Must fess up on Wallace to qualify for handout

[Gunn]

Originally posted by 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.

My head isn't in the sand...nor is it in the sewer.

I am all in favour of an elected board if I have a vote. I am against an group unelected by the full membership which are to sit on the board representing members.

I am not so naive (as I suspect some are) to believe an elected board will magically solve all budgetary/salary cap problems etc. Witness the elected Boards of Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood and Melbourne etc who have rorted the Salary Cap and lost millions. Nevertheless I still favour an elected Board.

Ps I am extremely grateful for the work members of the current and past boards have done for our club for little or no reward. I am also not willing to condemn them on the flimsy "evidence" you presented.

[Gunn]

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.

Very convenient for them. They can make an allegation and know the club can't prove otherwise by producing the books nor by denying it. It also feeds Anti Sydney hysteria in Melbourne ans panders to those in Sydney who are anti AFL/Swans. The perfect 'story'.

I like to know what 'outsider' we have who would donate $600k per year for up to 3 years 'for the club'. Even Smorgon the president of the Western Bulldogs and one of the richest men in Australia has never made a donation of such magnitude to his club. Lucky us.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Gunn
My head isn't in the sand...nor is it in the sewer.

I am all in favour of an elected board if I have a vote. I am against an group unelected by the full membership which are to sit on the board representing members.

Thats what JF is on about. He is on the board of SSI, yet he doesn't want to see this happen. He wants chance and a more open club. Not much to ask

I am not so naive (as I suspect some are) to believe an elected board will magically solve all budgetary/salary cap problems etc. Witness the elected Boards of Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood and Melbourne etc who have rorted the Salary Cap and lost millions. Nevertheless I still favour an elected Board.

It won't solve problems, what will is if the board in whatever form know that if they don't do the right thing they could lose their positions. Bron and JF are in support of 3 positions at a time, where members over time get to vote on the make up of the board. To change the board over in one go could have fatal effects in a simular case to whats happened at Carlton, things were bad, but it wasn't until the got into they knew how bad things were. Now Carlton will survive that because they have some very rich fans, we don't.

Ps I am extremely grateful for the work members of the current and past boards have done for our club for little or no reward. I am also not willing to condemn them on the flimsy "evidence" you presented. [/B]

I'm also grateful for their work, but things are bad if 10 years after they got into power we are back where we started. I don't put this down to everyone and their are reasons we are in this way. But clearly we have overspent believeing revenue would match expense, THATS where we have gone wrong.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Gunn
Very convenient for them. They can make an allegation and know the club can't prove otherwise by producing the books nor by denying it. It also feeds Anti Sydney hysteria in Melbourne ans panders to those in Sydney who are anti AFL/Swans. The perfect 'story'.

I like to know what 'outsider' we have who would donate $600k per year for up to 3 years 'for the club'. Even Smorgon the president of the Western Bulldogs and one of the richest men in Australia has never made a donation of such magnitude to his club. Lucky us.

Very good points

I believe a payment WAS made but nothing to level that has been suggested nor for 3 years. Maybe just to cover expenses such as Plane Tickets and accomdation when interviewing for the job. But then every club does this (we did it when Eade interviewed for the job) As Wallace said tonight if he was getting paid extra do you think he would be working 3 jobs and do you think the club would of let him do so.

[Gunn]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I've said all along, this is what I've heard, I think it might possibly be true. I have never said it is definitely true, but it is possible.



You seem to like denigrating my source because he is a salesman,

If it isn't true, the only explanation I can think of is that Mike misunderstood Rob. That Rob told him something about the deal I believe, but exactly what I don't know. I'm simply repeating what I was told.

You are in danger of getting a fence paling up your bum. Time to say where you stand. What do you believe is the truth? Of ourse anything is possible particularly when the accused can't prove the negative. Is it likely. The answer to that question must depend to a large extent on the word of the participants.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying Ron Barassi, Colless, the Swans Board and Terry Wallace are liars?

Do you believe them or the saleman?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Gunn
You are in danger of getting a fence paling up your bum. Time to say where you stand. What do you believe is the truth? Of ourse anything is possible particularly when the accused can't prove the negative. Is it likely. The answer to that question must depend to a large extent on the word of the participants.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying Ron Barassi, Colless, the Swans Board and Terry Wallace are liars?

Do you believe them or the saleman?

What's a saleman...?

Just because corporate leaders deny something doesn't always mean a lot. I've seen plenty say no we're not doing this and then have to turn around and say they were (look at Telstra today). Some may be lying, some stretching the truth or some may not know. Or the source might be wrong and they are telling the truth. Or it is somewhere inbetween.

I think something is there. I don't know exactly what it is, but I don't believe the Swans are entirely innocent in all this.

All along I've simply stated what my sources were and why I thought they were believable. I didn't say that I thought it was absolutely categorically correct, however it was certainly feasible.

In terms of payments, perhaps the Swans have diverted some sponsorship money towards Wallace. This enables a mapyment to be made and off the books, and allows them truthfully say that they are not paying Wallace.

As for Wallace saying why is he working 3 jobs, it's because he loves football and wants to stay in touch.

[desredandwhite]

Alright, you guys have had plenty of time to put your arguments forward. Is there any way we can keep this civil, please?