So despite agreeing, as I understand it, to the first three points of Mr Lawrence's case, namely:
The practice of fulfilling casual vacancies before shortly before an election where those appointed then nominate for the upcoming election,
Failing to properly notify all members when nominations for board elections were open,
Board endorsement of the existing directors running for election
The board has now gone back to the previous practice of fulfilling casual vacancies before an election and endorsing existing directors.
Along with the Oliver trade mess of 2023-24, the Petracca mess in 2024, the JS affair, the Oliver trade talk again now, board resignations, the diminished performance this year, the lack of independence in the review, the other court cases, and the continual delay to a training base (it's still just a concept), tell me why the board is doing such a great job?
Just interested as a "neutral supporter" observer in all this.
,