Yet another reminder that despite the millions of dollars in revenue each year, AFL clubs are still football clubs at heart.

This is some local footy level stuff

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

More to the point is that this sort of stuff should not be happening, BDA

With so many people involved, the info on the hook-up was bound to get out ... the 15 partners but what about all the players as well (they'd all know, even if it was 2nd hand)

It's not Morris' fault, he's just doing his job

I'm actually surprised that the story took close on 2 months to surface

And of course, those given the sensitive information and then not relaying the information to the 2 people involved is an issue in itself

If you were close to May and his partner you'd be tempted to report the matter to the 2 people involved (and that might have happened)

The club has apologised for it's involvement in the affair

So what else are we waiting for? We've admitted guilt but it doesn't end there

May and his partner would be perfectly entitled to engage a legal team if the allegations are in fact, true

Things could get quite messy but don't worry, it probably won't affect on field matters (maybe)

But King has blotted his copybook ... it pays not to ever get too infatuated with any individual. It's like meeting your favourite author

Richo is on borrowed time and not sure what to make of Guerra

Bush-league error, all the same. My god, we're a dumb-[censored] club sometimes

I didn't realise there was an apology.

I've just googled it. The club said "we acknowledge the meeting has caused distress and for that the club is sorry"

Sounds like a non-apology to me. I'm sorry you're upset, no apology regarding the cause of the upset or an admission of fault.

We'll see what comes of any AFL investigation. If there's grounds for legal action we'll see what plays out there.

If the club have done wrong then they should face the consequences.

But at the moment all i see are complaints about sensitive, inappropriate information. Could be something, or could just be a beat-up.

We'll see.

25 minutes ago, Brownie said:

This is the thing, on reflection, it seems so unbelievably loose that there must be another context to this story.

It seems so crazy.

If it's BS, then Morris should be held to account. (I know he won't)

Just when I thought we had a new beginning and a fresh start to our culture, this looks really ominous.

It can't be described as an over correction whilst transitioning from what once was, either

Fair enough, clean the joint up but ...

There's an obvious line that you don't cross. Telling so many people and then not expecting the info from the link-up meeting to get out is astonishing. Bizarre in fact

4 minutes ago, BDA said:

I didn't realise there was an apology.

I've just googled it. The club said "we acknowledge the meeting has caused distress and for that the club is sorry"

Sounds like a non-apology to me. I'm sorry you're upset, no apology regarding the cause of the upset or an admission of fault.

We'll see what comes of any AFL investigation. If there's grounds for legal action we'll see what plays out there.

If the club have done wrong then they should face the consequences.

But at the moment all i see are complaints about sensitive, inappropriate information. Could be something, or could just be a beat-up.

We'll see.

You may be right but there's already a fair bit of circumstantial evidence pointing to wrong-doing

As previously stated, onfield matters are all about all-systems-go. Business as usual

But we didn't need another distraction like this

4 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Notably, the article says, welfare staff weren't included in the conversation.

4 hours ago, 3KZ is Football said:

Whoever Morris spoke to needs to be spoken to.

Let’s hear the other side of the story

Morris is an ongoing problem for the MFC

This bloke needs to have his membership reviewed by PTB along with contacts

If this is as it seems on face value, Guerra should resign. It’s easy to hold Richardson up as the scapegoat, but the most senior person in the room in a pre-planned meeting automatically becomes accountable for the content.

I will reserve further judgement until the facts come to light, noting at the moment we’ve heard one version of events, but my initial impression is “yikes”.

5 hours ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

We will end up paying for this one.

Why on earth would you invite players partners to such a meeting. Most of them would be friends with both May and his partner.

We will get what we deserve.

At the moment we have one report of one side of the event.

Why not wait until more is known before sacking anyone.

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by monoccular

just as we thought this may bs was over ffs

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by 2029_brownlow_medalist
.

The level of detail in Morris' story makes me think someone has recorded the call

Do we really want to hear the other side of the story? The club has already backpeddled with a Claytons apology (pardon the pun, younger posters may not get the reference). Careful what we wish for!

Sounds like a bunch of kids running the club. We're gonna pay out again for another dumb move.

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Stiff Arm

The CEO needs to make an open and truly sworn statement to the members.

Not for the first time we hear nothing, until it hits the fan.

At face value of what has been reported, in what universe does an employer invite their employees WAGS to a meeting to discuss a "football (ie. business) program"??

Again at face value, there were three senior people conducting the meeting, yet none had the "strength of character" to stop the meeting going off track.

Looks like we failed the character test at the first hurdle.

8 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

The way I look at it is the club got on the front foot to address the matter and keep staff in the loop especially as their was media speculation around Steven May

I dont see any wrong doing here.

What i do have issues is clearly there are still snakes at the footy club whether thats player or partner. Get to the bottom of it, find out who it is and get rid of them.

This was my initial reaction too. Without knowing what the specifics of the discussion were (I can take a guess) or how it was framed, on the surface of it it looks like the club was trying to get on the front foot to address the issue with May.

45 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

This was my initial reaction too. Without knowing what the specifics of the discussion were (I can take a guess) or how it was framed, on the surface of it it looks like the club was trying to get on the front foot to address the issue with May.

But why involve the players partners?

What was there to be gained by doing that?

May might have become persona non grata but he (or his partner) doesn't need his personal life splattered amongst the hoi polloi (you tell 15 partners and (probably) the playing list, you may as well be telling the world)

I can't even see the good intentions aspect once May and his partner were brought into the discussion (via the link-up) And then all the details? That's not on

There was just no need to involve people who didn't need to be involved

I could understand it if the players were told what the future was going to be like (with or without May)

But the personal stuff? Unnecessary and it crosses the line

The story might wither away but Caro or Cornes might get involved. Or Morris might drip-feed more bits and pieces about the story (as that's what he often does)

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by Macca

Here's how the story could have got out ...

A player partner gets invited on to a group chat, link-up and is then told information about a player and his partner whilst being part of the hook-up

After a time, the partner doesn't feel that they should have been told about the private matters of the 'said' 2 people so they then voice their concerns to the club or the AFLPA (who then report the matter to the AFL)

Or it could have been one of the players or anyone else who might have known about the goings-on

Morris gets wind of the story (through his various contacts) and runs with it

The 'Whistleblower' could be anyone but that's beside the point anyway. Whatever happened that shouldn't have happened is what this is all about

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by Macca

3 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

The level of detail in Morris' story makes me think someone has recorded the call

Do we really want to hear the other side of the story? The club has already backpeddled with a Claytons apology (pardon the pun, younger posters may not get the reference). Careful what we wish for!

Sounds like a bunch of kids running the club. We're gonna pay out again for another dumb move.

Morris often drip-feeds his stories but I reckon you're right about the call being recorded. The detail gives it away

SEN have stated that they know about other certain sensitive material but won't release it. Fair enough too but if they know all about the details, then that strengthens the argument that the call was recorded

So the 3 Amigo's decide to blab personal information about another player and his partner to 15 other player partners not realising that it's all being recorded?

Oy vey

The club knows who leaked it

1 hour ago, Ugottobekidding said:

The club knows who leaked it

Or blew the whistle.

One man’s freedom fighter and all that…

So what do we actually know?

We know that a player and his partner were discussed at a partners’ online meeting with club officials.

We know that the intention of the meeting was a welcome and to show that the club supported players and their partners.

We know that this discussion occurred, but that it wasn’t the reason for the meeting.

We don’t know what specific details were discussed and if they were public knowledge, or private communications, or came from other sources.

We don’t know if any person prior to the meeting asked for some info on the situation, for whatever reason.

We know that someone leaked the meeting to the media.

We don’t know how the other attendees felt about the discussion.

We don’t know if the leaker was accurate, truthful, or had an ulterior motive for involving the media.

We don’t know if the person who went to the media, first raised a concern with the club and if they did, what the club response was and why they then felt it necessary to go public.

We don’t know if anyone, including Officials present, suggested an end to the discussion or that it was inappropriate to discuss.

We do know for a fact though, that many on here love to go off without proper and full knowledge and understanding of an issue and spout garbage condemning people.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Redleg

8 hours ago, Macca said:

But why involve the players partners?

What was there to be gained by doing that?

May might have become persona non grata but he (or his partner) doesn't need his personal life splattered amongst the hoi polloi (you tell 15 partners and (probably) the playing list, you may as well be telling the world)

I can't even see the good intentions aspect once May and his partner were brought into the discussion (via the link-up) And then all the details? That's not on

There was just no need to involve people who didn't need to be involved

I could understand it if the players were told what the future was going to be like (with or without May)

But the personal stuff? Unnecessary and it crosses the line

The story might wither away but Caro or Cornes might get involved. Or Morris might drip-feed more bits and pieces about the story (as that's what he often does)

Because the issue with May involved his partner and the club are trying to be inclusive of the players partners. They may have stuffed up in how they did it (uncertain without specific info) but I can understand their intent.

1 hour ago, Ugottobekidding said:

The club knows who leaked it

I wonder whether that explains a mysterious omission in recent weeks 🤔

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Dr. Gonzo

Will this club ever get away from drama, it’s seems as Richo handling of many footy matters in question eg no 5 post injury, if people only knew what went down with May

I agree with all the posters who say that the meeting should not have happened. What would've been far better would be if all of the players and their partners – who all undoubtedly know each other and are friendly – gossiped about what had happened with Stephen May, speculated, and undoubtedly ended up magnifying the events into something unrecognisable from the truth.

(For those who don't realise it, the above is IRONY)

Really, the Club was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Obviously, they tried to keep people aware of why a very senior leader of the club was being let go, and trying to show that they were supportive of players and their partners. I don't see what's wrong with that.

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

We do know for a fact though, that many on here love to go off without proper and full knowledge and understanding of an issue and spout garbage condemning people.

That's probably the truest statement ever posted on Demonland 👏👏👏

From the online articles already released one of the WAG’s on the call has been speaking to TM. If, as stated this was out of concern for the couple’s privacy being breached I don’t know how leaking it to one of the biggest mouths in the game helps in any way.

On the face of it this seems to be very unprofessional by the club

To conduct what essentially amounts to a welfare check without any HR or legal representatives present raises serious questions about the club’s practices and judgment, particularly given the topic of the meeting

Richardson also has a poor record as Football Manager of managing sensitive situations at the club (see the Petracca situation in 2024), so it doesn’t inspire much confidence that he’s handling these matters

Having said that, and as others have pointed out, we can only go on what Morris has reported, which clearly has a degree of bias given it’s been leaked almost two months after the fact and without any indication the leaker attempted to resolved this via the club first

I’ll reserve judgement until if/when more details come out, although the club’s statement seems to suggest they aren’t too worried, so perhaps there’s been a bit of mayo added to Morris report…

As @Redleg has said, there are so many things we don’t know at this stage, but, at present, it does appear like another “we shot ourselves in the foot” moment for the club. As for the whistleblower, you’d think it would have to be a more senior player at the club, rather than our younger brigade. After hearing about what was said at the meeting, could the whistleblower actually be Maysie himself? - just to add to all the other unsubstantiated comments that have been made on this issue.