest in the ongoing success of the club. 

 

How is it that he can get my personal details?

How are his survey results being reported?

Is there any independent oversight of the survey?  

I still cannot believe that this random can get my personal details to do a survey with no checks and balances.  It just beggars belief that anyone would think this is ok 

[demon3165 2,717]

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This is damning to read.

Thanks Dante.

Coming from a friend sure there is no bias, and it's not damming at all you have a guy that has an axe to grind, so of course you you cut off communication and it all  goes through lawyers while there is a court case going on, any fool knows that.

[hardtack 10,534]

21 minutes ago, Dante said:

Peter has been banned from donating any money to the club

Is it possible that Peter was insisting that because he had donated so much to the club, that he should have a say in how things are run? The board subsequently refusing to accept any further financial commitment from him, would, in that scenario, make some sense.

[Dante 2,739]

6 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Is it possible that Peter was insisting that because he had donated so much to the club, that he should have a say in how things are run? The board subsequently refusing to accept any further financial commitment from him, would, in that scenario, make some sense.

Absolutely not, wrong on all counts. 

[Adam The God 30,209]

6 hours 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.

 

 

So did I and completely agree mate.

[Dante 2,739]

18 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Coming from a friend sure there is no bias, and it's not damming at all you have a guy that has an axe to grind, so of course you you cut off communication and it all  goes through lawyers while there is a court case going on, any fool knows that.

I’m not biased at all, yourself?
 

I’ve seen your previous posts on this matter and I’d say there is great deal of bias on your part. 

[Dante 2,739]

12 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Is it possible that Peter was insisting that because he had donated so much to the club, that he should have a say in how things are run? The board subsequently refusing to accept any further financial commitment from him, would, in that scenario, make some sense.

Peter is a Melbourne man, first and last. He has never tried to buy his way to a position of influence.

The banning of him from the club was purely spite. He’s a good guy and only wants what’s best for the club. 

[Dante 2,739]

27 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

How is it that he can get my personal details?

How are his survey results being reported?

Is there any independent oversight of the survey?  

I still cannot believe that this random can get my personal details to do a survey with no checks and balances.  It just beggars belief that anyone would think this is ok 

The court ruled that the club had to give him the opportunity to contact the members. If you don’t want him to contact you just delete it and direct any further correspondence to your spam file or unsubcriibe.

[demon3165 2,717]

4 minutes ago, Dante said:

I’m not biased at all, yourself?
 

I’ve seen your previous posts on this matter and I’d say there is great deal of bias on your part. 

No I don't have any bias if proof that the board is being mismanaged I'm all for a full review, I don't go off a friend of a friend or media senerio as fact, show facts and proof that's all is it that hard.

[demon3165 2,717]

5 minutes ago, Dante said:

Peter is a Melbourne man, first and last. He has never tried to buy his way to a position of influence.

The banning of him from the club was purely spite. He’s a good guy and only wants what’s best for the club. 

You do realise that the club cannot have dealings personally while legal action is being taken don't you?

[Dante 2,739]

34 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Coming from a friend sure there is no bias, and it's not damming at all you have a guy that has an axe to grind, so of course you you cut off communication and it all  goes through lawyers while there is a court case going on, any fool knows that.

I was upfront with my saying I was a friend and also that I advised him against going again.

What about you, what if any connections do you have with the board?

Why would the board deprive the club of any donations and player sponsorships? 

Peter doesn’t have an axe to grind, he was only asking for fair and unbiased elections, which we don’t have. You got that?

[Dante 2,739]

8 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

You do realise that the club cannot have dealings personally while legal action is being taken don't you?

You know that for a fact do you? Which part of the club’s constitution says that? 

[DeeSpencer 25,626]

42 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This is damning to read.

Thanks Dante.

What part of it is damning?

The closed shop nature of AFL club boards is widely accepted across the competition as being not ideal but better than the alternative. Elections are costly and turn in to popularity contests and destabilase the direction of the club. And there's no guarantees you'll elect good candidates with the right skills mix. Where as if you appoint a candidate selection committee they can vet candidates, pick the best ones and get the right skills.

Again, it's not ideal, but who has any faith in the MFC members being able to elect the right candidates?

As for the player sponsor stuff? You can't sue the club in the Federal court and have them keep taking your money and granting you special sponsors benefits. That's fantasy land stuff. Hopefully now the legal action is resolved they can work on a path towards reconciliation. Or at least they might if he's not calling for wild all of club reviews.

The real shame here is the board and Peter clearly both compromised on a number of points and left the judge only 1 thing to actually rule on. Had Peter just let 1 more thing go they could've avoided the costly and frankly embarrassing for all sides trial. Nothing wrong with wanting some election rules reforms but clearly the judge didn't agree at all that the board couldn't propose rules that restricted elections from turning in to all circuses. 

[Fork 'em 6,983]

A fish rots from the head.
Bring on the review.

 

[demon3165 2,717]

1 minute ago, Dante said:

You know that for a fact do you? Which part of the club’s constitution says that? 

Ok I will try to say this so you understand If you are suing me for something and it becomes legal action would you be talking to me without legal representation being there.

[demon3165 2,717]

11 minutes ago, Dante said:

I was upfront with my saying I was a friend and also that I advised him against going again.

What about you, what if any connections do you have with the board?

Why would the board deprive the club of any donations and player sponsorships? 

Peter doesn’t have an axe to grind, he was only asking for fair and unbiased elections, which we don’t have. You got that?

I have no connections with the club, I have explained my views about a review did you read it, all I ask is show proof of mismanagement and then I will have no problem having  a review of the board I just don't don't go believing in heresy.