george_on_the_outer

Geelong have done very well in convincing players to take less than their market rate: https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/09/09/this-is-what-geelong-do-hawkins-shock-2023-salary-revealed/ If this article is correct, then combined with the departure of Selwood, Higgins and Dahlhaus that gives them a good amount to play with to pick up the salary for Bowes. Also apparently the new CBA sees an increase in salary cap for 2023, but I haven't seen figures.

Not enough room to build indoor facilities, gyms, pools, video rooms, meeting rooms etc that are needed today. And then somewhere for the administration and football departments.

Adem must be very pleased to have dodged a major bullet....... https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-lost-faith-in-their-new-ceo-how-did-it-come-to-this-20221004-p5bn6x.html https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/new-essendon-boss-andrew-thorburn-quits-one-day-after-appointment-20221004-p5bn6s.html

RM: PROXY INFORMATION You would have received a Notice from the Club about the Special General Meeting by email last Thursday, 29 September 2022. OR : https://typeformdeviomedia.typeform.com/to/AHZ9nMoR Please click on the Nominate a Proxy icon, then At Step 3 choose the option ‘someone other than the President’. At Step 4 insert the name Jonathon Mahon (he is part of our Deemocracy team). You will be asked to include his membership number which is 1603 7892. At Step 5 you can direct your proxy by clicking on A Yes At Step 6 you can click on B ‘to vote against’

Fine in theory, just doesn't happen in practice. Often used argument, when the same level of scrutiny is not applied to men on the board. Just becomes the old boys club, unless something is done to change it. 1. 50% of population are women, and probably our members. 2. We have an AFLW team 3. Governments are progressively making grants only to organisations which include gender diversity. 4. We have only had a handful of women on the MFC board in our history. We still don't have a true representation of our members.

Next Monday at this stage. Andy busy this week, organising our trades and drafts. We thought it would be better in a weeks time when the trade period is mostly done.

Vote AGAINST the Board’s proposed changes to our Constitution. The Club’s changes are cosmetic and do not address fundamental flaws. The Deemocracy Group engaged a leading Australian law firm to draft a contemporary document which meets today’s principles of governance. We are striving for excellence on the field – we must do the same off the field! Differences between the Club’s changes and Deemocracy’s new draft are highlighted below. Our complete Constitution is attached. Make us great both on and off the field! Attend the meeting on Wednesday 26 October 2022 and vote AGAINST the motion, OR Appoint a proxy - someone other than the President (who will vote FOR the resolution) - to vote AGAINST the resolution. (Note: if you appoint another MFC member as your proxy, you will need to have their membership number).

DEEMOCRACY MFC Constitution Comparison Table - Spot the difference!! The Melbourne Football Club proposes only amendments to the current Constitution. Deemocracy proposes a complete ’re-write’ of the Constitution which is over 15 years old, so as to make the document contemporary with market practice and easier to read with removal of cross-references to the Corporations Act. Deemocracy engaged a leading Melbourne law firm to draft its version of the Constitution. MFC Deemocracy Club purpose & identity The name of the Club now includes references to our colours, the MCG as our home and the Demon mascot. Tick Tick There is reference to our Club’s purpose of the pursuit of premierships Cross Tick There is acknowledgement of the Club’s pioneering role in the AFL, including the AFLW Cross Tick There is acknowledgement of the Club’s key supporter groups – Coterie, Past & Present Players & Officials, Demon Army, Foundation Heroes & Legends and volunteers Cross Tick There is acknowledgement of the Traditional Owners of the lands we play on and the contribution of First Nations People to the game Cross Tick There is acknowledgment of our role of supporting social, cultural and gender diversity and inclusion across the Club Cross Tick Inclusion and diversity Replaces Chairman with President Tick Tick The Board is required to use best endeavours to ensure at least 1/3 of directors are female AND at least 1/3 of directors are male Cross Tick Director Elections Allow electronic voting for director elections Tick Tick No change from 2, being the number of members required to nominate another member for election to the Board – consistent with most other Victorian AFL clubs – MFC proposes an increase to 20 Cross Tick The Club must notify all voting members directly in relation to the conduct of elections, timing of the nomination period, and details on the number of vacancies to be filled Cross Tick The Board must be made up of at least 6 elected directors but may also appoint directors Cross Tick The principles of fair and open elections are outlined in the Constitution, allowing candidates to communicate freely with members and prohibiting explicit or implicit Board endorsement of candidates Cross Tick Director Term Limits Introduces term limits of 3 x 3 years for directors Tick Tick Provides an extension of one additional term (not two) for the current President only Cross Tick Alternate Directors Removes the possibility of Alternate Directors Cross Tick

To find out what the alternative is to the smokescreen go to here: https://www.deemocracy.com/ To put it all together, these are the basic differences to what is being fed to the members, and what should be included in any modern football club constitution:

So why not put the preamble into the constitution? It means nothing unless it is.

Lots not covered adequately. No recognition of history, our home or the games indigenous history. Board still writes election rules to suit themselves. Gender diversity? nothing.... President can stay on board for 12 years or even 15 in one case!! 15 years since last rewrite, and 2 years since we were told a new constitution is coming. This is all we get? And then it is just yes or no...no options... We need better than this. We need a constitution suitable for today, not a rehash of the "old boys" preferred option. Even Carlton & Collingwood have produced modern constitutions....why not us? Vote NO or we will finish up being second rate again.

Really should read the articles before posting. 2018 for Casey. We are not looking for crumbs. Others have had tens of millions given to them to build facilities. And then more to upgrade them. We don’t have one in 2022!!

...and wouldn't you hate being a forward .....is he going to kick it? Short or Long? Is he going to keep running? Will I run forward or retreat? Do I lead now or wait until he stops running? The fans love the look, but it does nothing for the team.

Yes, or you have to be physically strong like Mumford, Lade, Natanui. Point is today 197cm alone is not enough, especially when you come up against Witts, Natanui, English, Reeves, Lobb & Cox.

Trouble is this Board has been saying for the past 2 years " we can't say anything yet because of what the government will allow us to say". To date: nothing! Prior to that Glen Bartlett said he would have a training facility before he quit. Nothing, and the same Board is still there. Prior to that.....go back to Ian Ridley when proposing the merger with Hawthorn....we will get a training facility! Go to the 2020-23 MFC strategic plan. Item 5 " start construction of a new Melbourne home base facility" 12 months to go and nothing! So other clubs can "get millions" which are used to refurbish existing facilities, but we don't even have that. The ONLY club in the AFL which doesn't!

The guy is 197cm. Too small for an AFL level ruck. Only got the job at Casey after Daw retired. 2023 will be his 8th season at the club. And people still think he can be turned into something.

The TV ratings for this game should put to bed the lie that Sydney are the most supported team in the competition: https://www.afr.com/companies/sport/afl-grand-final-a-ratings-bomb-for-channel-7-20220925-p5bkt9 How is it that barely 300K watch "their team" from NSW in the GF , when supposedly they have 1.2 M "supporters" across the country? And that assumes the NSW viewers are Swans supporters.... oh yes, Roy Morgan think so: https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/sydney-swans-are-the-most-widely-supported-afl-club-ahead-of-collingwood-west-coast-and-essendon

Well done Richmond. Kept Brisbane down in the leaders pack. 18 points to 14!!!

Will hopefully improve with the addition of Duffy this week. A genuine forward. Harris has moved up the ground. Daisy is not a forward, and we have depended on Kate Hore and the mids to put score on the board. Critically % will be a big factor with this biased fixture. If your team is fixtured to play the new sides in the competition you will get big % boost. With only 10 games, there will be a log-jam at the top and second rate sides will get a finals gig, same as when they ran the conference system before.

Probably because names were named in the report, but de-identified for public consumption.

Good idea if it gets rid of pre-season matches, as is proposed. So the players won't be affected. Now watch Gil give it to Tassie in the first year.....and we get allocated Queenstown as the ground to play at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/queenstown-gravel-oval-why-was-it-built/11499186

Best way to guarantee another ankle strain. Strapping is good post injury to get back on the day, but if you want it to repair, stop strapping further.

Libby doing it all on her own. Heath great at tackling, but forgets about where the ball is in general play. How many goals did they get from kicking it off the ground in the goal square? Daisy wasted in the forward line. Need to bring Duffey in to kick goals. L. Pearce needs to hit the ball away from the opposition goals.

I think it was @binman who was speaking about Salem, Bowey & ( Spargo or Fritsch)

Not a fan of Melksham by any means, but the reason for retaining him is quite simple: Between main and rookie list we will probably and have lost : M.Brown, Rosman, Daw, Baker, and Jackson. That is 5 list spots already, and we will in all likelihood get 2 draft picks for Jackson. We don't know what Bedford and Chandler will do, but if they were to go, then probably more draft picks. Even with 5 picks, that means our 5th pick is pick 90 at the earliest. If Melksham is delisted another draft spot, then that becomes pick 108. Is Melksham better than a speculative pick 90? One would have to think so.