Katrina Dee Fan

I actually think they've become a better side since then, too. Their performance since the Bulldogs game has been flawless. Whereas Adelaide have not been their strongest coming into the finals, although that can be attributed to the absence of Chelsea Randall.

She's brilliant, awesome girl. And yes, the sweetest girl off the field, like they all are

Put Blaithin Mackin on her, she'll sort her out :)

True, but our side has improved immensely since then, particularly with Gillard's constant growth as a key defender, and the addition of Purcell in the midfield. I also think a key person who did that work in the GF was Erin Phillips. Adelaide are still a very good side, but they're not the same side as last season. They've lost quite significantly to both teams above them on the ladder. That's telling

How many times have we heard people complain 7.50 is a late starting time?

Our forward line has been much more potent this season than season 6. It was Adelaide's defence that beat us twice last season, including the grand final. We had 9 goal kickers last week, so our forward depth is our strength, particularly with Hore playing her best footy at the moment, and Harris continuing to be Harris. Banners is just growing stronger each week, for her youth she's scary to oppositions. If we're able to counter their backline we're okay. I also think the key to their attack is Ash Woodleigh (hurts me to say that, given she used to be a Demon). With Gillard, Birch, Heath playing at their peak, and the inclusion last week of Gay, we need to minimise her impact. Our midfield is incredibly strong - Paxman, Purcell, Mithen, Hanks, L Pearce are dominant forces. Plus I'm loving the impact Mackin has made on the team, she's a beast. Zanker and Lampard for some annoying reason tend to go unnoticed by media commentators, I reckon Zanker was one of the best on ground last week. But hey, if their understatement means the opposition don't consider their impact, that's their loss, because they both have the ability to impact the game. I think we're okay :)

IKON is not in Adelaide. We've had some good wins at IKON, I don't think it's a disadvantage for us to play there.

One I heard about 30 years ago: What's the difference between a dead pig in the middle of the road and a dead Collingwood supporter in the middle of the road? The skid marks in front of the pig.

A bit hard, Smith was the medical sub and wasn't used.

Exactly right, apparently the team weren't told what was needed to get the top spot, so she wouldn't have known.

I wouldn't say we had an easy draw this year, we've had one of the more difficult draws this year, certainly easier than Brisbane.

You mean the email written by a past chair who is no longer on the board? I've had to look up that email, and I found it. I agree, this is one that could push the barrel as to what could be allowable. Bartlett, though, is no longer on the board.

I don't know Kate Roffey personally. I've met her about 5 times since she's become president. And that was in the capacity of her making herself available by coming down to chat with us in the Demon Army. Yes I have spoken to Peter, on a couple of different occasions. At no stage on this forum have I criticised him on a personal level, and in fact multiple time I have acknowledged his passion to the club. I know he sponsors players. I know he has committed and contributed a massive amount to the club. Do I know him personally? No, not at all, about the same amount as I know Kate Roffey personally. Which is again, not at all. You are making assumptions of me based on comments I've made here, which in no way could possibly be deemed to be critical of Peter personally. I'm merely questioning why he acted in the way he did, which has, lets' face it, put a significant number of members offside. Personally, I don't have concerns about his obtaining contact details. I do, however, understand other members' concerns.

Wow, conspiracy theory much!

I never was personal. If you wanted to know why I took exception in your implication you only had to read my earlier explanation. But I will repeat my explanation for you - in asking me if I was someone I was not, you were in effect questioning my intent on posting my opinions. I personally have a huge respect for Kate Roffey, I certainly did not take offence at that. I glean, however, based on comments you've made that you don't have a particularly high opinion of the board (please correct me if I'm wrong). Gaslighting in this context was your attempt to minimise the affect by diversion. I do not buy for a second your comment that you honestly thought I was Kate Roffey, particularly given the wording of your post which was worded in a derogatory tone. If you take that as personal, then diddums. As you stated I don't know you personally. I am not judging you personally. Merely making an observation on your behaviour.

Nice attempt at gaslighting.

I felt that that reply to me was indeed personal, and questioned my integrity or right to speak my opinion. I didn't imply you were part of Deemocracy, and frankly I have been nothing but respectful to people on this forum. Having said that, if I'm provoked, I'll bite back. That you would ask that was not respectful to me. You're right, I don't know who you are. I am prepared to have my name in my username, which is more than what others do on this forum, yourself included. Perhaps when it comes to refraining from personal comments or respect, you should practice what you preach.

No one has the right to do that. It is unfortunate if that's the perception out there.

Have you read the club's election rules? I'll point the following out to you: 9. (a) Election material and any other written or verbal statement by and on behalf of a Nominee or Candidate during the nomination and election period must not: i. disparage or other reflect adversely on the standing of the Club or its players, members, directors, officers, staff, Nominees or Candidates Also: (b) Except as provided for under these Rules, Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering So your claim that existing board members can campaign against a candidate using club resources is incorrect. All candidates, whether incumbent or not, are limited to the 250 word statement which is distributed to members by the club. https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2022/01/11/fdeacacd-8aa7-41f2-8c7b-dbe16b33ef44/MFC-Election-Rules.pdf

If you can't find 20 people to support your nomination amongst 66,000 perhaps you don't have much of a chance of getting elected. Just saying.

I think a few have the potential to have breakouts. To me the ones that come to mind are: Kade Chandler Jacob Van Rooyen Disco Turner Harry Petty Tom Sparrow

I did notice it, and I found it disgraceful. Unfortunately there are gutless creeps in all supporter bases from different clubs. Aside from having an MFC logo for their profile picture, I'm not sure what action could be taken, aside from Magda reporting it if she chooses to do so. Going by their Twitter posts, this person is by and large a massive [censored] in lots of ways, it seems.

You're welcome to scroll forward to read any of my posts and see what my point of view is. I have no objection to Peter communicating to members his point of view, and in the wonderful age of web 2.0, he has the means to communicate that message to members. The club issued him with mailing addresses, I'm not sure for what purpose he needed email addresses as well. That exercise of taking it to the supreme court achieved little other than costing Peter money, the club money, and a lot of angst amongst members who did not want their contact details distributed. How was that action going to get members to see Peter's point of view? And as I stated earlier, Peter had more opportunity than most members to get his point across to the board, he had several one on one meetings with David Rennick, he had mediation through Harold Lubanski, and yet he's communicating to members his proposals were ignored by the working party. No, they were not. Not all considerations from all members have to be considered. There are 66,000 members, it would be impossible for every suggestion from every member to be considered. Strange example you used of the training session roping off supporters at Gosche's Paddock. Hello, COVID. I have no doubt Peter's intentions are honourable, and I know he has a lot of passion for the club. I don't agree though that members, least of all Peter, are being treated unfairly.

And good on Peter Lawrence for standing. The thing is, if not enough people put themselves up for election to the board, and can fill the vacancies with the number of people who do stand, elections don't get held. That is no different to any other member driven not for profit organisations, that is the nature of governance, not a slight on democracy. All this statement really highlights is the level of apathy amongst Melbourne members between 2003 and earlier this year.

I'm not Kate Roffey if that's what you're inferring. My name is Katrina Oxley, I've been a member of the club for 37 years. Member of Redlegs since 1988, member of Demon Army, committee of Ruby Demons, foundation member of the women's team. I have nothing to hide. I also have a mind of my own. By the way, I got off my [censored] and turned up on Wednesday night. Did you?