Bye bye Spagnolo...

[Wizard Sleeve]

That's not necessarily how this particular version of the phoenix game works. The person in question arranges for the creditors meetings (i.e. with respect to the company facing liquidation) to be stacked with 'creditors' who are in fact his mates, and who agree to accept a ludicrously low proportion of the $$ 'owed' to them. The majority decision is then binding on the other creditors (the ATO). It's true that other poor buggers (subbies) can get caught in these dodgy schemes, but that's not always the case.

PS: There are no average shareholders in the companies. They are very closely held. But the shareholders liability is limited to their unpaid capital....so effectively the ATO cannot chase the shareholders for the company debt, unless they can prove that whole arrangement is a sham

Let's just use your example , does that make someone too honest or morally above flogging off property he holds the power over in a way not in the best interests of the club ?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Let's just use your example , does that make someone too honest or morally above flogging off property he holds the power over in a way not in the best interests of the club ?

No idea.....don't know the bloke...or anyone directly involved with the club. Not defending him in any way....just clarifying what the phoenixing allegations amount to.

Not much would surprise me these days.

EDIT: BTW I'm not suggested that defrauding the tax office is a good thing either......it's not....other f**kers end out paying for it.

 

[Green River Eel]

Im not sure why anybody is surprised, Spags seems to have a very sketchy history in business dealings, seems like he has been i centre of a few incidents before, this is the tip of the iceburg, if the rest of it surfaces there might be a few worried people.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

I'll go counter to the popular opinion: THIS IS STUPID.

Why?

Because it just shows that the other side of the 'petty infighting group' are doing stupid things now. If Spags is 'wanted' by the constituents to run the club, then let him run it. I highly doubt anyone wants him to run it, so just let him fade away into obscurity.
By 'banning' him they're just lighting a fire under his supporters, giving them 'reason' to act, and making a rod for their own back. What happens in 2 years when this miniscule ban is over? Surely we're all seeing that Spags will be looking to come back - and if he gets back in, the 'tit for tat' rubbish will continue.

Best thing that can be done is to ignore the goons once they're gone --> don't keep making circular paths for them to come back and flex their muscles again.

That won't happen because we have our invincible white knight Dennis Fitzgerald, the protector of the Eels, on our side.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

Gary is my brother (as is Larry). I realise that you didn't infer anything about criminal allegations (I was just making it clear that I too was not suggesting anything of the sort). My point is that you need pretty solid evidence of something greater than mismanagement/incompetence if you wish to ban someone from running for office. Interesting (in a bad sense) to see how this plays out....but I would be surprised if this is over.

Is Mary your brother too?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Is Mary your brother too?

It's as if you reckon I just make all this stuff up;-)

 

[The Elephant In The room]

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...-car-and-the-beer-coaster-20131031-2wm0v.html

That's lot of misunderstandings.

 

[strider]

yeah i knew the 17,000 members was too good to be true, 3,000 of them are spagnolos :roll:

 

[born an eel]

yeah i knew the 17,000 members was too good to be true, 3,000 of them are spagnolos :roll:

also explains the differences in the election results for the 2 boards, easier to manipulate the footy club elections as they have a much smaller base.

 

[strider]

also explains the differences in the election results for the 2 boards, easier to manipulate the footy club elections as they have a much smaller base.

ummm - isn't there a waiting period before voting anyway???

 

[born an eel]

and good on the plumber, looks like he has flushed a bad one.

 

[born an eel]

ummm - isn't there a waiting period before voting anyway???

depends on who you know
according to the article

It is also alleged that similar issuing of free memberships - understood to be season-ticket packages - was conducted in 2010 and 2011, at a cost of as much as $22,000 to the Eels. nDespite not being financial members, those people crucially gained voting rights at the election, it is claimed.http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...-car-and-the-beer-coaster-20131031-2wm0v.html

 

[Gronk]

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...-car-and-the-beer-coaster-20131031-2wm0v.html

That's lot of misunderstandings.

I am sure that this kind of thing happens throughout the corporate world. Plenty get a ride on the gravy train. As I said yesterday - Glass Houses + throwing stones.

He started the witch hunt by seeking vengeance against anything remotely linked to Fitzy. Stupidly, he could not keep his nose clean and caved to temptation. - allegedly.

 

[IFR33K]

Was warned 24 months ago by an eels official spagnolo was selfish and only in it for his own benefit.

Some very interesting points from the above article. 15k for a car worth no more than 9k. 120k in bonuses for Bentley. Did he do anything to warrant such bonuses???

 

[strider]

bob did quite well ... tho if it is contractual, surely there is a document that says so

 

[The Elephant In The room]

I am sure that this kind of thing happens throughout the corporate world. Plenty get a ride on the gravy train. As I said yesterday - Glass Houses + throwing stones.

He started the witch hunt by seeking vengeance against anything remotely linked to Fitzy. Stupidly, he could not keep his nose clean and caved to temptation. - allegedly.

Agreed that it happens all the time in corporates, but corporates aren't governed by the Registered Clubs Act, nor do their "shareholders" usually have the same passion for the company as members of a footy club do.

I think your second paragraph is the more telling one. Its one thing to allegedly make a mistake, even if on purpose, but it's quite another to do some of the same things you knifed your predecessor for. Its just plain stupid. If we are going to have people on the Board that are only in it for their own financial gain (allegedly), then I at least want smart ones, not idiots.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

bob did quite well ... tho if it is contractual, surely there is a document that says so

There is, but you have to use a magnifying glass because all the contractual terms were written on a beer coaster :sarcasm:

 

[born an eel]

bob did quite well ... tho if it is contractual, surely there is a document that says so

even if there was you still have to play by the rules

It was further alleged he had earlier handed another bonus of $20,000 to Bentley in February without approval and of giving Bentley a pay increase in October 2012 without it being ticked off by the board as is required in the Registered Clubs Act.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...eer-coaster-20131031-2wm0v.html#ixzz2jLHD8Eld
​

 

[Gronk]

Agreed that it happens all the time in corporates, but corporates aren't governed by the Registered Clubs Act, nor do their "shareholders" usually have the same passion for the company as members of a footy club do.

I think your second paragraph is the more telling one. Its one thing to allegedly make a mistake, even if on purpose, but it's quite another to do some of the same things you knifed your predecessor for. Its just plain stupid. If we are going to have people on the Board that are only in it for their own financial gain (allegedly), then I at least want smart ones, not idiots.

I recall that there were a few opposed to the Spags ticket, warning that their intentions were personal and purely focused on the clubs assets and cash flow. They were laughed off and pigeon holed as being Fitzy apologists. No doubt those particular posts are frozen in time in the former election thread (now removed from public view).

I am pleased that rorts were exposed by an independent audit, however suggest that this type of scrutiny should not be a one off and be an annual part of our club's auditing.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

I recall that there were a few opposed to the Spags ticket, warning that their intentions were personal and purely focused on the clubs assets and cash flow. They were laughed off and pigeon holed as being Fitzy apologists. No doubt those particular posts are frozen in time in the former election thread (now removed from public view).

I am pleased that rorts were exposed by an independent audit, however suggest that this type of scrutiny should not be a one off and be an annual part of our club's auditing.

You shouldn't find anyone that doesn't agree with the above in bold .