Spaghetti

Isn’t this a MCC issue?

Why would the club publicly release this information?

I don't need to see the judgement. There is no other way a judge could interpret those provisions to say the club is required to hand over an email address. 2001 is the year of this act. The same or similar provisions appeared in predeccesor state Acts. I guarantee those were drafted well before emails existed. Likewise, the existence and use of emails (by some of the population at least) doesn't change the high likelihood that parliament did not intend, at that time, for email addresses to form part of the member register.

No, the court didnt "confirm" that. Without having seen the judgement, they must have interpreted the requirement to hand over a member's "address" as including both their postal address and email address. When these provisions were first drafted, emails wouldn't have even been a thing. The court is merely interpreting the word and requirement from a modern perspective. Sucks for the majority of us that would never want our details handed over to someone like this guy.

You sound like the type of person who would defend government surveillance of their own citizens with “you shouldn’t care if you have nothing to hide”. You are clueless, champ.

Does his letter actually say this? I suspect my letter went to a PO Box which I rarely check. If so, that’s disgraceful. People like him should be kept as far away from the MFC board as possible. We have had decades of ego driven men causing dissent and division on our board. We are as stable and successful as we’ve been for a very long time. People like him should [censored] off.

…with our CONSENT! How is this difficult to understand?

Disagree with this completely. The club doesn’t have money or time to put constitutional changes to a vote every few months until it’s “100% acceptable”. If the changes broadly improve things on balance, they should be approved. If people are aiming for perfection, they will get nothing.

I would have thought the difference is obvious. I consent for my information to be given to sponsors. In fact, I opted out of sponsor emails so I don’t even get those.

I stand 100% with the Board on this issue. I’d be furious if they gave out my email address without asking me. Especially if not required to by law. Lots of people here seem so willing to give up their personal information… it’s bizarre.

Clubs changes look good to me. I’m sure the majority of members won’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Not that I even think these other proposals are necessarily “perfect” mind you. If this other group want to make further improvements, they can make the case to do so later.

Honestly, just some forwards (or even just one) that can take a contested mark consistently.

It's laughable that Jack Crisp could be crowned player of the finals having played in two finals losses. Of course the loading should help a Sydney or Geelong player take the lead, but the leading Swans/Cats are a fair way back as it stands.

These players aren’t just nominating clubs out of the blue. There has been months of discussions behind the scenes. Quite simply, they don’t nominate us because we aren’t interested in them and/or we don’t have cap space for them. If we were constantly being reported as being in the hunt for players and missing out… then that would be a different story. But I haven’t seen that reported anywhere.

His two shots from the boundary in the EF were vintage Reiwoldt. He is still better than most of our forward options