chookrat

Realistically there is space in the MCG precinct, the challenge is securing buy-in from the necessary stakeholders to cut through the red tape. I believe we will have first class facilities in the MCG within the next 5 - 7 years I just think we don't have the political clout to drive the process and so need to work within the process set out by the State Government.

Either this or demolish the eyesore that is Fed Square and build something there.

OD, I would think that the votes for providing the MFC with a home in the MCG precinct would translate into votes in the Inner South. The major parties are not likely to win inner city seats in the future but I would think Labor would have picked up votes in the Inner South if they had pledged a home for the MFC in the MCG precinct without losing anything in the city.

Disappointed to see the development isn't billions of dollars of car parks, but I guess carparks near train stations in local electoratea is a federal government responsibility.

I think you'll find it is still a Covid Safe measure, the Directors shouldn't have to get too close to the unwashed masses.

Lord Nev, there is open grass everywhere and if we cut a few trees down there is even more room. From memory the Jolimont proposal wouldn't have even required any trees to be cut down and admin would have been over the railway. From what I understand the main objection has been from a few hundred East Melbourne locals concerned that they will lose space to walk their dogs and if the state government are onboard it wouldn't take much to cut through their nonsense.

Lord Nev, while the money is not the issue a lack of commitment at AFL and State Government level to approve an option where we can build is. Our club has been working on options for more than 5 years now and to not have an announcement shows a lack of conviction to get this done. The land is there, the options are feasible, it should be a matter of choosing the best one and getting started.

Exactly OD and with inflation you are lucky to get any change of $25m to put a flag on a bridge these days.

It's interesting to note that the Octagon for Mixed Martial Arts, which is necessary to host MMA events, was banned in Victoria until 2015. Meanwhile 100's of horses were dying on the track each year with many 1,000's more being turned into dog food if they were not good enough at racing. Governments are highly conflicted when it comes to gambling regulation.

McQueen, I don't have an issue with whether people gamble either but do have concerns with the amount of gambling related advertising in sport. This not only presents issues for those addicted to gambling but also normalised gambling for kids, e.g. they are so heavily exposed to advertising that glamorises gambling at a young age that by the time they are an adult they are de-sensitised to it's harmful effects. As a parent I want to be able to take my kids to the Footy or watch a game on TV without gambling ads everytime the play stops.

I would have thought we'd have an in principle agreement with the State Government that we would have facilities in the MCG precinct and the timing of an announcement. It seems silly that we'd participate and contribute funding to the working group without this commitment up front. When the Gotch's paddock resurfacing was announced I thought Gary Pert nailed it in explaining how sub par our training ground had been since we used to train on the MCG as our home ground. The AFL needs to step up and lobby the State Government who need to step up and accept a viable option whether it be AAMI Park, the MCG Southern Stand, above the Jolimont Railway tracks or the area near the Freeway south of Gotch's paddock. That there is nothing to announce is a cop out as there should be an agreement by now on which development our facilities will be part of regardless of whether all of the detailed work is completed. I wouldn't mind the club publicly lobby on the lack of AFL and State Government funding we have received in comparison to every other club, e.g. publish a ladder of facility funding and where we sit, the state of our grounds since we were blocked from training on our home ground the MCG, and the funding we have contributed to work up options and present to the AFL and State Government which have been knocked back.

Cyclops, I don't know if the data provided to Deemocracy includes a key linking both sets of data, or whether they have simply added email addresses to the original list. In any case the postal address would likely include the person's name and in most cases email addresses and names would be similar and relatively easy to match. Re if this were a game, while I get that Peter Lawrence wants to be on the Board, his challenge re the Constitution takes out Boards attention away from football, our facilities and growing our membership, costs money in legal fees that could be better spent on our footy program or facilities, and creates disunity while we are in the best position we have been on and off the field for more than 50 years. While his version of the constitution may be better the proposed changes are sensible and address the matters of substance. I'd get that if the club were proposing changes that reduce transparency and accountability then Deemocracy's approach might be warranted, but he has picked a big argument over a set of relatively minor concerns. I also back that the Board has stood it's ground as they cannot have a powerful member second guessing every decision and threatening legal action if they don't get their way.

Exactly, and if the MFC membership list with name, email address and postal address all end up online and a hacker is able to find other details like our date of birth and suddenly we start getting hacked. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court adequately considered how the combination of postal, email addresses and names significantly increases data security issues over email addresses alone.

Graeme Yeats, there is a difference between the club sharing our details and another member. As a Corporation the club is governed by the Privacy Act and provisions re how they handle personal data. There is no such provision for how an individual handles personal data. Can any the lawyers on here advise what (if any) recourse we have should Peter handle our personal data in a manner that it ends up being published on the internet. If our names and addresses appear in a list along with our email address then all it takes is for someone to cross reference it with another list linking our email address to other personal data and all of a sudden we are in a situation where identify theft is a real possibility. In my view the Supreme Court has been careless in this instance and should have insisted personal data be handled by a third party with processes to ensure personal data is appropriately managed and destroyed once its purpose is achieved.

Bartlett sent a pointed letter to members asking members to support the boards director nominations and included some pointed language towards not voting for Peter Lawrence. I doubt they would be working together. Re second point, I agree that the defamation lawsuit has nothing to do with the Constitution Review. Alot of effort has gone into Peter's campaign and he wouldn't have included this by accident. It's pretty obvious the Constitution Review is less about getting the Constitution right than it is about advancing his board ambitions. I don't have a problem with his aspirations, but what I do take issue with is that he's trying to destabilize the board to advance his own position.

Spaghetti here is a photo of the what was in the letter.

I received the Deemocracy letter in the mail today and I'm trying to work out why Peter Lawrence has sent a letter to every member highlighting that our President and 3 directors are being sued by a former President. This attempt to discredit our board should be seen for what it is, a move against our board, and the trivial constitution changes make alot more sense when viewed from this perspective. I don't like what Peter Lawrence is doing and I also said at the time when our former President sent out a letter urging members to vote for the boards nomination instead of Peter Lawrence, I felt our President was overstepping the mark.

Is there any reason why either Joel Smith or Schache cannot play Petty's role in the backline and to play Petty forward? We probably need to prepare for our next batch of KPF's by only playing one of Ben Brown or TMac in the side along with a younger KPF. Also happy for JVR to get a run noting that he would likely struggle as our key target and would benefit through a TMac/Ben Brown and Petty to occupy their key best defenders.

I like Robb and reckon he could spin a good yarn, as long as the story isn't too complex and no more than a couple of paragraphs long.

Personally I'm annoyed that someone (Peter Lawrence) can apply to the Supreme Court to obtain my personal information. While I get that Peter is a passionate supporter I don't have any issue with what the club is proposing and have more pressing matters than rewriting our constitution.

At a practical level if someone is serious about nominating for a board position then it shouldn't be difficult for them to muster up the support of 20 members.

Valid points. What I will say re Ross Lyon is that he led a dominant team that were with a kick of winning two grand finals. There is a good argument that he did almost everything right and was a bit unlucky to not have won a Premiership.

It's interesting that Ratten was at Hawthorn from 2012 to 2018. It doesn't make alot of sense that he was offered a 2 year contract extension mid-season and then terminated a few months later by the very people who extended his contract. Might be a coincidence but maybe not.

I'd also argue that the unlucky bounce would have mattered less if St Kilda were up by 10 goals, like we were.

I'm wondering if we will see a Coach traded to another team as part of a soft cap dump. Honestly if Don's and St Kilda were more organised they could have simply swapped Rutten / Ratten and saved alot of $$$.