Lord Nev

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.

Contract negotiations happening according to the AFL site. Head to about 2:20 in... https://www.afl.com.au/video/556086/lachie-s-lacerated-liver-clayton-s-contract-bucks-future?videoId=556086&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1614839591001

Link? Are you saying it's 'out in the media' already or it will be announced?

Yes, that's what the quote says. Must be an echo in here...

Yes, that's what the quote says...

Richardson, who coached and drafted McCartin at St Kilda, said Melbourne determined that delisted Kangaroos utility Daw was more likely to be ready for Round 1. “Timing’s a bit of an issue for us. We really needed someone that we think was a chance to play for us early,” Richardson told SEN Breakfast. Why Melbourne chose Majak Daw over Paddy McCartin to train with the club

Guess our intel?

Completely agree mate, but that's got nothing to do with my point that "To Hell And Back" was really well made and interesting to watch though...