Slartibartfast

Grundy in 6, Hunter 12 and Schache 19. AMW and Smith running reps, Grundy, Fritta and TMac all doing drills with running interspersed. Tmac looked totally unhindered and was doing the warmup kicking drills. I didn't see Harmes, Lever, Brayshaw, Gawn, Oliver, Lingers, Melk, Tomlinson, Dunstan, ANB, Petty, Brown and Smith. I didn't see Taj either but he may have been there. Usual warmups, then ball movement drills on 3/4 ground. Had to leave earlier than expected unfortunately so that's about all I saw. Spoke to AMW very briefly and he said he'd added 8 kilos and was 182 but still growing. He's got an infectious smile and personality. Hoping for really big things from him.

What are the rules around draft tampering and what are the likely penalties? I think what you are suggesting is very dangerous ground and high risk for low reward given the uncertainty around drafting.

No I'm not part of Deemocracy. You might find this hard to believe but I'm not interested in the politics or agenda's being run. I just find it utterly insulting that the Board tell me I'm not able to get information from those seeking election and I'm therefore not able to make an informed decision on who should be on the Board. It's outrageous. For completeness, I do know Peter Lawrence and I find it disappointing that those that don't know him cast him in such a negative light although I understand why they would have their concerns. Afterall there is no way for him to outline his position. Oh, and as far as I'm aware Lawrence is unable to contact members now as the Court decision included a provision that he destroys the membership contact details after the vote on the constitution was taken. Perhaps others closer to the situation could confirm this.

Lord, I know you're rusted on to the Board and they can do no wrong but the major difference we are seeing in the Hawks and MFC election is the Hawks candidate's ability to communicate with members. Our candidates can't. Our Board is a closed shop. And as we know with Boards you don't know they are doing a poor job until it's too late. Fresh blood is one way of having some sort of check on a Boards performance. As members we didn't vote on a Board member from 2003 to 2021. In that time we had the Gardner Board and the Stynes/McLardy Board. How do you think they went?

It’s a fair concern but if we can see the issue I’m thinking it’s odds on JT can!

Why. These are the regular best 22 players not in the QF team: JJ, Tmac, Bowey These players are best 22: Grundy, Hunter These are the players with likely "best 22" quality: Chandler, Turner, JVR These are good quality backup: Dunstan, Tomlinson, JSmith These are players with potential and 12 months MFC development: Howes, Laurie (24 months), AMW Now you may disagree with some of the classification but it's highly unlikely that someone at P13 is going to make an impact early. These are the 11 - 20 players picked last year. How many would have played and made an impact for us last year? (Sorry for the formatiing). In my view we've got 2 free hits this year and can go for high reward options. We really don't need a "nice player". 11 Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera St Kilda Glenelg 2021 12 Josh Sinn Port Adelaide Sandringham Dragons 2021 13 Ben Hobbs Essendon GWV Rebels 2021 14 Campbell Chesser West Coast Sandringham Dragons 2021 15 Leek Aleer Greater Western Sydney Central District 2021 16 Darcy Wilmot Brisbane Lions Northern Knights 2021 17 Tom Brown Richmond Murray Bushrangers 2021 18 Angus Sheldrick Sydney Claremont 2021 19 Jacob van Rooyen Melbourne Claremont 2021 20 Kai Lohmann

Then trade 13 for a future first rounder.

I'd prefer it if State Governments were abolished.

Our constitution is now set for a while I'd image but I was interested in these comments reported in The Age today from Gowers. "Diversity is not just a male and female thing. Diversity is about differences of opinion, ideas, cultural backgrounds, religious views, which creates a melting pot of contributions which allows you to safely have a broad discussion about a range of topics". Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice. I'm still smarting over our (members) lack of choice of directors, lack of information and lack of input into the constitution. It reflects so badly on our Board. So much groupthink, lack of fresh ideas from people who have been there too long and who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

It's a footy myth that Charlie kicked 5 on Smith last year. Smith was on the bench for one of the goals and another was when Rivers had the ball and Smith ran of Charlie to receive a handball. Rivers handballed it to Charlie instead and he ran into an open goal. Technically Smith was on Charlie for that goal but it wasn't through his bad play that Charlie goaled. It was in our first final in Adelaide.

It's an opinion business Dazzle and that's my opinion. He did well under Bailey and was highly rated by the footy department at that time. I think he would have flourished in a more inclusive environment. By the time he got to NM he'd completely lost interest in footy. Two rising star awards speaks to his ability to play competitive AFL footy and he averaged just under 20 disposals a game. That's pretty impressive for a bloke at the beginning of his career and suggested a good career was in the offering.

Under Goodwin he would have flourished. Neeld sucked his love of footy from him. Boy, could he play.

I’ve just read The Age summary of the game. They didn’t have Libby Birch in the best. Can you believe it? She was outstanding.

I'm not going further Daisy as I don't know. And I agree that Boards need to be well structured. I do know that Peter has a strong background in finance and fundraising and our current Board Member in charge of fundraising is based in Perth. But beyond that I can't comment.

Katrina I'm not sure if you are aware of the efforts that the Board went to in trying to dissuade Peter from standing, not once but twice. When they were unable to dissuade him they then changed the election rules to prohibit him from communicating with members and limiting him (all those standing) to a 250-word statement. This is clearly not "fair and open" elections. It not apathy by members not standing. It's manipulation by the Board to stop anyone other than the anointed few who are selected by the Board from representing the Club. It's much closer to autocracy than democracy. Autocracy is a legitimate form of governance. I just happen not to like it because it takes away my right as a member from having even the slightest input into the club and more importantly is promotes groupthink which isn't the best form of governance. As WCW has said you know Kate Roffey and it's understandable that you defend her and the Board but let's recognize this Board for what it is. It's an autocracy. Yes, it was COVID times. The players were roped off for this particular reason as well as to give them a space for their gear and medical attention if required. Clearly the Board thought they too deserved protection. Really? Outside, chatting closely with themselves, the staff, the players but not with "Joey from Moe"? It was a horrible look at minimum and sent a very poor message to those that were there. BTW, have you ever spoken to Peter? I've not noticed anyone who has say he was anything but respectful, thoughtful and full of passion.

Now that I look at it the email was sent out by the Club! Wow, they could have done the same with Deemocracy and saved us all the trouble! How's your democracy going Mo? Dodged that one didn't you!🙃

Hey Mo, until Peter Lawrence stood no member of the MFC had voted for a Board member since 2003. That's democracy for you. And I just got an email from NT Tourism because the Board supplied them with my email address. It was pretty confronting, I had to delete it.

Katrina explain to me what was so bad about the Deemocracy proposals that the Club didn't want members to see them? Frankly I don't give too hoots about the constitution and the only change I had any interest in was the proposal that people who want to stand for the Board have the opportunity to communicate with members. I'd guess, although I might be wrong, that this, along with "tenure", were the main issues the Board had with Deemocracy's proposals. In my opinion you (plural) support one of two positions in relation to the election of Directors. The first is that the members have little or no ability to choose and the sitting Board invites people onto it to replace those that no longer want to serve. In essence this is what has happened in the last two Board elections. The Board established rules which prohibited those standing for election (or re-election) communication beyond a small number of words - around 250 to 300 I believe - but allowed the President to endorse those he or she chooses and to campaign for them. Nobody outside those endorsed by the President will ever get up in these circumstances. The second is open and fair elections where those wishing to stand for election as Directors can communicate their views and promote their candidature. Peter supports the second as do I and I think most would. The opportunity to establish "fair and open" elections was lost last night and we will just have to hope this Board is active, passionate and committed because as members, under the current constitution, we have little chance to remove them if they aren't. Our performance on field was years in the making and started by Peter Jackson. This Board has ridden the crest of a wave but their elitest attitude worries me greatly. A glaring example of this was one day at training at Gosch's when there was a special area roped off for them to watch while we as supporters were outside the ropes and unable to mingle. It was a small but very symbolic thing. As you say Katrina, actions speak louder than words. I'd put Peter's actions up again any of the Board and I reckon you couldn't find a more passionate and committed member than him. His treatment has been disgraceful.

I don't want to debate all this because people have their views now and nothing I say will change those but standing for the Board is not "agitating". Secondly he didn't want the addresses, he want to give you ideas for amendments to the constitution and the Club stopped him doing that by refusing to send out his email to members. Anyway, we differ. I'd suggest you contact Peter, his email is in the public domain and he'll give you his telephone number and you can talk to him. Then you can decide if he's an agitator.

Up front. I know and like Peter Lawrence and whilst I understand why people have the views they have I think they are very misguided. Peter asked me to respond if his nonattendance last night was raised on Demonland so I'm not breaking any confidences in passing on this information. Peter's daughter is a humanitarian worker in Africa and a trip to see his daughter was planned long before the date for the meeting last night was set. Hence he couldn't attend. Further, I think that some of the commentary here is wrong. Many believe that the challenge to the constitutional changes recommended by the Board was part of a plan to get on the Board. It wasn't. My understanding is he doesn't intend to stand for the Board again. Secondly many are blaming him for the costs incurred by the Club in challenging his right to have email addresses. Well, the Supreme Court found the Club was wrong in denying him the addresses and that he should have been supplied with them in the first instance. Further Peter offered the Club the opportunity to send his correspondence to members directly to ensure he wouldn't have access to the email addresses but they declined. In effect, the Club is responsible for Peter being able to access your email addresses and the cost of the Court case were the decision of the Club. Daisy made a comment earlier that "it's a strange hill to die on". If you think about it that just shows he has the Club's best interest at heart because this was not the hill to die on if he wanted a spot on the Board or push an agenda beyond the constitution. He wanted us to have a modern and fair constitution and was denied the opportunity to present his ideas to the members. All he did was fight for a chance to present ideas to the membership. The Club fought him at every turn. Their attitude is inexplicable.

What is your objective Dazzle? Is there a player you are particularly targeting or is it just "let's get an earlier pick and hope there is someone there we like"? I don't understand the desire to get earlier picks. Post the finals I read post after post lamenting that we didn't give many of the players at Casey a go in the seniors. These players didn't play in the final game against Brisbane - Bowey, JJ, JVR, TMac, Laurie, Howes, Turner and Chandler. All would have expectations of making a genuine claim for regular senior footy next year. This doesn't include JSmith, Tomlinson and Dunstan nor Hunter (Grundy for Jackson is like for like) or Schache. We have good senior depth and some good young players coming through who need a career path and we need to find out who can and who can't play. My view is we don't need anymore "fair average quality" talent (a pick in the 20's) and if we are going to be successful in the long term we need elite talent to come up under Oliver, Petracca etc. I take the opposite view to those wanting to trade up the board. If there is someone we really like at 13 then use it but if not, then we should trade it out for a future 1st. That would leave us with 3 firsts next year (and our future first) and two seconds. That is an astoundingly good position to be in and would allow you to 1) trade up for earlier picks in a very good draft, 2) attract and be able to satisfy a club for an elite talent , 3) just take 5 picks in the top 35 of a very good draft. We don't need to trade up for the sake of trading up. If there is a specific target then fine, if not we should play the long game.

If all the hacker has is an email address what can he do with it beyond sending you emails? He doesn’t have bank details or other identification information. Im not suggesting I want my email address available to everyone but it just doesn’t seem high risk as is the case with the recent Optus and Medibank data breaches. But I’m by no means an expert in this area.

I don't understand Dazzle, why do you feel sorry for blokes if you understand they have not been disadvantaged?

I'm sorry if this has already been raised but I'd like to make a couple of points. The first is the only thing that has been released as a result of yesterday's court decision is email addresses. There is no personal information along with the addresses, no DOB and no credit card information. It seems to me that this is just the same as a residential address, in fact I'd rather a person only get my email address rather than my personal address. And if you don't want emails either block them or delete them. Secondly this could all have been avoided by the club just sending out the emails on Deemocracy's behalf. No court case, no privacy issues, no angst and they would have acted responsibly and in the best interest of members. Instead, they've cost us tens of thousands of dollars because they didn't want a member telling other members what an alternate constitution would look like. Wow, all this over a constitution. The core changes that Deemocracy wants seem sensible to me. Why the Club refused to consult with Deemocracy and discuss this in a sensible way seems very odd to me. Personally I don't give a damn about the constitution, I just want to win footy games, but the Board just seem to be acting as a select group of entitled elites who merely say "my way of the highway". I've no confidence in them.

Dazzle doesn’t seem to get this. Most do.