Harvey Wallbanger

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.

You can register to book tickets to the game through the Demon Army. The Queensland Demons are doing a pre-match brunch at Emerald Lakes - with further details to come. Try [email protected].

Looked like a classic corkie. First approach was a strapping on the thigh. Then run-throughs, one more attempt on ground then off and ice on. Then the bike.

We lost hit-outs by 16, but won clearance by 12.

The good oil is that Jeffo had Covid.

Brisbane were also off a 6 day break and travel from Adelaide.

(a) is not relevant because he was within 9 metres of the line. Arguable if there was immediate physical pressure, but due to the behaviour of the Geelong players the umpire judged (b) didn't apply. So, he had time and space and therefore should have disposed of the ball. I reckon it was the right call. The rule was brought in to stop all those rushed behinds Hawthorn conceded in a final - if I recall correctly. The wider problem is that that situation is not always paid.

To assist the debate here is the law. A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player: (a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; (b) is not under immediate physical pressure; (c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or (d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full. The umpire has decided that (c) applied, and not (b) as the Geelong players go passive....

Reckon 10 should have been 11....sigh!