Must fess up on Wallace to qualify for handout

[Reggi]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I agree, but it is possible. It depends on how they are classified and whether they have actually been paid. I'll note that some of the dodgy things we did were cash related too. Many companies have gone down because expense payments have been turned into assets or development expenses have blown out.

It is possible - but it isn't really likely - as we improve everyone with a chip on their shoulder will want to throw out all kinds of rumours about problems in Sydney.

Especially melb journos etc will love spreading Sydney rumours and I think as supporters we just need to say the same thing.

Produce facts or quit your whinging - because they are going to whine, squeel and complain all the last half of the year.

Caroline Wilson has just thrown out as an issue that some of the directors on Sydney's board are paid money - as if there is anything unusual about that - paid directors are as common as traffic signals.

All this "the AFL has done gotten this player to Sydney and has done gotten given over this money" no facts just rumour and innuendo, and if they say it enough it becomes the truth.

Colles and Jackson are professional people - if they say it ain't true I'm prepared to believe em.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by footyhead
Either way i still want the reponsibility of the club to at least in part be handed over to the supporters. IE give us a vote and a say , and a scense of participation.
I am afraid that they will use their stuff ups to deny us this once again.

I don't want to upset other members of the SSI board, but as a free speaker I'm very scared of what is happening at the moment.

Richard Colless has recently really started suddenly befriending several of the SSI board, as he is well aware that we are aiming at a member-elected board.

However with 3 positions on the board being made available, and Colless again stalling on the voting-rights issue, I'm scared that there will be a compromise deal done so that positions are offered to those already of the committee of SSI, which basically is something that fundamentally goes AGAINST everything I personally want to acheive in being involved with such an organisation.

I know the way Colless and other members of the club operate. They have treated us as lephers, and now they are scared of us they can't wait to "befriend" us, applauding us for the work we do (so as to avoid us asking the hard questions on behalf of the members like "where has all the money gone?"). Suddenly Colless is on TV calling Eddie Maguire "bro" etc. He has been singing the club song with the players of late as well, and even spoke to the president of the Cheer Squad the other night. Why now all of a sudden?

I'm personally extremely concerned. But fear not, I will NEVER be one to tow the party line if I do not 100% identify with what is taking place.

I may have alienated myself from others within the SSI committee but publicly saying my thoughts here. So be it; it's my club too, and I have a right to express my opinion without being gagged.

I will never support a policy of cloaks and daggers within SSI. As that is one of the things I detest with the way the office is run.

JF

[Reggi]

Just a query the club constituition surely has provision for board elections if enough club members signed on or something - usually that is how it works.

Poor Richard though eh - if he doesn't talk to supporters or supporters groups he'll get told he lives in an ivory tower - doesn't pay attention to supporters. When he does talk its a worry.

Can't win either way can he?

Done a pretty fair job Colles - don't see any reason why he in particular should be removed.

[Damien]

I don't support SSI one little bit, but if one member of that organisation accepts a position on the board that is not elected (even if they say they could fight for it from within), they will lose any of the credibility (chokes) they might have. I am sure a few people in that organisation would love to get on that board even if it meant through the backdoor.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
Ahhh.. nothing like a bit of controversy to keep the boards running hot.

Here's my take on it. I don't think the rumours are true. If it is proven that they are true however, then yes, heads should roll. I don't see any reason to continue with the speculation until that time. Not that I'm doubting you, NW. Just your sources

Des, I know that you are taking a conservative approach to the issue, as the last thing RWO is libelous comments flying around.

BUT, if the club NEVER releases any information about anything, then how can any information get out at all.

I have no vested interest in saying that Colless DID pay out Wallace. However we as supporters of the club should be pressuring Colless to spill the beans either way. If he is innocent, which just quietly I doubt greatly, then why isn't he trying to prove this to us, the people who are more than likely going to stand by him if he is right?

Buggering off overseas when this matter has exploded is possibly the WORST thing Colless could do. It also does not help give the impression that he is wanting to stand by and board up the hatches when the club is in its hour of need. Or is he to blame for the mess, and is chucking a Skase and running away from the scene?

All I can say is that I know the cloak and daggers approach of the office, where the less said is deemed to be for the better. I have experienced that personally myself, so I DO know what I'm talking about.

Whether some of you are actually willing to listen (Charlie, Grayham on Bigfooty) is another matter entirely.

JF

[Reggi]

Without wanting to just be a Colles defender - what else can he do but come out - as have Jackson and Demetriou and say they have not paid Wallace any money.

Are you calling him a liar?

[Charlie]

Julian, you said you "know" that a pay-off occurred. HOW you know is what I want to know.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Charlie
Julian, you said you "know" that a pay-off occurred. HOW you know is what I want to know.

I'm saying I know the way the office is run mate, and am aware as to how they not only treat employees there but throw around the $$$ with gay abandon. I'm also aware as to the type of person who succeeds in that office, the less they know about

Hopefully the AFL WILL provide findings either way. I trust those at Jolimont will not be shy in hiding the results of their findings.

JF

[Charlie]

So you DON'T have any knowledge of a payment to Wallace?

If not, then the Swans board surely has the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

[Gunn]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
I don't want to upset other members of the SSI board, but as a free speaker I'm very scared of what is happening at the moment.

JF

With free speech comes responsibility. You have shown none of the latter. Lots of slur and innuendo. No substance. No resonsibility.

[Gunn]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Des, I know that you are taking a conservative approach to the issue, as the last thing RWO is libelous comments flying around.

I have no vested interest in saying that Colless DID pay out Wallace. However we as supporters of the club should be pressuring Colless to spill the beans either way. If he is innocent, which just quietly I doubt greatly, then why isn't he trying to prove this to us, the people who are more than likely going to stand by him if he is right?

Buggering off overseas when this matter has exploded is possibly the WORST thing Colless could do. JF

The last thing RWO needs and along comes you to make sure it gets it. :-(

You sure have a funny way of "just quietly" doubting Colless's innocence. I saw you mouthing off on Bigfooty leaving no reader in doubt that you have him convicted. A real perverse way for a swans supporter to act.

And you have the bloody hide to criticise him for speaking to the fans and almost in the same breath you criticise him for taking a holiday rather than stick around and suffer people like you.

How many times does he and everyone else around the club have to deny it for you to accept it. If Colless didn't take his holiday, stayed at home and denied it daily for the next three weeks would that make _any_ difference to you?

You are Exhibit one in any argument against having a special "members rep" on the Board. I want the right to vote against you....and any like you

[Roscoe]

Like Reggi I am a finance professional for 27 years.

i personally know swans finance director Andrew McMaster.

He is a registered Auditor and has been a Swans director for 7 years at least.

He is a passionate Swans man and an honourable Swans man.

He has been with the Swans through thick and thin.

Andrew is now working full-time on the Swans finances.

In my opinion I would find it impossible to allow a "Wallace Payout"

Until they are proven guilty, the Swans board are innocent.

How on earth can you take seroiusly the opinions of a gutter-snipe,sewer rat, scuttlebut, rumor-mongering journo like Mr Tabberer and Rigomortis Caroline Wison

[robbieando]

Gunn,

What JF is after is an open and member ELECTED board not a members rep on the board. The members of this club should have a say in how this club is run, by electing who WE think is best for the job and frankly until then the stuff brought up by JF will only get more valid.

Why can't we vote for who we want on the board, why can't we have a Annual Report and an Annual General Meeting. We can't we, other clubs do it and do it well. The more the club is opened up the more things are done right. Who knows whats happening at the club, we never get told this unless we happen to read a media beat up in the papers.

Maybe the anti-SSI people should look at what good it CAN do instead of dismissing it as utter tripe. No one gave it a chance and no one is willing to. Hardly fair is it.

Keep your head in the sand, you won't notice when the club is no longer around.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Roscoe
Like Reggi I am a finance professional for 27 years.

i personally know swans finance director Andrew McMaster.

He is a registered Auditor and has been a Swans director for 7 years at least.

He is a passionate Swans man and an honourable Swans man.

He has been with the Swans through thick and thin.

Andrew is now working full-time on the Swans finances.

In my opinion I would find it impossible to allow a "Wallace Payout"

Until they are proven guilty, the Swans board are innocent.

How on earth can you take seroiusly the opinions of a gutter-snipe,sewer rat, scuttlebut, rumor-mongering journo like Mr Tabberer and Rigomortis Caroline Wison

A story in todays Herald Hun said that the Wallace deal (if true) was off the books and if the AFL tried to prove it they wouldn't be able to as there is no paper trail, most likely because the deal is being paid for by an outsider and not the club. So if the story is true and Wallace did get a pay off, the club isn't the one paying for it.

[Damien]

Originally posted by robbieando
A story in todays Herald Hun said that the Wallace deal (if true) was off the books and if the AFL tried to prove it they wouldn't be able to as there is no paper trail, most likely because the deal is being paid for by an outsider and not the club. So if the story is true and Wallace did get a pay off, the club isn't the one paying for it.

My question is - HOW the hell could Wallace take Legal action if the pay out deal is not honoured by the swans or the swans rep if no paper trail exists??

Funny thing is that, if these allegations are true, the AFL is most likely going to block member voting for many more years until the financial situation is sorted and the club is sound.