Jump to content

Lord Nev

Members
  • Posts

    6,695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Posts posted by Lord Nev

  1. 9 hours ago, Lefty said:

    For the post to be deleted by the club someone was offended. It might not be Kozzy but the “Thick” reference could be interpreted as fat shaming or body shaming and the club is just being PC about it. 

    Perhaps Kozzy came back out of shape, not my opinion as I think he looks to be in beast mode, but maybe he came back a bit heavier but social media didn’t get the memo and posted what they did and then were asked to remove it either by Kozzy or the FD. 

    Anyway this is all purely conjecture and probably has no bearing in reality. 

    On Kozzy's shape/size, it seems all according to plan, so wouldn't think he's in any way out of shape:

    “The plan is different for everyone, (and) for Kozzie it was to actually put on a bit more size,” GM of football Alan Richardson said.

    Melbourne Demons eyeing new midfield weapon with bulked-up Kozzie Pickett ready to explode

    As far as the social post goes, I think people are going a bit overboard with the theories here, it was a harmless comment. Given Kozzy has deleted all his insta posts though, you could possibly throw a guess out there that he's decided to pull out from social media for a little while, which is pretty common, and the club deleted the post to go along with that. Could just be a 'social detox' thing or perhaps something happened, but either way only thing that matters is that everything is ok for the young bloke.

     

    • Like 3
    • Clap 1
  2. 2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    I've always been troubled by what professional full-time umpires would be expected to do all week when not actually umpiring. However, perhaps there's room for a hybrid model with one (or maybe two) professional umpires as senior umpires in each game with three (or two) non-fulltime umpires making up the full complement. The full-time umpires program during the week could include teaching the non-full time umpires, visiting club training to educate teams and work with other leagues (VFL, suburban, country) to help their umpires.  

    Same thing full-time footballers do all week - Fitness training, skills training, reviewing and planning etc. They do a lot of that already, it's quite intensive, so being full-time would elevate all of that to an even more professional level IMO.

    • Like 1
  3. 26 minutes ago, monoccular said:

    Surely if the three maggots can’t get it right, and occasionally contradict one another, enlarging the cesspit won’t produce better maggots, only more of lower quality. 

    Really think it's time we moved on from this kind of language about umps.

    • Like 9
  4. 6 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Good point made about decision-making. It might be worth asking who at the Club made the decision not to avoid any privacy issues by putting out this Deemocracy alternative view when the SGM was called - it seemed to be quite a considered view. Then who at the Club made the decision to fight an unwinnable case on addresses, and protract the fight - with members' money.  At least it seems he was using his own resources.

    I' m glad they challenged it, and seeing member feedback on socials it seems the vast majority of members were too.

    'Deemocracy' have managed to destroy their own agenda with their own hands. Just goes to show it takes more than passion and money to positively impact a football club.

    Have a good one!

  5. 10 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    It's the law, has been for some time. Another pesky inconvenience that. Suggest you read the Supreme Court decision when it is published.

    You're certainly an expert at missing the point. Nowhere did I say it wasn't the law, I merely stated Peter Lawrence (or any member for that matter) can obtain the member contact details whenever they wish. That's correct isn't it?

    Pretty clearly your mate has got a large number of members offside with that effort and given the vote count it was all for nothing in terms of furthering his agenda anyway. Not the type of decision maker I would want on my club's board.

    • Like 1
  6. 7 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    Afterall there is no way for him to outline his position.

    Aside from his website and the emails and printed material he's sent.

    7 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    Oh, and as far as I'm aware Lawrence is unable to contact members now as the Court decision included a provision that he destroys the membership contact details after the vote on the constitution was taken.

    But given the decision, he could easily attain those details again should he wish, just as any other member has now been made aware of apparently.

    • Like 2
  7. 6 minutes ago, rjay said:

    Sounds familiar...

    That's the point....

    On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:

    Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.  I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution.

     

    • Thinking 1
  8. 5 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Provided it is not to be used for an improper purpose, any member can inspect and request a copy of the Register of Members.

    Did you read the article I posted above yet?

    Here's another quote from it:

    He told the Herald Sun on Sunday night he was furious the Hawthorn executive and current board had used its official social media and website, as well as the club’s membership database, to communicate their position on the election but deny rivals the same opportunity.

    Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight

     

    • Like 1
  9. 9 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

    Didn't the Age report yesterday that only current Hawks Directors had access to the club database?

    Cause for concern from the outsiders seeking election

    Both The Age and the Herald Sun have reported on that. It's been raised by (former AFL Commissioner) Chris Langford who has been absolutely scathing of the process.

    • Like 1
  10. 2 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Happy to keep providing facts to Demonlanders:

    Re Director Elections - Election Rule 9C(i)

    C. Cannot give an interview that is transmitted to the general public by way of the media, including radio, television, blog or vlog;

    D. Cannot post to a website or to a social media platform material that can be viewed by the public;

    E. Cannot send hard copy or eelctronic communications to persons in circumstances that does not satisfy Rule 9 (d((ii) - the exception to this final rule is quite long - and is on the Club website.

    Yes, that has been posted before, I was asking about the Hawthorn comparison mate. As I said in my post, it seems like they have the same complaints about their process that you're making about ours, yet you're saying the Hawthorn process is different to ours - can you show some examples of that?

     

  11. 6 minutes ago, Matt said:

    What’s your take LN?

    I've got absolutely no idea this year! haha I've gradually faded out from watching the draft as we've gotten better as a team. The only goss I heard is that we were keen to get more under 22 year olds on board I believe to improve the quality of that next gen but also balance out some of the contracts we've done and are yet to do.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  12. 19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    Lord, I know you're rusted on to the Board and they can do no wrong but the major difference we are seeing in the Hawks and MFC election is the Hawks candidate's ability to communicate with members.  Our candidates can't.

    Genuine question - Can you show me where that's happened? I've not followed super closely, but as already noted there has been some pretty harsh comments made about the Hawthorn process so far:

    “I don’t want to tell people how to vote or what to think. That is not my go. But I am particularly concerned where effectively the current board and president have suppressed opposition or any dissent,” he said.

    “They are effectively state-controlled media in how they use their own database and messaging. It is a members’ resource. If they want to use that for electioneering they should offer that to all people putting their hat in the ring.

    Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight

    Also, didn't Peter Lawrence just get access to the entire members database to contact them about his agenda?

    I'm not rusted on to the current board at all. As is the same with the rest of us, we can only judge the board by the club's performances (not just on field), and by all accounts every aspect of that is tracking very very well. The home base is the fly in the ointment currently, but I don't put the entirety of that on the current board given the time span.

    There's also a bit of trust required at times like this when things are running well that the mix of strengths is cohesive. I had no opinion either way on Lawrence when he originally agitated for the board, but after this fiasco IMO he has shown himself as not the correct temperament at all to be running my football club.

    I just don't see why anyone would be agitating for change so fervently at the moment when things are good unless they had a personal connection to someone trying to get onto the board or a personal grievance with someone already currently on there.

    • Like 2
  13. 49 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    You didn't want to address the point on the Election Rules. So it seems you are OK with the Board changing Election Rules depending upon what type of 'characters' nominate. Doesn't seem like a fair or open process? I have an idea you might support - why don't we make one more change to the Constitution to say that the Board shall elect the Board each year, and we can do away with these pesky elections.

    Why don't you sue your way onto the board...

    • Haha 1
    • Clap 1
  14. 18 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Speaking of rules and fainess. The MFC's Third set of Election Rules (there were two sets the year before) were issued immediately prior to the one-week Director nomination period opened at the end of November 2021. Candidates apply. Then a Fourth set of Election Rules are issued in January 2022. Nice to have 'absolute discretion' as to how elections are run.

    Perhaps they knew ahead of time the character of certain nominees that some of us have since discovered for ourselves... ;)

    Say hi to your mate.

    • Like 2
  15. On 11/20/2022 at 11:06 AM, Hawk the Demon said:

    The current MFC Election Rules (we have had four different versions in the last two years) state that Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering. No interview to be transmitted to the general public. No posting to a website or to a social media platform. The rest of the rules are on the Club website - Club > Governance > Elections. Does that lead to a fair and open election?

    I mean, if the rules are the same for everyone then that's the very definition of fair isn't it?

    The rules also say each candidate is entitled to a 300 word statement and a photo.

    • Like 1
  16. On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:

    Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.

    Ah yes, Hawthorn, the democratic gold standard hey...

    "He told the Herald Sun on Sunday night he was furious the Hawthorn executive and current board had used its official social media and website, as well as the club’s membership database, to communicate their position on the election but deny rivals the same opportunity."

    “The fact the nominations closed the day they came out, they have tried to suppress opposition. It is straight out of Putin’s playbook. Suppress opposition and control the media.”

     

    • Like 1
  17. 1 hour ago, Demonsone said:

    Exactly which proposals have they put fwd??? The latest one which Pert discussed was a facility to be built next Josh’s Paddock close to AAMI Park ..  We continue to go around in circles and would have thought the calibre of Jackson & Pert would have nailed it!

    So you're saying here you know we went the government with an official plan drawn up for that little triangle next to Gosch's and the government said no? Can you tell me exactly where you got that information? That seems new.

    • Like 1
  18. 9 hours ago, Demonsone said:

    We are so far behind the competition & the Afl needs to address this gap with crappy stadium deals, not sure how state gvt can support 1 team with 142m and the MFC can’t even get a training facility commitment 

    https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2022-fixture-details-2023-games-biggest-matches-key-dates-geelong-home-games-first-game-of-the-season/news-story/7814a69e4c54b1cd281813157f693192?fbclid=IwAR0wL4kn0vOVDM47humLu8MW8vA__O4i0x6PpsK8n_X7EEBeqFc6a7i3pgQ&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

    I agree the Geelong stuff is ridiculous, but can you tell me exactly which proposals we've taken to the state government and had turned down?

    • Like 1
  19. 9 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

    Listening to the bloke from the government in this video, the first one, there was a big emphasis on the natural environment and the keeping of trees. I’ll throw a really obscure idea out. Make a sustainable wood stand, let the trees come up out of seating. Get a small facility in there, that looks like it’s part of the natural landscape. Make it a landmark eco friendly, energy generating, solar powered boutique standout that can host AFLW and we might get some funding.

    just trying to think outside the box

    Like it mate. Definitely feels like any kind of community 'angle' we can put forward the better, and will definitely help with the amount of funding or getting certain plans approved, but I honestly think our biggest obstacle is just the land itself. Me personally, I'd much rather have us build something amazing further out - maybe out in an area like Kew, Camberwell, out to Burwood, Ashwood etc - than squeeze some half baked facilities into a little corner off Gosch's.

    • Like 2
  20. 1 hour ago, chookrat said:

    Lord Nev, there is open grass everywhere and if we cut a few trees down there is even more room. From memory the Jolimont proposal wouldn't have even required any trees to be cut down and admin would have been over the railway.  From what I understand the main objection has been from a few hundred East Melbourne locals concerned that they will lose space to walk their dogs and if the state government are onboard it wouldn't take much to cut through their nonsense.

    Lol. Come off it mate.

  21. 19 hours ago, chookrat said:

    Lord Nev, while the money is not the issue a lack of commitment at AFL and State Government level to approve an option where we can build is.  Our club has been working on options for more than 5 years now and to not have an announcement shows a lack of conviction to get this done. The land is there, the options are feasible, it should be a matter of choosing the best one and getting started.

    How do you know this? Aside from Yarra Park, which was handled poorly, what other options have we gone to the state government with and been turned down for? What 'land is there' exactly? Which options are you speaking of? My guess, and it's a total guess, is that IF we've been turned down for other options (haven't heard of any though) it would likely be because they were similar to Yarra Park where it was a minimal at best chance of ever being approved.

    We need to look outisde of the MCG precinct. We just won't get the facilities we should have anywhere in that area, and ideas about slipping a building into a corner or car park, moving things under ground, are all just half measures like we currently have. Don't see the point in doing anything then like that when we could build something actually fantastic and fit for purpose somewhere else.

    • Like 2
  22. More footy and more money for the club and people still complain.

    We're 10-5 at Adelaide Oval, so this could be a win for us as well quite possibly.

    We're spoiled in Melbourne with a semi-Magic Round most weeks, spare a thought for the footy loving fans of SA and WA who usually only get 1 AFL game a week, they'll be rapt with this.

    • Like 2
    • Love 1
×
×
  • Create New...