Bigger question is why are so many of our supporters weak as [censored] and don't renew memberships.

11 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Bigger question is why are so many of our supporters weak as [censored] and don't renew memberships.

Clint, there may be many reasons why supporters don't renew memberships - the cost, and having other monetary priorities being one. You simply should not be labelling, as a whole, our non-renewing members as "weak as [censored]".

12 hours ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

Indeed - you have to have experience as a CEO. Marketing and branding, digital marketing. More like 99.9% of members out Fritta. No need to apply.

But I have already bought the postage stamp....

Not sure cost of living, or even winning games, explains our member numbers. See below (AFL official numbers) - West Coast and Richmond didn't win many matches and even North increased membership by 6,000, and are just 2300 behind us:

1. Collingwood* – 112,491 (2024 tally: 110,628)

2. West Coast* – 107,079 (2024 tally: 103,498)

3. Carlton – 100,743 (2024 tally: 106,345)

4. Richmond – 92,531 (2024 tally: 98,489)

5. Geelong* – 92,379 (2024 tally: 90,798)

6. Hawthorn* – 87,204 (2024 tally: 83,823)

7. Essendon – 85,568 (2024 tally: 83,664)

8. Adelaide* – 81,067 (2024 tally: 75,477)

9. Sydney* – 76,674 (2024 tally: 73,757)

10. Brisbane* – 75,115 (2024 tally: 63,268)

11. Port Adelaide* – 72,656 (2024 tally: 66,015)

12. Fremantle* – 66,179 (2024 tally: 62,237)

13. Western Bulldogs* – 65,584 (2024 tally: 62,328)

14. St Kilda* – 65,509 (2024 tally: 60,467)

15. Melbourne – 58,563 (2024 tally: 65,479

16. North Melbourne* – 56,283 (2024 tally: 50,628)

17. GWS Giants* – 37,705 (2024 tally: 36,629)

18. Gold Coast Suns* – 30,107 (2024 tally: 26,157)

On 29/10/2025 at 08:49, jnrmac said:

The last thing we want is a bunch of randoms on the Board. They never work. You need a united team with a core skills across a range of areas.

We're all passionate supporters but adding value in a variety of areas is key.

It sounds wonderful to have 6 passionate members elected to the Board but without experience, drive, initiative, skills and co-ordination it quickly becomes a mess with competing agendas and egos.

Let the cobblers cobble.

I don’t understand the connection between this post and AOG's post, which didn't argue we appoint some 'random', it argued, if understood AOG correctly, the president should not be promoting a particular candidate, which in reality means annointing said candidate.

Taking a skills based approach to filling a board seat is best governance practice.

But when filling a board spot and taking the opportunity to fill an identified skills and experience gap (again best practice) best practice is to simply advertise, and widely promote, the vacancy and make clear what skills and experience any candidate must have to be successful.

The reason its best practice is it avoids the common problem of boards identifying who they want to join the board (and potentially retrospectively defining the skill gap), and in doing so massively reducing the pool of potential quality candidates.

That's not how you get the best person- robust competition is how you get the best person.

Edited Wednesday at 23:131 day by binman

13 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Bigger question is why are so many of our supporters weak as [censored] and don't renew memberships.

Because, like it or not, this club is in the entertainment business and the product that has been delivered in the past two years (arguably past 3.5) has been woeful.

Aside from winning just 12 of our past 38 games (31%), the brand of football we play has generally been horrible to watch.

24 minutes ago, binman said:

I don’t understand the connection between this post and AOG's post, which didn't argue we appoint some 'random', it argued, if understood AOG correctly, the president should not be promoting a particular candidate, which in reality means annointing said candidate.

Taking a skills based approach to filling a board seat is best governance practice.

[Agreed]

But when filling a board spot and taking the opportunity to fill an identified skills and experience gap (again best practice) best practice is to simply advertise, and widely promote, the vacancy and make clear what skills and experience any candidate must have to be successful.

The reason its best practice is it avoids the common problem of boards identifying who they want to join the board (and potentially retrospectively defining the skill gap), and in doing so massively reducing the pool of potential quality candidates.

[This never happens in the real world. When was the last time you saw an ASX 200 company like BHP or NAB advertise for a Board member saying' we're a little short on cyber skills so if this is you please apply?]

That's not how you get the best person- robust competition is how you get the best person.

[The best person fills the skills requirement but can work in a harmonious way with the existing Board. The issue with footy clubs (and other sporting clubs) is that you get passionate people without the requisite skills and even some that love the idea of being on a footy club board - yet the bring nothing to the table. Or they have the skill set but actually don't do anything. We have seen plenty of these over the years. Footy clubs are difficult environments and arguably you need a certain amount of dictatorial management. The club under Stynes, Schwab and the ex-Dees boys club nearly killed it and the club under Bartlett and Jackson was arguably the best we have seen.]

24 minutes ago, binman said:

Taking a skills based approach to filling a board seat is best governance practice.

[Agreed]

The reason its best practice is it avoids the common problem of boards identifying who they want to join the board (and potentially retrospectively defining the skill gap), and in doing so massively reducing the pool of potential quality candidates.

[This never happens in the real world. When was the last time you saw an ASX 200 company like BHP or NAB advertise for a Board member saying' we're a little short on cyber skills so if this is you please apply?]

24 minutes ago, binman said:

That's not how you get the best person- robust competition is how you get the best person.

[The best person fills the skills requirement but can work in a harmonious way with the existing Board. The issue with footy clubs (and other sporting clubs) is that you get passionate people without the requisite skills and even some that love the idea of being on a footy club board - yet the bring nothing to the table. Or they have the skill set but actually don't do anything. We have seen plenty of these over the years. Footy clubs are difficult environments and arguably you need a certain amount of dictatorial management. The club under Stynes, Schwab and the ex-Dees boys club nearly killed it and the club under [redacted] and Jackson was arguably the best we have seen.]

1 hour ago, poita said:

Because, like it or not, this club is in the entertainment business and the product that has been delivered in the past two years (arguably past 3.5) has been woeful.

Aside from winning just 12 of our past 38 games (31%), the brand of football we play has generally been horrible to watch.

But teams have been far worse than us and the same has not occurred. North should have 15000 members based on that.

3 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

Clint, there may be many reasons why supporters don't renew memberships - the cost, and having other monetary priorities being one. You simply should not be labelling, as a whole, our non-renewing members as "weak as [censored]".

Can't argue with that. There are lower tier memberships available while maintaining continuity.

15 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Bigger question is why are so many of our supporters weak as [censored] and don't renew memberships.

East coast gas cartel -> electricity price inflation -> general inflation -> higher than necessary OCR -> mortgage rates -> reduced disposable income

15 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Bigger question is why are so many of our supporters weak as [censored] and don't renew memberships.

Well surely, Chris Barlow has to take huge responsibility for this?

He's listed as the chair of the Member Engagement Committee.

melbournefc.com.au

Official AFL Website of the Melbourne Football Club

Came onto the board this time last year and was appointed chair of MEC and in that time we've lost 12,000 members.

What are they actually doing with the MEC? Why mention it in the email if it's overseen a loss of so many members?

If you can't or won't engage with members, hand the chairship to someone who will.

Guerra should be running this himself. The approach we should follow is what would Peter Jackson do? He'd take over the MEC and drive it himself. Then at the AGM, he'd be up there imploring members to ring up every MFC supporter they know with lapsed membership, and be telling them to jump back on board.

Edited yesterday at 01:491 day by Adam The God

13 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Well surely, Chris Barlow has to take huge responsibility for this?

He's listed as the chair of the Member Engagement Committee.

melbournefc.com.au

Official AFL Website of the Melbourne Football Club

Came onto the board this time last year and was appointed chair of MEC and in that time we've lost 12,000 members.

What are they actually doing with the MEC? Why mention it in the email if it's overseen a loss of so many members?

If you can't or won't engage with members, hand the chairship to someone who will.

Guerra should be running this himself. The approach we should follow is what would Peter Jackson do? He'd take over the MEC and drive it himself. Then at the AGM, he'd be up there imploring members to ring up every MFC supporter they know with lapsed membership, and be telling them to jump back on board.

The one positive about all of this is the board and Guerra will live and die by their outcomes. We are in a hole with memberships and attendances and if they don’t improve and improve quickly I don’t think the fan base will be patient in calling for changes to be made and appointments of people who can get results.

On 28/10/2025 at 22:05, Adam The God said:

Smith becomes the fourth president in a row to tell us who to vote for as the board fills another casual vacancy prior to board elections. His framing tries to avoid saying this, but that's what's been said here.

I sound like a broken record, but Rennick said that members had given them clear feedback that we didn't like this approach.

And yet they continue to do it.

Sorry, where in the letter does it specifically tell us who to vote for?

Just now, praha said:

Sorry, where in the letter does it specifically tell us who to vote for?

They've named a candidate in Dan Taylor, which implicitly begins a process of electioneering.

You don't name a candidate without implicitly putting forward your preferred choice.

Smith has avoided saying it explicitly, but the message is the same.

And as @binman put it nicely earlier in the thread, perhaps implicitly, it undermines trust in the process.

Edited yesterday at 05:001 day by Adam The God

6 minutes ago, praha said:

Sorry, where in the letter does it specifically tell us who to vote for?

Really?

That’s just being wilfully obtuse on your part.

Edited yesterday at 05:001 day by Dr Don Duffy

Well the previous boards have failed miserably in the last four years. Obviously the skill set needs adjusting

In this instance the candidate actually seems worthy of a seat on the board

3 hours ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

Really?

That’s just being wilfully obtuse on your part.

Welcome aboard Steven!

Great that you will be with us in a few weeks.

And thanks to Greeny for doing a very solid job as a novice.

3 hours ago, Adam The God said:

it undermines trust in the process

Only to those with an axe to grind or who don't understand the process.

It's standard practice and good governance for the board to identify and vet new board members with the appropriate skills.

6 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Well surely, Chris Barlow has to take huge responsibility for this?

He's listed as the chair of the Member Engagement Committee.

melbournefc.com.au

Official AFL Website of the Melbourne Football Club

Came onto the board this time last year and was appointed chair of MEC and in that time we've lost 12,000 members.

What are they actually doing with the MEC? Why mention it in the email if it's overseen a loss of so many members?

If you can't or won't engage with members, hand the chairship to someone who will.

Guerra should be running this himself. The approach we should follow is what would Peter Jackson do? He'd take over the MEC and drive it himself. Then at the AGM, he'd be up there imploring members to ring up every MFC supporter they know with lapsed membership, and be telling them to jump back on board.

There's an interesting connection between your initial post about Smith promoting his choice for the board vacancy, Jnrs response, my response to him and the post quoted above.

I have long worked in the community sector. A role i had for many years included promoting the importance of meaningful consumer participation to organisations and government (in that context the consumers are clients, eg of the service system, particular sectors or individual organisations).

That work was underpinned by a framework called the 'ladder of participation' that Gemini defines thusly:

'The "ladder of participation" is a framework, originally from Sherry Arnstein's work on citizen participation, that categorizes different levels of public or consumer involvement in decision-making processes, from non-participatory to highly empowering'

The concept posits the lower rungs of the ladder involve non-participation and tokenism - a really common example is asking for feedback (eg via a 'satisfaction' survey) and doing nothing with the results and/or not bothering to tell consumers the outcome of their feedback.

At the top of the ladder consumers have real power and control. The ultimate is consumer owned organisations but just below that on the ladder is consumers being on boards and having decision making power.

Fans, and in particular paid up members are consumers of AFL football clubs. We should have a level power and control - the very least of which is opportunities to meaningfully participate.

A Member Engagement Committee done properly would go a hell of along way to provide such an opportunity - certainly more than the useless member's survey the club churns out in a stupid tick box exercise every year.

What would it look like for a Member Engagement Committee (MEC) done properly?

Well, for starters the club would be committed to ensuring it was an exercise in tokenism. It would be resourced properly. It would meet regularly. It would ensure it had representation from different segments of the fan base. It would report to the board, perhaps even have a vote on specific issues. When planning anything, like the new home base, feedback would be sought from the MEC at the start of the process not at the end. The MEC would review policies and perhaps be represented in any job interviews. It would represent supporters and report outcomes to supporters.

Above all it would be meaningful.

To be frank, unless i've missed something, the MEC has not involved any of those things. It is at the very bottom of the ladder of participation and such an insult to consumers - us.

And lest anyone think that meaningful consumer participation is just feel good nonsense, Gemini gives a pretty good summary of why it so important:

• Addresses power imbalances: The ladder helps organizations and consumers understand and address the power dynamics in a process.

• Promotes trust: Being transparent about the level of participation can build trust by managing expectations and avoiding tokenism.

• Strives for equity: Higher rungs on the ladder give consumers more power and control, which is a way to address social injustice and inequity.

• Improves outcomes: Meaningful participation at higher levels can lead to better outcomes because it leverages the experience and knowledge of those who use the services.

The last point is the most important - meaningful consumer participation at higher improves outcomes

I'm a qualified auditor and i'll bet my bottom dollar that part of the review last year included a review of the club's governance. And i have no doubt that one of the recommendations was creating a Member Engagement Committee.

Why? Not because it would give everyone some warm and fuzzies but because if done properly it would help drive membership sales, the lifeblood of every AFL club.

As an auditor, the starting point of any audit is governance. And a key part of that is assessing things such as whether the board has the right mix of skills and the right mix of stakeholders in terms of things like gender balance, diversity and representation of key stakeholders.

If the club was to truly embrace meaningful consumer participation AND at the same time ensure it had the right mix of board members, far from not considering having a 'rando supporter' on the board it would consider having supporter representation (for example a member of the MEC - a model i have seen work really well).

Why? Because it's good business.

Conservatively losing 15,000 members has cost us north of three million dollars in revenue. Who buys memberships? Supporters.

Call me crazy, but giving supporters some power and control might be a bloody good place to start if the club wants to understand how to increase membership sales.

Edited yesterday at 09:341 day by binman

I will play around with ChatGPT later and make it say what I believe to be true

You have to be pretty bloody naive if you think any footy club is going to not put a thumb on the scale for who they want on the board.

The club has given itself a right kicking up the you know what the last 12 months, they don’t need a hair-raiser elected by the throngs to continue the kicking.

If Adam really was a God then surely he’d already have the board stacked the way he wants….

27 minutes ago, demosaw said:

If Adam really was a God then surely he’d already have the board stacked the way he wants….

I don't believe in an interventionist God

But I know, darling, that you do

But if I did, I would kneel down and ask him

Not to intervene when it came to you

Will not to touch a hair on your head

Leave you as you are

If he felt he had to direct you

Then direct you into my arms

Into my arms, oh, Lord

Into my arms, oh, Lord

Into my arms, oh, Lord

Into my arms

Did Smith only mention Dan Taylor because Taylor is the only person to have completed their nomination so far?