2010 Board Report

[Gronk]

Not sure how to take Reni/Webb situation. Is the Board suggesting that we have these players because Ando wanted them and that we now regret the decision ?

If Ozzie approached Ando and said - we think these two are worthy of a look and Ando agrees, does this mean that the players were signed because Ando wanted them ? Did Ando feel he had any choice when the Boss wanted them ?

Or did Ando approach the Board about these players and were subsequently signed because Ando always had the first and final say on acquisitions ?

How to these two feel ATM ? A bit perplexed I would think and calling their managers wondering WTF is going on and if they are going to a club that supports their tenure ?

 

[Stagger eel]

Not sure how to take Reni/Webb situation. Is the Board suggesting that we have these players because Ando wanted them and that we now regret the decision ?

If Ozzie approached Ando and said - we think these two are worthy of a look and Ando agrees, does this mean that the players were signed because Ando wanted them ? Did Ando feel he had any choice when the Boss wanted them ?

Or did Ando approach the Board about these players and were subsequently signed because Ando always had the first and final say on acquisitions ?

How to these two feel ATM ? A bit perplexed I would think and calling their managers wondering WTF is going on and if they are going to a club that supports their tenure ?

I think you're reading too much into it Marty, Hadley made a public comment where he stated that those 2 blokes are at the club purely because of Mario Libertini's friendship with their manager(s) (Sam Ayoub I think) he ridiculed the board to the point where the club needed to make a comment which they eventually did with the report.

the critisisim labled at the board by this bloke is 10 times worse than the boards treatment of DA who walked away with the rest of his contract money.

 

[Tony Bongo]

Not sure how to take Reni/Webb situation. Is the Board suggesting that we have these players because Ando wanted them and that we now regret the decision ?

If Ozzie approached Ando and said - we think these two are worthy of a look and Ando agrees, does this mean that the players were signed because Ando wanted them ? Did Ando feel he had any choice when the Boss wanted them ?

Or did Ando approach the Board about these players and were subsequently signed because Ando always had the first and final say on acquisitions ?

How to these two feel ATM ? A bit perplexed I would think and calling their managers wondering WTF is going on and if they are going to a club that supports their tenure ?

I hope they feel lucky to have a contract and determined to put in the best effort they can. Based on this theory Gronk we also have Poore and Shackleton (chosen by DA) ringing their managers asking if they are still wanted. I doubt it though and just hope they are focused on the job they get paid to do.

 

[Haynzy]

As i'm in Adelaide and don't get out to games very often i find it very difficult to measure the performance of the boards.

I'm not comfortable in relying on the media as their message is always full of twisted words, half truths and sensationalisation.
In the same way it's hard to take the report/letter on face value as it seems to be quite the propaganda piece.
Unless I ring up the indaviduals my information will generally be flawed.

From where i sit it seems that the board are going ok. The stuff I don't like is the constant crap in the papers, on this front nothing has changed since the previous administration. The content may be different but the end result is the same and I hope that they can stop the constant leaking because it looks terrible. For this reason i highly doubt that it is a board member doing the leaking.

Any new administration will take a few years to get settled, especially if there are still members of the previous administration involved and in some cases not willing to accept change and seeking to undermine the new lot.

The financial turnaround in my opinion is to be applauded. Not necessarily that in relation to the selling off of assets but the increase in membership dollars and the diminishing of the money required from the LC.

I would love to see an open forum with the board where the issues that people have can be raised because places like this can be such a hotbed of misinformation and chinese whispers.

The thing that concerns me is that so many people here do have access to the board members and can go and talk to them but choose not to and prefer to conduct their assessments via the media and this and 'the other' forum.

 

[strider]

I think you're reading too much into it Marty, Hadley made a public comment where he stated that those 2 blokes are at the club purely because of Mario Libertini's friendship with their manager(s) (Sam Ayoub I think) he ridiculed the board to the point where the club needed to make a comment which they eventually did with the report.

the critisisim labled at the board by this bloke is 10 times worse than the boards treatment of DA who walked away with the rest of his contract money.

maybe they should have worded it a bit better so that those without intimate knowledge of the cat fight going on with Hadley+Fitzy wouldn't know any of that (I sure didn't) - so it comes across very "Ando wanted em, not us" - which doesn't come off looking too good :lol:

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I am most certainly not trained to make such an analysis but it was glaringly apparent to me that this was a propaganda piece. I would like to have seen it a bit more balanced and not omit certain details such as the attempted recruitment of Quade Cooper for one which had nothing to do with DA. Oh and how about Pricey saying on the Matty Johns show that Ossie was visiting Kearney in Melbourne because they're friends.I had to laugh at that in hindsight.
I am glad to see however that certain things are now on record and Ray Hadley's ramblings have been put to the sword. If this remains unchallenged by DA then it is my opinion that there has been agenda to falsely accuse and in turn destabilize the current administration. Many of 'the leaks' then in turn come into question. Which have been the most detrimental to our clubs image? I would say the ones that have now been put on record as being incorrect and false. In particular the signing of Reni Maitua and Carl Webb which had many fingers pointing at THE Board crying interference.

Are you saying that it has become glaringly obvious that both sides of the fence are acting poorly - running propaganda pieces, using their media friends to present a not-entirely-accurate viewpoint that benefits their particular stance and in general acting in a way that does not befit their position?

If so, I wholeheartedly agree.

I couldn't help but come back to this...

I'd imagine she'll find it tough to find employment as it is due to her age (assumed age due to length of service) let alone having this on her record. I know that she would have zero chance of me hiring her. :x

People amaze me sometimes.

Her husband can jys hire her, can't he?

The stuff I don't like is the constant crap in the papers, on this front nothing has changed since the previous administration. The content may be different but the end result is the same and I hope that they can stop the constant leaking because it looks terrible.

I don't have concerns with all the decisions and moves that the current Board have made. My major beef is the way in which things have been handled since 3P decided to form. Our Club now smells of amatuerism and I don't like it.

maybe they should have worded it a bit better so that those without intimate knowledge of the cat fight going on with Hadley+Fitzy wouldn't know any of that (I sure didn't) - so it comes across very "Ando wanted em, not us" - which doesn't come off looking too good :lol:

See my last comment just above. This is terrible.

 

[Stagger eel]

maybe they should have worded it a bit better so that those without intimate knowledge of the cat fight going on with Hadley+Fitzy wouldn't know any of that (I sure didn't) - so it comes across very "Ando wanted em, not us" - which doesn't come off looking too good :lol:

there are many things they should of done a bit better, however there are just as many positives to come out of the last 18 months and I'm not talking about the results on the field in 09..

 

[ParraAds]

I couldn't help but come back to this...

NO REINSTATEMENT AFTER 33 YEARS OF UNBLEMISHED RECORD
The employee commenced work with the employer as a waitress in 1976 and worked her way up to become catering manager.
The employer conducted an investigation regarding employee involvement in board elections and found that the catering manager had e-mailed confidential documents including department reports, profit and loss figures, stock data, monthly sales comparisons and trading analysis for each venue.

As posted earlier by BAE(?).

Who does that? What the hell was she thinking? I don't care if she had been there 33 years or 33 minutes she deserved to be out on her arse.

I'd imagine she'll find it tough to find employment as it is due to her age (assumed age due to length of service) let alone having this on her record. I know that she would have zero chance of me hiring her. :x

People amaze me sometimes.

I believe she has found work in the same industry.

 

[Bigfella]

I tend to agree with Gronk actually. They've been used by both sides a bit.

However as tb says - hopefully they both use it as a spur

 

[Gazzamatta]

I must say that I enjoyed reading the report however for mine its a case of "airing the clubs dirty laundry once again".
I would much prefer they stop all the talk and do their job. Trust me if they do their job properly we WILL notice. Not saying they arent mind you but for goodness sake just stop telling everyone.
Just one more thought. If employees were terminated for spending club money to promote the re election of Fitzy and Co, the disclosure document we have all read, if it can be considered a campaign speech, is pretty much the same issue isnt it?

 

[bartman]

Tantrum pffffttttttt stop being silly. You automatically think that the scathing garbage comment was directed at you. Why?

Maybe because you have been posting directly after my posts, and shadowing every thread to make sure that no comment critical of 3P gets aired without you attacking the poster who made it (rather than making an alternate point and backing it up with something more than opinion)?

I don't mind differing opinions. What bothers me is when people make up bullsh*t that's not true just to suit their agenda. Is this ok with you?

Please show me what's been made up and posted about the Board's recent conduct (re sacking a coach). As I've said, mods will delete any libellous material on first sight. This time I'm going to assume you are not referring to my posts, but if so (or even if not) please back up your claim of bullsh*t with some substance JTS.

We all agree there have been some things that could have been handled better, but w need to move on big time, the constant reference to the old board as if it was some pious regime that never did anything wrong has proved to be incorrect.

I don't recall reading any such comments about the old Board being infallible...? Nothing's been proved, other than some people who (still) support 3P don't like their flaws to be highlighted - some even then bring up a comparison to the old board themselves, to deflect the criticisms of the current lot's performance.

 

[fish eel]

If this was a pub discussion, I would have pissed off home long ago.....

 

[Gronk]

If this was a pub discussion, I would have pissed off home long ago.....

Probably just before your shout. ;-P

 

[fish eel]

Probably just before your shout. ;-P

Probably while heading to the bar for my shout.

 

[bartman]

As for my opinion on the 12-page letter... I've read it, slept on it and read it again. It's clearly more a propaganda piece than straight talking communication to the members, imo.

The propaganda starts in the first sentence, where "our Board" stakes a claim (without evidence) that they are on a path of proper governance. That's political posturing right there, with elections just two and six months away.

The propaganda continues with the selective inclusion of information, and the clever choice of words to describe situations. Under the John Kolc and Sharon Wilson it says they
commenced proceedings in Fair Work Australia "and those proceedings were subsequently settled". This appears to be a sneaky way of saying that John Kolc and Sharon Wilson actually won their unfair dismissal claims against the club/Board...?

Looking at the mentions of Fair Work Australia, it appears that this Board has been found to have unfairly dismissed two people (Kolc and Wilson), has one case still open (Francesco) and claims two "wins" where someone didn't follow through with unfair dismissal action (Grosvenor) and where someone had to be paid their twelve week entitlements (Delaney).

That's only a 50% rate of proper employee terminations in the eyes of Fair Work Australia, with one case to come - and of course the Court Case about Fitzgerald's membership (cleverly not mentioned in the letter, though they're happy to mention a few other "allegations"). I'm not happy my club/Board terminates any employees improperly, let alone 50%, yet Spags seems to think this is a virtue?

The propaganda continues, with the "clever" mention of Peter Wynn as a competitor to the club's merchandise store. Wasn't aware this was even an issue of confusion for any member, but given that Peter Wynn has been reported to be considering running for the FC elections in December, Roy decides to get a negative printed in a letter that goes to all members. They're politicking like crazy ladies and gentlemen, imo.

The claim that they are chasing $100K of Members money through their Project Pittsburgh witch hunt is someone cancelled out by the relevation that they have spend $130K on Mr Findlay and $170K on solicitors to do so - that doesn't add up to me? It's bad business (and bad politics) to spend $300K to chase $100K and then crow about it.

And that $300K figure doesn't include the "settlement" costs that appear to have been paid to John Kolc and Sharon Wilson for unfair dismissal... as a Member I'm more concerned about that $300K or $400K (or possibly more?) of "our money" that's been unnecessarily spent by "our Board" on their witch hunt (which Spags goes on to deny is taking place, even though he's given the evidence for it in this letter, imo).

The DA stuff - they claim no Board involvement in Webb and Maitua, and claim no Osborne involvement in Mateo, Inu and Keating... but fail to mention or address Board involvement/interference in the failed quest to land Quade Cooper.... just convenient, or plain selective politicking?

The financial stuff - it's not very detailed, and until it comes from certified audited financial statements it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Not saying they're deliberately misleading, just that in my line of work I receive organisation's financial figures on the run, and then the final audited ones for the financial often differ by a huuuuge amount.

Personally, observing what's happened with the GFC and world economies, it's a bit ingenious to claim the turnaround from 2008 to 2009 is due to the new Board/administration. Again, in my line of work I've seen financial reports from organisations nearly all turn around in that magnitude, and hardly any had any change of approach/management/directors. It's like blaming politicians at one point in time for global recessions (or crediting them for global growth).

They've reduced executive employment costs - but as stated above had to have (at least) two unfair dismissals to do it, plus a pending court action.

There are some good things they've done in the letter, and for those who accuse me or others of not highlighting the good things... why would I retype them, when Spags has just spent "our money" posting a 12 page pre-election publicity letter to every member. (Incidently, how different is this really to the previous Board sending a much shorter politicking letter in Mandarin to various Tingha Patrons, other than Spags' letter not having any vouhcer and is typed in English...)

Instead I choose to highlight the "missing items", raise the questions that I believe we the Members should be thinking about, and I choose not to blindly swallow Spagnolo's steaming hot pre-election political advertisement/letter like it's gospel.

Spagnolo imo has been shown not to be a man of his word (through his statements and then turnaround on DA seeing out his contract), and if you look at the list of promises from the FC elections, his ticket (which he proudly names throughout this "nuetral" letter) hasn't carried through on many of them within the FC in the past 22 months.

NB. For the slow learners who carry on lately about critical comment, the above is "just an opinion", and if you don't like my opinion then instead of whinging and being paranoid, then please just scroll past or here's the link to ignore my posts: ignore bartman

 

[bartman]

Yesterday:

You're kidding ... You haven't read it but you are going to agree with Gronk?

You could have knocked me down with a feather!

I see the usual tag team is backing ech other up when someone disagrees with them.

Let me guess who else you will end up agreeing by the time you finish ?
:lol:

Then today:

I tend to agree with Gronk actually.

:sarcasm: :crazy:

 

[fish eel]

As for my opinion on the 12-page letter... I've read it, slept on it and read it again. It's clearly more a propaganda piece than straight talking communication to the members, imo.

The propaganda starts in the first sentence, where "our Board" stakes a claim (without evidence) that they are on a path of proper governance. That's political posturing right there, with elections just two and six months away.

The propaganda continues with the selective inclusion of information, and the clever choice of words to describe situations. Under the John Kolc and Sharon Wilson it says they
commenced proceedings in Fair Work Australia "and those proceedings were subsequently settled". This appears to be a sneaky way of saying that John Kolc and Sharon Wilson actually won their unfair dismissal claims against the club/Board...?

Looking at the mentions of Fair Work Australia, it appears that this Board has been found to have unfairly dismissed two people (Kolc and Wilson), has one case still open (Francesco) and claims two "wins" where someone didn't follow through with unfair dismissal action (Grosvenor) and where someone had to be paid their twelve week entitlements (Delaney).

That's only a 50% rate of proper employee terminations in the eyes of Fair Work Australia, with one case to come - and of course the Court Case about Fitzgerald's membership (cleverly not mentioned in the letter, though they're happy to mention a few other "allegations"). I'm not happy my club/Board terminates any employees improperly, let alone 50%, yet Spags seems to think this is a virtue?

The propaganda continues, with the "clever" mention of Peter Wynn as a competitor to the club's merchandise store. Wasn't aware this was even an issue of confusion for any member, but given that Peter Wynn has been reported to be considering running for the FC elections in December, Roy decides to get a negative printed in a letter that goes to all members. They're politicking like crazy ladies and gentlemen, imo.

The claim that they are chasing $100K of Members money through their Project Pittsburgh witch hunt is someone cancelled out by the relevation that they have spend $130K on Mr Findlay and $170K on solicitors to do so - that doesn't add up to me? It's bad business (and bad politics) to spend $300K to chase $100K and then crow about it.

And that $300K figure doesn't include the "settlement" costs that appear to have been paid to John Kolc and Sharon Wilson for unfair dismissal... as a Member I'm more concerned about that $300K or $400K (or possibly more?) of "our money" that's been unnecessarily spent by "our Board" on their witch hunt (which Spags goes on to deny is taking place, even though he's given the evidence for it in this letter, imo).

The DA stuff - they claim no Board involvement in Webb and Maitua, and claim no Osborne involvement in Mateo, Inu and Keating... but fail to mention or address Board involvement/interference in the failed quest to land Quade Cooper.... just convenient, or plain selective politicking?

The financial stuff - it's not very detailed, and until it comes from certified audited financial statements it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Not saying they're deliberately misleading, just that in my line of work I receive organisation's financial figures on the run, and then the final audited ones for the financial often differ by a huuuuge amount.

Personally, observing what's happened with the GFC and world economies, it's a bit ingenious to claim the turnaround from 2008 to 2009 is due to the new Board/administration. Again, in my line of work I've seen financial reports from organisations nearly all turn around in that magnitude, and hardly any had any change of approach/management/directors. It's like blaming politicians at one point in time for global recessions (or crediting them for global growth).

They've reduced executive employment costs - but as stated above had to have (at least) two unfair dismissals to do it, plus a pending court action.

There are some good things they've done in the letter, and for those who accuse me or others of not highlighting the good things... why would I retype them, when Spags has just spent "our money" posting a 12 page pre-election publicity letter to every member. (Incidently, how different is this really to the previous Board sending a much shorter politicking letter in Mandarin to various Tingha Patrons, other than Spags' letter not having any vouhcer and is typed in English...)

Instead I choose to highlight the "missing items", raise the questions that I believe we the Members should be thinking about, and I choose not to blindly swallow Spagnolo's steaming hot pre-election political advertisement/letter like it's gospel.

Spagnolo imo has been shown not to be a man of his word (through his statements and then turnaround on DA seeing out his contract), and if you look at the list of promises from the FC elections, his ticket (which he proudly names throughout this "nuetral" letter) hasn't carried through on many of them within the FC in the past 22 months.

NB. For the slow learners who carry on lately about critical comment, the above is "just an opinion", and if you don't like my opinion then instead of whinging and being paranoid, then please just scroll past or here's the link to ignore my posts: ignore bartman

If that is the case Bart, why is the finding (re Kolc) not on the FWA website?
http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=cdralldecisions

I read that section of the report to read that the two parties settled before it got to FWA.

In no way does that imply that the club unfairly dismissed anyone (nor does it imply the opposite either)

 

[bartman]

If that is the case Bart, why is the finding (re Kolc) not on the FWA website?
http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=cdralldecisions

I read that section of the report to read that the two parties settled before it got to FWA.

In no way does that imply that the club unfairly dismissed anyone (nor does it imply the opposite either)

Thanks for that Fishy. I take your point, and think that section of Spagnolo's letter is poorly worded.

So, if the two cases needed settlement before they went to Fair Work Australia it still seems as though they need to be considered differently to the case where the ex-employee withdrew and Spags claims the club was prepared to fight the claims?

I personally still read those two cases (Kolc and Wilson) as ones the club seems to have "got wrong" in some way, and sought to settle (presumably meaning financial settlement) instead of stand their ground and face the arbitor.

 

[born an eel]

Thanks for that Fishy. I take your point, and think that section of Spagnolo's letter is poorly worded.

So, if the two cases needed settlement before they went to Fair Work Australia it still seems as though they need to be considered differently to the case where the ex-employee withdrew and Spags claims the club was prepared to fight the claims?

I personally still read those two cases (Kolc and Wilson) as ones the club seems to have "got wrong" in some way, and sought to settle (presumably meaning financial settlement) instead of stand their ground and face the arbitor.

I think the wording of this whole document is deliberately worded the way it is to create that doubt. I find it interesting that a case can be settled "confidentially" but is listed as if the person was guilty by association with the others.

Contracts do not seem to rate highly with this administration whether they are employment, confidentiality or termination payouts.

 

[Tony Bongo]

Are you saying that it has become glaringly obvious that both sides of the fence are acting poorly - running propaganda pieces, using their media friends to present a not-entirely-accurate viewpoint that benefits their particular stance and in general acting in a way that does not befit their position?

If so, I wholeheartedly agree.

No I'm just saying I believe it to be a propaganda piece. I am not saying it's a poor act as it is only a letter and I doubt it would have cost anything like the estimated 100K that the previous administration's propaganda cost. Nevertheless it is in my judgement propaganda for the simple fact that it represents a very favorable view of the current board and omits certain facts that may not be considered conducive to attracting members votes come election time.

As with drink driving there are acceptable limits. This letter is right on the limit as far as I'm concerned and they should be vary careful driving home. The last lot that were pulled over deserved to have their licences revoked and never be allowed to get behind the wheel again. One has acted very poorly breaking the laws of decency and the other is certainly treading a fine line.