BDA

Sloppy defensive play from us this quarter

Have to agree on Underwood. the female BT

Nice finish Paxy. She's going well this year @DeeSpencer

Best 2 passages of play that quarter were Bannan in space, taking the game on. She's a jet. Just need to get the ball to her I think we may actually play better into the wind (although it does look quite strong)

Chaplin has been very solid for us this year

Bonny Toogood sounds like the name of a character from an Austin Powers movie

Bannon is a star.

Bannan is such a dangerous player off the wing. such pace

Just saw the girls trying to run through the banner. Looks a typical windy day out at Casey

Josh Schache is a depth acquisition that arose purely because the Weid wanted to leave. Tim Lamb said as much. He also mentioned that his versatility was attractive. He will play a few cameos for us if needed but spend most time with Casey. He won’t become a best 22 player and won’t miraculously solve our forward problems. Would be very pleasantly surprised if he did though but I’m not holding out much hope.

Square dancing, no. Line dancing could work though

I'm down with all forms of music and musical expression except most country music. It has a very whiney, formulaic quality to it. Maybe there's a country music fan on the forum that can explain or enlighten me regarding the attraction of country music.

The weather could put a spanner in the works but even if it does turn inclement I’ve been so impressed with the consistency of performance this year I still reckon we’ll find a way to put up a score irrespective of conditions.

My wife was a big west wing fan. I quite enjoyed it as well. Very idealistic though. Big contrast to shows such as The Wire which was dark and very cynical about politics Maybe there is a nefarious motive, I don’t know, but either way I still think a threshold of 20 is a pretty low bar to meet for any candidate

Strong lineup and great to see us building towards a fully fit list (McNamara and Colvin excepted) coming into finals i expect a professional performance today. That should be enough to translate into a 40 point win for us which will keep within range of Brisbanes percentage

I reckon they’ve done it to weed out the time wasters. What do you reckon? I really don’t think it makes it harder for genuine candidates

I agree with you but this board and its predecessor have been a long time now trying to progress the MGC precinct option. Maybe it’s viable but maybe it’s a dead end and we’ve wasted more time money and energy on a lost cause. I would like to know where we’re at with it all. The board telling us it can’t comment because of the politics involved may be true but is also self serving. Could be a convenient cover story. I don’t know. I’m just frustrated and if someone stepped forward with an alternative plan I would definitely listen.

Changing the threshold from 2 to 20 members to support nominations is not anti-democratic or somehow makes it easier for the incumbent board to entrench their position. I could rustle up 20 members signatures in 24 hours. Easy. If a candidate can’t do that much then they should not be running in the first place. And despite my frustration at the lack of progress on the home base front the reality is I won’t create waves if we’re winning on field. That’s the most important thing. No one should be rocking the boat if it jeopardises that. I think Peter Lawrence has good intentions, (but totally misguided) and he’s finding out now that pushing an agenda at the wrong time without a clear appetite for change is not going to win much support

Disregard everything I've ever posted about Lachie Hunter. I liked him all along profile photo duly updated

Has plenty of fine attributes. Tough, hard and great kick for goal. His disposal lets him down badly though.

In my experience the board forms 1 team. Each director has to be a team player and on the same wavelength as each other. New appointments have to fit the profile. You can’t have 1 person with a different agenda. It just doesn’t work, creates instability and distracts from the boards work. We’ve seen how much trouble one rogue director can cause with the Glen Bartlett shenanigans recently In terms of the home base issue (I had this issue in mind when commenting), the whole board are on the hook therefore if they don’t deliver then they all need to go. If enough members care enough about it we can organise and get rid of them. The current changes don’t change that avenue for us (i don't think so anyways)

Maybe I’ve misunderstood or don’t have the full picture. Please correct me if I’m misinformed but if members are sufficiently exercised we can group together and get enough support to force the board to call a general meeting and propose to spill the board if we want to. 5% of members is required per the Corps Act I think A director can call a meeting and propose a resolution to remove the board but would still need member support to pass the resolution anyways so not much different to the above Members have plenty of power to force change as long as enough of us have enough commitment to a cause (having said that I doubt enough members care enough about the home base to organise and agitate if needed). Having someone like Peter Lawrence as director won’t change much. Either work with the current board or organise and spill the lot of them. I haven’t gone through the docs in detail or fully understand the processes and avenues but I don’t think these changes stop members from forcing change if needed. I could be wrong though so happy to hear an alternative view.

I voted in favour of the changes proposed by the board. Electronic voting is a no brainer, receiving 20 nominations from fellow members should be an easy hurdle for serious candidates and I'm in favour of the term limits proposed. The board needs to be refreshed and renewed. After 6 six years (3x3) you've contributed whatever ideas, you have so time to step aside and bring in a new face. Kate Roffey is doing a good job in my opinion and the board generally. Leave them at it for now. The lack of progress on the home is the big disappointment for me. The board can't dodge accountability on that front for much longer

I think some posters here know Peter Lawrence and reckon he’s on the level. I’ll take their word for it. I will say though, everything he has done up to now demonstrates to me that he should not be on the board Not winning support for his nomination from the current board. Shows he doesn’t know how it works Challenging a board that has delivered a premiership. There’s no appetite for change so why push? Taking the club to court and wasting our money. Way to endear yourself to us members He might be well meaning but his judgment and timing are way off I think he’s clueless to be honest

One of my favourite albums along with symphonies of sickness