Skuit

Basically, the only thing Trac has actually said throughout the whole affair is that pre-made packet spinach & ricotta ravioli from his good friends at Casa Della Pasta makes for a great post-workout meal, especially for elite athletes such as himself under pressure to perform while the light is still good. Is was then reported that his nonna thinks the MFC is obviously a very bad influence on her cherished angel and clearly hasn't done enough to protect his mental health. She's certain no one at Carlton would have let the situation get so out hand that Christian is now eating pasta barely fit for a dog.

I do not want massive media organisations well-trained in swaying public opinion while potentially running their own shadow campaigns to be involved in the selection of who runs out football club. We've seen just a taste of it over past two weeks.

As Malcom Speed stated, the club, or current governance board, didn't want the "richest person with the loudest voice" to be the one who simply got elected. It's worthwhile arguing the balance of measures adopted to protect that standpoint, but a lot of people would believe that position is in fact a fundamental democratic ideal. Others may disagree with the philosophy, and that's fine. Argue that point. But I imagine they would be some of the same people who complain about political donations etc. buying influence from the big end of town.

Lol. This is the forum equivalent of Fitzy's tunnel-ball. We'll look back on this post as being the precise moment when you stamped your own papers.

Brock drama McQueen. Wish we had this slight in our ammunition a few years back.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond, as your impartial rhetoric is tiresome and you're clearly once again being disingenuous here. Peter Lawrence desperately wishes to be on the MFC board, as evidenced by his nominating to be on the board and perusing costly avenues for both himself and the club to further that cause. They are some decent-sized chips. Please do not reply with some BS that all of us have chips in the game as members of the MFC, or make your case that those measures are for the betterment of the football club, or suggest that I should waste half my weekend reading a judge's report from an institution that I don't respect. All these responses would be beside the point. Nobody whatsoever believes that he is simply just some freedom-fighter championing the cause of democracy for the benefit of we the people. You would be better off dropping the nonsense and being transparent without all the character stuff about why you believe Peter would be a better administrator of the club than those presently performing the role. When posters sometime question whether you are Peter himself, it's not just some old 'Hi Peter' internet joke. I suspect many on here genuinely believe it to be a possibility, and I can understand how they might have that perception. I'm more confused by how you seem to be oblivious as to how they might have that perception. It's great that you have Peter's back - all the best to you and your mate. But I don't think you're doing any favours to his cause by coming on here and distorting events to suit your narrative, taking cheap shots, and using semantics to argue the same point over and over again like a politician. People don't like politicians.

I’ll field this one. As it’s quite straightforward. A poster pointed out there are several other posters on this forum who don’t contribute to any other topics other than this one, and only do so to bag the board and promote Peter Lawrence. You would be one of those posters the OP was referring to. You then thought a reversal of the statement would be a clever retort, but failed in your ‘flex’. That’s because there are simply no posters on this forum who just bag Peter Lawrence and promote the board without also contributing to other topics. It would be an easy statement to decipher for someone with a bit of self-awareness.

And some Brad Greens on the side.

Or a hearty bowl of Lauchie Cacciatore?

Guy Rigatoni for me.

I'm disappointed that this thread wasn't rebooted as to a board suggestion, and then I could my Demonstone-approved line that you're all now reaching for wizzie-straws.

Especially when Joe and both his Jewish and Gentile mates can all manage to John Lennon aside their ideological differences for one second on who may or not be responsible for the current events in the Levant to fully agree that Goodwin is not the right guy to lead the Petracca peace negotiations.

AFL informs the MFC of the new NGA draft rules introduced in mid-2026.

Being a bit bleary eyed, I initially thought Trac and Rivers had been hanging out with Jamie Oliver to whip up some pukka parmas.

Give him a break. Brad's just a little bit green.

It's frustrating, but I think most here would agree with a general tightening of the rules on eligibility based on background, or better yet - finding a way to refine them to align with common sense while maintaining strict parameters. Should one of Ah-Mu's parents have been born in Melbourne, and the other migrated as a child, then he is equivalent to Nathan Jones.

I have no idea about Ah-Mu's personal background other than reportedly being of 'Samoan descent', but there is a distinction in the classification of a directly 'Qualified' NGA player and a 'CaLD' NGA player. For those not Indigenous or themselves born overseas in a culturally and linguistically diverse country (that is, classified by the ABS as not a 'main English-speaking' country), a 'Qualified NGA' player requires one of their parents to have been born in Africa or Asia. For a CaLD NGA player to be Qualified, both parents need to have been born overseas in a culturally and linguistically diverse country.

The only time I basically post on this site at present Old Dee is in an effort to defend against mistruths being spread about our club both in the media and repeated on here. Close the thread down? Is there nothing being potentially achieved by arguing for facts?

I think we should all separate our own personal grievances with the club, or AFL, from how the media is reporting these issues. People on here are backing the misrepresentation of the club to support their own political agendas. We should stand united in getting to the truth, be it favourable or not.

Is this a fact Jaded?

Are you speaking from a lawyer's perspective @Whispering_Jack?

I think you're a reasonable poster Adam, and I agree with you on many levels that the MFC board in some instances were stifling certain, reasonable democratic processes through their actions and by-laws. I would personally guess they did it in an attempt to exclude disruptive elements to maintain cohesion when some big agenda issues were in play, exactly the same things everyone is complaining about elsewhere, but that they also stepped over the line on several occasions. Still, my view is they did so in what they probably thought were the best interests of our club, rather than a blind attempt to hang onto power and an unpaid job, as is oft being portrayed. The thing is, they did ultimately agree to a number of revisions, but as far as my understanding goes, they didn't accept the most contentious challenge outside of the email list handover thing: that being the ability for board aspirants to make their case in the media and maybe disparage the club and incumbents while doing so. I think we can all agree that we're all pretty fed up with the media's current distortions: imagine that writ large with an all-out dirty-laundry fight. We are a small club, and can't easily withstand the negative press the same way that perhaps Collingwood or Carlton can. Some might agree and others might not, but that question also raises a whole bunch of other democratic issues, such as someone with the financial ability to wage a public campaign then having an upper-hand over others. What I'm getting at though: we have no clear idea if they went through the court process to defend against this one issue. The club may have agreed to some concessions pre-hearing, but were still forced to go court on that primary issue. Both parties ultimately painted the process as a win, and I think both bear some responsibility for the costs incurred by the club and not being able to sort it out through mitigation. I'm personally happier though that our constitution tries to prevent ugly public spats, but again, others may disagree. I take it you have met Lawrence and he has convinced you he is a great supporter of our club, but the white-anting isn't cool and he does have chips in the game beyond constitutional amendments.

Maybe the AFLPA's governance needs to be investigated if no-one thought to ask any questions until the top boss was back from three months leave? I totally think they should ask those questions though from a player welfare point of view, but it's now incumbent on them if they have leaked to clarify if they have an issue with the MFC or AFL, and what an 'investigation' - in Wilson's ultimately wound-back words, actually means, and do to so with the upmost transparency.

Being an outsider, it's some of these things I'm unfamiliar with. It's a private hospital? Do we or the AFL have a contact with the hospital? If I were to fall off the monkey-bars in the playground just outside of the MCG, and my friends called emergency services and said I was in a fair bit of pain, what would be the response? Who comes to get me and take me where? Are the ambulances from Epworth privately bidden? Are they networked in with the public system? Does dispatch ask if I have insurance, and then send me somewhere accordingly? What happens if my friends drive me to and drop me off at the Alfred? Is Caroline Wilson aware that you can't just go in for explorative surgery if a need for an operation hasn't yet been identified? A few years ago my mother was visiting me in Amsterdam and was very suddenly in a lot of pain. I took her to the hospital and they told me to go find a doctor and get a referral first before rocking up to emergency. I held my ground and it ended up being an emergency, but I guess they were just following their own protocols. Is the healthcare system the same in Australia as the Netherlands?

That's just a whole lot of incoherent indignation. Wilson clearly doesn't know the full set of the facts, so is throwing out a load of rehashed questions that have either been previously addressed or don't relate to us. The miscommunication between the various health transport services? May as well pin that on the MFC as well. The misdiagnosis of Petracca’s injury? Wilson's trying to make it sound like misdiagnosis equals malpractice, rather than an ordinary part of the diagnostic process where a medical practioner will come to an initial conclusion based on the information available at the time. The fact that he was taken to the Epworth hospital and waited there for hours? The reason he was there for hours was because he was being treated, and then his vital indications changed. I think Wilson should be very careful here if she is trying to insinuate sub-standard care at Epworth. Also, as another reminder, once the paramedics arrived, Petracca was no longer under the care of the MFC medical team, to the extent that we were also no longer privy to any new information. Why did he go to the Epworth? I don't know enough about how the healthcare system works in Victoria to properly respond, but I'm guessing you can't just ask for a patient to be admitted to the emergency trauma ward as a precautionary measure without evidence of significant-enough trauma. I imagine you would be directed to another facility for further checks and monitoring. Why was not all the information given to the medicos correct? This is potentially the most serious allegation. But does she mean we gave the paramedics information contrary to what we knew, or that his condition was not yet known, so 'not correct' in hindsight as to the true extent of his injury? There were two ambulances at the ground, but a third one was called? Wilson raises this point before immediately clarifying that as per protocol the two other ambulances must remain at the ground to cater to the public. What is she even trying to get at? She seems to be hinting at something that went down between the various ambulance teams or dispatch. Maybe we assumed one of the ambulances on-site could take him, and as such were delayed in calling another so bear some responsibility if the policy was clear? Otherwise, it's not related to us at all. If it transpires that anyone in a position of authority at the MFC encouraged Trac back out on the ground despite his own potential, evident, reluctance - then we should be in the gun, and perhaps it will shine a light on an industry-wide attitude. If not, we followed league protocols by all reports: if the protocols need to change, then Wilson can go after the AFL and stop using words like 'negligence' and 'wrongdoing' in relation to our football club thanks. Meanwhile, I would encourage the MFC to send her team a friendly reminder about defamation laws, and to be very, very careful about how she chooses her future words.