Harvey Wallbanger

It is Paragraph page 145 of the judgment. Yes, it is the judge's summary of closing submissions, but the statements made here and in affidavits and under cross examination were not challenged by the MFC. Are you suggesting that the prohibition of donations and player sponsorships is not true?

Happy to help you out - from the judgment itself: In closing submissions, Mr Peters also referred to (a) the fact that certain members of the board had attempted to dissuade Mr Lawrence from contesting elections; and (b) the decision of the board to no longer accept donations or player sponsorship from Mr Lawrence, which he described as the club’s “punishment” of Mr Lawrence for his continuing to run in elections.

DD, I can't be sure which track you are on, but it is definitely heading in the wrong direction.....so I politely suggest you stick to the topic, which is broadly about how the MFC Board is compiled on this Review thread.

So you believe the independent review is now complete and one of the recommendations was for Janette Kendall to depart due to lack of performance? It's the 1st of October and the Board said: "The reviews of both the AFL program and the Board will be completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members." And I wonder what Janette Kendall thinks about you suggesting she "wasn't performing". She sat on the Constitution Review Committee in 2022, joined the Board in December 2022 and then was Chair of the Club's Election Committee and a member of the Supporter Forum Working Group. completed in October and the priorities identified will be communicated to our members.

What did we entrust this Board to do? Surely Janette Kendall could have held on for a couple of months until the AGM (she has not served two years yet). But we know why the switch takes place right now. Talk about "on the nose". A little more from the cross examination of our Vice President: Yeah. They said it was on the nose, didn’t they? Members said the casual vacancies was on the nose?---Yes, they did. Yes. What did they mean by that?---it didn’t look good. It was giving – it had the potential to be seen as giving those candidates an unfair advantage. And that’s why we changed the rule. Well, that’s what Mr Lawrence had been saying for a couple of years, hadn’t he?---Yes.

Testimony from the MFC Vice President in the Federal Court in May: But you want to continue with the practice of casual vacancies for board elections?---I wouldn’t have thought so. Why not?---Because our members have told us that they don’t like it. But the rules still allow for it?---It does.

Me too?

Members have been told to wait for the results of our external reviews to drop? They may then be consulted about buying a membership. Say end of October?

Love it. The Great and the Good will decide what is good for us. We weren't even having an external review (or two) a month ago. Then a light was shone on the place and (blink of the eye) the President departed. No need to share anything with the members. It's all going swimmingly. Relax - the remaining Board members have it all under control.

"Quietly, behind the scenes". Gee that sort of approach has worked well during the last three years. Three current Federal Court cases on foot with suits against the current President (until the Board vote again later this year), the current Vice President (twice), a retiring director (twice) the immediate former President (twice), a former director and two other current directors (once).

Just wondering if anyone knew how our external reviews were going? We know Darren Shand is helping out Gary Pert and Brad Green reviewing the Football Department. Anyone know who the unnamed "external independent expert" is who is helping the Board examine itself?

I feel we need to get to the bottom (or is it the top?) of this!

You're right - GWS list him as 194 cm - earlier reports had him at 197 cm. Lost an inch somewhere along the way. 🙂

197 cm actually

Welcome back Kev. Beasley did an ACL Kev so you won't see her for a while.

One for the AFL Integrity Unit for sure! Or did Mr Dillon just read it out incorrectly?

And then the Big O does his shoulder. Grundy is blessed - oh well, over to you Darcy Fort.

Saturday 28 November 2026 apparently.

I think Brody is the Swans' biggest weakness next weekend. Longmire will hope that they play Geelong rather than Brisbane. I thought Sweet monstered Brody tonight. The Swans were smashed in clearance.

Did you read the extract? - We got to the second stage of a feasibility last time. Don't get me wrong. I hope it happens - but please keep us informed. The members might actually be able to help. There are a lot of us.

Oh dear - I thought we had that side of politics covered? Who does he barrack for?

Extract below from the end of year 2022 Annual report: The Club continued discussions regarding a long-term Training & Administration Facility, participating in second stage feasibility study with the Victorian State Government on a site within the Melbourne & Olympic Parks precinct. Securing an appropriate outcome is a strategic priority of the Club, however it is a long-term project that can only move at the speed determined by the Victorian State Government given our requirement for land and funding. We thank the Victorian State Government and AFL for their continued support as we pursue a long-term home for the Club. You may be thinking about the proposal to build over Jolimont station which got scotched in the time frame you mentioned. The extract above does remind us of the distance between a feasibility study (that one had a second stage!) and construction commencing......and/or nothing happening at all.

So no-one should resign? So no accountability for the CEO who has been there since 2018 and penned a 4-year strategic plan suggesting construction commencement in the MCG precinct in 2023? There may be good reasons why that didn't/hasn't happened, but the members haven't been told? Is that possibility officially dead? - I suspect Yes. Please tell us - or is the MCG precinct Plan B? Any of this home base failure part of the external reviews going on? Perhaps not - because one review is of the Board itself and most of them have been there 3 years or less (so can claim the last plan wasn't theirs). And the other review is of the football department. Guess who isn't specifically being reviewed?

Thank you for standing down Skuit. And Whispering Jack, I am not being paid to post on this site, so please don't send me a bill. 🙂

I hear he wants to but he's not allowed to.