Mika98_99

Thanks Earl Hood for the photos and the update.

12 hours ago, JJJ said:

Vice President spoke on his behalf.
 

Glenn has been in Perth for personal reasons for about 2 weeks. He decided to stay and support the AFLW team this weekend. 
I’ve been lucky enough to talk about many things with Glenn over the past 5 years or so and he’s a very good man. Smart, articulate and knows where he can bring value to the MFC. He doesn’t meddle in the footy dept and believes his value is around governance and corporate strategy. It’s fair to say he’s found some political factions and community groups more difficult to deal with than he first thought. Otherwise we’d have a home or at least a plan that involved a training base at Jolimont.
 

He’s passionate to a fault and believes in the people who are in positions of authority at the club.
We do differ on the coaching front though...

Thanks JJJ for the response and the update. 

8 hours ago, JJJ said:

I was at the Presidents Function and spoke to about 20-25 people and the lack of crowd came up in conversations as it became obvious that we were going to have a small crowd. 
 

Only 3 people were critical of supporters for not turning up that I can remember. Most signalled unhappiness with the club in one way or another as a reason that they could’ve stayed home if they didn’t have the lunch to attend. There was a sense of empathy to supporters who watched from home.

I also found theres a decent amount of apathy regarding the club, the poor list after Roos began the rebuild almost a decade ago, the coach, the board, the President, lack of marketing, untrustworthy playing group etc etc.

Whilst I don’t share all of those opinions, I couldn’t blame anybody for feeling that way. When asked to rise to the occasion, this coach and playing group have repeatedly failed.So even against an injury riddled team, I was not confident of a good result.

When you throw in the ticketing (when some fans in their 60-70’s are receiving QR code’s for tickets you can expect confusion) and a global pandemic you get 21,000 people turn up.

It’s up to the club to fix this. Win games. Get on the front foot publicly. Don’t be a doormat for other clubs and the AFL. Who knows, it might galvanise the weary.

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that the President did not attend yesterday's match. Very rare for a sitting President to miss the first home game of the season. Out of interest JJJ as you attended the President's Function, was his absence addressed/reason given and who actually spoke on his behalf?

8 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Did anyone see the question and answer section.  What was said (if anything) about the muzzling of Peter Lawrence?

I jotted down all the questions that were "asked". No reference to board election process change, in fact, I do not think Peter's name was referenced once for the entire night. 

Questions generally were about facilities, team performance/expectations for the year, diversity question, being an unassisted club, question about members attending games, bringing back the Proud to Belong jumper this year, who provided the fair value land valuation and there were 5 people on the ballot and why didn't you leave up to members to decide who to vote for, 

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Thanks for the excellent summary.

So he wants to vet potential Board candidates.  mfc isn't his private law practice.  It is our club and he can't run it like a fiefdom.

The more info that is coming out about the Board election and the AGM the more concerned I am about Bartlett's appropriateness for the role and therefore the direction of our beloved football club.

 

 

I am genuinely concerned about the direction our football club is headed with Bartlett at the wheel. He is very proud of the Club Values that were introduced last year being TRUE (Trust, Respect, Unity and Excellence), however, can we observe his behaviour against these values as applied to the following:

Election process and results - Trust

Members - restricted AGM Q&A, ability to ask the question - Respect

Board members - Unity. Based on his comments last night around vetting individuals, only the individuals that will be compliant to Bartlett are welcome on the Board.

Diversity - From his infamous email in mid January, he referenced diversity, diversity in Bartlett's book must not apply to individuals that bring a different voice, think different and offer a different point of view - Excellence

How does this type of behaviour manifest itself down to the leaders in our Footy Department and the Administration team. The President referenced that he spent a day with the Football Department, I can only hope it was a short visit.

Observations from last night:

• President acknowledged that he needs to join in a pre-season. I did not take from this that he is unwell as others have come to that conclusion, but by the looks of things he has put on a few kilograms presumably during COVID lockdowns and made a remark about not having to put on a suit for 12 months. 
• Change of title from Chairman to President after feedback from members
• Going to be relentless in pursuit of facilities within the MCG precinct. Nor he or Pert would be making the announcement, would be left to Minister Pakula and the Premier. He did sound fairly confident that he hoped there would be an announcement this year.
• Future plans for the Bentleigh Club will be announced next year.
• 100 people have approached to join the Board in his time - it does not appear that any of which have ever made it on the Board. Made a comment during the Q&A segment that a person can join sub-committees/working groups so the President can see if he can work with them and vice versa. Sounded like he was on a bit of a power trip at this stage. 
• Stated it was disappointing we had a contested election, but did not actually declare how many or what % voted for Peter Lawrence as I have noticed Carlton have done with their results announcement. I can only draw from the omission that Peter Lawrence achieved a good number of votes which would embarrass the President to have released.
• President is keen for people to get in touch with him or other board members to express interest to join working groups/sub-committees. Said that 2-3 working groups would be formed in addition to the 5 sub-committees, but did not indicate what they would be. Assume this has only come about as a result of Peter Lawrence's challenge and wanting to project inclusiveness.
• Flagged changes to the club's constitution to make it contemporary and meet club requirements. Referenced that the constitution requires a postal vote for an election and would look to change to make it electronic. Any changes will need to come back to the members.
• Q&A section was pre-selected question unlike the standard AGM with open questions from the floor. 

The President acknowledged that he is overweight, but agree with Gouga, he is a terrible speaker. 

35 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Okay, here is what you need to know about the MFC Directors Election recently held.

 

The constitution of the Club gives the Board absolute discretion to determine how elections are run.

 

Board rules were established quite some time ago allowing electioneering so long as materials were cleared by the company secretary.  This would allow candidates to state their positions on issues to the membership giving the membership knowledge of candidates and their policies and an ability to make an informed choice.

 

However once Peter Lawrence announced he would run for election the Board issued new rules  declaring that there would be no electioneering and that candidates would be limited to 150 words outlining their qualifications and policy positions.

 

Any person who broke these rules would be disqualified from being a Director of the Club.

 

Subsequently in January all members received an email from Glen Bartlett, well in excess of 150 words, outlining his and the Club view on who should be elected.  Peter Lawrence was excluded.

 

When I contacted Peter Lawrence (who was the only candidate to supply an email and telephone number in his 150 word bio) to confirm he was the Peter Lawrence I once worked with I received the following reply:

 

“It is me. Hope you’re well.  Candidates are precluded from talking about the election- the only communication we can have with members is what is contained in the 150 word election statement. Regards Peter”

 

This situation raises many issues, not least why members were precluded from communicating with Directors, who represent us, to canvas their qualifications and policy positions.

 

This was not a fair and open election but one manipulated by the current Board to achieve their desired outcome.

 

I don’t know any of the current Board members other than one dinner with Brad Green who I voted for and think is an outstanding candidate. 

 

What I know is the Board has denied the members the opportunity to fairly evaluate candidates and have orchestrated a situation where only their chosen candidates had a realistic chance of success.  These actions by our Board do not sit with the principles of democracy and I for one now have reason to distrust them.

 

What are they hiding?

 

If any Board member reads this and wants to discuss it with me PM me with your mobile number and I’ll provide my identity and give you an opportunity to respond.

 

This behavior by the Board is utterly disgraceful and bitterly disappointing.

 

Thanks Baghdad Bob for providing this additional information on the process. During the election process it did seem strange that the independent candidate did not have a platform so members could hear from him outside of the election material and so now that clears the matter up.

It raises the question, what was it that the Board became so worried about that they needed to change the election rules after the process had started? 

Based on last night's announcement that the endorsed candidates had been successful, I wonder if we will actually be told how the voting went for each candidate? Presumably if the endorsed candidates did very well, the Board would want this message to get out to send a clear message. 

Hello Hampton,

The club announced that the AGM had been postponed until next Monday evening. 

One of the biggest challenges (outside of COVID) facing the AFL. Good start with this move on the new protocols. Would expect there is more follow up to be done on protecting the ball carrier.  

Thank you very much Deespicable. Really appreciate braving the elements and providing such a comprehensive report. Good footy fix for the day.