Lord Nev

Still waiting on all those examples you talked about jnr. Perhaps you and Dr. Gonzo could work together to provide lots of them given you both said there were plenty of times it's happened but then both went quiet when asked for examples. Thanks in advance.

Still waiting....

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.

Lawrence does not represent the club though, and given he used his opportunity to further raise grievances it is clearly not just for democratic purposes.

This isn't 'enabling democracy', this is enabling a member to spread their grievances. Will be interesting to see if these laws stay the same after this. I feel this part of the act has gone under the radar at AFL clubs previously but Lawrence's efforts here have highlighted how it can be easily abused.

Nah, I'm gonna just email the entire member database, that's apparently what we do now...

Yes, privacy and data is a massive issue and only getting bigger. The difference here is people are aware and agreeing to what happens with their data and it's going to reasonably secure systems, rather than going to a private citizen who is clearly clueless with technology. Optus and Medibank are possibly going to cop huge fines, Cambridge Analytica doesn't exist anymore, what exactly are the repercussions for Lawrence should he not handle our data properly? What systems does he have in place to store it and protect it? How exactly is he going to 'destroy' the digital data?

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. There's plenty of ways for members to raise issues already. And being a member based club doesn't mean the people who have been voted in to run the club have to use the club's official means of contact to enable the destabilization of the club. Maybe if Lawrence had a clue how to use technology properly, how to get his case across effectively, how to garner support of members and how to have positive impact without this kind of disruption then he wouldn't need to hijack the club's communication systems.

Or you could answer the question... How about you provide some examples where incumbent boards have sent out materials from the challengers to their members/shareholders? I'd be interested to see the 'real world' examples.

And do you think that BHP would send around your messages for you to all their shareholders because 'inclusiveness'? Is that how a board process works?

Inclusive means you're open to different races, genders, sexualities and on and on... It doesn't mean you accept any random unqualified supporter as a member of the board.

No, Lawrence chose that route. The club did not. He's absolutely destroyed his chances of getting what he wants now. The reaction on socials has been brutal. I don't want someone like that anywhere near our board.

We're going around in circles - we've already agreed the club shouldn't have to facilitate the communication of an individual members views.

No. This is 100% on Lawrence. In the current climate especially, the club did the right thing trying to protect our data.

Not interested in engaging in this type of thinly veiled attack. If you want to actually discuss let me know.

This makes absolutely no sense. The club was right to not send Lawrence's material for them, but it's also the club's fault for not sending Lawrence's material for him? Huh? Lawrence created this situation. Not sure you understand what precedent means if you're justifying this by saying it hasn't happened much before. Sure, but the email itself is not the biggest issue. The cost, the disruption, the instability, the data... not to mention our details are now with someone who appears pretty clueless about technology.

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, even more so at a time where we really need stability. I was ambivalent to Lawrence before this but now I think he's a troublemaker and doesn't truly have the best interests of the club at heart.

Surely not... the bloke who doesn't know how to upload a twitter pic, build an email list and has the worst website you've ever seen in your life isn't totally up on technology? Oh well, I'm sure all our personal details are totally safe with him....

The board.... of the club. Come on mate. "Why do we get spoon fed what the board want us to vote for." Read that again. Focus on the second last word. if you want a range of views, go to an AGM, go to this meeting, contact the club, heck you might even want to start your own website using some kind of 'Dee' pun... No one is stopping you. Not sure what 'argument' you're looking for? Plenty of info out there from the club about the proposed changes. I don't have any mates on the board.

Yes, the club has collected the data, not Lawrence. Glad you've seen the light there. There's plenty of means for a member to raise issues, they shouldn't have free access to the club's data to share any and all of their ideas.

He's already able to be heard. He has a whole website for it. No one has stopped him being heard. The club shouldn't have to facilitate communication for them using the data they have obtained through appropriate means.

My 'agenda' is how Lawrence has gone about all this. I had absolutely no problem with his 'Deemocracy' stuff, him being able to throw up suggestions etc, go for it, by all reports he's paid his dues as a member and more than has the right to have a say. But using (frankly; outdated) regulations to obtain personal addresses is a massive concern for me and has totally put me off side. I would have been far more concerned had the board just handed over all the collected data to some random supporter who has made no mention of how they will use the data, how they will store it and how accessible it will be. Going by his twitter and website he doesn't seem the most technology savvy person.

Not exactly winning hearts and minds if the comments towards him on socials are anything to go by... (Read the replies)

So, you didn't want your information provided, but now that a judge said it can be you're happy to do so? I'm concerned about the whole thing. I wasn't aware of the conditions in the current corporate act that meant my address would be given out so freely, as I've not encountered this type of behaviour from a fellow member before. Lawrence has come out of this looking terrible an has damaged any chance he had of bringing forth the changes he wanted. But not just that, he's been a disruption to the club when we already have other ego-driven disruptive agendas to deal with, and has cost the club money - which comes from us. Just a shambles all round.

Definitely seems like the judge needs it. Would seem most supporters have the same concerns judging by the reaction on socials and report from the club about the complaints. Have a look here...