LETTER FROM BRAD GREEN TO MEMBERS 24 OCT

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,025]

45 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Well 25 odd members that I am acquainted with including me have no problem with our contact details being given to potential candidates.

25 members is a drop in the ocean amongst 65,000, wouldn't you say?  

[Cranky Franky 1,977]

51 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

25 members is a drop in the ocean amongst 65,000, wouldn't you say?  

Yes it is & I presume you are speaking for the other 64,750 ?

[Cranky Franky 1,977]

1 hour ago, Its Time for Another said:

I bet you won't find another member of any other AFL club who has decided to use the legal loophole to get all the members personal details and start sending them their thoughts on things. The door is now open for every member to do the same but interestingly no one else has had the incredibly bad judgement to do so. 

And I bet you won't find another Club with such a stubborn & intransigent Board that is prepared to waste members $ in stupid court battles.

[layzie 33,677]

3 hours ago, Dr. Mubutu said:

It may well do, but hopefully that is kept internal. 
No need to feed the media sharks any more chum.

You mean we need something to stay in-house? Seems like a tall order right now!

[drysdale demon 4,793]

7 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

And I bet you won't find another Club with such a stubborn & intransigent Board that is prepared to waste members $ in stupid court battles.

Where has that facepalm emoji disappeared to.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,025]

29 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Yes it is & I presume you are speaking for the other 64,750 ?

Don't need to.  The last election results show it.

[inanunda 345]

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

Melbourne board elections: Smith reconsidering approach to Demons’ board; Peter Lawrence doesn’t regret suing club

http://archive.today/o8txl

[DubDee 25,322]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is the phrase 'Tooing and Throwing' which I think is the most Aussie thing ever and I love it

[Satyriconhome 10,622]

52 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

And I bet you won't find another Club with such a stubborn & intransigent Board that is prepared to waste members $ in stupid court battles.

Why are they intransigent and stubborn, as they were defending a case brought against them, why did a so called supporter take them to court in the first place? 

From the minority of posts on here in support of Mr Lawrence, you would think the club was in massive debt, had no sponsors, a very low membership, was not working towards a new training ground, oh wait that was a few years ago now, gee the Board and the CEO must have sat on their hands not to change that.

[Satyriconhome 10,622]

8 minutes ago, DubDee said:

The only thing I have learned from this thread is the phrase 'Tooing and Throwing' which I think is the most Aussie thing ever and I love it

It is "repeated discussion or thought about something without making any progress", which it never will unless Mr Lawrences' supporters are willing to accept a different viewpoint.

 

Except it is "toing and froing"

Edited yesterday at 06:03 by Satyriconhome

[inanunda 345]

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

Melbourne board elections: Smith reconsidering approach to Demons’ board; Peter Lawrence doesn’t regret suing club

http://archive.today/o8txl

[Farmer 859]

17 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Again, what problems does the Club have that needs new blood on the Board,  apart from a better performance from the playing and coaching group this season.

Well many would say the lack of real progress on a training home after so many years of promises, gives rise to concern!
Satyr, take my example above . If , e g a Greg Healy wanted to nominate for the Board, with a whole host of new ideas, but the Board put forward its chosen slate, it would effectively put paid to his chances . All I and others seek is a fair go for new blood. Yes, some candidates may be unworthy of support, but others might be .Let them  put their case, then we the members decide .

one other issue. If it be the case that PL , because  he challenged the  Board  at an election, is told that the club  he has supported forever, wants nothing to do with him, won’t take his financial contributions , won’t accept his sponsorship of a player , do you think that’s ok ? I think it’s unbelievable, outrageous .

[Ugottobekidding 1,140]

When is this review gonna see the light of day

[Farmer 859]

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

And I bet you won't find another Club with such a stubborn & intransigent Board that is prepared to waste members $ in stupid court battles.

I appreciate that posters don’t waste their time reading court judgments. But the decision of Justice Riordan in the Supreme Court required that after the use of the emails for legitimate use, PL had to destroy or otherwise get rid of the email details Whilst the decision related to PL, Any other candidate has the same rights.

The decision would  not have been required had the Club accepted the reasonable request from PL that he make his material available to the club, which would send it to all members . Had the club accepted this suggestion he would have had no access to email addresses. And there are many member organisations which adopt this very sensible course 

[Satyriconhome 10,622]

17 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Well many would say the lack of real progress on a training home after so many years of promises, gives rise to concern!
Satyr, take my example above . If , e g a Greg Healy wanted to nominate for the Board, with a whole host of new ideas, but the Board put forward its chosen slate, it would effectively put paid to his chances . All I and others seek is a fair go for new blood. Yes, some candidates may be unworthy of support, but others might be .Let them  put their case, then we the members decide .

one other issue. If it be the case that PL , because  he challenged the  Board  at an election, is told that the club  he has supported forever, wants nothing to do with him, won’t take his financial contributions , won’t accept his sponsorship of a player , do you think that’s ok ? I think it’s unbelievable, outrageous .

Hi, I started this topic so anybody could nominate, I pointed it at some of the more illustrious posters on here.

I am not sure which bit of, you could nominate in the past but nobody could be a'''d doing it, posters can't get so therefore the Board nominated and they were elected. It was and has never been a closed shop. Brad Green is asking openly and encouraging nominations, but who will step forward, except Lawrence.

I will look at who has nominated and will vote accordingly, like I did when Mr Lawrence didn't get in.

The home training base has always been a bone of contention, it was up to boards 20 to 30 years ago when the MCG was taken away or whenever that was, to start planning, they didn't and neither did quite a few subsequent boards with Goschs and AAMI as a stop gap.

Casey is up and running and an excellent venue and facillity.

The Board now is trying to play catch up, various sites have been looked at and could not come to fruition for various reasons.

The Caufield base looks like it might stand a chance, but it is a greenfield, which can take forever and a day because it involves so many stakeholders.

Nobody is privy to the interactions between Lawrence and the Board and the club administration, I have only heard bits and pieces and I treat them like a lot of hearsay or rumour, with a pinch of salt, there has to be reasons.

Note he didn't challenge the Board, he put himself up for election, lost and sulked, not sure which bit of that you don't get. 

Edited yesterday at 06:58 by Satyriconhome

[DeeZone 9,458]

19 minutes ago, Farmer said:

I appreciate that posters don’t waste their time reading court judgments. But the decision of Justice Riordan in the Supreme Court required that after the use of the emails for legitimate use, PL had to destroy or otherwise get rid of the email details Whilst the decision related to PL, Any other candidate has the same rights.

The decision would  not have been required had the Club accepted the reasonable request from PL that he make his material available to the club, which would send it to all members . Had the club accepted this suggestion he would have had no access to email addresses. And there are many member organisations which adopt this very sensible course 

If the club had caved into Peters demands he wouldn’t have had to fight them in court, how bloody magnanimous of Peter. Again an unelected Board Rep, unelected dictator.

[Cranky Franky 1,977]

47 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

If the club had caved into Peters demands he wouldn’t have had to fight them in court, how bloody magnanimous of Peter. Again an unelected Board Rep, unelected dictator.

"Caved in"

Ridiculous comment.  They were very moderate, reasonable demands.

[Satyriconhome 10,622]

16 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

"Caved in"

Ridiculous comment.  They were very moderate, reasonable demands.

Demands....not suggestions...

hmmm

[Hawk the Demon 941]

5 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

You keep saying (words to the effect of), “this is what our Board does”. The above are general restrictions imposed on candidates from all clubs. 

No ET. We are the only Club that has this rule. Do you remember the Hawks election? Interviews of candidates by Whateley - not allowed at Melbourne.

[Hawk the Demon 941]

39 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Demands....not suggestions...

hmmm

Saty, you don't have to believe me or the other pro-PL posters - listen to someone who has looked at the whole thing objectively - THE JUDGE - he said Mr Lawrence's dogged efforts to persuade the MFC to change its election rules and practices have already resulted in the MFC adopting many of the changes to the club's rules along the lines for which he contended. But these sensible changes only came because he brought the case. 

He also said The hearing of the proceeding was somewhat of a "moveable feast", because further amendments were made to the rules during, and after, the trial, which had the effect of further narrowing the matters about which Mr Lawrence complained.

That is probably why the judge suggested, and it was subsequently ordered, that each party bear their own costs. If only the Board had acted reasonably earlier.

[Hawk the Demon 941]

5 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

I bet you won't find another member of any other AFL club who has decided to use the legal loophole to get all the members personal details and start sending them their thoughts on things. The door is now open for every member to do the same but interestingly no one else has had the incredibly bad judgement to do so. 

Candidates for election at the other clubs can take their case to the airwaves, SEN, social media, etc...

The judge said allowing that type of campaigning was "not unreasonable" but on that particular point it was not the court's role to intervene. Have a look at the election rules when they are eventually published on the MFC website.

[drysdale demon 4,793]

31 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

No ET. We are the only Club that has this rule. Do you remember the Hawks election? Interviews of candidates by Whateley - not allowed at Melbourne.

Yeah, I know who the advisors were to Gowers in that election.

[Ollie fan 3,322]

30 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Candidates for election at the other clubs can take their case to the airwaves, SEN, social media, etc...

The judge said allowing that type of campaigning was "not unreasonable" but on that particular point it was not the court's role to intervene. Have a look at the election rules when they are eventually published on the MFC website.

Would you give it a rest, Hawk? The fact is, the club made a number of concessions, Lawrence continued to persist because he wanted EVERYTHING, and he LOST!!

Yes, Hawk, he lost. And if you try to tell us a loss is a win, then again, that tells us a lot about your ghostwriter, Lawrence. He doesn't know a fact when he sees it.

And to return to a theme about your leader's "transparency" desire, which you completely give the lie to by not coming clean about your own involvement: when are you going to?

But this thread is going round and around - it's a lot like Lawrence: you won't stop until you have gotten EXACTLY what you want, no matter what the cost. Tell me this: If Lawrence loses again in the forthcoming election, will he finally give up? 
 

No, i really don't expect you to answer that question.

[58er 6,301]

11 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:

When is this review gonna see the light of day

Don’t be so impatient It is reviews by the way. What can you do about the results ? Just be told what is probably important. You and I will hear a summary and then some changes will hopefully be made. 

Are you so uptight that another week will make any difference. Early November is the scheduled ETA for both reviews. So go and have a lie down Bex and wake up refreshed. Good luck impatient one. 
PS Yes you will be able to do what you are aiming to do criticise the result probably for lack of information. Oh well hope it has been worth the effort and wait. 

[BangBnagBang 658]

14 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:

When is this review gonna see the light of day

It wont, it will be kept in house like it should. A brief summery of points will be released which is all we should be getting.