5 hours ago, 58er said:

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

Correct the question

1 Has the club sought from its stakeholders, members sponsors and supporters any involvement or interests in the Fishermans Bend Site?

 was as I said, answered courteously  but meaninglessly. with the public answer,  yes of course, by Kate Roffey

my follow up questions handed to Pert

2 Can the club provide my independent group a list of people, bodies and organisations approached to discuss options?

 

3 (Again to avoid any conflict or degradation of current negotiations) can the club provide on a strictly confidential basis a list of potential financial organizations who have been approached to invest in a club project?

4 Given the inherent uncertainty of any feasibility study , including my own, does the club have any alternative strategies?

 5.Do the club have specifics for the elite training facility, and the administrative and member spaces required in any concept and can they provide that to my group?

did not receive any answers, not even the courtesy of acknowledgement.

I dont necessarily want to revisit the full letter here 58er, suffice to say it was offered to try and ascertain some transparency and included detail of understanding of confidentiality. 

My aim to find if there were members who had capacity to explore my option  was  achieved through demonland. I was and am still unaware of any approach by the board seeking  its members opinions.

I concede FB is dead the only option the club is pursuing is Caulfield.

4 hours ago, bing181 said:

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."

Thanks for that 

My understanding was the review was of the administration. 

1 hour ago, dpositive said:

Correct the question

1 Has the club sought from its stakeholders, members sponsors and supporters any involvement or interests in the Fishermans Bend Site?

 was as I said, answered courteously  but meaninglessly. with the public answer,  yes of course, by Kate Roffey

my follow up questions handed to Pert

2 Can the club provide my independent group a list of people, bodies and organisations approached to discuss options?

 

3 (Again to avoid any conflict or degradation of current negotiations) can the club provide on a strictly confidential basis a list of potential financial organizations who have been approached to invest in a club project?

4 Given the inherent uncertainty of any feasibility study , including my own, does the club have any alternative strategies?

 5.Do the club have specifics for the elite training facility, and the administrative and member spaces required in any concept and can they provide that to my group?

did not receive any answers, not even the courtesy of acknowledgement.

I dont necessarily want to revisit the full letter here 58er, suffice to say it was offered to try and ascertain some transparency and included detail of understanding of confidentiality. 

My aim to find if there were members who had capacity to explore my option  was  achieved through demonland. I was and am still unaware of any approach by the board seeking  its members opinions.

I concede FB is dead the only option the club is pursuing is Caulfield.

Thanks a lot DP. Much appreciated.

While I understand the questions were very specific and some not necessarily ready for open consumption it may well have been the group thst you were representing that was an issue just as much a factor. 

I do think the nature of the beast is that many or sny  other possible sites might be compromised by public information if passed on. 

And another particular point the group you represented of course would have been a factor as well as the confidential impact of current negotiations with us not in control of the Caulfield project. 

We have as club members etc. been given a general update which is specific in its current progress and it appears the major and central base to ensure we have a 21st century base at long last for our Club to be proud of and to enable us to compete in the toughest national ( and Victorian) competition and thrive up to our highest possible standards for success for the test of this century. 

Thanks again DP for your honesty and cooperation. 

6 hours ago, 58er said:

Thanks a lot DP. Much appreciated.

While I understand the questions were very specific and some not necessarily ready for open consumption it may well have been the group thst you were representing that was an issue just as much a factor. 

I do think the nature of the beast is that many or sny  other possible sites might be compromised by public information if passed on. 

And another particular point the group you represented of course would have been a factor as well as the confidential impact of current negotiations with us not in control of the Caulfield project. 

We have as club members etc. been given a general update which is specific in its current progress and it appears the major and central base to ensure we have a 21st century base at long last for our Club to be proud of and to enable us to compete in the toughest national ( and Victorian) competition and thrive up to our highest possible standards for success for the test of this century. 

Thanks again DP for your honesty and cooperation. 

Ill try and finish here 58er. When I began my enquiries I represented no group. as a former HR practitioner I sought to develop a team of supporters with skills and most importantly contacts. I felt and still do that the authority of MFC would create some leverage., and as has been recently reported the standing of the MFC brand would also benefit presentations.

I did and do thank all those who contributed advice, some with experience in various areas and some with some very novel suggestions. One feature which emerged and I hope is included at Caulfield is a venue for all supporter  who cannot get a seat at the G for the gand final but can gather at our home base to watch and celebrate. Im looking forward to that.

I do appreciate Caulfield site. I lived near there and hold the course record for Clydesdales ( that being my surname),. I had the advantage of not having to pull a wagon load of beer like the only other light draught horses to grace the track. But seriously, public transport to the site is fantastic, so i hope your estimation of its build is correct.

 

Should add that I also hold the course record at Moonee Valley and Flemington having completed circuits of both courses. I never made it to Sandown but have no doubt I could have smashed it there too. However those heady days are gone and i now coudnt beat a wagon owed by a Shetland.