Lord Nev

@george_on_the_outercan you please explain exactly what post I was given an "inappropriate language" penalty for in this thread? I understand some might not have agreed with my comments in regards to the timing of the complaints in this thread, but given they related to someone you seem to have a personal relationship with it doesn't seem like proper moderation to be deleting posts and handing out warnings simply because you disagree with them when nothing "inappropriate" was ever said.

20 minutes ago, praha said:

If melbourne we an NBA team we would have been sold and relocated to Las Vegas 40 years ago. Not having a high quality venue over there is akin to being unviable as an organisation. 

The silence from the board on this is deafening. We need an update.

Except that NBA franchises are privately owned and generally their practice facilities are nothing special. Also, often the team head offices are in the stadiums or other locations. Hmmm a training facility and head office in different locations? Intriguing concept.

Probably not the best analogy to draw here.

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

Give it a break 'Nev'....

...so you're not the slightest bit concerned that nothing has been communicated on the new facility?

If not, do you have some inside info that things are all on track?

...or is it just blind faith?

I'm not anymore concerned about it than I was about this time last week. Keen for something to happen, but also understand the complexities, just find the timing of the renewed outrage interesting.

2 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Thanks Nev ....but I think I'll just stick to the Shiraz.

#DemonSpirit

3 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

[censored] me me Nev ! You [censored] are talking a foreign language..  The only time I use hash ( apart from the odd smoke) is when I finish a voice message.

It's 2022 mate, you need to get on the vapes and tik toks to be a part of the club now...

2 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Is everyone aight with the DemonSpirit hashie

feels a bit…confected

Not as tight as HeartBeatsTrue etc etc

Yep, with you on that. Thought #GiveEmHell could have hung around longer and is a bit more inspiring. #DemonSpirit just feels a bit not connected to anything - Doesn't reference our song, doesn't have any kind of real 'Demon' connection, just a bit nothing.

Wouldn't care so much if it was just a hashtag, but it's the whole marketing motto, and in the era of the 'disruptors' (god, I hate corporate speak) it's wishy washy.

18 hours ago, FlashInThePan said:

With no evidence whatsoever to back me up, I’m going to suggest that Howe comes in and adds what we have been missing in the high half forward role. 

I'm tipping him to potentially be tried on the wing, but I reckon Howes is one to keep an eye on next year too.

3 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

While that's being sorted out, a side question: how does a 'communications' person qualify for a senior 'football' position? (cue 'It is Collingwood after all' jokes)

Would be pretty apparent if you read the article.

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Because it is required under Corporations Law.  And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

For now....

49 minutes ago, rjay said:

The whole thing would have been easier with less pain and cost if the club had facilitated his communication to members.

It was the right thing to do.

Nah. It shouldn't be up to the club to facilitate the agenda of every member.

Demonland would shut down, we'd all be emailing the database with our opinions.

33 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members.

I'm sure he's a great bloke, just going by his passion and financial contributions that we know of he comes across as a genuine and valuable supporter.

But I don't agree with the above at all. He wasn't 'denied' anything other than having the club facilitate his communication for him. He has social media, he has a website, he seems to have considerable financial means - and members already knew plenty about him and 'Deemocracy' even before he got our contact details.

15 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This is a good question. I’m thinking the answer is no. I’ve bought AFLW membership for my sons and the only one who received emails is the one who also has membership for the men’s. 

Is your son under 18 by any chance WCW? It could be that? Going by this below, it at least looks like AFLW members would get to vote.

9 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

I found it very interesting that out of 66,000 members only 42,000 were eligible to vote.

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

pretty sure junior and below members would be too young to vote

8 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

I'm pretty sure you had to be an adult (and probably full) member

I believe when you purchase your membership initially one of the things it lists is "Club voting rights (if over 18)".

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Suspect both sets of info had some common identifier as you suggest

Should have just sent on behalf to begin with, all would have been avoided 

I don't know if they did or didn't, or exactly how the data was provided, so not really suggesting either way.

46 minutes ago, Ugottobekidding said:

Seemingly as the court case proves, emails are seperate. There is no way you could link [email protected] with someones real name and address.

Unless you're going to show us all the specific document(s) provided there's no way to say exactly how it was provided.

Perhaps emails and addresses were separate, perhaps names were provided alongside the emails, perhaps they were all together, it hasn't really been clarified.

21 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Your email address is everywhere. You used it to register your Demonland account. As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you.

For me, the difference is where I choose to supply my email address.

I chose to supply my email address, including which one, to Demonland when signing up - I did not choose to supply my email address to 'Deemocracy'.

Demonland has a really clear privacy policy where it even outlines how it protects and stores user data - 'Deemocracy' have provided no such information and everything I've seen from them relating to technology has looked pretty shonky tbh.

If 'Deemocracy' actually lived up to their 'transparency' mantra then perhaps they would have supplied the obviously concerned members with the information regarding how they plan to use, store and then destroy the data.

3 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Their great achievement is

Just now, Neil Crompton said:

I think you have made your point Nev, can you please now let it go?

Haha you're like a dog with a bone. I bet you were either an inside mid or a lockdown defender back in your day.

Yeah fair enough, will do.

And funnily enough I was a lockdown defender! haha

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not moving the goalposts at all, you just didn't clearly comprehend what I was talking about.

I said members raise grievances as part of democratic processes all the time, whether they be board challenges, director elections or in this case constitutional reform. Pretty straightforward.

You did mate, because that was not what the discussion was which I highlighted above.

The discussion was about the board sending those grievances on behalf of non-board members. I asked for examples of that and you moved the goal posts to 'members raise grievances all the time'.

6 minutes ago, No10 said:

I did understand what you’re asking. @Clintosaurushad good examples of real world.

A board are compelled to send relevant information to the shareholders - the ‘relevant’ part is a fair question here, but was answered by the courts. In terms of opposing views: Solomon Lew isn’t any friend of the Myer board, as you’ll find in his letters to shareholders.

It appears Lawrence hasn’t captured the mood of the membership. But if the board were doing the wrong thing, you’d want a way to reach the members effectively.

Genuine question, does Solomon Lew send the letters himself or does the Myer board send them for him? That's where I'm trying to draw the similarities here.

I'm 100% for members airing their grievances with the board, sharing new ideas, proposing changes etc, I'm just not aware of any previous examples where an AFL club board has been forced to send opposing views for a non-board member.

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I said people raise grievances while also participating in a democratic process (such as board elections) all the time - not sure what's so controversial about that.

No. The point was using the club's database to raise greivances. As below. Don't try and move the goal posts.

On 10/22/2022 at 12:07 PM, Lord Nev said:

Why should it be up to the board to facilitate the contrary views of one member? What guarantee is there that this doesn't become a regular thing whenever a member disagrees with the board? This is a horrible precedent...

21 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because we are a member based club not a privately owned franchise

21 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

That doesn't answer the questions at all.

Being a member based club doesn't mean the private data and contacting capabilities the club has collected are at the disposal of every member whenever they want.

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As a member based club your contact details may be made available to enable the democratic functions of the club. Pretty simple.

15 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

 This isn't 'enabling democracy', this is enabling a member to spread their grievances.

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The club wants members to vote on amendments to the club's constitution. Seems like a democratic function of club governance to me.

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He is a member of the club and he is entitled to contact other members to provide an alternative or views on the amendments put forward by the club to influence the vote. Whether he is raising other grievances or not is irrelevant, this happens all the time in all facets of club governance (board elections being a prime example).

15 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Of course it's relevant if he's using this apparent tool of 'democracy' to raise grievances. That's not what it's for, even by your own words.

Can you provide some other examples from AFL clubs where an opposing view to the club has been sent by a member using the club's contact details? This is the first time I've heard of it, so would be interested to see these numerous times it has happened.

Again. Still waiting.

4 hours ago, No10 said:

@Clintosaurus answered this pretty smoothly a few pages back. @jnrmactells of Hawthorn. And @Dr. Gonzocovers nicely what is fair cooperate governance, at least according to the Supreme Court.

What’s the problem? You don’t like that Lawrence did this, or his ideas. But why be so upset about the fact that he could?

Think you've got your wires crossed here mate.

I've asked both jnr and Dr for examples of where an incumbent board has used their own database or means of communication to advertise opposing views from a challenger. Apparently that happens all the time in the 'real world' but I've not been given the specific examples yet.

I'm not talking about general corporate governance because I've been talking about the precedent set by Lawrence in accessing the data.