FreedFromDesire

Completely agree it would impact performance - Not just of the football team, but I believe of the business of the club as well given the current setup has us spread out over 3 locations currently. Getting everything under one roof is paramount. As mentioned previously, I do believe there will be progressed announced on that this week.

That's a fair point, and possibly something that could fall under the extensions of communications that I mentioned I'd like to see. I do understand that such a thing is a delicate balance though - Having debates between candidates has the potential to get ugly if not administered well in my view. Definitely more information is needed overall, completely agree there. I guess for myself, I don't see AFL club football boards as being the same as political elections, and I would not like to see politics creep into the process more than it has already.

I'll absolutely add that to the good things he has achieved then. Thanks for the information.

As a matter of interest, an article from March this year by the Governance Institute of Australia places us 3rd among AFL clubs in their rankings based on governance. It doesn't appear to be hugely in-depth, but it's definitely a different standing to what perhaps most of us would think: 3) Melbourne Demons Melbourne Demons have a dedicated governance page on their website[19] and were able to articulate their nomination process and requirements to nominate for a board position and relevant contact details.[20] This process went over and above what most ASX listed entities do in relation to nominations for directors and didn’t require having to read through the constitution to understand the process. Four out of its eight directors are female and the president is also female, which is more than the fifth edition 40 per cent proposed recommendation. Kicking the governance football – How does your AFL club compare?

A couple of points to raise here: Definitely agree term limits has been a good addition, and it's one of the good things Mr Lawrence has managed to achieve. As I understand it, the matter would have still ended up in the courts as the club did not adopt all of Mr Lawrence's demands. I don't think either side covered themselves in glory in that regard. Perhaps I have missed it, but I don't believe anyone is saying we shouldn't hear from candidates, in fact I think most are saying quite the opposite? I think though that having firm and reasonable rules around how that is managed is appropriate as those with more means, more aggressive agendas, and perhaps more willingness to politick in an unbecoming manner could do harm to the club. As I mentioned above, I believe that should be extended on what currently exists, but I don't think public mudslinging is good for anyone. I'm not 100% sure you are correct about no other clubs replacing board members in such a way. I believe Essendon are currently doing that very thing, and Carlton did similar in 2023 when they had a controversial exit of a board member. Those are two examples I can think of off the top of my head, so I don't agree with your statement.

Someone else will know the full details I'm sure, but I believe there's a candidate statement written by each of them where they are all allocated the same amount of words and are shared on the same platform so all is fair in terms of communicating with members. Perhaps there could be more in-depth communication allowed over all, but I think the last thing any football club, and especially ours currently, would want would be a public debate that could very well descend to the depths we see regularly with modern politics. I do understand that it is an elected position, but I would hate to see our football club dragged through the mire of political point scoring. Not only would it be a destablising process, but having those who have attacked each other publicly then ending up sitting next to each other on our board would mean nothing would get achieved.

Can you please clarify which section of the article explicitly states that? I've read it through twice now, and perhaps I've missed it somehow, but I read nothing in that article that gave that impression. It does imply that the Whateley interview was somewhat of a last straw that meant Smith's decision was needed to be more forthcoming though: "The club has denied to this masthead that Melbourne directors met without Roffey’s knowledge on the Friday after the Whateley interview, but either way she stepped down the following week in a move that brought the Smith presidency decision to a head. It was a brutal undoing that disappointed the AFL Commission, which had hoped for an orderly succession." Is there another section of the article where you interpreted it that Smith "did not want to be seen coming in over the top of that disaster"? Also, you appear to be either misinterpreting or being miselading in the reasons you have quoted. Again, directly from the article: "The 68-year-old’s decision to decline a board role did not come about primarily because of that key disagreement nor due to any discomfort over (redacted for Demonland purposes, but mentions current legal proceedings). In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, first as a footballer and emerging young lawyer, and more recently as MCC chairman while continuing his full-time practice. He has told friends he wants a post-retirement break with his family. He has not ruled out standing for the board in 12 months." It seems important to be careful about being entirely accurate when posting a paywalled article. I don't believe your comments to be truly reflective of the contents of it.

Caulfield is all systems go. Will be announced next week.

I love Brad Green as a footballer and a person, but this happening so incredibly soon into his Presidency tells you all you need to know about if he has the nous to be in such a role. I have no doubt whatsoever this role will be very temporary, even with Smith delaying his joining of the board. This attention is, of course, not Brad's fault - But it does show a lack of understanding as well as a bit of a startling lack of prioritising. I have no ill will towards Joe, but a new President meeting with him within a week of being in the role when so many things are going on at the club at the moment, not just the current climate but also the upcoming trade period and coaching structure changes, is such a poor decision.

Among all the comments around his injuries, it's worth mentioning Carlton have had terrible form in managing injuries so much so that they sacked their fitness boss. Historically he's not a player that misses a huge amount of games over his career. 3 out of his 7 career seasons he's played 20 games or more, then two lots of 18 and a 17 outside of this years poor return of 13. As much as I have issues with certain factors around our handling of injuries, which is a multi-person issue, Griffith seems to handle soft tissue ones well and I don't believe injury worries would be a big factor in a trade.

There's a thread now on Demonland here:

We need kicking skills more than leg speed. Kicking wins over running every time. Smith's kicking efficiency is as bad as Oliver's and he's not even an inside mid. Very very hard no from me, not that we have a chance anyway.

Sounds like this has been done now.

"Carlton secured Cerra on a four-year deal on what would be considered a bargain in terms of salary. Sources familiar with the contract said the Blues are paying Cerra less than $600,000 per year over the term of the deal, significantly less than the $700,000-plus that Fremantle had been willing to pay for him to remain at the Dockers." Cripps chat turns birthday boy Cerra into a Blue on bargain deal Also worth remembering that it's ok for us to strike while we get the higher discount for Gus' contract.

A future first pick for Cerra and Owies would be ok in my book, or perhaps future first for Cerra and Carlton's second round pick this year (currently pick 31).