Katrina Dee Fan

So if the club were to distribute on a member's behalf their points of view for all 66,000 members, how much time and resources should come out of the coffers of the club, that could be spent on other things? BTW, I wasn't referring to the distribution of contact information. The Corporations Act required that action, not what I was referring to which was the club sending information to members on Peter's behalf.

Cooption is permitted if not enough candidates stand for election and there are vacancies. If you want to avoid cooption, stand for election.

In all due respect, actions speak louder than words

This I can't agree with. The club has over 66,000 members. It is not their responsibility to facilitate such requests to members. To what end? Peter, like every other member, was given an opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the consultation like any other member was. In fact I know for a fact Peter was afforded more attention from David Rennick than other members, in that he met with him one on one to discuss his proposals on a number of occasions. To say he was denied an opportunity is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Why should the club distribute his proposal when, as others have stated, he had a website, he had access to social media, etc? If the club granted the same request to one, then theoretically they would have to grant a similar request to all members. There are 66,000 members at the club! One member is not more entitled than any other. And as stated a number of times, to what end? His model was not up for election. The choice was the model put forward by the working party (which Peter had agreed in principle on anyway) and the status quo.

I tend to agree. I don't think Peter Lawrence had any ill-intent, but I think his actions have alienated himself now from the rest of the voting members of the club. There's no doubting his passion for the club. But there's so much anger that's been generated from the last week.

Not true, AFLW members are included in the total member count. AFLW members have voting rights. https://membership.melbournefc.com.au/membership/aflw-access

621 out of 45,000 eligible voting members is hardly significant. It's about 1% of the membership. I also wonder how many of those 621 voted no because they incorrectly thought they would be voting between the proposal put forward by the working party, and the proposal put forward by Deemocracy, not realising the vote would actually be between the working proposal and the status quo.

I was someone who had the opportunity to participate in some of the Zoom meetings. In one of them, the Demon Army one, we had a lengthy discussion about the powers to suspend/expel members, and as a result of that discussion, the entire section 2.4 was included in the new constitution. I had a chat last night with David Rennick regarding that, and he said he really enjoyed the robust discussion in the Demon Army Zoom consultancy and a lot of our concerns were taken into account. So yes, we were listened to. One thing to remember, there are 66,000 members. Not all suggestions of all the members consulted could possibly be accommodated. Kate said there were things she wanted included but weren't. That's the purpose of consultancy - to take on board suggestions as a whole, which one would work within the structure of the club, and which ones the members are happy with. David Rennick and John Trotter (another board member who I spoke to at length last night) had met several times with Peter Lawrence and tried to meet with him half way. I should also point out that on principle Peter was in agreeance with many of the amendments. It wasn't feasible or appropriate for one member to take a "my way or the highway" approach - that isn't good governance. I was at the meeting last night. I thought it interesting that one conspicuous absence was Peter Lawrence.....

No, it was an SGM where the only agenda item was the resolution on the constitution.

AFLW members have voting rights.

Under 18s. Plus there are some memberships (armchair, etc) that don't have voting rights

Putting aside any opinion about the actions of Peter Lawrence and Deemocracy, this is my justification of voting yes to the constitutional changes: - as pointed out earlier, this is not a vote between two constitutional models, this is a vote between the model put forward by the current board after several months of consultation between stakeholders (ie members) and the status quo. The current constitution is outdated and is not relevant or appropriate, as it does not take into account contemporary practices of operation - the club has evolved, the constitution needs to be changed to catch up. - the main reason for the change of the constitution is to allow for digital voting by members - at the moment the current constitution does not allow for it, and it costs the club tens of thousands in postal votes to our members. Allowing digital votes will save the club a significant amount of money. The club is a not for profit organisation, so if any expenditure can be saved, I'm all for it, not to mention making the voting system equitable and accessible. - One of Peter Lawrence's grievances is his objection to the need for a nominee to the board to have 20 nominators instead of 2 - if it was a local suburban club I would say he's got a point. However, it's not, it's a multi million dollar operation with 66,000 members, and needs a board with board members committed to the role. If a member who wants to nominate can't find 20 people to support their nomination, then is the board of the football club really for them? - Another bugbear of his is ensuring the board is made up of 33% female representation. Some comments I've seen on social media about this is they don't want to support a "boy's club" mentality. My argument to that is, has the current constitution prevented eligible and high quality board members in the past? Did Kate Roffey get on the board because of a quota? No, she didn't. If a board member, male or female, is passionate about the club, they would be able to state their case on merit. The club is one of the most progressive clubs in the league - we pioneered AFLW, we have instilled inclusive measures, we were one of the first to have an Indigenous Reconciliation Plan, we have Ruby Demons and other supporter groups representing diverse members. This has occurred through having representative board members acting on merit. I don't want to see a situation where someone who is a high calibre candidate missing out on being on the board because of a quota. - many of the inclusions he wants added are not necessarily constitutional inclusions, more ones that belong on a mission or vision statement. And they're there already. Not worth voting no over. In short, get the constitutional changes that are desperately needed done now, because a no vote will not get in Peter Lawrence's proposals, it will merely delay the process and cost the club a hell of a lot of money.

You're ace!!

Just bringing your attention to the file not working :)

You don't get scores per se in VCE, it's a ranking (confusing considering they call it a "study score"). If you are able to show in your outcomes that you know the content and can demonstrate the skills, you get a satisfactory outcome of an individual are of study. For example if you get an ATAR of 85, it means you performed better than 85% of the state. A semester may have up to four areas of study - if you fail one you fail the semester - in Year 12 that means the whole year (you have to achieve a satisfactory for all areas of study to pass the subject.) You only get your VCE if you can pass 16 units across the two years. A unit is semester long, with Unit 3 (semester 1 in Year 12) being the rerequisite for Unit 4 (semester 2 in Year 12). You can go unscored which means you still get your VCE, you just don't get an ATAR.

I was there, I flew up for the game (for Pride Round). Only a handful of us flew up, but we had a good number of Qld Demon Army members join us.

Not true. I've failed VCE students over the years. This year I'm failing 2.

Last two days were the turning point for me. Things were looking pretty grim with Hunt, Bedford, Weiderman all leaving, along with the [censored] deal we got for Jackson. But the last two days Melbourne pulled the rabbit out of the metaphorical hat. Brodie Grundy's response was so much more humble and gracious than Jackson's, and I feel Brodie will be the perfect fit culturally at the club. Hunter could be fabulous in the Wingers Club if we can keep him on the straight and narrow, and while I don't know much about Josh Schache, I have an open mind. Great work, Jason and team!

Maddie Gay and Loz Pearce both ruled out for Saturday

Hate to be a smartarsey pedantic, but yeh, we have :) We actually lost 14 between 1905 and 1951 http://demonwiki.org/Queens+Birthday

Does your group represent all 66,000 members of MFC?

And I bet it would be exempt from fringe benefits tax

I don't know. I'd like to think there would be a respectful reference to the Queen. The only conversation I've had with DA regarding the Queen was at 4.30 this morning when I was told "don't go to the MCG, they've cancelled the live cross on Sunrise".

Imagine being 74 and the only way you can get your first job is through the death of your mother.....

Yes, I would say that a large percentage of MCC members barrack for Melbourne, but I don't think it goes the other way. Most Melbourne supporters are not members of MCC