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 9 hours ago9 hr 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 6 hours ago6 hr 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 3 hours ago3 hr 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 3 hours ago3 hr 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.