Harvey Wallbanger

All noted but I was talking about the AGM minutes, not the regular Board meeting minutes. I don't see any harm in having reasonably deatiled AGM minutes including, for example, the slides that were presented during the meeting and a summary of the Q&A. The minutes prepared for the MCC AGMs are an excellent example of quality minutes. Re Board meetings why not have a summary of what the Board deals with at their regular meetings on the Governance page, whilst retaining confidentiality around any sensitive, or commercial-in-confidence matters.

Your considered contribution to this thread is to close it down? I guess you were quite pleased that the live stream stopped as Question Time commenced? You probably didn't want to hear from those pesky members daring to ask questions. 45.7% of members who voted on the Members' Resolution want open, fair and transparent elections - not enough though - BDA says let's just move right along..... The Company Secretary just announced the result - no comment or reaction from the Chair or the Board?

I suggest you ask the MFC Company Secretary to produce minutes of the meeting - something comparable to what the MCC produces would be nice - which would then include a summary of the Q&A. Minutes of last year's meeting were not available at the registration desk, and the Chair cited a resolution of an AGM in 1980 at item 2 to take the minutes of the previous year's meeting as read. My understanding is that the Company Secretary is required to produce minutes within 30 days of the meeting. Let's hope they will be placed on the Club's website under the Governance tab. There were around 6 or 7 questions, with the last question being from Jo McCoy, suggesting that the Club provide some type of members' forum or platform for respectful debate around the Board election. My recollection was that the President suggested that she would have a coffee with Jo.....or something like that?

Katrina, you will find that I was merely providing Jontee with some facts to answer his legitimate question regarding the presentation of the voting numbers. Happy to discuss any of those facts which you may dispute. Oh, and the muzzling during the election is also an indisputable fact (it's in the MFC Election Rules) - as was pointed out by Jo McCoy's question to the Board at the meeting - oh, but those watching the live stream didn't get to hear that..... So they didn't get to hear from Jo DURING the election and (unless you were at the G on Monday night) you don't get to hear from her AFTER the election. Nice one.

One way to look at it is that Rennick and Kendall polled around 4,500/4,600 ticks (my guess) on the coat-tails of the President, with just over 6,000 voting in total (less than 15% of voting members bothered). Those inclined to vote for Reed and McCoy probably gave Roffey their third tick, giving her that 94% figure. The main takeaway is that most members didn't bother (not helped by the Candidates being muzzled by the MFC Election Rules). The move to electronic voting did not seem to increase the vote materially from the past two years (an increase of less than 1,000). So it is still the 'oldies', who filled in the postal ballot in the last two years, who are voting.

Correct - they present the results as a percentage of voters who placed a tick next to each candidate's name. It would be so much simpler to just list the total number of ticks received.

It seems the main discussion arising from the AGM surrounds the home base, with spirited discussion about it on this thread. I was interested in some governance aspects of the meeting, namely: 1. Very little advertising/prompting of members re the meeting on the website. 2. Very little information about how the live-stream would work - no questions taken from those who viewed from afar. 3. At the meeting, no copy of last year's AGM minutes available. 4. Problems with the audio on the live stream and then it cut out before Question Time and the Members' Resolution count? 5. No numbers disclosed re the Board Election (just percentages - why?) and yet the website has published the FOR/AGAINST figures for the Members' Resolution of 1575/1868 (45.7%/54.3%), a total of 3,443 votes. 6. Reed and McCoy polled 22.6% and 19.8% respectively. They had no chance - no electioneering allowed and an endorsement for the three candidates by the Board to ALL MEMBERS on the Friday before the election closed. 7. And yet more than double that percentage of voters sent a message to the Board that they want fair, open and transparent elections. Will they hear the message? Or will they listen to the 1,868 (maybe 4% of the voting base?) who said 'you can choose who you want'.

I agree. the nature of the exercises he was doing (high knee lifts) suggest a problem with the hip flexor....

For match sim (apart from Salem, Dunstan, Fritsch, Melksham and Woewodin mentioned earlier) - Adams, Brown and J Smith sat it out. I see Essendon are taking 35 up to Gold Coast for 6 x 25. I guess we also play that number on Friday?

Just bad luck I suppose.....

Yes it would, but I wonder if the HS information has come from the Club or the AFL, given George has been lacking information from the Club this year? From my previous posts you will appreciate I doubt the accuracy of these membership numbers in respect of all clubs.

HeraldSun reports (p 60) that we are on 44,552 members - 11th - (with a target of 75,000). Interesting that Collingwood and West Coast (in the top 3 around 100,000) are listed as 'did not divulge'. The AFL holds all the records, so treat it all with caution.

A fantastic read! Particularly for Demonlanders who have followed most, or chunks of, those 57 years.

Yep - smooth mover - good size.

Kade Chandler.

AGM is on Monday, 20 February 2023 at the Olympic Room, MCG at 6.30 pm.

No question about that. Tick, tick, and another tick. Well done Football Department. Now, MFC Facilities Working Group, back to those meetings with Government?

Sheesh. So the next Strategic Plan we receive from the Board and Management we should regard as a 'North Star' statement, a far-off objective - no accountability (or at least an explanantion) for its non-implementation?

Strategic Plan 2020-2023 'The new Melbourne Football Club home will be created. We will unite administration and the football department into the one facility for the first time in recent history. This facility will be constructed near the MCG, our spiritual home, our home ground. A social club will be established to enhance the match day experience and provide a formal place for our club functions and events.' 'Commence construction on new Melbourne home base facility'

CP5 is indeed doing 'leadership things'. Encouraging extra off-season sessions, etc....

I understand David Watts moved up to Queensalnd in 2021.

Dave Regan

Replacement of someone who has left - a bigger and better job in the USA apparently....

Apologies for the detail, but best to be accurate. From the Company Secretary: 'I am also informed that all of the eighteen football clubs that participate in the AFL have a similar membership data arrangement with the AFL. When a customer applies to purchase a MFC membership product online, MFC's online application process is directly linked and managed by Ticketmaster and all data is uploaded onto the Archtics database..... If a customer applies to purchase a MFC membership through some other means (for example by contacting MFC over the phone or by applying through a third party affiliate) then the membership data is still recorded into the Archtics database.....'

They will only be able to give you the number if they in turn ask the AFL. All Clubs' membership data is held by the AFL, via Ticketmaster. Whilst you are dealing with MFC staff when you sign up or renew - the system it is logged onto belongs to the AFL.