- Apr 2, 2012
- 9,865
- 12,358
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Moderator
- #51
I spose now that it's gone to court old mate figured he might as well just do it. Wouldn't be much trust in the club from him
Melbourne Club Statement
- Thread starter DemonZombie_001
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So we've learnt that bare minimum membership gets you access to everyone's mailing (probably home) address and email addresses. That's concerning. I'm glad the club told us and hope they tell us if it happens again.
It's a bit cooked and as R&B says, the Act probably needs updating or the way football clubs are legislated. Having that ease of access to personal information for such little investment is mental.
It's a bit cooked and as R&B says, the Act probably needs updating or the way football clubs are legislated. Having that ease of access to personal information for such little investment is mental.
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
Yeah, honestly I find it hard to take aim at the club over this, they were put in an impossible position. Either you allow and essentially endorse the practice of every member with a bone to pick being able to email all the others with whatever grievance they like. Or you try to call one blokes bluff to spend a bunch of money to fight it out in the courts under the risk that he might get access to the personal information of members (that he is entitled to).
In a legal sense it appears we essentially tried to kick it long to the pocket to limit the damage of a turnover but lost in the courts the same way Melbourne did at the end of last season.
- Oct 9, 2014
- 2,392
- 1,886
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- #54
The actual request for members address details is perfectly legal, Requesting Register of Members, the key point is what is this member requesting the list for.
That is that this list has been requested to solict votes for an upcomming election, which is a valid reason.
The Supreme court action, I believe, is surrounding the request for Email Addressess. Which was not as clear cut as providing just names and addressess is under the Corporations Act.
I think the existing Board has quite nicely confused the message to be one of Privacy over the actual changes they are going to make.
For myself I find a lot of this very cringey like the "Demon Spirit" and a multitude of other things that can come out of Footy clubs. So I never really dig too deep.
That is that this list has been requested to solict votes for an upcomming election, which is a valid reason.
The Supreme court action, I believe, is surrounding the request for Email Addressess. Which was not as clear cut as providing just names and addressess is under the Corporations Act.
I think the existing Board has quite nicely confused the message to be one of Privacy over the actual changes they are going to make.
For myself I find a lot of this very cringey like the "Demon Spirit" and a multitude of other things that can come out of Footy clubs. So I never really dig too deep.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 9,865
- 12,358
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Moderator
- #55
Yeah, surely the board could send out alternative views on the constitution with a caveat that they aren't endorsed by the board. I get they don't want to send something out every time a nuffy wants, but this is a significant decision of the club. If they really want people to engage with their changes to the constitution they should be willing to accept different perspectives coming in and be willing to share that info with members.
It's also a rare enough situation to create a limited precedent that shouldn't mean they're sending out every thought any member ever has.
Supermercado
The straw that stirs the drink
Old Mate Deemocracy has done a good job making it look like you're voting on which set of changes to adopt. Reality is when 25% of people vote against the proposed amendments nothing changes, which is royal cutting off nose to spite face.
MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE
Premiership Captain
Got a letter in the mail today.
This is Deemocracy Manifest.
IIRC Peter was going around the ground handing out flyers at Casey Fields when our AFLW team were playing St Kilda's last season.
Is there any way we can obtain members details, find his address and spam his letterbox?
This is Deemocracy Manifest.
IIRC Peter was going around the ground handing out flyers at Casey Fields when our AFLW team were playing St Kilda's last season.
Is there any way we can obtain members details, find his address and spam his letterbox?
MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE
Premiership Captain
I followed the Proxy Guide and at Step 5 I "accidentally" selected A instead of B.
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
I remember early this year when there was a board election going on Kate Roffey seemed kind of annoyed about it. The results of the election were the reappointments of the candidated up for election.
www.melbournefc.com.au
Couldn't remember much about the election so I looked into it a bit more and it turns out old mate Pete was on the ticket but failed in his bid to get on the board.
It's interesting that the club constitution requires nominations for the board each year but we've rarely seen elections take place. This would imply that most years the current board just nominates themselves and usually no additional condidates are nominated. The constitutional changes seem to target this stuff to prevent ongoing yearly elections taking place and maintain those already at the club. Obviously this doesn't work in Peter Lawrence's favour if he was planning to run again this year.
My worry is that with all the recent drama with Glen Bartlett, and the fact that he mentions the ongoing legal episode between Bartlett and our current board, we may be seeing a rogue faction emerge who are determined to make their way into the club.
I'm pretty keen to find out who the hell this guy is and why he is so insistent on getting onto the board. What is his vision, relationship with other board members, what if any relationship does he have with Glen Bartlett?
Melbourne Board Election results
Three candidates have been re-elected to the club's Board
Couldn't remember much about the election so I looked into it a bit more and it turns out old mate Pete was on the ticket but failed in his bid to get on the board.
It's interesting that the club constitution requires nominations for the board each year but we've rarely seen elections take place. This would imply that most years the current board just nominates themselves and usually no additional condidates are nominated. The constitutional changes seem to target this stuff to prevent ongoing yearly elections taking place and maintain those already at the club. Obviously this doesn't work in Peter Lawrence's favour if he was planning to run again this year.
My worry is that with all the recent drama with Glen Bartlett, and the fact that he mentions the ongoing legal episode between Bartlett and our current board, we may be seeing a rogue faction emerge who are determined to make their way into the club.
I'm pretty keen to find out who the hell this guy is and why he is so insistent on getting onto the board. What is his vision, relationship with other board members, what if any relationship does he have with Glen Bartlett?
MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE
Premiership Captain
Peter Lawrence's ticket has a strong "Gogriff campaigning to be a Bay 13 board moderator" energy about it.
As long as it doesn't interfere with us getting our home-base buildings at Gosch's.
Our HQ training and office/social Hub.
A11dAtP0w3R
Dumpster Fire Diver
- Oct 18, 2013
- 89,275
- 125,685
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Carolina Panthers
Why now? Coz all board members are flogs with egos and anyone wanting to be a board member is the same.
Appreciate it, that makes a lot of sense.
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
Special General Meeting: Resolution carried
The club's SGM was held on Wednesday night
Peter Lawrence's stunt has failed. The changes to the constitution have passed with a whopping 84.1% of the vote in favour of the clubs changes.
At the very least it seems like the members are pretty comfortable with the current admin.
- Oct 9, 2014
- 2,392
- 1,886
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- #68
Special General Meeting: Resolution carried
The club's SGM was held on Wednesday night
Peter Lawrence's stunt has failed. The changes to the constitution have passed with a whopping 84.1% of the vote in favour of the clubs changes.
At the very least it seems like the members are pretty comfortable with the current admin.
We will not know if this has been a good thing or a bad thing for years. I have a feeling it will be a meh thing actually.
00Stinger
100 - 7
how did this dickhead think that by getting everyone's personal details they would vote for him?
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
Agree on meh, I was a bit put off at first but the more I've read the less concerned I am. The only real difference is that instead of a limit of 9 years board members will have a limit of 15 years. I expect there are a few on the board who were getting close to that 9 year limit and we didn't want to get rid of them. I don't really care who is on the board. As long as they're stable, keep the books in order and stay out of the footy department then they've done a good job.
