The question still remains, Is Guerra up to the job? It hasn't been a faultless start and the scrutiny appears to be going up a notch.

..

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by ijustwannaseeaflag
Inappropriate

So apparently, just listening to Caro on 3aw.

• It was the the senior leadership group on behalf of their partners went to the the Melbourne bosses and asked what were club were doing about this as theere were concerns around this.

• It was a well intention meeting but badly went off course (Her words).

• Alan Richardson ran the meeting and said things he shouldn't have said regarding nature of confidentiality.

• In Caro's opinion, the meeting should have been lead by Paul Guerra and not Alan Richardson even though Guerra is inexperienced in his role.

• Confirmed that someone at that meeting was recording the whole thing and Tom Morris has a copy of thos recording which was provided to him by a player partner.

• Someone then leaked it to the players association and were concerned what took place and the breach of confidentiality in the meeting.

• It was then put to Tom Harley who then spoke to Paul Guerra and has chosen to say that this is a Melbourne matter and should be only be dealt with by Melbourne and not the AFL.

• Caro concerned that someone chose to record this.

• Steven May and partner are not happy with what being said in the meeting.

• Whoever has recorded it, has leaked it out and made May and his partner aware of this matter.

• Caro also said that there has been "teething problems" between Guerra and Steven Smith. I think that was based around Guerra being new to the CEO role.

No mention of Steven King part in any of this.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by dazzledavey36

The most interesting part in all this...why'd someone go into this with the intention of recording it, assume the entirety of the meeting was recorded

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

• Caro concerned that someone chose to record this.

what an own goal

guerra speaks well but his execution leaves a lot to be desired

14 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

what an own goal

guerra speaks well but his execution leaves a lot to be desired

I think Guerra has been very good at improving us off field - our improved comms and game day experience has been very noticeable since he has come into the club

Having said that, he’s clearly still coming into his own as a football CEO

I’m willing to cut him some slack but he’d want to learn the right lessons from this and tighten up on the internal mechanisms of running a club

On a similar note - this is very damning on Richardson

I don’t doubt he had good intentions but he clearly doesn’t have the tact or competence to manage sensitive internal issues and relationships

His poor communication around and management of the Trac situation - particularly the messaging about why Trac was taking time off in Noosa - made a bad situation far worse, and clearly contributed to the breakdown between parties

It was then mentioned that he had to undergo communications training as part of the 2024 internal review, with the implication being that this was a weakness of his

And now it seems he’s again mismanaged a situation by inadvertently spilling sensitive and confidential information, without any understanding of HR and welfare practices

Honestly ready to say see you later - we don’t need any more controversies due to people’s incompetence, and he’s been at the heart of a couple now

2 minutes ago, demoncat said:

On a similar note - this is very damning on Richardson

I don’t doubt he had good intentions but he clearly doesn’t have the tact or competence to manage sensitive internal issues and relationships

His poor communication around and management of the Trac situation - particularly the messaging about why Trac was taking time off in Noosa - made a bad situation far worse, and clearly contributed to the breakdown between parties

It was then mentioned that he had to undergo communications training as part of the 2024 internal review, with the implication being that this was a weakness of his

And now it seems he’s again mismanaged a situation by inadvertently spilling sensitive and confidential information, without any understanding of HR and welfare practices

Honestly ready to say see you later - we don’t need any more controversies due to people’s incompetence, and he’s been at the heart of a couple now

out of contract at the end of the year

it's interesting to see whether he lasts the remainder of the season

Just now, whatwhat say what said:

out of contract at the end of the year

it's interesting to see whether he lasts the remainder of the season

Thank god for that - goose

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

We also know that some people on here think that any story with a shred of criticism or negativity towards the MFC is a witch hunt.

The club issued an apology within an hour or so of the story coming out yesterday.

Morris has heard the recording of the meeting, and quoted directly from it - Richardson felt the need to say words to the effect of “can we keep this information to ourselves”. We don’t know what he said which led to him then asking everyone to keep it on the DL, but if he felt the need to tell everyone to stay quiet, that’s pretty much all we need to know - he should not have been sharing any information which he wouldn’t be comfortable with being out in the open.

It’s a bad mistake. The club has owned up to it.

It’s not a witch hunt. It’s not some sort of “media madness”. It’s not a storm in a teacup that Demonlanders are over-reacting to.

10 minutes ago, demoncat said:

I think Guerra has been very good at improving us off field - our improved comms and game day experience has been very noticeable since he has come into the club

Having said that, he’s clearly still coming into his own as a football CEO

I’m willing to cut him some slack but he’d want to learn the right lessons from this and tighten up on the internal mechanisms of running a club

Guerra should have known better as the meeting didn't seem to have much to do with football

More so about managing people or managing a delicate situation

And you'd reckon that with his background that he'd be fully aware of the fallout of such matters once things went pear-shaped

In other words, he should have seen it coming

It's any wonder that Smith is not happy with him or with what went on

36 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

So apparently, just listening to Caro on 3aw.

• It was the the senior leadership group on behalf of their partners went to the the Melbourne bosses and asked what were club were doing about this as theere were concerns around this.

• It was a well intention meeting but badly went off course (Her words).

• Alan Richardson ran the meeting and said things he shouldn't have said regarding nature of confidentiality.

• In Caro's opinion, the meeting should have been lead by Paul Guerra and not Alan Richardson even though Guerra is inexperienced in his role.

• Confirmed that someone at that meeting was recording the whole thing and Tom Morris has a copy of thos recording which was provided to him by a player partner.

• Someone then leaked it to the players association and were concerned what took place and the breach of confidentiality in the meeting.

• It was then put to Tom Harley who then spoke to Paul Guerra and has chosen to say that this is a Melbourne matter and should be only be dealt with by Melbourne and not the AFL.

• Caro concerned that someone chose to record this.

• Steven May and partner are not happy with what being said in the meeting.

• Whoever has recorded it, has leaked it out and made May and his partner aware of this matter.

• Caro also said that there has been "teething problems" between Guerra and Steven Smith. I think that was based around Guerra being new to the CEO role.

No mention of Steven King part in any of this.

So Caro, if correct and how does she also know all the details, says someone ( assuming a player partner ) recorded the meeting and then provided a copy of the recording to Tom Morris.

Then someone, presumably the same person or their Player/ partner alerted the AFLPA.

Did the recording person know what was to be discussed, or just on a whim decide to privately record a meeting without telling those involved? Then did they after the meeting discuss it with the club?

This one can reasonably deduce, was done to cause trouble.

NASA we have a problem.

Steven king was on abc sport today& they asked him about it but I got out of the car as he was answering it.

Spose no one heard it

Let's recognise that the purpose appears to have been for the players' partners to meet for the first time (albeit online) with senior figures at the club. That would appear to be a very positive undertaking. The topic that should not have been discussed in the way that it was would, I suggest, have taken no more than a couple of minutes out of what we are told was a 20 minute call. There was no problem raising the absence of Steven May - but the club should just have made clear it was a personal matter and left it at that.

So, let's focus on the positive - the club spoke to the players' partners. They didn't have to, but they did, and that's good. The remainer of the discussion, which would have been most of the time on that call, apparently hasn't raised any other issues of concern (we can assume the complainant would have mentioned other matters if there were any). It's also a positive that the club has recognised the error and apologised for it. That's also good.

I think it's a minor story which will be likely be superseded very quickly. Sure, The Agenda Setters might try to breathe oxygen into it, but a dead story remains dead, however hard you try CPR.

So the WAGs were invited to a meeting, where they received personal information in confidence?

One of them decided they shouldn't have been given that information, so they then gave said information to a 3rd party - the media? Or at least gave it to someone with access to that media member?

If that's what happened it's a touch hypocritical isn't it?

I think it's fairly easy to deduce who it was given other things happening at the club currently. I'd love to know if that particular WAG has any personal relationship with Trac's wife, considering the media member that got the scoop.

king mentioned it in his interview on abc today - around about the 40 min mark

https://pca.st/efpg9gjy

2 hours ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

You forgot to list one other matter.

The Club has issued a statement of apology.

Which is an admission of guilt or wrong doing.....which this day and age means litigation incoming.

Plenty redacted means we only are ever going to know the surface of it.

The players and players wives/ partners did not need to be privy.

Should have been handled by our coaching/admin. We made a massive blunder here, this story will get traction.

So Richardson was always on the way out in my view - the nonsense new role we were trying to get Bartel into gave that intention away.

Guerra is the longer term worry here - he doesn’t lead things that he should lead and he was doing the opposite when he was putting words in the mouths of others earlier this season “Max thinks blah”.

Not great signs

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by rpfc

This seems incredibly unprofessional by the individuals involved. I wouldn't tar Melbourne the club with any sweeping brush, but the individuals unable to keep sensitive, private, and unverified information to themselves should really not be employed in any position anywhere where they might handle that stuff.

Pretty basic really.

14 minutes ago, Chook said:

This seems incredibly unprofessional by the individuals involved. I wouldn't tar Melbourne the club with any sweeping brush, but the individuals unable to keep sensitive, private, and unverified information to themselves should really not be employed in any position anywhere where they might handle that stuff.

Pretty basic really.

And the need to over share in front of partners make one wonder what are we overcorrecting for and what behaviour did we tacitly condone with silence and ‘sweeping carpets’…

46 minutes ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

Which is an admission of guilt or wrong doing.....which this day and age means litigation incoming.

Plenty redacted means we only are ever going to know the surface of it.

The players and players wives/ partners did not need to be privy.

Should have been handled by our coaching/admin. We made a massive blunder here, this story will get traction.

What's the potential legal action? Who would be suing whom? I can't see how litigation arises from this.

.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Redleg

9 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What's the potential legal action? Who would be suing whom? I can't see how litigation arises from this.

Maybe secret recordings of meetings could lead to litigation in certain circumstances depending where some people online are and then the use it was put to.

Chat says:

In Australia, the legality of secretly recording an online meeting depends primarily on your location and whether you are a participant in the meeting. [1, 2]

State-by-State Consent Laws

Australian laws regarding "listening devices" (which include smartphones and computers used for online meetings) vary by jurisdiction: [1, 2]

• One-Party Consent (VIC, QLD, NT): In Victoria, Queensland, and the Northern Territory, it is generally legal to record a private conversation if you are a participant in that conversation. You do not need the consent of other parties to make the recording for personal use.

• All-Party Consent (NSW, SA, WA, TAS, ACT): In New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and the ACT, it is a criminal offense to record a private conversation without the consent of all parties involved. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Federal Law and Telecommunications

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 prohibits the interception of communications "passing over" a telecommunications system. [1, 2]

• Direct Connection: Recording a call by "direct connection" to the system (e.g., a wiretap) is a federal offense, regardless of state law.

• External Devices: Recording audio after it has left the speaker (e.g., using an external dictaphone or handheld recorder next to the computer) generally falls under state surveillance laws rather than the federal TIA Act. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Workplace Implications

Even in states where recording is legal, doing so secretly in a workplace context carries heavy risks: [1, 2]

• Disciplinary Action: Secretly recording a work meeting is often considered a breach of the "duty of good faith" and trust, which can be valid grounds for summary dismissal even if no crime was committed.

• Admissibility: Courts and the Fair Work Commission have the discretion to exclude secret recordings from evidence if they determine the "desirability of admitting the evidence" is outweighed by the "undesirability" of how it was obtained. [1, 2, 3]

Exceptions

In "all-party consent" states, you may be able to record without consent if it is "reasonably necessary" for the protection of your lawful interests (e.g., documenting threats or harassment), but this is assessed strictly on a case-by-case basis by the courts. [1, 2, 3]

The person recording it may not have had an 'evil' intent in doing so. Someone I know records doctor's appointments on their phone in their pocket. Not because they intend to sue the doc, but because they want to be sure they understood everything that was said. While that reason may not apply here, how would an 'evil' recorder even guess something so stupidly embarrasing to the club would be said and recorded it in anticipation?

How it went further afield is another matter.

So does the club not have a HR dept/person who should have advised what the ground rules of discussions for such a sensitive matter??

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Demonsone