8 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

Easily done.  The club knows how many times the card/phone was scanned for each membership.  Just refuse to renew their membership if too low.  They may well have other interests or family duties preventing attendance but are renewing out of loyalty.  So win-win if MFC knock them back.

Yep. That should help the finances.

 

No team in football needs an independent review more.

There would be only 2 reasons to reject it. Your head is that buried in the sand you don't actually believe anything is wrong, or you have everything to hide.

Somehow, our board is both.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

 

The last line is interesting.

My interpretation is senior players are not getting enough support and/or not ok with some FD decisions ... ?

Edited September 2, 2024Sep 2 by Lucifers Hero

13 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

 

The last line is interesting.

My interpretation is senior players are not getting enough support and/or not ok with some FD decisions ... ?

Extremely interesting and we know how close he still is to a lot of these guys..

Nathan saying it's necessary is about as close as the players are saying it's necessary as you can get 

10 hours ago, Dante said:

That’s the good thing about a public forum we are all entitled to our opinion. I thought I was kind to Saty, my original post was a lot harsher than the one I posted, I don’t believe it would have passed muster with the mods. So no, there will be no apology, in fact I believe what I said was pretty accurate. 

What I and others are looking for is an unbiased, external review one that the club has no control over. I’m sick to death of the club getting away with, no I won’t say it, it might get me banned and that would do me no good. I don’t post on here unless the issue is important, so I’ll keep my powder dry. 

Of course if you don't have the ability to debate, it is easier to fall back on personal insults.

You have asked for change. Just out of interest did you vote for Lawrence in the last election. You could have had change or did you not bother and leave to others.

Don't need an apology. I am used to having a battle of wits with unarmed posters on here.

 

9 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Of course if you don't have the ability to debate, it is easier to fall back on personal insults.

You have asked for change. Just out of interest did you vote for Lawrence in the last election. You could have had change or did you not bother and leave to others.

Don't need an apology. I am used to having a battle of wits with unarmed posters on here.

 

It's difficult to debate with someone that won't listen, especially when that someone thinks they are coming from a position of superiority.

I did vote for Peter, I have 13 memberships, two of them are junior so they don't have voting rights, so he got 11 from me. There was a rock group from England called Status Quo, I'm sure you would have supported that, what are you going to do when that changes, and it will, believe me.

Never offered one. 

You'll have to find a new group of friends when the makeup of the Board changes, I doubt the new members will be as pliable as the old ones. 

 

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

I'm sure Nathan's  view will change after he receives a stern admonishment from Saty !

5 hours ago, BDA said:

Change is afoot.

Wouldn't surprise me if the external review is a condition of steven smith joining the board. Adopt the recommendations and put a broom through the place. start again afresh.

 

Your information is on the money, and I believe it is.

I think there will be a transition and then a review and I wouldn't be surprised if it's done by PJ.

13 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I'm sure Nathan's  view will change after he receives a stern admonishment from Saty !

He will be left quaking in his boots.😬

2 minutes ago, Dante said:

Your information is on the money, and I believe it is.

I think there will be a transition and then a review and I wouldn't be surprised if it's done by PJ.

Best outcome if PJ does the review. He’s far enough removed but also close enough to know our club. And he oversaw the biggest positive change in our club’s history. 
Bring him on! 

33 minutes ago, Dante said:

It's difficult to debate with someone that won't listen, especially when that someone thinks they are coming from a position of superiority.

I did vote for Peter, I have 13 memberships, two of them are junior so they don't have voting rights, so he got 11 from me. There was a rock group from England called Status Quo, I'm sure you would have supported that, what are you going to do when that changes, and it will, believe me.

Never offered one. 

You'll have to find a new group of friends when the makeup of the Board changes, I doubt the new members will be as pliable as the old ones. 

 

I don't agree with you, your definition of not listening?

Unfortunately I think there will be an external review driven by the media noise to shut it up

And what do you expect it to find?

Hypothetical, should the following have external reviews:

Collingwood premiership to not qualifying.

Essendon, another false dawn.

Fremantle, Jackson is the missing link.

Gold Coast and North, let us hire the messiah coach and with the lists we have.

St Kilda, only started to play when pressure was off.

West Coast, did Simpson stay too long and why are coaches saying they are not interested.

 

9 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Hypothetical, should the following have external reviews:

Collingwood premiership to not qualifying.

Essendon, another false dawn.

Fremantle, Jackson is the missing link.

Gold Coast and North, let us hire the messiah coach and with the lists we have.

St Kilda, only started to play when pressure was off.

West Coast, did Simpson stay too long and why are coaches saying they are not interested.

 

Some good points here...

Freo, I wonder if they're calling for one in Perth?

I'm happy for them all to fail and you could add a few more to the list.

...but I don't think a review would hurt us and is in our best interests.

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I don't agree with you, your definition of not listening?

Unfortunately I think there will be an external review driven by the media noise to shut it up

And what do you expect it to find?

Hypothetical, should the following have external reviews:

Collingwood premiership to not qualifying.

Essendon, another false dawn.

Fremantle, Jackson is the missing link.

Gold Coast and North, let us hire the messiah coach and with the lists we have.

St Kilda, only started to play when pressure was off.

West Coast, did Simpson stay too long and why are coaches saying they are not interested.

 

Mate I couldn't give a rat's about other clubs, I only care about Melbourne. When I was a kid we were all powerful and if anyone had told me after the 64 Grand Final that we wouldn't win another Grand Final for 57 Years I would have laughed at them. But that's the reality of it. We have managed to stuff up our seasons because of poor management, poor coaching and just bad decisions. Lack of discipline, poor culture and just about every reason under the sun. When I was in my 20's I worked with a kid who was on the Melbourne under 19's and he said to me one day, Melbourne is a [censored] club, he wanted out. I asked him why and he said it was mainly the Board and some supporters who were so full of themselves, and I have to wonder if that has ever changed.

You go on believing that we have a good culture and I'll wait to see what the review says.

 

I would agree with that statement:

"and some supporters who were so full of themselves"

And which bad decisions are you referring to and if you wouldn't mind debating the other clubs, just for context of course.

10 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I would agree with that statement:

"and some supporters who were so full of themselves"

And which bad decisions are you referring to and if you wouldn't mind debating the other clubs, just for context of course.

Why are you so against doing an external review?

There are really no bad outcomes here.

Either it finds we are well run, nothing to improve. Or it will find areas for improvement which we can act upon.

No organisation is perfect. If we can bring an external point of view to find ways for us to get better, then isn't that a good thing?

Only if you have something to hide, would you keep your doors closed. 

16 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I would agree with that statement:

"and some supporters who were so full of themselves"

And which bad decisions are you referring to and if you wouldn't mind debating the other clubs, just for context of course.

I've spent enough time on you already, why would I want to spend more discussing other clubs? Every time I answer you, I think to myself, WHY

 

50 minutes ago, Dante said:

I've spent enough time on you already, why would I want to spend more discussing other clubs? Every time I answer you, I think to myself, WHY

 

If you answered the questions instead of obfuscating then we might get somewhere, I will close off now, would not like to cause you irreparable damage not only to your psyche but also your reputation on here.

I am all for an external review of the club, from top to bottom.

My question is for the people here who are questioning the board or the coach, or the list mangers etc. 

If the review finds that only tweaks are needed to get the club on track, without people falling on their swords, will you accept the result?

 

26 minutes ago, He de mon said:

I am all for an external review of the club, from top to bottom.

My question is for the people here who are questioning the board or the coach, or the list mangers etc. 

If the review finds that only tweaks are needed to get the club on track, without people falling on their swords, will you accept the result?

 

Yes as long as the review has been conducted independently

My only thoughts on this as mentioned in an earlier post, is we do not make public any of the findings. Accept, implement and tell nobody what was in the report.

Question - who would we get to do an external review? 

How about an external review of the AFL?

Yes, and I’m happy to do it pro bono.

4 minutes ago, sue said:

How about an external review of the AFL?

...or heaven forbid...the umpires