Leaderboard

Up front. I know and like Peter Lawrence and whilst I understand why people have the views they have I think they are very misguided. Peter asked me to respond if his nonattendance last night was raised on Demonland so I'm not breaking any confidences in passing on this information. Peter's daughter is a humanitarian worker in Africa and a trip to see his daughter was planned long before the date for the meeting last night was set. Hence he couldn't attend. Further, I think that some of the commentary here is wrong. Many believe that the challenge to the constitutional changes recommended by the Board was part of a plan to get on the Board. It wasn't. My understanding is he doesn't intend to stand for the Board again. Secondly many are blaming him for the costs incurred by the Club in challenging his right to have email addresses. Well, the Supreme Court found the Club was wrong in denying him the addresses and that he should have been supplied with them in the first instance. Further Peter offered the Club the opportunity to send his correspondence to members directly to ensure he wouldn't have access to the email addresses but they declined. In effect, the Club is responsible for Peter being able to access your email addresses and the cost of the Court case were the decision of the Club. Daisy made a comment earlier that "it's a strange hill to die on". If you think about it that just shows he has the Club's best interest at heart because this was not the hill to die on if he wanted a spot on the Board or push an agenda beyond the constitution. He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members. All he did was fight for a chance to present ideas to the membership. The Club fought him at every turn. Their attitude is inexplicable.

Jeez no one is saying Pert or for that matter Kate Roffe are perfect but they as a team have turned our ship around despite innuendo and criticism at most announcements / changes. We are no longer that club that was on our hands and knees wishing that we could be up there with the successful clubs. It’s time to stop and smell the roses, enjoy our current success and put our personal grievances aside.!!

I was someone who had the opportunity to participate in some of the Zoom meetings. In one of them, the Demon Army one, we had a lengthy discussion about the powers to suspend/expel members, and as a result of that discussion, the entire section 2.4 was included in the new constitution. I had a chat last night with David Rennick regarding that, and he said he really enjoyed the robust discussion in the Demon Army Zoom consultancy and a lot of our concerns were taken into account. So yes, we were listened to. One thing to remember, there are 66,000 members. Not all suggestions of all the members consulted could possibly be accommodated. Kate said there were things she wanted included but weren't. That's the purpose of consultancy - to take on board suggestions as a whole, which one would work within the structure of the club, and which ones the members are happy with. David Rennick and John Trotter (another board member who I spoke to at length last night) had met several times with Peter Lawrence and tried to meet with him half way. I should also point out that on principle Peter was in agreeance with many of the amendments. It wasn't feasible or appropriate for one member to take a "my way or the highway" approach - that isn't good governance. I was at the meeting last night. I thought it interesting that one conspicuous absence was Peter Lawrence.....

I realise talking about Hannan in a Hunter thread is getting off topic but I spoke to him in the preseason after this and told him no matter what happens to him for the rest of his career we'll all never forget this moment. He was thrilled. I asked him what he was thinking as he was getting closer to goal. He said if you have a look at it you can see me glance across looking for a better option. I really didn't want to kick it myself. He said the kick didn't go well off his boot and he was crapping himself it was going to miss. So his initial emotion was relief. Back on topic, I reckon by the end of next season we will be looking back on this trade and putting it up there with the Langdon trade as a quiet trade that turns into a massive bonus.

I doubt we'll hear much more from Peter Lawrence. He hasn't endeared himself to the broader membership and in my view has shown poor judgement in how he has gone about his nomination for a directorship last year and this constitutional review. I think his intentions are good, if misguided, but he can't be the figurehead for any future member led initiative. He's tainted

621 out of 45,000 eligible voting members is hardly significant. It's about 1% of the membership. I also wonder how many of those 621 voted no because they incorrectly thought they would be voting between the proposal put forward by the working party, and the proposal put forward by Deemocracy, not realising the vote would actually be between the working proposal and the status quo.

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members. It was the right thing to do.

What is your objective Dazzle? Is there a player you are particularly targeting or is it just "let's get an earlier pick and hope there is someone there we like"? I don't understand the desire to get earlier picks. Post the finals I read post after post lamenting that we didn't give many of the players at Casey a go in the seniors. These players didn't play in the final game against Brisbane - Bowey, JJ, JVR, TMac, Laurie, Howes, Turner and Chandler. All would have expectations of making a genuine claim for regular senior footy next year. This doesn't include JSmith, Tomlinson and Dunstan nor Hunter (Grundy for Jackson is like for like) or Schache. We have good senior depth and some good young players coming through who need a career path and we need to find out who can and who can't play. My view is we don't need anymore "fair average quality" talent (a pick in the 20's) and if we are going to be successful in the long term we need elite talent to come up under Oliver, Petracca etc. I take the opposite view to those wanting to trade up the board. If there is someone we really like at 13 then use it but if not, then we should trade it out for a future 1st. That would leave us with 3 firsts next year (and our future first) and two seconds. That is an astoundingly good position to be in and would allow you to 1) trade up for earlier picks in a very good draft, 2) attract and be able to satisfy a club for an elite talent , 3) just take 5 picks in the top 35 of a very good draft. We don't need to trade up for the sake of trading up. If there is a specific target then fine, if not we should play the long game.

Another 50-gamer!!! Try to get to Casey Fields this Saturday to cheer on our awesome team! ❤️💙 Match starts at 1:10pm. GO DEES!!!

As far as I can ascertain, there wasn't anything major, Tommy Mc had the bits of metal that were holding his foot together removed and kept them. Everybody else are posting pics of holiday and off season work

This I can't agree with. The club has over 66,000 members. It is not their responsibility to facilitate such requests to members. To what end? Peter, like every other member, was given an opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the consultation like any other member was. In fact I know for a fact Peter was afforded more attention from David Rennick than other members, in that he met with him one on one to discuss his proposals on a number of occasions. To say he was denied an opportunity is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc? If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members. There are 66,000 members at the club! One member is not more entitled than any other. And as stated a number of times, to what end? His model was not up for election. The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

I'm sure he's a great bloke, just going by his passion and financial contributions that we know of he comes across as a genuine and valuable supporter. But I don't agree with the above at all. He wasn't 'denied' anything other than having the club facilitate his communication for him. He has social media, he has a website, he seems to have considerable financial means - and members already knew plenty about him and 'Deemocracy' even before he got our contact details.

I agree with many that the club did the right thing challenging the request. The club also did the right thing not favouring one member's request to send materials. No issues here. You say peter wanted a fair constitution? I choose to belive he wants to stick it to the current board. His stupid "conversation" in the flyer mentioned items that had nothing to do with the constitution (e.g. home base, defamation proceedings). He has an agenda beyond the constitution...

Uhm… tucking a guernsey into shorts or any pants for that matter is a call 000 (fashion) police situation. There’s a bunch of stories about Harmesy all stemming from his unwavering loyalty to his teammates and his determination to protect them. This applies especially to Fritta since he and James are besties. Fritta calls James his bodyguard. 😁 Also, James does SO much for our Club. If there’s an event and we’re told “some of the players will be attending” this really means, “ Harmesy will be attending and maybe some of the other players.” True story.

Is your son under 18 by any chance WCW? It could be that? Going by this below, it at least looks like AFLW members would get to vote.

You have no understanding of the situation obviously. He never wanted the addresses in the first place, he was asking for the club to send out the information.

In my limited knowledge of this years crop, I can only get excited about Ginbey, Allen, Hollands, Hewett or Phillipou, aside from the sure-thing top 5 or so. Not sure which would be available at our pick, if any. I expect in 5 years time I’ll look back & shake my head at this.

I agree with that @Slartibartfast the trade up would have to be for a specific player we target. It's possible that there may be an elite role player (this isn't necessarily an oxymoron) early in the second round. I'm thinking particularly of a Hibberd replacement for example, who is not going to go at the very pointy end but does exactly what is needed for a role. I'm thinking about Hibberd himself at PSD #4 or say Dylan Grimes at PSD #2, recruiters are smarter now and I think they might have gone earlier these days.

A game plan thst relies on contested marking forward when we don't have any contested marking forwards. Great. I wonder if he's ever thought of a game plan that relies on quick transition to leading forwards?

Whilst I agree with you that some of the anti-Lawrence views on here are misguided (principally, comments on the privacy issues have been been overblown IMO), I also think that those who, like you, are aligned with Lawrence are misguided to an extent in your perception of the dispute. Do you really think it is "inexplicable" that a company might, at first instance, seek to resists handing out its members' personal information to a member who is known to be an agitator and who seeks to obtain that information to mass communicate with members who, according to the Club at least, don't want to receive the communication? You've leaned heavily on the Supreme Court outcome in Lawrence's favour, and clearly it suggests the law was on his side on the issue. However I've not seen any written reasons from the judge explaining the outcome, or declaring any particular orders. All I've seen is what was reported by Peter Ryan from The Age. What we know from his tweets and articles is that, at the first hearing on Wednesday, the issue was described as a "test case", and that a decision wasn't made on the spot. If the issue was as clear-cut as your post implies and Lawrence would want to argue, wouldn't the judge have made relevant orders on the spot at the first hearing? On the contrary, if it was actually described as a "test case" that would suggest there was some sort of arguable/unclear legal point. I wouldn't know either way as I'm not a company lawyer nor have I seen the judge's reasons; if there are written reasons and they're available to be shared, I'd love to see them. But I hardly consider it "inexplicable" that the Club took the position it took. And at the end of the day, the Deemocracy position was emailed to 40,000+ members prior to the SGM and posted to many thousands prior to the SGM as well.

As a matter of interest, do we know how many players (and who) have had post-season surgery? Similarly, who is going to have an enforced delayed start as they recover?

Ed Pascoe’s colourful draft rankings

Cal Twomey October rankings.

I'm guessing it was the articulate, good looking young man wearing glasses. Just oozed Demonlander. Oh, and introducing himself as George helped. 😉

I'd rather he went to The Goal Kicking Performance Centre

Yes, elevated conversation would be unavoidable and a great way for him to 'get the message' about what is going to be done to the opposition when they get out onto the ground!

Give him number 6 so his locker can be between Petracca and Viney.

And then there was this: Players will always have plenty of moments to remember and those they'd rather not. I believe Hunter also had a moment to forget in the GF, taking a bounce on the wing and having the ball bounce out of bounds. I think the game was done and dusted by then - last quarter?

The club’s jack-of-all-trades was almost lost to the club when invited to tour the facilities at the Hangar but wiser heads prevailed and the loyal Demon is back on board for a couple more years. "Harmes was linked to Essendon during the trade period with reports he was weighing up a trade request in pursuit of more midfield time, but he has remained a Demon and still has another two years to run on his deal at the club. Harmes played 21 games this year, including both finals." - Herald Sun Date of Birth: 5 October 1995 Height: 186cm Weight: 85kg Games MFC 2022: 143 Career Total: 21 Goals MFC 2022: 12 Career Total: 77 Games CDFC 2022: 3 Goals CDFC 2022: 0 Brownlow Medal: 2 votes

Yes, it was pretty much a slam dunk case, and that’s the way it played out in the Supreme Court. It was totally foreseeable for a well-advised board, and in that context Lawrence sought to get around any costs and necessity to access the addresses by asking the club to send out the material. The board refused, then pig-headedly wasted our money trying to defend the indefensible. Along those lines, Slarti, rank and file members might like to note Roffey’s contemptuous throwaway line about Snowy from Moe. Shame!

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them? Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members. I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals. In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors. The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve. In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections. The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them. Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances. The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature. Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would. The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't. Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson. This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly. A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle. It was a small but very symbolic thing. As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him. His treatment has been disgraceful.

While that's being sorted out, a side question: how does a 'communications' person qualify for a senior 'football' position? (cue 'It is Collingwood after all' jokes) p.s. But good on her: Onwards, greater balance in the AFL! p.p.s. And sn't it a credit to MFC and its systems, culture, etc, that we are fostering senior, promotable, adaptable people?

Nah. It shouldn't be up to the club to facilitate the agenda of every member. Demonland would shut down, we'd all be emailing the database with our opinions.

I don't want to debate all this because people have their views now and nothing I say will change those but standing for the Board is not "agitating". Secondly he didn't want the addresses, he want to give you ideas for amendments to the constitution and the Club stopped him doing that by refusing to send out his email to members. Anyway, we differ. I'd suggest you contact Peter, his email is in the public domain and he'll give you his telephone number and you can talk to him. Then you can decide if he's an agitator.

He’s the best deliverer of the ball inside 50 we have, and he’s almost the only player who looks for a hit up lead and not a bomb. You can’t be complaining about our forward delivery but then getting rid of guys who actually do something different with it. He only needs 4 kicks inside 50 for a game to make a massive difference.

I tend to agree. I don't think Peter Lawrence had any ill-intent, but I think his actions have alienated himself now from the rest of the voting members of the club. There's no doubting his passion for the club. But there's so much anger that's been generated from the last week.

No. Are we gonna go through the entire alphabet, Daise? Coz if we are, I need to cancel a couple of appointments.🤣

One of the reason why I'm not keen on Jefferson as well. Even at under 18's level he was still getting pushed put of the way too easily in contests. Yeah rightio. This makes sense now. I remember reading a big write up at the start of the year how he was going to be the number 1 key forward in this year's draft well before Cadman was ever discussed. Some fall from grace.

Of the two who have only AFLW membership, one is over 18 and the other is 17. But neither received anything. edit: my eldest just told me he has since changed his email and that’s why he wouldn’t have received anything. Mystery solved. 🙂

Spargo's "football smarts" are overrated. Sure, he can hit up a target from 30m, but his lack of football smarts means he can't find his own ball. In a team where our key forwards are instructed to bring the ball to ground if they can't mark it, Spargo's return of 10 goals is poor for a player that should be a crumbing forward. It would be disappointing if the likes of Chandler, Laurie and AMW weren't given the same opportunities that Spargo has had. Whilst I wasn't a huge Bedford fan, I could see that he had upside, but he's left for more opportunities. I fear that the other 3 could do the same if Spargo continues to get gifted games despite mediocre performances.

As a coach, there’s a ceiling to mid rotations, the guys just don’t want two min stints. There is also an actual rotation ceiling remember of 75. More teams will see that 5th bench spot as an opportunity to help their number 1 ruck and we have two of the top 4 rucks in the game.

There is a message to the board, most people are only interested in football, not your politics.

pretty sure junior and below members would be too young to vote many (all?) of these are probably lumped under someone else's email (my grand kids certainly are) there would also be members who are registered under their partners email (the one who pays) additionally there's probably a small number who either don't have an email address or haven't registered it with the club

Nasher all respect to you but please if you're going to respond to my Posts please represent them accurately. In my post I explained that the damage I suffered was caused by the hackers hijacking my email address and sending emails out using my email address. That was what caused all the problems not them sending emails to me. I don't know how it is done but it is a well known hack. It's clear from my post I talked about Optus and Medibank and Lawrence in the context of each ones cyber security. I didn't compare the type of data that is exposed. I also didn't say all my data. My grammar was poor when I said all our data what I meant was the data of all 66,000 of us. This is starting to go around in circles. In summary some people like you and Tim and Dr G evidently don't care at all about the risk of this data being in the hands of Lawrence and his faceless group. Others like me do care. I've asked for their details and a description of their cyber security. They ignored the requests. They are faceless and practice being unaccountable. There's plenty of other risks of having personal addresses and emails hacked. Maybe in a community of 66,000 there's domestic abuse sufferers who don't want their details exposed. Maybe people with personal security risks. Maybe these people like most of us didn't know that an MFC membership exposes their details to someone like Lawrence. He was given the option at the end of the court case for the club to send out his emails so our data wouldn't be at risk from him. He insisted on getting our data for himself. Why? Don't you think we should have a democratic right to decide where our data gets used and that right is greater than his right to pursue his personal agendas for the Club.

Make it 12 between the skip and best player in the league.

I'm happy to provide some ideas for Clare on how comms.could be improved at the mfc, should she be interested. Replying to emails from members would be one. Particularly those that are specifically about poor communication. Like the one I sent nearly three weeks ago and have yet to receive a response.