george_on_the_outer

Jack....do you know if Cory Ellison has nominated for the AFL draft?

Great! That will guarantee attendances will be non existent at 7 other games. Or if Port play Adelaide....at 8 other games! And my MFCSS says it will be a "Home" game for us

Read the date at the top of the article! Then read the date in their latest rules.

In hindsight, Just which players at Casey would people suggest as suitable selections to replace injured 1sts players? JVR would have been the only one! Weid as ruck to replace Max? Baker to replace Langdon? M.Brown to replace BBB? Our backs were not the injured ones, neither were our mids. Brown, Kossie, Rivers, Langdon, Max, Jackson, and Jordon were the obviously injured ones in the finals. So which Casey player would replace any of them? ( apart from JVR). We have a serious depth problem that this scenario has shown up. 3 of the best Casey players this year are no longer at the club. 4 if you include Bedford. If injuries arise again in 2023, our situation is the same.

Not true: CFC-Ordinary-Member-Definition-Aug-22-2.pdf

Spot on there WCW! What an absolutely awful game to represent two finalists in the competition. Neither side kicked a goal after quarter time, and the coaches just loaded the backlines, as no 666 rule applied apart from the commencement of the quarters. Our win against Adelaide will be critical, as it has now put us on the right side of the draw, as Brisbane and Adelaide are the only teams that remotely look like challenging us. We actually outmuscled Adelaide to win, which is what they did to us in last seasons GF. But with Purcell, Hanks and West on the inside they matched them brilliantly. Two of those players were effectively only playing their 2nd season for us. And a big shout out to Goldy for shutting down Randall. But a bit too gutsy a coaching move for me to leave Marinoff unattended, but those mids of ours kept getting the ball before her....

Best collection of Collingwood jokes from the people at the Punt Road End: https://www.puntroadend.com/threads/collingwood-jokes-merged.2126/

NT football is great to watch from a spectators view, but tackling is rare and everyone is just out to get the ball for themselves. Makes it next to impossible to assess the individuals capabilities.

As much as it hurts to say it.......Go Pies!

Because it is required under Corporations Law. And now following Peters successful application and others quoted in the action, case law.

and by providing your information to the Club and the AFL you have agreed to this under the AFL and Club privacy policy: You agree to the disclosure and use of such personal information in accordance with this Privacy Policy, and consent to its disclosure overseas and its use by third parties, including our service providers, in the USA, Gibraltar, China and such other countries in which those parties or their computer systems may be located from time to time, where it may be used solely for the purposes described in this Privacy Policy, without us being responsible for such use (or for any breach). ....and people are worried about just an email address?

Yes it is, and confirmed in yesterdays court case.

No because that is not a proscribed purpose under the Corporations Act. However, the MFC can provide you with the email addresses for marketing purposes, since members have already agreed to that when they signed up ( even if they don't know it).

We need to keep the % up in these next two games.....and the weather forecast isn't all that flash. Could turn into a low scoring slog which will not suit us.

I can assure you this is not about ego on behalf of Peter. He is simply trying to get the MFC a constitution which is in line with 21st century principles. And about giving the Members the option to vote for it or not. It is 15 years since the last changes...are we going to wait for another 15 before we modernise? At the moment the Board is only presenting their truncated version, and refusing to offer options to the members ( too confusing for them). Not what the members might want or asked about, while leaving all sorts of antiquated clauses which suit them. To give an example: The Board currently is allowed to set the rules for election procedures. This will not be changed under their proposals. So we presently see: 1. Director nomination period advertised in the classified section of the HS and is only open for a limited time e.g. 1 week. When it is placed is at Board discretion. 2. Candidates have to be vetted by a Board nominated "independant" committee 3. Candidates can only submit a 300 word case for their election 4. No "electioneering" allowed, including mailouts, advertising etc. Does this seem fair and democratic? Perhaps voters in Hong Kong would see certain similarities. So the Board is adopting the same tactics as were adopted against the Demon Alternative in the merger scenario. To quote from "Between the Flags" by Ian Munro: "To argue the case for access to the full list of members, he ( Jenkins) began Supreme Court action. Only then did the Board agree" That is why Peter has been forced to pursue this action to obtain the email addresses which the Club hold, and should be provided under Corporations Law and subsequent case law.

The NBA rings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_championship_ring "Rings are presented to the team's players, coaches, and members of the executive front office" The NFL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_ring "The Super Bowl ring offers a collectable memento for the actual players and team members to keep for themselves to symbolize their victory" If our Board is going to introduce some brassy American idea, they could at least do it the same way as the Yanks.

Give up SWYL. There is a car park under the stand today. There are railway tracks and a road alongside. The re-development is 5 years away. There is not enough room. Look at the size of the Brisbane facility. Look at the size of the Essendon facility. They are both bigger than the MCG!

And Jayden Hunt who played 20 games in the season and contributed to us getting to the big dance......gets NOTHING!

This will be arriving in your letter box in the coming days: You may have received a message from the MFC According to the message ‘your feedback played an important role in developing’ the Club’s recommendations’. Do you recall the feedback you were asked for and the opportunity you were given? We prepared a detailed submission to the Working Group, which was – well - ignored. There was no meaningful engagement with us. We have had a leading law firm draft a Model Constitution, especially tailored for our Melbourne Football Club. It is our contribution to improving the Club’s off-field performance. Included in the message is one statement we agree with – ‘it’s important your voice is heard’. Their proposal is a hotchpotch of amendments, crafted in their Closed Shop. They should have entirely re-written our relic of a Constitution. We are better than this! Our Model Constitution has now been passed to the AFL, who we met with.. Thank you if you have already voted AGAINST Deemocracy Mailer_Conversation_web.pdf Deemocracy+Proxy+Guide_web[100]-1-1.pdf

We just have to keep winning and at least doubling the oppositions score to stay where we are. What Brisbane and Adelaide do is up to them, but I can't stomach barracking for the Pies to win ( yes I can if it means we finish top)

Earl Spalding?

Shown little, and hasn’t physically developed.

Not quite....if I remember you have to OPT IN to get the card.....the electronic version will remain the same.

Quick....alert @Demonstone!

Since the club hasn't posted this: Highlights why and when and strategic oversight.