AFL club accused of 'oppressive' tactics to elect preferred board members

Melbourne Football Club has been accused of using oppressive tactics to elect preferred candidates to its board and “squeeze” independent candidates from canvassing votes.

The AFL club faced the first day of a Federal Court trial in Melbourne today, after legal action was brought by businessman Peter Lawrence.

The former board candidate has accused the Demons of engaging in oppressive conduct towards candidates who are not already aligned with its board.

Melbourne Football Club has been accused of using oppressive tactics to elect preferred candidates to its board.

Lawrence, who unsuccessfully ran as one of eight candidates during a board election in December, wants the club’s electoral rules to be changed.

This includes an overhaul of a current ban, which prevents candidates from making disparaging comments publicly against the club and the board.

“The prohibition on electioneering is oppressive,” Lawrence’s barrister James Peters KC told the court.

“There’s a pattern of squeezing candidates, who are non-board preferred, from canvassing votes and pushing issues they regard as important.”

He said board candidates were also not given access to a register of members, until Lawrence took the issue to the Supreme Court where a judge ruled in his favour.

“Not only are they restricting what you could say but they were restricting the approach to members during the election,” the barrister said.

Peters said, prior to 2020, there were no board elections held at the club.

Once elected, board members serve for a three-year term.

The Demons’ barrister Michael Borsky KC said the current board has helped the club go from “strength to strength” in the four years since Lawrence had tried to get elected.

“The club is well run, and successful on and off the field,” he told the court.

He said the club’s directors had changed some of its election rules in recent years.

“The directors were seeking in good faith to balance various legitimate interests and competing interests of the club and its members,” Borsky said.

“Those interests included creating a level playing field, so not favouring wealthy candidates who might be able to afford what would otherwise be expensive campaigns.

“And avoiding an inflammatory public campaign which could damage the standing of the club.”

He said Melbourne’s membership had been consulted on changes to the rules and “no one supported unlimited electioneering”.

“The vast majority of members consulted do not want a contested election in the media,” Borsky said.

The trial before Justice David O’Callaghan continues.