Harvey Wallbanger

The other positive re the Caulfield development is that I understand the AFL are looking at co-locating the umpires there. Presently, they get shunted from venue to venue at the moment and if there is plenty of space at Caulfield (and there is!) that might rationalise the AFL throwing some money that way.

Not a very nice view of the members rpfc. Keep them in the dark - feed them a different type of "bullplop". It's The Melbourne Way of Board construction. Working brilliantly for us at the moment.

She did play.

Apologies for weighing in again FFD but the MFC did not have a Governance page at all until Lawrence first nominated back in 2020.

FFD, none of the other Victorian AFL clubs prohibit public discourse during a Board election in the manner we do. As mentioned elsewhere on DL the judge said Lawrence's position on this campaigning point was "not unreasonable" but it wasn't the judge's prerogative to overrule the Board on that point. You need not worry about disparagement as this was not a material point of disagreement. When we do finally see the Club's Election Rules for this year - still nothing on the website - they will likely contain a convoluted process where a member can ask questions of a candidate but the questions and answers are all to be chanelled through the Company Secretary.

I recall Whateley interviewing both Nankivell and Gowers when the Hawthorn election was on. The world didn't come to an end. I reckon members would welcome it.

It certainly is worth that debate. But where the Club has landed on the campaigning point is that candidates for the MFC Board election later in the year would not be able to be interviewed by Gerard Whateley about their platform for a better Club. A public interview like that would be against the rules.

So you haven't read it either? Your statement is plainly incorrect.

Have you read the judgment Ollie? Didn't think so. Those members that attended (all four days) said they were ashamed of their Club

Jaded - I think you missed the bit "I loved the flag". Let's not compare my love to your love of this club. This is the Training Ground thread.

I'm sorry but I think what I read here is that we can be saved by spin. The reality is we have a poor Board (appalling decision-making), and a poor CEO, and nobody can spin us out of that. We, the members need to change our governance. It can be done. The reviews were going to be "internal", and run by the CEO, right up until the fateful interview by our former President. It was the members that turned it "external", not the spin doctors. Long live the members. You have the power! Because these reviews are not external, they are not independent - clearly just the CEO trying to save his job. Look up (the Board), look down (the Football Department), but don't look in the mirror.

Works OK when everyone is in a hub. And we have to wait for the Bulldogs to quarantine. I loved the flag, but when the situation returns to normal.....

Can we expect "Results of feasibility study concludes that someone spending lots of money constructing two football ovals inside the racecourse and a home base on the outside of the track is consistent with the master plan of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust"? Months later than promised. MFC can now release its Strategic Plan to its members......construction of our home base commences on....? Any prospect of the Club being in the MCG precinct officially pronounced dead.

Well said Kent and Speed said - "Gerard I took a look at the website last night and they seem like a very capable lot." A quick desk audit by Malcolm, knowing he was on air the next day. Let the members decide later this year (or earlier?) how they are doing as a collegiate body. Only one of them up for re-election unfortunately. But Robb and Roffey need to be replaced......will casual vacancies be filled before 1 October?

And while you are reading it Ollie take a look at para 143. The judge said: "He (Lawrence) says, for example, that candidates seeking election to the board should be free to give media interviews and use and have unrestricted access to websites and social media that can be viewed by the general public. And those views are not unreasonable. But, as the cases make clear, it is not the court’s role in oppression cases to be an arbiter of competing views about such matters." So I reckon the judge quite likes free and open elections but he concluded that it wasn't his job to overrule the Club on this final point.

When exactly should he have "quit while he was ahead". The Board was changing election rules in the middle of the hearing (the judge actually adjourned the proceeding to allow that to happen) and made another amendment after the case closed. I suggest you read the judgment Ollie. The judge said: The hearing of the proceeding was somewhat of a “moveable feast”, because further amendments were made to the rules during, and after, the trial, which had the effect of further narrowing the matters about which Mr Lawrence complained.

I reckon you listened to a different interview to the rest of us....(on cue?)

The Chair of the Audit, Risk and Integrity Committee is up for re-election this year.

Don't think so. In the Whateley interview, Kate was emphatic that there was no external review required, and she mentioned the All Black involvement during the season. Can't know for certain of course, but I reckon Mr Shand got a quick call soon afterwards when the Board eventually accepted the obvious point that an internal review would not cut it.....

Lachie Whitfield.

In the nicest possible way he was saying it was "debateable" as to whether Pert should be involved in the Footy Department review......

OK, I'll try to be a little more perceptive - "I want to make a comment about the CEO, could he please leave the room?"

Perhaps Brad did ask some tough questions about the Footy Department this year but was told by the CEO to stay away from that area - you're a Board member, not on the executive. But now he's the President....he has a bit more authority? And re your first line let me just check how this works - a player from the senior leadership group enters a room and sits down with Mr Shand, Mr Green and Mr Pert and then declares that he has a problem with Mr Pert?

Thank goodness we now have term limits (since 2022).

You might say Essendon haven't benefited from it yet, but their recent review involved Brendan McCartney, Jordan Lewis with EY coordinating it. So players and staff could respond openly in their interviews to respected external AFL folk. That's an external review.