Katrina Dee Fan

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?

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