Dr Don Duffy

Did someone mention me…? Bah humbug!!!

Thanks George. I did see the posts of a particular poster in this regard, and a quite disgraceful thread opened by the same individual attacking mods, who it should be said do terrific voluntary work keeping this site going that is dedicated to our great club. Demonland’s own Inspector Clouseau should be ashamed of themself. However, I will give some personal information on myself. I am a lifelong Demon and I channel the spirit of Dr Don Duffy, the president who took over just before our previous flag and sat in the driver’s seat for years. Under his watch we went from having an administration that was the envy of every other club to become a long term league laughing stock. Complacency and sustained mediocrity did us in. I know this because my Pa kept complaining about it down the decades as I grew up, with late career Robbie Flower the only redeeming feature in going to the footy for a young Demon kid like me. I don’t barrack for particular boards or CEOs. (Although I do have an enduring crush on Peter Jackson, for obvious reasons). I can’t believe the board cheer squads on here. To quote M. Blight, I don’t give a fat rat’s clacker about board members (past, current and prospective), and particularly those who just want to build their CV on the back of being on our board. What I do care about is the board getting on with one of its key jobs: ensure we have an outstanding CEO. Give someone of Tom Harley’s quality a godfather offer. Do something. That is where we have been so mediocre and it is so critical to success. That’s what I’m barracking for, as well as our teams on the field, of course.

Gee! That post, and your subsequent posts on the same point, are a little like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs: impressive feat of research, but of no particular use to anybody. @RickyD can speak for himself, and has done so quite eloquently in reply. Here’s a thought: what about considering the merits of whether or not we have a high-performing administration, rather than going down barren, conspiracy theory cul de sacs?

Flattery will get you…somewhere!

So they say that umpiring standards have gone downhill. Have a look at the video just after 36.45 - Melbourne player kicks the “winning” goal from continuous play, then umpire brings play back for a ball up! Wow! My Pa used to go on about this incident, and now I’ve finally got to see it. Thanks, @Wilson7. I also see that the umpire was Frank Schwab, father of Peter and uncle of our very own Cameron Schwab.

SD, as I said in a previous post I was able to access his phone number when he first ran for the board. Feel free to PM me for the details if you want to make contact with him.

SD, as I indicated in my previous post the only option for Lawrence was to institute the court proceedings that he did. The alternative was to do nothing and leave the bad practices in place. I understand that some senior people have sought to mediate between him and the board, but the board has not been open to such mitigation although Lawrence was happy to participate. Lawrence has been proven right by the outcomes in his decisions, but the board’s decision-making has been poor. They have essentially folded to most of his requests after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. My understanding is that Lawrence offered to pay the court costs for the Supreme Court case that he won in 2022 (another case that totally shouldn’t have been contested by the club, given the clear state of the law on the issue that was contested). However the club rejected that offer, and soon after that Pert told Lawrence that the club would not accept any more donations from him. Shameful behaviour, and nicely done on our behalf by them. More poor decision-making. For heaven’s sake, a good board would take control of the situation, manage it and use Lawrence’s energy and commitment rather than continually punching on with him.

Edit

DD, I think the thing to consider to give some perspective here is your point about “the way he has gone about it”. It seems pretty clear that the board has taken the bully approach in dealing with Mr Lawrence. They have denied any requests at conciliation to alter their poor governance practices until forced to under the pressure of litigation. They have effectively thought they would make him blink by staring him down. That he has had the resources to call their bluff and actually achieve nearly all of his suggested changes is a massive indictment of the board and a big tick for Lawrence in getting better outcomes for the club. I don’t like bullies, and I particularly don’t like bullies who use hundreds of thousands of dollars of my club’s funds on court cases that should not have got that far and that had little merit. To put it another way, @Demon Disciple, I actually applaud Lawrence for not just accepting the “Just nick off!” approach by the board. We need people who are prepared to stand up and see it through to getting good outcomes. That’s actually in the bailiwick of “good culture”. Heaven forbid that we should be wandering in to that territory! I actually find it quite disheartening to see the vilification of Mr Lawrence by some posters. I’ve taken the trouble to engage with him on these matters, being able to access his phone number when he first stood for the board. Do yourself a favour: PM me and I’ll give you his contact details, and engage with him personally to see the cut of his jib - it’s more than we get from most of the “cordon me off from the great unwashed” board members we’ve had over the journey. Don’t just pot him without engaging him.

Translation?

“Mirror mirror, on the wall….” Agree with the edited version, particularly the last sentence.

A later report from Jay Clark says that Pert is going to be overseeing the review, along with Shand and Green. After Pert’s running commentary on things expect a “nothing to see here” report. Either that or the boot-studders and water-bottle carriers are going to be in big trouble to carry the can.

Wouldn’t have been the metaphor that I would have reached for at first instance in the circumstances, but hey - to each their own!

I’ll tell you what I do know is that both Roffey and Pert have been sadly not up to scratch in their public utterances. If a fair dinkum review (not just run by them) were to be conducted and found that “behind the scenes” they were great, I would assess the quality of the outcome of the report accordingly. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, if circumstances change I may need to change my view. What do you do?

Not sure how do answer that, wayne. A former president did preside over our slide into mediocrity (actually, I craved rising to mediocrity during the decades that followed 1965!). “Slash and burn” isn’t on my wishlist, and while the Peter Jackson did lead us out of the wilderness, he was not allowed to savour the fruits of his work and continue his good work. I think you have put a false paradigm there.