2 minutes ago, binman said:

True.

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

and kicking straight

8 minutes ago, Fritta and Turner said:

and kicking straight

True.

And the only way to ensure that year on year the club consistently recruits players who can kick straight is good governance.

14 minutes ago, binman said:

True.

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

It helps ensuring it - but it doesn't ensure it.

15 hours 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.

Unlike 'Land where it drops to 5%.

44 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

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.

Was tempted to say that I can't argue with that logic. However . . .

6 hours 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.

All clubs do it including Melbourne. Children that are registered players in an AFL South East Competition which include Frankston and District Juniors, Mornington Peninsula Juniors and South East Juniors can get a membership of either Melbourne or St.kilda as part of their zones.

I get one for my daughter but she is also a paid member as well.

27 minutes 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.

And yet look at the Richmond, West Coast and North Melbourne numbers - there's got to be more to it than just the way we play footy, and the wins and losses.....

38 minutes ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

All clubs do it including Melbourne. Children that are registered players in an AFL South East Competition which include Frankston and District Juniors, Mornington Peninsula Juniors and South East Juniors can get a membership of either Melbourne or St.kilda as part of their zones.

I get one for my daughter but she is also a paid member as well.

St Kilda 65,500 - Melb 58,500......

On 30/10/2025 at 16:00, Dr Don Duffy said:

Really?

That’s just being wilfully obtuse on your part.

On 30/10/2025 at 15:59, Adam The God said:

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.

On 30/10/2025 at 19:09, BrisbaneDemon said:

It's all a big conspiracy!

🙄

If posters want more footy people on the board, Warren Tredrea could have just become available.

4 hours ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

St Kilda 65,500

Lyon effect?

I'd sign up just to watch Nas play each week.

18 minutes ago, bing181 said:

If posters want more footy people on the board, Warren Tredrea could have just become available.

What would Keith Thomas say?

12 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Meandering once more to mediocrity comes to mind.

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

What about this appointment makes you think this?

Not a fan of Smith?

On 29/10/2025 at 06:10, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

So we'll have JT and DT.

On a semi related note of the AGM, I think it would be a great move for the club to make JT a life member of the MFC. ...should nominate him for a knighthood to while we're at it.

And a nomination for the Nobel peace prize.

On 31/10/2025 at 10:36, D4Life said:

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!

This just an opinion by the Board. If so moved, members can elect a mime artist to break through the glass ceiling.

But the candidates (if any) are generally unknown to the members and won't galvanise support. They need to set up a card table outside the G, I guess. The candidates statements are not sufficiently convincing.

8 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

This just an opinion by the Board. If so moved, members can elect a mime artist to break through the glass ceiling.

But the candidates (if any) are generally unknown to the members and won't galvanise support. They need to set up a card table outside the G, I guess. The candidates statements are not sufficiently convincing.

And they're not allowed to engage the members via other forums or directly via email so what hope do they have?

On 29/10/2025 at 10:13, stinga said:

No doubt someone will get their noses out of joint and there'll be another court case. Typical of previous fights over boards and the egos involved.

Yean nah. That was the work of an individual with no real ties to the club prior to being tapped for a figurehead role.

On 30/10/2025 at 19:53, bing181 said:

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.

Dont have an axe to grind.(I have a chain saw which is sharpened regularly).

While this does create some restrictions in selecting a candidate with some skill or experience in emerging, innovative or totally outstanding features, having a set of relevant guidelines assist both candidates considering application and the board in conducting their application and appointment process (vet) of available candidates within skill sets.

But certainly naming a preferred candidate is even more restrictive and could be seem to be intimidating or coercing a result. It is an unfortunate and unecessary staement.

One of the most important skills or attributes of Board members is that they have an ability to work with others so an open election process may throw together a group with different skills which are then utilised. Nominating a particular candidate is merely reinforcement syndrome which stifles innovation and progress.

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And they're not allowed to engage the members via other forums or directly via email so what hope do they have?

9/10's of bugger all Dr.

On 31/10/2025 at 16:09, Harvey Wallbanger said:

And yet look at the Richmond, West Coast and North Melbourne numbers - there's got to be more to it than just the way we play footy, and the wins and losses.....

St Kilda 65,500 - Melb 58,500......

To my mind Harvey it is all the negative press that we have incurred since we went out in straight sets at the end of 2022, we have wreaked the storm for failing not once but twice and had a number of negative player instances over this period as well, whereas the four teams that have been deliberately bottoming out for four or five years come up smelling roses. Our numbers have plummeted whilst theirs have increased steadily. Teams that have had similar instances of player issues don’t seem to have been impacted in the same manner as us and haven’t been impacted by supporter drop off.

It could also be that we have dropped back to our poor numbers that we enjoyed prior to 2021 where we slowly dragged ourselves up from low thirties to low fifties during our mostly positive rebirth with PJ, Roos and the Pres that ended up suing us.

Maybe our Reset at least starts us at that level again mid fifties with an expectation of restarting our climb back to relevance. A number of our Dee friends have dropped off and no longer read anything associated with us in the press. Quite depressing really.🤔

Some good points Dee Zone

TBH we've not been served well by the MFC Board for a long time. They have overseen chaos, confusion and crisis caused by themselves, executives and players. You can point to different people and causes for each failing but stability and confidence is rarely their strong point.

My problem is that the same people and system that has delivered at best mediocrity (ironic that we had our only success when most of Melbourne was heavily locked down thus limiting normal interactions) is delivering our new "hope".

You have to wonder whether the occasional shake up might be better for the club than the consensus model.

Oh well we can but hope for the best.

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

You have to wonder whether the occasional shake up might be better for the club than the consensus model.

We're changing board members, we have a new president, a new CEO, a new head coach plus other FD personnel, we've got rid of two of our best players ...

That's not a shake up?

9 hours ago, dpositive said:

so an open election process may throw together a group with different skills which are then utilised

By definition, an open election will throw up whoever it throws up - including people with either similar skills (undesirable) or just as likely, skills we don't need or even zero skills.

Why do I get the distinct impression that Dan Taylor's CV was used to create the Board's vacancy preferred criteria?

Should I be so negative or suspicious?

Might have been more astute to issue them separately avoiding the linkage.

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

By definition, an open election will throw up whoever it throws up - including people with either similar skills (undesirable) or just as likely, skills we don't need or even zero skills.

Indeed Bing an "open election" would "throw up" a bunch of candidates that the members could then vote upon. The members might even have their own view on what skills are needed - maybe someone who lives in Melbourne and has time to devote to the Club? And the "skills we need"? Who determines that? - the same Board members that this thread is suggesting has failed us. See DFF's post - a nominee is identified by the Board and then the skill set they deem is required mysteriously appears as the skill set that the Board define as being required. Whatever that is, it is not an "open election".