I think it’s a very interesting argument either way in regards to who orchestrates the review.

If reviewed externally you’re much more likely to get a warts and all disclosure of where the problems lie. Sounds good right? But what if the review says things that supporters have made it very obvious they don’t want to hear? What then? I suspect this is a part of the decision making, which is not to say I support any dog in the fight. It’s just to say that supporters have made their opinions very well known over the last few months, and it may actually be limiting the clubs options in regards to outcome.

1 hour ago, RickyD said:

You’ve praised @Skuit for his 'investigative journalism,’ which involved digging up my public social media profiles and using irrelevant information to distract from the issue, turning it into something about me. I am irrelevant to the cause and the issues being raised. What @Skuit has done is the same BS technique often used by dishonest media organisations to spin the narrative and avoid addressing the actual topic. In my opinion, it's a cancer on society.
 

You believe the media providing backgrounding, transparency and fact-checking is a cancer on society?

I haven’t attempted to spin the narrative to avoid addressing the topic at hand. I’m discussing a different topic: your involvement with and approach to the matter. It’s there in the thread title.

You’re the one who made this story about you, and connected it your promotional social media accounts. You’re not some whistleblower who is irrelevant to the subject of an open letter concerning our club being published in the Age.

Despite how you wish to frame it, I think you’ll find most supporters already agree with the MFC conducting an independent review, but some may take issue with you bringing additional negative attention to the club for what seems like self-serving purposes.

My bigger concern is that your actions have coincided with a period of significant white-anting by those who have political and personal agendas, with the media being used a primary tool.

That includes outsiders being paid to post to this site. So, when a major national newspaper publishes a random fan’s letter – which you yourself have acknowledged is quite extraordinary – it naturally raises suspicions.

 

20 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I think it’s a very interesting argument either way in regards to who orchestrates the review.

If reviewed externally you’re much more likely to get a warts and all disclosure of where the problems lie. Sounds good right? But what if the review says things that supporters have made it very obvious they don’t want to hear? What then? I suspect this is a part of the decision making, which is not to say I support any dog in the fight. It’s just to say that supporters have made their opinions very well known over the last few months, and it may actually be limiting the clubs options in regards to outcome.

Fair points.

I obviously believe that if we want the sustained success that other clubs have enjoyed, our issues may need to be exposed and addressed. It may not be fun and it there could be some short term embarrassment but I'd rather get answers than continue down the current path.

The way things are going now with lawsuits and a fair degree of supporter disenchantment doesn't seem like the right path.

37 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You believe the media providing backgrounding, transparency and fact-checking is a cancer on society?

I haven’t attempted to spin the narrative to avoid addressing the topic at hand. I’m discussing a different topic: your involvement with and approach to the matter. It’s there in the thread title.

You’re the one who made this story about you, and connected it your promotional social media accounts. You’re not some whistleblower who is irrelevant to the subject of an open letter concerning our club being published in the Age.

Despite how you wish to frame it, I think you’ll find most supporters already agree with the MFC conducting an independent review, but some may take issue with you bringing additional negative attention to the club for what seems like self-serving purposes.

My bigger concern is that your actions have coincided with a period of significant white-anting by those who have political and personal agendas, with the media being used a primary tool.

That includes outsiders being paid to post to this site. So, when a major national newspaper publishes a random fan’s letter – which you yourself have acknowledged is quite extraordinary – it naturally raises suspicions.

 

Let's do a hypothetical... 

- Assume I was paid by someone else to post here
- Assume someone helped me get published in the Age because of a vendetta against the club.
- Assume someone with a connection to my work at Tourism Australia has other motives and was involved somehow
- Assume I've never actually watched a demons game, was not a member and don't support the club
- Assume I copied everything I've written from other blog posts that use Z instead of S.

None of that changes the very clear argument that there is a conflict of interest in the way the review is being conducted.

My letter clearly states - make the review independent and I'll sign up as a member again
My petition states the sole objective of making the review independent

However you want to spin it, the cause I am advocating has nothing to do with me. I'm simply using what I have at my disposal to gain awareness of the issue - whether that's a video on social media or answering ridiculous questions on here. 

You have not 'fact checked' my case, whether intentional or not, you've simply convoluted the issue by raising a whole bunch of points that have nothing to do with what I and others are fighting for.

1 minute ago, RickyD said:

Let's do a hypothetical... 

- Assume I was paid by someone else to post here
- Assume someone helped me get published in the Age because of a vendetta against the club.
- Assume someone with a connection to my work at Tourism Australia has other motives and was involved somehow
- Assume I've never actually watched a demons game, was not a member and don't support the club
- Assume I copied everything I've written from other blog posts that use Z instead of S.
 

Done. Cheers. 

But seriously. Now you're doing what you're accusing me of doing - pointing elsewhere to avoid the topic. 

You had a complaint about the club published in the Age. You connected it to your promotional social media. 

A perceived conflict of interest in the MFC review process is peripheral to those facts. 

I'm ambivalent as to an external review, but have had many complaints about the club over the years. 

I have never reached out the media about them though, and connected it to my promotional socials. 

You took this action and need to own it. It's fair that some might take exception to your approach. 

Again, take a look at what this thread is about: your letter being published in the Age. 

You can argue your case for an independent review in the many other related threads on the topic.

14 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Done. Cheers. 

But seriously. Now you're doing what you're accusing me of doing - pointing elsewhere to avoid the topic. 

You had a complaint about the club published in the Age. You connected it to your promotional social media. 

A perceived conflict of interest in the MFC review process is peripheral to those facts. 

I'm ambivalent as to an external review, but have had many complaints about the club over the years. 

I have never reached out the media about them though, and connected it to my promotional socials. 

You took this action and need to own it. It's fair that some might take exception to your approach. 

Again, take a look at what this thread is about: your letter being published in the Age. 

You can argue your case for an independent review in the many other related threads on the topic.

All good. I think I've said everything I came on Demonland to say.

Thanks for reading everyone. Go Dees!

www.change.org/MFC_review

5 minutes ago, RickyD said:

All good. I think I've said everything I came on Demonland to say.

Thanks for reading everyone. Go Dees!

www.change.org/MFC_review

You don't want to stick around and discuss the club you love? I would recommend avoiding the game-day threads, but elsewhere you can share your passion for your favourite players, game-day tactics, who you think should be selected each week, potential trades and recruits, and many other wonderful topics on the sport of football. 

On 10/10/2024 at 01:21, Cranky Franky said:

When this sort of carp happens @ Hawthorn, Carlton or Collingwood the supporters stage a revolution.

Whereas as our lot include lots of sycophants & apologists.

And that is why they have had more success than us in the last 50 years.

If Satyriconhome was running things Neeld & Cam Schwab would still be running things.

Schwab commissioned his own external review, remember? The Andrews Report? I'm sure someone will actually get to read it one day, til then it will remain in the top drawer of his $75k desk.

On 09/10/2024 at 21:59, Ethan Tremblay said:

Question or challenge the club and feel the full wrath of @Satyriconhome! 

No, I want facts and reasons for opinion, not speculation, rumour, hearsay, but then again there may be no more threads on Demonland if that was a caveat on posts.

I only believe what the club states as fact, so on Wednesday if they announce Clarry is traded that is it.

Think they are just trying not to give the rest of the rubbish oxygen. 

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Schwab commissioned his own external review, remember? The Andrews Report? I'm sure someone will actually get to read it one day, til then it will remain in the top drawer of his $75k desk.

I have already answered this...... but you are entitled to speculate on the cost of the desk, I sat at it when volunteering didn't seem out of the normal to me and that's a fact.

On 10/10/2024 at 15:31, deegirl said:

This thread has to be up there with one of the most deranged I’ve ever read in this forum 😂 

@RickyD posts to explain the reasons for the open letter & ppl are acting like he’s a double agent sent by a master villian to destroy the club 

Pert has been the CEO at the helm of the post-2021 debacles. How he’s managed to exempt himself from the review, I do not know. But it should be admired, because it is a master piece of bull****ery 
 

He learnt his lesson after getting the sack from Collingwood. Next time there's a review make sure you're the one doing the reviewing!

Edited October 11, 2024Oct 11 by Dr. Gonzo

10 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I only believe what the club states as fact

Which is why your opinions are uninformed. It would be akin to saying "I only believe what [ALP/LNP] states as fact".

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Which is why your opinions are uninformed. It would be akin to saying "I only believe what [ALP/LNP] states as fact".

Dont forget those who only believe what Trump says as fact!

Just now, layzie said:

Dont forget those who only believe what Trump says as fact!

You mean they're not really eating all the dogs??

On 09/10/2024 at 15:21, Cranky Franky said:

When this sort of carp happens @ Hawthorn, Carlton or Collingwood the supporters stage a revolution.

Whereas as our lot include lots of sycophants & apologists.

And that is why they have had more success than us in the last 50 years.

I love these supporter-driven revolutions. Viva la MFC!

Of course there is nothing remotely similar in the wording and tactics of those challenging at the aforementioned clubs and ours:

https://hawksforchange.org/

https://deemocracy.com/

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/focus-on-footy-withdraws-bid-to-overthrow-richmond-board/news-story/c452c66030e7215a36388c503d09031e

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/board-challenge-gets-collingwood-s-members-list-without-emails-and-phone-numbers-20210907-p58pof.html

Meanwhile, Carlton hasn't gone close to a flag in more than two decades, and let's all agree that Essendon hasn't been best served by member revolt and external consultants. 

Richmond withstood the ructions and picked up three flags, while the Pies have been the only club to have bucked the recent trend as to stability and found some success.  

But yes, let's burn the house down. 

 

 

I'm in the "let's not burn the house down" camp, as a lot on here would like to see. I will wait for the findings of the reviews, and if it comes back recommending meaningful change in personal and methods of operation, then that will be a good thing. That said, if it finds "nothing to see here," then that would cause me great concern. 

On 10/10/2024 at 09:24, Skuit said:

Congratulations on at least being transparent as to your identity. The same question still applies to you though: are you being 'compensated' to launch a very public campaign against the club you claim to love, or is it just another self-serving exercise to promote your own content and media production aspirations? 

Gee! That post, and your subsequent posts on the same point, are a little like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs: impressive feat of research, but of no particular use to anybody.

@RickyD can speak for himself, and has done so quite eloquently in reply. 

Here’s a thought: what about considering the merits of whether or not we have a high-performing administration, rather than going down barren, conspiracy theory cul de sacs? 

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Schwab commissioned his own external review, remember? The Andrews Report? I'm sure someone will actually get to read it one day, til then it will remain in the top drawer of his $75k desk.

I've heard it's buried somewhere with Jimmy Hoffa 

This thread is wild. Some posts look like they're straight out of A Beautiful Mind.

Only just got referred to this thread  having had a busy time  in October November and December including getting to the AGM. i did appreciate most comments and particularly Ricky D who I hope continues to monitor and comment on this and other demonland threads.

I have worked at senior management in public and private organisations. I have worked on project and organisational change processes. I have always barracked for the Demon. I have provided personal contact detail to all and have had some worthwhile conversations from those conversations. They have all been courteous and helpful.

I had similar frustrations especially with question raised at AGM 2024 and lack of response to letter given to G Pert on Fishermans Bend. I did not take my concerns to other media and have expressed my support of the club and particularly Caulfield despite reservations. I have used my limited contacts and abilities to  gather information and have found the complexities and barriers  I encountered too overwhelming given my other activities. 

I did express my thoughts on the AGM and supported Brad Greens action son that night. It did provede some reassurance that there may be some improvements as he stated.

I was and am sceptical of a review process undertaken under the direction of the subject of the review. It does smack of the old political truism "never conduct a review unless you know the outcome", however I await the outcome with hope. I note recent government reports conducted by both partied that provided public exposure of unpopular recommendations. The response was not to hide the report but to merely adopt selected  recommendations. I lookmfor similar action by MFC.

 

5 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Only just got referred to this thread  having had a busy time  in October November and December including getting to the AGM. i did appreciate most comments and particularly Ricky D who I hope continues to monitor and comment on this and other demonland threads.

I have worked at senior management in public and private organisations. I have worked on project and organisational change processes. I have always barracked for the Demon. I have provided personal contact detail to all and have had some worthwhile conversations from those conversations. They have all been courteous and helpful.

I had similar frustrations especially with question raised at AGM 2024 and lack of response to letter given to G Pert on Fishermans Bend. I did not take my concerns to other media and have expressed my support of the club and particularly Caulfield despite reservations. I have used my limited contacts and abilities to  gather information and have found the complexities and barriers  I encountered too overwhelming given my other activities. 

I did express my thoughts on the AGM and supported Brad Greens action son that night. It did provede some reassurance that there may be some improvements as he stated.

I was and am sceptical of a review process undertaken under the direction of the subject of the review. It does smack of the old political truism "never conduct a review unless you know the outcome", however I await the outcome with hope. I note recent government reports conducted by both partied that provided public exposure of unpopular recommendations. The response was not to hide the report but to merely adopt selected  recommendations. I lookmfor similar action by MFC.

 

Dpositive, did you ask a question at the AGM?

Not this year. I asked one last year, was criticised for my  introduction and did receive a courteous and meaningless response from Kate Roffey. I passed correspondence to Gary Pert which had my further questions and contact details on it. I received no further response from CEO, president or board.

42 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Not this year. I asked one last year, was criticised for my  introduction and did receive a courteous and meaningless response from Kate Roffey. I passed correspondence to Gary Pert which had my further questions and contact details on it. I received no further response from CEO, president or board.

Yep transparency obscured by clouds, how very convenient and typical!

11 hours ago, picket fence said:

Yep transparency obscured by clouds, how very convenient and typical!

What was the question DP ? That might be The reason for reply which is not great but not surprising in some instances.  

13 hours ago, dpositive said:

I was and am sceptical of a review process undertaken under the direction of the subject of the review.

He wasn't the subject of the review, and the review was conducted as much as anything by Shand. 

"The review of the men’s football department is focusing on the operations and overarching environment of the AFL program. This review is being conducted by President Brad Green, CEO Gary Pert and external consultant Darren Shand."