Graeme Yeats' Mullet

The extra time for President seems reasonable Clearly this is a large part of the impetus for changing the constitution now rather than waiting, in that Roffey is doing a pretty good job and there's a desire for her to stay. Can't see that alone would cause much issue for anyone Makes me question further why there would be a desire to roll in contentious nominations proposed changes and cloud this pretty reasonable and time sensitive proposed change

Correct It's the Board version or nothing at the moment I like most of the board's proposed changes, but I dislike the key changes to Nominations processes Before the Board chose to actively campaign against a candidate last election I was relatively disinterested in the whole topic, and probably would have remained so. But that series of events irked me, and the Board's proposal to impede similar candidacy and then reaction to further agitation has continued to raise questions for me

Yep An email is more private than address in many or most cases, and Privacy policy appears on face value to allow club to share emails (or they could send info on behalf) And clearly a benefit of the Board's approach to not share emails is making it hard for the Naysayer to get his message out, perhaps a good tactic, but "protecting privacy" is a stretch...

Thanks Interestingly the MFC Privacy Policy seems to expressly permit the use of contact details for normal business of the club (among many other things... like sharing with sponsors and "partners") Excerpt --- The AFL and AFL Clubs collect, hold, use and disclose your personal information for purposes including, without limitation: ..... to provide you with information about events, products and/or services that may interest you; to facilitate the internal business operations of the AFL and the AFL Clubs; to promote and market AFL events, products or services; to undertake research; to enable corporate partners and sponsors of the AFL, including AFL Clubs and the AFL’s digital rights partner Telstra, as well as their related bodies corporate, to market and promote their products and services to you;

Agree, very sensible approach My questioning of the MFC approach is based on suspicion at the defensive approach

Sounds like, if true, Judge has a practical and sensible approach in mind. Suggestion that Club sends email and no information needs to change hands is a great idea And for those referring to privacy policies, if you read it (AFL generic for all Clubs) it's pretty loose about providing details to "partners" etc I'm not familiar with requirements of Corp Law, (2001), but maybe someone who is can advise whether the provisions that allowed the club to provide postal details are firm, or whether they can be interpreted in various ways to allow practical contact details to be provided? Ridiculous that postal addresses can be provided under Law and not emails - either way the misuse of either surely attracts a penalty

So club email advises: In response to the proposed amendments to the constitution, the Club received a written request from the relevant member to access the Club's members register. The Club is required under the Corporations Act to provide your name and postal address to the member. An application has now been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria, by the same member, seeking access to additional member information, including email addresses. The Club is committed to protecting your privacy and is contesting this application. We have engaged legal counsel to appear in court today on behalf of the Club and will do everything we can legally to limit access to the personal information. So Corporations Act require postal address (in many cases no doubt a residential address) but club committed to protecting privacy by not sharing email addresses 🤷‍♂️ Clearly an attempt to prevent timely communications to member base....

I dislike the proposal to increase the requirement for 20 members to support a nomination (rather than 2) We don't currently have a frequent issue with frivolous nominations for committee causing contested elections, and that being costly, which is the justification. And with e-voting (a proposed amendment) the cost of any contested election is significantly reduced. Additionally, formalising a nominations subcommittee and leaving the charter for the board to determine seems another barrier. So no real problem, and reduced costs, and ability of incumbent board to favour preferred candidates through nominations subcommittee if there is a contested election - makes me concerned this is about board representation being controlled by board not the membership The rest of the amendments are fine, but cloud the nominations issues IMO

They're posturing... We should do the same Postpone any Weed trade until Grundy done and dusted Can Weed become a poor man's Cam Pedersen... 🤷‍♂️ Loved 2018 Pedersen ❤️💙

Was spotted yesterday training hard, running session, by himself in a local park in Melbourne Working hard while others are enjoying an off season break, good on him for having the drive to further his career

🖊🗒 ⚖️ 📐.... 📟... Carry the 1 ✅️ https://www.afl.com.au/news/52273/inaugural-giant-joins-dees-as-free-agent-compensation-revealed ❌️ 5 year deal https://amp.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dees-nab-tomlinson-in-giant-trade-20191007-p52ygs.html 🤷‍♂️

No I think it's against their religion 🤔

While I'm sure a significantly larger shift in culture for First Nations students, those statements apply for any student...

Should have asked him to make that choice a day or two ago maybe 🤷‍♂️

Wow Yze dodged a bullet... Seriously that joint is cursed

I get that most of Harmes' strengths we have plenty off, and he's coverable in many aspects But the tagging element I feel is somewhat a competitive advantage for him, has been very useful against strong mids

Loved his running style If WCE can sharpen his disposal, he'll be weapon for them

Essentially yes, you're correct We should also recognise it provides context and different perspectives that can help broaden understanding

No just responding to Lord Nev's sarcasm... following on from his criticising me of diminishing the current allegations, for calling out the way Caro presented the historical context, and the label "fresh allegations", where the book is 4 years old (and Caro wasn't reporting outrage at the time) and the fresh perspectives of non-indigenous players who stressed their experiences "should not be compared to those published in the cultural safety review" If it were a more balanced and proportional reporting of historical context - I'd be fine with it... But that wouldn't present as strongly in support of the current narrative and drive headlines.

Pretty ordinary comments from Kennett here I thought Seems he's looking to discredit accusers on process? Regardless of substance Didn't Hawthorn set up the process? Therefore it's his or HFC lack of foresight responsible for the mess now...

2018... Where was all the outrage from Caro then? https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mitch-in-the-works-20180803-p4zve4.html

Noticed that too... "Seized" is an interesting choice of words. I wonder if the "seizing" involved a routine request for relevant information and the helpful compliance of those providing the information?

I've found it interesting the backlash at the allegations that HFC intervened in the home living arrangements for one (or more?) of those laying accusations. I understand that football clubs routinely advise (or require) certain living arrangements and have role dedicated to developing players off-field, even today... I'm waiting to understand the context, and if there was a lack of cultural sensitivity that meant indigenous players as a group weren't treated appropriately. Or whether it was one individual circumstances not treated appropriately. Or another explanation... Time may tell? (Or may not)

I think these two takes are a strong potential to be the competing narratives coming out of any further investigation My guess is that any allegations are based in (at least some level of) fact. But context and different individual perspectives aren't yet clear and will be important But I can’t see a situation where context or varied perspectives can explain the accusations of pressuring family planning decisions... If that's in any way true, then those responsible are likely irreparably damaged

Garbage, and you know it I have no idea what happened here, and have stated that above. Neither do most people btw Simply calling out this story doesn’t add fresh allegations, and the story also admits the experiences spoken of should not be compared to those published in the cultural safety review... But written in a way to give the impression she's added to the case against Clarkson You are right, tho, that I don't rate Caro, because of articles like this