On 29/10/2025 at 20:14, Fritta and Turner said:

When I look at the Board Credentials Statement, what they are looking for in the prospective new board member, I reckon it would exclude 99% of members. They are asking for a serious skill set, and fair enough, as footy is a multi million dollar high profile business. However where does that leave us ordinary members and our views?

99% of the population are morons. I’m happy to leave it up to the professionals with the serious skill sets.

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

99% of the population are morons. I’m happy to leave it up to the professionals with the serious skill sets.

Professional board members?

The problem is we have a long history of having successful business people (mostly men) who have had no idea how to run a football club, sit on our board.

The only competent administration we've seen in my lifetime was PJ-led, when he basically ran everything and told the board to stay out of his business.

As soon as they made a decision of their own (appointing Pert), they stuffed it up and the club has been on the decline from the foundations that PJ built ever since.

We're now a few thousand members ahead of North Melbourne. North [censored] Melbourne. What an indictment on the foundation club that won a flag 4 years ago! And no one is being held accountable at board level for 12,000 members going missing this year.

Barlow seems to have been brought onto the board for his money alone (ie Caulfield), because he's done sweet FA with member engagement when there was plenty of opportunity to do so this year.

Great that you're happy to have a board stacked with nuffies slowly running the club into the ground, but I hope for King and the players' sake, we start to get the right people on who can ensure the governance of the club is overseen to a high standard. Might be a good idea to open the field a little to ensure we actually get the best candidate.

Edited yesterday at 13:141 day by Adam The God

9 hours ago, binman said:

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

We are both ‘Caving in’ here binny.

I agree with you and @Adam The God that boards should advertise for needs and take ‘best available’ regardless of alignment. Strategies and outcomes are better when contrarian views are respectfully considered and behind closed doors is best place to do this before acting with unity and purpose.

We need stability full stop from what’s occurred since 21, let’s hope Smith & Guerra provide clear comms and direction regarding Caulfield.

Any updates on Waverley as a temporary base as we need the whole club under 1 roof!

20 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

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

I thi k you will find clubs such as St Kilda and North give out free memberships to juniors who play for local football clubs or go to school in their area. A more relevant measure is membership revenue as it cuts through all of the junk and $1 memberships that to my knowldge the MFC doesn't promote.

12 hours ago, binman said:

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.

Hi Binman I think that it would be a good move for you to contact Steven directly with your thoughts and ability to back it up. Perhaps a sub committee that reports directly into the Executive Directors so that they are informed and in tune more closely with the supporter base. Undeniably they really need to be more closely aligned with the paid up members of our mighty club.

7 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

Hi Binman I think that it would be a good move for you to contact Steven directly with your thoughts and ability to back it up. Perhaps a sub committee that reports directly into the Executive Directors so that they are informed and in tune more closely with the supporter base. Undeniably they really need to be more closely aligned with the paid up members of our mighty club.

There already is such a committee, DZ. It’s called the Member Engagement Committee and it’s relatively new.

As far as I know, to date this committee hasn’t engaged with the Demon Army, which one would expect. We have just on 1,000 members (at varying levels of participation, but all fully paid up MFC & DA members) which is a substantial chunk of our overall membership, and it becomes more significant as our overall membership drops.

4 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

There already is such a committee, DZ. It’s called the Member Engagement Committee and it’s relatively new.

As far as I know, to date this committee hasn’t engaged with the Demon Army, which one would expect. We have just on 1,000 members (at varying levels of participation, but all fully paid up MFC & DA members) which is a substantial chunk of our overall membership, and it becomes more significant as our overall membership drops.

Thanks Ghostwriter thats good to know but I haven’t really seen much evidence of MEC, perhaps Binman should be part of that committee when you combine The Demon Army and Demonland as a group there is a high level of footy IQ and intimate club knowledge that could provide a great source of information to help promote the MEC to where it needs to be.

Some of this is also expectation. What do we as members expect from the club??

What do we all think the main reasons are for membership drop off?

Are the surveys we all fill out taken seriously by the club? Id think not as i have written some fairly strong worded statements to some of those questions and never been followed up except for the bit where they asked about AFLW membership.

We unfortunatley cant know everything that is going on at the club with player behavior issues, management issues and the Home Base at Caulfield.

13 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

There already is such a committee, DZ. It’s called the Member Engagement Committee and it’s relatively new.

As far as I know, to date this committee hasn’t engaged with the Demon Army, which one would expect. We have just on 1,000 members (at varying levels of participation, but all fully paid up MFC & DA members) which is a substantial chunk of our overall membership, and it becomes more significant as our overall membership drops.

Wow. I wasn't aware that the MEC hadn't consulted the DA, Ghosty. It's pretty clear Barlow has done nothing with it.

The fact that Smith mentioned it in the email as an achievement of Green's is concerning to me. Classic spin.

10 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I’m happy to leave it up to the professionals with the serious skill sets.

People like Richard Goyder?

8 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Wow. I wasn't aware that the MEC hadn't consulted the DA, Ghosty. It's pretty clear Barlow has done nothing with it.

The fact that Smith mentioned it in the email as an achievement of Green's is concerning to me. Classic spin.

I can’t say I’m 100% sure of it but I like to think I’d be aware had contact with the DA been made since I’m on a couple of DA committees one being the New Member Welcoming Committee.

Meandering once more to mediocrity comes to mind.

Not sure how to turn this ship around but it's fast losing passengers

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

I thi k you will find clubs such as St Kilda and North give out free memberships to juniors who play for local football clubs or go to school in their area. A more relevant measure is membership revenue as it cuts through all of the junk and $1 memberships that to my knowldge the MFC doesn't promote.

Dogs do it too at Vic Uni. Junk memberships should not be in the official total but the AFL loves the inflated figures they provide. We should be equally brazen.

Does anyone else feel it's a bit odd / unusual that a board member (albeit our next President) writes a letter on behalf of the Board and sends it to all members? Take out the praising of Green, and it's a letter the current President should have written. It might just be me, but it seems odd.

Also agree that we should be identifying the skill set we need and then advertising for the best candidate. Almost looks like we have selected our man and then cherry picked his CV to announce the skill set we were looking for.

3 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Also agree that we should be identifying the skill set we need and then advertising for the best candidate. Almost looks like we have selected our man and then cherry picked his CV to announce the skill set we were looking for.

Spot on. It could also be notable that one current board member works in production and the guy put forward is a Stan man.

What is also concerning is that Dan Taylor is based in Sydney. That will make engaging with members and getting to games pretty difficult.

I know @William manages to come from interstate every week, but is Taylor a rusted on?

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by Adam The God

41 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

Thanks Ghostwriter thats good to know but I haven’t really seen much evidence of MEC, perhaps Binman should be part of that committee when you combine The Demon Army and Demonland as a group there is a high level of footy IQ and intimate club knowledge that could provide a great source of information to help promote the MEC to where it needs to be.

Nice idea, leveraging the power of the passion!

Hopefully the turmoil of the last 12 months maybe as long as 48 months is truly behind us. A fractured club with ordinary performances and a key player desperate to leave doesn’t inspire the fan base!

Going forward new coach, new CEO, new Chairman, clearing some problem children no matter how good they once were and might be again, provides close to a clean slate, to rebuild and head in a new and hopefully the right direction!

At board level you are looking for complimentary skill sets to cover all bases, and a board that can work together rather than being splintered, while ensuring the necessary balance and governance remains. It isn’t easily achieved!

Highlighting the skill set and capabilities required that the board are looking for in a new member would be ideal. Anointing someone is done anticipating that person is a known quantity, has the right skills, culture and will fit in!

Our Demons need unity starting at the board level after 4 years of turmoil! The best team wins vs the best individuals!

In the end I think all supporters just want to see the Demons improve on and off the field in 2026 and let the focus be on field rather than off field drama!

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by D4Life
Clarification

On 28/10/2025 at 20:53, Fritta and Turner said:

Nominations for the board are now open and close 5:00pm on Tuesday 11th November.

My money is on @picket fence.

On 29/10/2025 at 20:46, 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.

The best form of marketing is winning finals.

13 hours ago, Adam The God said:

And no one is being held accountable at board level for 12,000 members going missing this year.

Um, have you been paying attention? The Board, at last count, have overseen six senior people departing the club inside the last four months and at least seven in the last 12 months. I would say they are holding themselves to account at a very high level.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by Queanbeyan Demon

27 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

The best form of marketing is winning finals.

But we are at best a 30% chance to win one in the next five years so what is the alternative strategy to maintain members and perhaps grow.

1964-1987 killed our growth. Why will that not be repeated as baby boomers disappear (aka die)

15 hours ago, binman said:

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

saint nick takes no prisoners

On 28/10/2025 at 22:21, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Don't know why this struck me, but pretty chill signature:

I'm glad they printed the name!

That surely doesn’t say Steven Smith.

He’s having us on.

32 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Um, have you been paying attention? The Board, at last count, have overseen six senior people departing the club inside the last four months and at least seven in the last 12 months. I would say they are holding themselves to account at a very high level.

The chair of the Member Engagement Committee is still on the board, I note...

You know, the same MEC that has overseen the loss of 12,000 members, whilst not engaging with the membership base (seemingly) at all.

1 hour ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

The best form of marketing is winning finals.

True.

And the only way to ensure long term success and regularly winning finals is good governance.