Lord Nev

We can pretty much guarantee all these ovals everyone is listing have been investigated somewhat by the club already. There's not going to be an 'aha' moment for Pert and co while perusing Demonland. It's going to be either a redeveloped/rejigged Gosch's configuration or it will be Casey.

Pretty hefty invite list, but no females. Take from that what you will. I'm aware it's a private function, and I have no problem with the function or it's location. Again, as I've pointed out now numerous times despite your attempts to move the goal posts (kittens carwash and Clementine Ford, really?), my problem is with the blatant inconsistency from our club president.

FB: Neville Jetta, Steven May, Adam Tomlinson HB: Trent Rivers, Jake Lever, Jayden Hunt C: Ed Langdon, James Harmes, Tom McDonald HF: Nathan Jones, Oskar Baker, Alex Neal-Bullen FF: Charlie Spargo, Luke Jackson, Bayley Fritsch RR: Max Gawn, James Jordon, Christian Petracca INT: Aaron vandenBerg, Tom Sparrow, Jay Lockhart, Kade Chandler, Toby Bedford, Jake Bowey, Bailey Laurie, Harrison Petty Emergencies: Kysaiah Pickett, Fraser Rosman, Angus Brayshaw, Austin Bradtke AAMI Community Series | Dees name 26-man squad

That may be tested later in the year pending footy results...

Sure, no argument here about the title change impact. No reason the vice president would speak, yet they have Bartlett, Pert, Choco, Yze, Richardson and Lyon speaking? I guess none of the males thought to officially invite Kate so she couldn't attend anyway. I'm not fussed about the function, the coterie group, The Australian Club or it's rules, I just think Bartlett is outing himself as an absolute hypocrite and a leader only out for himself.

Must have missed where I suggested that rather than posting factual information... Think your outrage over your imagined outrage has clouded your brain somewhat fella.

I didn't say there wasn't. There was also plenty of members not wanting the title changed to president, yet it still happened. The point is Bartlett being consistent in his leadership and decision making. This is anything but. Your imagined grievances against 'outrage' and 'virtue' are your own issues to deal with.

We only have the 1 vice president I believe, Kate Roffey. Kate is the only female involved at any level of board or executive. But sure, let's pat ourselves on the back. Doesn't seem Kate is speaking at this particular event?

I'm not using it as a barometer as such (although anecdotally I would say around 75% comments are similar to the above). The point is Bartlett didn't have a survey about his title change, he went off seemingly fairly minimal member feedback. He's set that bar for himself so now he has to live by it.

7 News now covering it also. I assume that means they're now lefty virtue signalers also... ‘Staggered’: AFL club accused of sending ‘worst message’ in gender controversy

Perhaps missed the point by a margin there old chap. Barlett was more than happy to blow his own trumpet by making a 'small' change to his own title after feedback from female members, so will be interesting to see it he's consistent with that standard he's now set for himself.

Bartlett 22/2: “We want to be inclusive with our members and although perhaps a small thing; it was really important to some people; symbolic that we would engage, listen and act on this.” A sample of some female supporter sentiment on social media 6/3-7/3: "Typical boy’s club mentality. It only took the MCC 212 years to allow women into the Long Room!" "I have no problems with Men’s/Women’s Clubs. I just think in this scenario, the venue is inappropriate, especially when you are trying to encourage more females to get involved, become members and feel welcomed and inclusive, as the oldest VFL/AFL Club; set an example." "The MFC is holding an event at a place that I am not welcome as a member. That is not appropriate. Nor would it be appropriate to hold it at a place where men were not welcome. There is a difference between being welcome and being tolerated. It is unfortunate that so many people seem to miss that point." "I’m appalled by this decision. It sends a completely wrong message about the club. I do not want to belong to a club where a supporters’ group excludes women. Sexism needs to be called out! Change the venue now." "The Australia Club is one of the last (maybe the last?) ‘gentlemen’s’ clubs where membership is ‘men-only’. Its image is one of elitism and male privilege and not a good look for an MF club event, even if women can attend as ‘visitors’." "This is very disappointing when the club has been such supporters of women’s football." "There are many venues that welcome males & females equally. I am not a member of the Coterie but if I was I would not be attending this event at a Male only membership club. No the club are not running it however by key personnel attendance they are supporting it." Be interesting to see how much Bartlett chooses to listens to our members when it doesn't involve him giving himself a more flashy title.

Yes I am aware of that. It's the MFC official involvement that is my concern, not the function itself.

Errrrr nothing. Tony Tea originally said the article was insinuating it was the club, I pointed out the first line of the article made it clear it wasn't. Not sure the grasping failure is anywhere but in your own mind mate.

No, that's not what it says. Not sure if you misread or you're trying to deliberately mislead here. Literally the first line of the article: "A group closely affiliated with Melbourne Football Club is planning its season launch event at one of the country's oldest male-only members clubs, the Australian Club in Melbourne." Not ambiguous at all.

I don't think it's about the club itself, or that it exists. Some people might be upset about the membership thing there, but that doesn't seem to be the issue. I believe the issue is the MFC's official involvement in a function at a place with such rules. This is the club that initially championed the AFLW, a club that a week or so ago was patting itself on the back over its title change to president under the apparent guise of being more inclusive; and a club with some of the finest female football ambassadors in the land; who would not be able to attend this function unless they were given permission to do so by a man. The Australian Club can do whatever they want whether we agree or not, but the MFC aligning itself with a venue with the rules it has is a massive hypocrisy when looking at how its tried to position itself from a brand/values perspective in recent times. For mine, just another example at how much we've lacked proper direction since Bartlett has put himself front and centre.

Lucky you have Demonland then hey...

That was my point mate. Also, imagine Daisy or Paxy wanting to show up to thank the coterie group and support the club but realizing they couldn't go unless a man said it was ok.

It could also be pointed out that Bartlett and Pert are also the President and CEO of the women's football department. What if this was at a venue that didn't allow Indigenous people unless as a guest?

And with that, I'm gonna tap out of this one. Gee wiz.

I must have missed the part of the article that said people were offended. Perhaps your personal take/bias and want to blast the 'outraged and offended' made you see things that weren't there? The point is the hypocrisy given Bartlett's recent 'virtue signalling' (to use a phrase I'm sure you'll understand).

I'm glad you were able to speak on their behalf.

Whether you think the premise is right or wrong, don't think anyone can disagree it's completely inconsistent by Bartlett. He's gradually being found out IMO.

Sorry mate, but can't agree. You're 100% guessing on all of this and then having a crack at the character of people based purely on your guesses. That's poor form. Wouldn't logic tell you that if the deal is longer the dollar amount is likely lower? Also, Gawn literally talked about the players having a meeting to talk about 'sacrifice' and their mentality as a group.

What a rubbish post. You have no idea what any of their contracts are.