titan_uranus

This is a point that I think Deemocracy have quite cleverly concealed through the use of their own model Constitution. This is not a vote between the Club’s proposed changes and Deemocracy’s. It’s a vote between making the Club’s proposed changes or making no changes at all. If the 75% threshold isn’t reached, the motion fails and no changes are made. We are then back at square 1. It is implicit in their position that Deemocracy would prefer that than to have the Club’s changes go through. Of all the changes, the only one of major difference is the 20 member support for nominations. Holding up the entire Constitutional reform over that is, in my view, dangerous.

@george_on_the_outer are you able to identify the members of Deemocracy other than Lawrence? Or explain why they haven’t identified themselves? Seems at odds with their stated intention to seek transparency.

There seems to be a little inconsistency between the Club’s version of events and Lawrence’s. Lawrence is quoted in The Age as saying: “We were very conscious of data privacy. I don’t want members’ details, either email or postal addresses...so we said ‘if you don’t want to give us the register let us at least send our message out’ and they said ‘no’,” The Club’s email says: “At the Supreme Court hearing the Club offered that should the Court find in the member’s favour regarding the provision of member email addresses, that the Club could facilitate the circulation of this email on their behalf. This offer was rejected by the member.” I’m not sure these can both be accurate.

Bucs, Chiefs, Giants

I would be interested to know whether Lawrence’s attempt to communicate with members is going to have the opposite effect to what he wants. The Club has emailed members this afternoon, post-judgment. The email says more than 350 people have complained to the Club about the disclosure of their details to Lawrence. No idea if that’s statistically significant given we have 65,000 members but I wonder how many members either know about all this and dislike it, or will receive the email and dislike it upon receipt, and whether that group will outweigh the group who vote against the amendments because of the emails.

The Age is reporting that Peter Lawrence is taking the club to court to get members’ details. @george_on_the_outer - do you want to address that? I am not sure I support the cost and distraction this will cause.

Bucs, Bengals, 49ers

Yes to all of your questions. Players should make their own history. Barassi wore 31. He didn't "move to a good number".

Remember, we didn't start this trade period with pick 27, we traded for it. So it's actually 33, 43 and 53 for Grundy (with Collingwood paying some of his salary). But if you believe the club, we had no intention of ever using 43 and 53. Which really mean, when it all boils down to it, we spent pick 33 and got Grundy (with Collingwood paying some of his salary). Will it work? Who knows. I'm keen to find out. We're paying a reasonably large contract to get him, but we certainly spent very little draft capital compared to his established talent.

Nah I can't get around it, ever. If you come to the club and get 47, make it yours. Geelong's premiership 22 had O'Connor in 42, Stewart in 44, Close in 45 and Blicavs in 46. None of them have felt compelled to "move down" to a "better" number.

And you know that how? The report of the trade mentions that Port Adelaide, GWS and Geelong were all interested but that Grundy dismissed each as he didn't want to leave Melbourne.

I'm so surprised at the number of posters who keep asking questions about Gunston. He was never a chance of coming here, or going anywhere other than Brisbane.

Deal done. Pick 27. No suggestion of later pick swap/slide. Only question is how much of his salary they'll pay.

So long as no current MFC player changes jumper number, which is the most ridiculous thing football players and clubs do.

The winner of this year's Brownlow is from WA but plays for Carlton (Cripps). Runner up in the Brownlow is from SA but plays for Brisbane (and once wanted to go "home"...to Perth) (Neale). Third in the Brownlow is from Victoria but plays for Gold Coast (Miller). Fourth in the Brownlow is from Victoria but plays for Fremantle (Brayshaw). Last year's Brownlow was won by a Victorian playing for Port Adelaide (Wines). Equal 5th last year was the St Kilda captain who is from the ACT (Steele). Equal 7th last year was another Victorian playing for Port Adelaide (Boak), and equal 9th was a Lion from Victoria (Lyons).

Collingwood saying they are prepared to keep Grundy is a classic, but wholly transparent, negotiating ploy. They can see we just traded Jackson. They perceive we're more desperate to get Grundy. They know we now have pick 13. So they try to scare us into upping our bid. But does anyone actually think they will keep him? They've treated him like dirt. They've just signed McStay to a reported $600k salary. They've brought in Bobby Hill. They want Tom Mitchell and his contract. And they are digging their heels in on Ollie Henry too. Does anyone think they will risk retaining Henry or getting Mitchell, and/or re-signing whoever is out of contract next year, just to retain a ruck they have made clear for months they want to move on from?

Hunt wasn't a trade. He exercised his free agency rights. We traded a bunch of picks we were not going to use in order to get one we will eventually use. If that doesn't constitute improving our list then no pick swap could ever improve our list. Now you're complaining about a "potential deal for Tomlinson", the details of which don't exist. Surely if he's 5th in line for a key defensive role next year but on $500k, you can see how trading him might improve our list? And whilst I don't know if trading Weideman is the right move, we barely played him all year and the proposed pick is in the 3rd round.

You assume in all this that Jackson had made his mind up prior to last year's trade period that he wanted to go home. How do you know that? He was barely 20 years old last year's trade period. It's not exactly incredulous to think that he might not have known what he wanted to do at that age. So long as he hadn't told us he had already made his mind up, we were always going to back ourselves in to convince him to stay. Who knows how likely or unlikely it was 12 months ago that he might have committed to a longer contract. Also, how do you know he never had discussions with West Coast?

He had a contract with us for 2022. He honoured it. That was the right thing for him to do. As Jimmy said earlier, your posts on the topic are incredibly childish from someone who should know better.

Getting in early before I forget: 49ers, Eagles, Chargers

If you accept the Club when it says we weren’t going to use 43 or 53, then this deal is smart. Super smart.

I don't like him, and I don't rate him. It's a hard no from me.

I like Harmes more than many, given he is a mid with versatility. But his limitations are the reason we struggle - bad decision making, bad kicking. A lot we don’t yet know, such as whether the club is on board with him leaving, but currently I’m 50/50 on this one at the moment.

This reads, like almost all of your posts, as complaining for complaining's sake. In the same post you say you don't like Bedford, but then criticise the club for failing to do something more/different to keep him. Presumably had we done so you would then have criticised the club for giving another year/contract to a player you don't like and who we don't play very often.

Ah sorry I missed this week! Mind you, I'm pretty sure I'm on 0 so far so it probably won't have made too much difference...