Must fess up on Wallace to qualify for handout

[NMWBloods]

As for you NMW your "evidence" is also paper thin and frankly unbelievable. We argued this late last year. Repeating it does not make it any stronger. Pub talk. Hearsay on hearsay. A throwaway line at best. Your impecable source is a person who has a duty to his client to maintain his confidence. No self respecting "manager" would disclose this sort of information. I give your story no credence.

You reckon these guys don't all talk to each other? How do you think that every major transaction in town is discovered long before it is made officially public. There are no secrets - high flyers love to tell each other a little bit about whta's going on if it's juicy enough.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Gunn
I'll tell you how to get closer to 'the deal'. Phone up your mate Rob Woodhouse (yours misspelt his name, right?) and ask him directly. You now have a direct source. He is a mate of yours isn't he? Why else would you bother to mention you went to school with him?

You believe a "Saleman" who promised not to divulge a confidence from a guy part of whose job is not to divulge client confidence and who you say was breaching that confidence. A proven liar and a guy with no ethics. You want us to believe that "evidence". Yeh right!

My misspelling (I have just been reading some PG Wodehouse). I mentioned I went to school with him as I know both guys involved and I would be surprised if they made this up just for fun. I no longer know Rob, I used to, so I don't plan to call him. Again, I don't think you understand how trading markets work - stories get passed around very quickly and easily. Not all of them true, but many of them are.

I'm not saying that is definitely a true story, all I'm doing is stating the sources I have received it from. It is possibly true. At the same time, you guys are all pretty ready to dismiss any stories and believe everything from management.

If they had agreed to a settlement with a non-disclosure clause, of course they would deny everything.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Charlie
NMW - that story really does have more holes in it than the Bulldogs' defence.

Which part? That Rob would know? That Rob would tell? That Rob would tell Mike? That Mike would tell anyone?

[Charlie]

The middle two.

You say that they talk... but this is a confidential deal that would hinge entirely on it never, ever, coming out. Corporate fraud, breach of contract... whole can of worms.

So no, I don't for ONE MOMENT believe that this Woodhouse guy would just spit it out to his neighbour.

[Gunn]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You reckon these guys don't all talk to each other? How do you think that every major transaction in town is discovered long before it is made officially public. There are no secrets - high flyers love to tell each other a little bit about whta's going on if it's juicy enough.

That's what you want us to believe for unless we believe that you have no story. You want us to believe that there are no ethics and therefore your story must be true. I was in a profession where ethics were very high. I never divulged a confidence and I know of no others in my profession who did so either.

Answer these questions:

When the following people specifically denied that a deal was done with Terry Wallace-

1. Was Ron Barassi telling lies?

2. Was Richard Colless telling lies?

3. Was Terry Wallace telling lies?

4. Was the Swans board telling lies?

You are asking us to anser all those questions in the affirmative.

What I want you to do is to publically come out and answer each question directly and call each publically a liar.

Should we believe the above persons or your salesman neighbour who is an admitted liar?

You have already made it clear that there is no way that it could be proven to you that the story is false. All the participants have denied it in public and you have written above that you wouldn't be satisfied with a full examination of the books because it is too easy to hide the transaction.

Stretch your imagination for a moment and assume that the Swans are telling the truth. Just how do you think they could prove it to you? The books won't cut it and you don't believe the participants.

[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

[Reggi]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Same!! But when it was said the AFL auditors have checked the books, did they say they were specifically looking for that payment or doing their normal audit?

I'm a finance professional as well - it ain't that easy to hide 600K on a 25 mill turnover - especially when you need to be open with the AFL - who have said they've looked into it and no paper trail exists.

All sounds pretty implausible to me.

[Angelic Upstart]

If we assume the worst - that Wallace is being secretly paid a coach's salary - then the least he can do is provide Roos with an extremely detailed dossier on each Dogs player for this week's game!

[Gunn]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
My misspelling (I have just been reading some PG Wodehouse). I mentioned I went to school with him as I know both guys involved and I would be surprised if they made this up just for fun. I no longer know Rob, I used to, so I don't plan to call him. Again, I don't think you understand how trading markets work - stories get passed around very quickly and easily. Not all of them true, but many of them are.

I'm not saying that is definitely a true story, all I'm doing is stating the sources I have received it from. It is possibly true. At the same time, you guys are all pretty ready to dismiss any stories and believe everything from management.

If they had agreed to a settlement with a non-disclosure clause, of course they would deny everything.

Of course I know how these things work. You have no special insight. Most of it is straight BS.

You _now_ say you are not saying it is definitely a true story. Right. You obviously believe the story and you give credence to it by publishing somethin you now say may be not true. You seem to now be trying to have a bit both ways.

Is it wrong to believe all the people who denied it specifically?
Is it right to believe your lieing saleman nameless neighbour or Woodhouse the friend you no longer no or can call up? Should we believe all those people lied on the strength of unfounded gossip?

Do we ignore the 'fact' that after Wallace left the Bulldogs he said he wanted to stay in Melbourne and coach? Do we ignore the fact he has a beautiful home on large acreage at Kangaroo Ground and his young children go to school there. Do we ignore that his manger said at the time that there were a number of coaching opportunities in Melbourne and he was confident of getting one (Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Carlton) or that he had interviews with other clubs before his interview with Sydney. Those fact are on the record.

Should we believe your saleman neighbour or you?

[Gunn]

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

I would agree with all of that.

[NMWBloods]

You _now_ say you are not saying it is definitely a true story. Right. You obviously believe the story and you give credence to it by publishing somethin you now say may be not true. You seem to now be trying to have a bit both ways.

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.

Is it wrong to believe all the people who denied it specifically?
Is it right to believe your lieing saleman nameless neighbour or Woodhouse the friend you no longer no or can call up? Should we believe all those people lied on the strength of unfounded gossip?

You seem to like denigrating my source because he is a salesman, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps instead I should have called him Head of Distribution at one of Australia's top 3 investment banks, and you would have given him a bit more credit. In what way has he lied? Perhaps he misunderstood Rob, or perhaps he is correct, I don't know. I never said I was friends with Rob. I said I knew both of them and I would be surprised if they had simply made this story up.

Why do you also keeping saying "saleman nameless neighbour". I have named him and he is not my neighbour. He is Rob's neighbour. I worked with him. This is why I didn't consider it idle over-the-fence or pub gossip. He told us while we were at work in a very matter-of-fact way.

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.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Reggi
I'm a finance professional as well - it ain't that easy to hide 600K on a 25 mill turnover - especially when you need to be open with the AFL - who have said they've looked into it and no paper trail exists.

All sounds pretty implausible to me.

You can hide lots of things from auditors for a certain period of time. You can also easily convince them it is something else. I worked for a top 50 company a couple of years ago, and over 10% of our profits were derived through fancy accounting practices that the auditors allowed. You wouldn't think you could easily get away with salary cap rorts, given their close scrutiny, but clubs have done for a period of time.

[Damien]

The thing i don't get is that if there is no paper trail what so ever, and the Swans are paying Wallace until he gets anotehr coaching job - what recourse would Wallace have if the Swans failed to meet payments??? Surely the only way to ensure payment is to have paperwork lol.

Anywho.

[Reggi]

That is accounting treatment - we are talking about actual cash here.

Accounting can manipulate 'profit' very easily - cash requires reciepts much harder to do.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Reggi
That is accounting treatment - we are talking about actual cash here.

Accounting can manipulate 'profit' very easily - cash requires reciepts much harder to do.

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.