Harvey Wallbanger

But Petracca, Oliver and Pickett weren't for trading, were they? So a successful trade period is convincing our best players on long term contracts to not go anywhere else? I guess "considering recent events" is the key expression here.

And how did that go? It would be interesting to know what the "spin" was.

Who would know whether Melbourne want Oliver or not? They don’t seem to know themselves. From Peter Ryan's article in The Age. Fantastic summary of our position.

I think you will find F&T that the Federal Court legal action was taken in part because Pert told him, immediately after the Club lost the Supreme Court case against him, that the Club wasn't going to accept any further donations from him (or to allow him to continue to sponsor Kade Chandler). Another great call by the CEO.

So you have his number but haven't spoken to him DD? Very courageous of you. You trying to avoid the spin or the truth?

I agree re the hyperbole. Todd Patterson would also be in the group - reckon he is doing a solid apprenticeship for either of Jason or Tim's roles down the track.

Without jumping to any other conclusions, Ben stated that he was particularly attracted to the strong culture of our AFLW team. I can testify to that, and it no doubt that stems from the continuity provided by Mick Stinear (who Ben praised) and the list management of Todd Paterson - both having been in their roles from the foundation of our women's team.

Pert was not listed on the program in the same way as Brad Green was specifically listed to do the President's Address. Nor was Kate Roffey listed, but she spoke immediately after Brad. Pert was then introduced to handle the Retiree and Life Memberships Presentations. There was not a CEO's address as such.

He pronounced it "Pea Tracker" rather than "Pea Trarker". Tricky with the nickname Trac.

"Muted" would be the word I would use. Unfortunately he then said Ben Brown had worn the No. 38. Oops.

There was no intention in my original post of crusading FFD. You mentioned the Board has "voted". If indeed it came to a vote I would be interested to know when that vote took place and who made it? It's a pretty big decision - right? Kate departed on 6 Sep and Janette left on 30 Sep (replaced by Angela). So we now have a Board of 7 at a time when the Board is itself, being reviewed externally. Critical decisions and complex timing. If this review is happening in October will the review examine the decision you say has just been voted on by the Board? Any light you may be able to shed would be appreciated.

I wonder who "voted". The new doctor replaced Janette Kendall on 30 September. Was the vote after that? Did she vote - interesting first decision to make - with 7 members, she may even have had the casting vote.....

I was thinking about those numbers. Jack polled 407 votes - four judges, 23 games, average score 4.42. Max 405 votes, 21 games, average score 4.82. if I have this correct the judges are quite tough?

Trac won't be happy about that.....

I was there. A friend spoke to Clarry and asked him if he was enjoying his break. He replied that he was, up until the time he found out he was being shopped.

I notice the "now famous" former MFC member Ricky Dunn is getting a petition together to ensure the Pert review is in fact an independent review - via Reddit.

Pretty sure he wasn't in the School Book Depository building 🙂

Thanks for all those long posts Skuitt. I'll keep my post brief. 1. I am not being paid to post on Demonland. Is that clear? 2. Your conspiracy theory about dark forces, construction companies, etc (and you seem to be making a clear link to particular organisations) is simply not true. The DL administrators can make their own calls - but I would be cautious about some of those accusations. 3. Many of your assertions are attributed to Lawrence. His contact details are readily available - and it seems he is coherent and quite enjoys talking to other MFC members - based on other posters comments on here. Send him an email and report back.

Nice segue, so I take it that you now accept the truth about the prohibition on donations and player sponsorships. From your helpful link, is the key takeaway: Boards should take this judgement as a reminder to listen to dissenting members and address any concerns that arise with the membership as a whole. Could not have expressed it better myself.

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.