3 hours 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

He’s handling of Trac situation has never been explained but in this case it’s baffling who, what etc got it wrong and perhaps the HR person was based at the MCG and not under 1 roof to discuss this?

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

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

https://pca.st/efpg9gjy

Interesting response from the Coach, i know he is somewhat constrained in what he can say, but it feels a little overreaction maybe…

Just the vibe i got

8 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.

The first three known points are sufficient to conclude that the three amigos are amateurish and do not use the HR/legal resources in MFC.

The following eight points do not negate that conclusion.

With 18 (?) attendees, they would be dreaming to think the content of the meeting would come out within a week or so.

2 hours 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.

Yes they appear to have breached May and his partners privacy, but litigation seems unlikely i would have thought, or at least civil litigation in the form of May and his partner suing the club (i guess there could be some workplace law they could get pinged for).

What would they sue for? Can't be defamation as they would have to prove harm which would be hard given no specific details have thing has been reported on, and the information that has come out was not leaked by the club.

the best way to keep something confidential is to not tell anyone

11 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:

The club knows who leaked it

how do you know?

Just listened to Kingy on the ABC footy podcast

He reiterated the meeting was well intentioned and didn’t mean to cause any distress or offence

The interviewer asked him if there was now a trust issue but he batted that away.

I doubt we’ll hear too much more about this

7 minutes ago, BDA said:

Just listened to Kingy on the ABC footy podcast

He reiterated the meeting was well intentioned and didn’t mean to cause any distress or offence

The interviewer asked him if there was now a trust issue but he batted that away.

I doubt we’ll hear too much more about this

agreed, He said that the senior playing group asked the coaches to chat to the partners about support etc moving forward. They attempted to do this I guess there was a lot of questions around may and sachi. Hopefully it is all ok now, this was 2 months ago and May since then has been all praise for the dees at least externally.

You really can't be that shocked and distressed if you go that [censored] and leak it to him. If anything you've drawn more light on the situation and on May and his partner than there was originally.

I heard Tom Morris on SEN this morning, and with all the other footy news, he had to go straight to the MFC story. Not Vossy and another loss, not North and their 3rd win. It had to be his story.

Tom, I hope you are on Demonland and can read this. From his discussion, we now know

1. He has a copy of the recorded phone call.

2. Had to run it past SEN legal before writing, and in doing so, let us know the meeting was recorded without the club's knowledge or consent. If it gets leaked, is he the only person with a copy and the obvious leaker? Why would you want to record a group chat that the club has organised unless you expected some goss

3. He thinks there is more to run with this story. Does this mean that, as the only person with the confidential information, he is going to milk this story for all he has?

4. Who leaked the story to him, and did they get paid for their complicit behaviour? Has Tom ever paid his informants for their information in his breaking stories

5. Is the said individual the person who has been leaking stuff to Tom for the last few years?

6. Did he think for a moment that he was doing the May family a favour, or that it was in the public interest, or was he publishing for his own advancement?

7. I would have thought an individual who was sacked for a comment he made to a closed group would know better. He must have, from his own experience, known the damage disclosure of a private meeting can cause.

1 hour ago, Older demon said:

I heard Tom Morris on SEN this morning, and with all the other footy news, he had to go straight to the MFC story. Not Vossy and another loss, not North and their 3rd win. It had to be his story.

Tom, I hope you are on Demonland and can read this. From his discussion, we now know

1. He has a copy of the recorded phone call.

2. Had to run it past SEN legal before writing, and in doing so, let us know the meeting was recorded without the club's knowledge or consent. If it gets leaked, is he the only person with a copy and the obvious leaker? Why would you want to record a group chat that the club has organised unless you expected some goss

3. He thinks there is more to run with this story. Does this mean that, as the only person with the confidential information, he is going to milk this story for all he has?

4. Who leaked the story to him, and did they get paid for their complicit behaviour? Has Tom ever paid his informants for their information in his breaking stories

5. Is the said individual the person who has been leaking stuff to Tom for the last few years?

6. Did he think for a moment that he was doing the May family a favour, or that it was in the public interest, or was he publishing for his own advancement?

7. I would have thought an individual who was sacked for a comment he made to a closed group would know better. He must have, from his own experience, known the damage disclosure of a private meeting can cause.

Cmon mate..

You're more fixated on Tom Morris reporting the story then the actual story in itself.

Tom Morris isnt the issue in all of this. People having gripes with the media and thinking there is a media witch hunt against the club, probably tells you that its time to take off the rosy red and blue goggles on this one.

Edited 23 hours ago23 hr by dazzledavey36

10 hours ago, adonski said:

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

I know plenty of people who record different conversations for many different reasons, both in person and online. Often they screen grab as well. Might be to remember info later on, might be to take notes for minutes or record who was there, or it could be to cover their [censored]. I've personally done that in review meetings, recollections of what is discussed can vary. In this case, they certainly wouldn't have known what was to be said in advance. However, it's not an uncommon practice.

Again, let's not blame the whistle blower. They're not the dh who couldn't control the meeting and it's content. *looking at you, Richo*

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

So Tom, in his innocence must have asked for, and received a copy of it.

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Cmon mate..

You're more fixated on Tom Morris reporting the story then the actual story in itself.

Tom Morris isnt the issue in all of this. People having gripes with the media and thinking there is a media witch hunt against the club, probably tells you that its time to take off the rosy red and blue goggles on this one.

Tom ain't exactly Percy Beames.

15 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

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.

Didn't Steven May go to high school with Tom Morris?

In there lies your answer.

5 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Tom ain't exactly Percy Beames.

Who cares.

You're bringing up something from the past that is completely irrelevant to this current matter.

5 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Didn't Steven May go to high school with Tom Morris?

In there lies your answer.

My mum went to high school with serial murderer Dennis Nilsen. Doesn't mean any of them were friends.

22 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

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

22 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

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

Turns out also the below!

But seriously, I genuinely wish I could be involved in the club, even if my entire job was the official 'Yeah, nah, don't do that mate' clearing house.

10 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

Again, let's not blame the whistle blower. They're not the dh who couldn't control the meeting and it's content. *looking at you, Richo*

Nor we should we try to frame what this whistle blower has done as noble. It wasn't.

Once the AFL and AFLPA were notified that should have been the end of it. Leaking to the media was designed to bring unwanted attention on the club and did nothing for Steven May or his partner.

9 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

I know plenty of people who record different conversations for many different reasons, both in person and online. Often they screen grab as well. Might be to remember info later on, might be to take notes for minutes or record who was there, or it could be to cover their [censored]. I've personally done that in review meetings, recollections of what is discussed can vary. In this case, they certainly wouldn't have known what was to be said in advance. However, it's not an uncommon practice.

Again, let's not blame the whistle blower. They're not the dh who couldn't control the meeting and it's content. *looking at you, Richo*

But exactly was there to gain by giving it to Morris?

Absolutely nothing.

This whole thing would otherwise be insignificant. A very senior player got into trouble and was moved on. Anyone who thinks that wouldn't have been a hotbed of gossip is blind. So at a meeting of players and WAGS the discussion veered off-topic and things were said which were possibly a lot LESS than has been speculated among the group. End of story - until someone, for who knows what purpose, decides that they will tell the media.

On 03/04/2026 at 16:07, SPC said:

I just want to know who the rat is and want to see them playing VFL football.

Not sure one of the partners will be playing VFL football….

This story doesnt phase me tbh. Footy clubs arent a normal place of work so trying to apply this logic to your own workplace doesnt really work. I imagine the club identified that they they could have been more transparent with the players and partners over the last few years. Sure it might be an over reach, but given we're playing with heart i dont think its had any impact.

Speculation that Rivers' knee is at blame for the leak haha

This story was given to The AFL and they gave it back to the MFC, saying you deal with it.

That’s where it should have ended, but of course Morris had different ideas

If you cant see the problem here then you cant be helped.