Harvey Wallbanger

They can. But when I listened in on the case I heard our Vice President give evidence that appointing casual vacancies immediately before elections wasn't looked upon favourably by members - it was perceived by members to give those appointees an unfair advantage. That is why the rule was changed. Having said all that, there is still nothing I can see on our website which shows what election rules are effective right now?

As a result of Mr Lawrence's efforts Ollie, guess what: 1. This year you will get an email from the Club advising you in advance of when nominations open - no need to subscribe to the Herald Sun and scour the classifieds. You can even nominate for the Board (there are spots up for grabs) - still have to find 20 endorsees though. 2. And after 1 October the Board cannot insert their preferred candidates onto the Board giving them an incumbency advantage going into the election. 3. If you make it to your 30 minute session with the Candidate Assessment Committee you wont be sitting opposite a majority of Board members. 4. And finally - you still can't "campaign" of course (no media circus you understand) but you can obtain a copy of the Members' Register and put your case directly to other members.

Not sure what sort of "chips" you are referring to Skuit. Deemocracy has been banging away on proper governance for four years. I have read the judgment. You're not quite right about "one primary issue". You may be interested to know that the judge was forced to adjourn the hearing mid-stream (with very much a nudge nudge wink wink) to allow the Board to go away and hold a Board meeting to remove a provision in the Election Rules that prohibited Board candidates from accessing the register of members so as to communicate with other members. This provision clearly contravened the Corporations Act and the Supreme Court case Lawrence won in 2022. I get your point about the Club wanting to avoid media circuses (they're doing a good job in that regard, right?) but a Board which adopts a rule prohibiting members from communicating with other members when a Board election is on tells you everything you need to know about their true objectives. It seems Lawrence wanted members to be able to talk to members - no media circus there. Do you really believe we would have ended up with anything approaching reasonable election processes without the case running its full course? Effectively the judge stared the Club down and between Days 2 and 3 of the trial (11 days) the Board scuttled away to "fix up their rules").

Your confusion comes from the fact that the Club has said nothing officially.....

Fair comments, but if Darren was of such a high calibre, and had spent a week at the Club, why is it only now that his involvement emerges - was Kate the impediment to an external review, as per the Whateley interview? (BTW still no confirmation of anything from our Club about it?). Are they just flying a kite?

Nice post. According to Jay Clark, Darren Shand already spent a week at the Club earlier in the season (Kate referred to this in the her fateful interview), so one could say he is "already on the payroll". His hasty inclusion in the process allows the Club to use the word "external" when it patently isn't. Reminds me of the Candidate Assessment process the Board used where candidates were interviewed by a majority of existing directors, with an executive recruitment specialist rubber-stamping the conclusions. That's played out well as Brad said, re the Board, will "be honest with each other about where we have succeeded and where we could have done better".

So nothing external when it comes to reviewing the Board or the admin?

If there is a review it has to be "top to bottom" as Whateley suggested to Kate. Nothing official from the Club yet. If it's happening, kudos to Deemocracy I reckon.

Just to repeat the earlier post. The $500,000 referred to earlier in the thread was 2020-22. Who knows what was spent on this last case - it went for 4 days in the Federal Court - the lawyers on this site could perhaps hazard a guess. The Club lost the case in 2022.

And how many surviving Board members were entrusted with implementing that plan? With Kate's departure and David Robb's retirement this year, the longest serving directors now are Brad Green and David Rennick (October 2020). With the CEO there since 2018.

The $500,000 referred to earlier in the thread was 2020-22. Who knows what was spent on this last case - it went for 4 days in the Federal Court - the lawyers on this site could perhaps hazard a guess.

Don't believe it was disputed. Rennick gave evidence on behalf of the Club.

You can request it.

See the first line.

From the 2023 Annual report The Club will launch our 2024 – 2027 Strategic Plan in February ahead of the commencement of the 2024 seasons. Our new President can now release it?

And this is how Mr Pert acts towards a member if you step out of line (from Lawrence's deposition in the recent Federal Court case): On 22 November 2022 at 12:30pm, I met with Mr Pert for a coffee at his request. During our meeting Mr Pert said words to the effect that: (a) MFC had incurred costs of some $500,000 in the last two years as a result of my actions in running in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 elections, and a separate proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria (in which I successfully obtained access to the register of members); and (b) there would be many ripple effects if I continued to agitate governance issues, such as player sponsorships (for example, my platinum sponsorship of Kade Chandler) no longer being offered to me, and my donations (such as my Club 11 donation for the development of Gosch’s Paddock) no longer being accepted by MFC. On or around 5 December 2022, I spoke to ....... who was coordinator of the Inner Sanctum and Player Sponsors, over the telephone. ...... informed me that I would not be offered the opportunity to renew my platinum player sponsorship of Kade Chandler in 2023.

Except that our last strategic plan promised the commencement of construction of our home base in the MCG precinct in 2023. Not a feasibility study, not a plan - but construction. And have you seen that strategic plan for 2024 - 2027?

Robb retires this year so just 5 Board members to "review". How are they doing? Discuss.

Exactly Adam. A review from "top to bottom" echoing Whateley's question. Top starts with the Board. First question - consider the decision-making within the Board that has led to protracted, costly legal cases in 2022, 2023 and 2024. Could they have been shortened or mediated. One won, one lost so far, and where did we end up? Were good decisions made? Were all Board members involved or was it delegated to one or two?

I suspect that the entire playing group was required for the team meeting (re Trac and BBB) immediately prior to training. It was a very gentle "flush" run so why not have a run around to show "institutional happiness"?

BBB's family were at the game, and Casey's season is now done, so I speculate that a decision has already been made. BBB will be having a nice holiday in the warmth this week - no farewell game.

The bummer is that both teams will be off 6 day breaks, but we will have travelled to the Gold Coast - Pies host the Lions at the G Round 23.

Disappointingly we are more than 10,000 below our 2020-23 Strategic Plan objective - Cozzie Livs I guess? Or something else?

We were, but scooping up Judd via the rookie draft was almost a Wilmot lookalike and we got Roo as a consolation prize - not bad!

One factor may have been a decision (I believe it was during the third quarter?) by the umpires to stop bouncing the ball. There had been a number of recalls during the game and even though there was no rain and this is the best oval in the country they made a decision to change that parameter of the game. Max seems suited to the unpredictability of the bounce (I believe he has said that before). Once the umpires took to just throwing it up Briggs took an aggressive position right on the line through the circle and Max was not jumping over him (perhaps related to his injury). Our centre clearance rate went south after that.