Eels open door for disgraced Sharks boss

[slippery_sucker]

what the f**k are u on about? the last time i put in any effort towards anybody was trying to have you terminated before you were conceived

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[bartman]

Just to clarify this mistake.
The listening devices act NSW 2005 states categorically that what she did was illegal. The sub clause that has been used in a previous work place case is the clause that states an individual may secretly record other parties to protect their lawful interest.

Appears to be what happened in this case...

In the context of this, selling her story for $70,000 to Ch 7 is not protecting her lawful interest & is in fact the reason we have such good privacy laws in Australia.

She was reported (in the link provided by El Diablo) to have refused offers for her story at the time. There's your context for the recording all summed up. Nine months have passed, doesn't mean you can retrospectively ascribe meaning to an act.

In the case i mentioned the courts did not allow a secret recording of her employer to be used , despite the individual not allowing anybody other than the courts to witness the tapes.

Courts not allowing something as evidence, and that claiming that something to have been obtained illegally are two very different things.

make no mistake. If Zappia takes this further, which I hope he does, this COAT is going to go to jail & hopefully for the full term of 5 years.
She is the pinup girl of what our countrys privacly laws are to protect us from.

Absolute bollocks. Although I do hope Zappia wastes time thinking about his court options, because at least it means he won't spend that time doing a job application for our joint.

Supported Zaps in terms of the actions he took with Sharks players who brought the game into disrepute. But he's now coming across as a hypocrite and it took him way too long to realise he needed to resign.

 

[fish eel]

I'm sure he has just gotten the name wrong, I mean, not even bush lawyers go and make that sh*t up.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

yes you are correct. It was repealed & became the surveillance devices act in 2005? correct?
this is a case that used the IR Laws & secret recordings as a precedent for waht Hall has done.

Listening Devices Act invoked in unfair dismissal case

 

[bartman]

There's no such act Cave Man Reefy.



http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/scanact/inforce/NONE/0

He must be trying to refer to some South Australian Amendement Bill, and thinking it somehow applies to NSW? http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/B/ARCHIVE/LISTENING%20AND%20SURVEILLANCE%20DEVICES%20(VISUAL%20SURVEILLANCE)%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202005_HON%20IAN%20GILFILLAN%20MLC/B_AS%20INTRODUCED%20IN%20LC/LISTENING%20AND%20SURVEILLANCE%20DEVICES%20(VISUAL%20SURVEILLANCE)%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202005.UN.PDF

Or maybe the NSW Workplace Surveilance Act, and waded in trying to sound authoritative but f**ked up the name of the law and looked a fool?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I'm sure he has just gotten the name wrong, I mean, not even bush lawyers go and make that sh*t up.

I have not claimed to be a lawyer of any variety. I am just putting the articles & things that i know , that this forum permits me to write in here for all to see.

& the recordings are illegal, if Zappia decides to action. Illegal by Hall to create them & illegal by 7 to play them.

 

[fish eel]

He must be trying to refer to some South Australian Amendement Bill, and thinking it somehow applies to NSW? http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/B/ARCHIVE/LISTENING%20AND%20SURVEILLANCE%20DEVICES%20(VISUAL%20SURVEILLANCE)%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202005_HON%20IAN%20GILFILLAN%20MLC/B_AS%20INTRODUCED%20IN%20LC/LISTENING%20AND%20SURVEILLANCE%20DEVICES%20(VISUAL%20SURVEILLANCE)%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202005.UN.PDF

Or maybe the NSW Workplace Surveilance Act, and waded in trying to sound authoritative but f**ked up the name of the law and looked a fool?

His post above has the correct name of the act, and a quick look:

(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation:
(i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party, or
(ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/s...Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64"&nohits=y

So yes, he was correct in referring to the clause about lawful interest - which probably woukdnt be a hard thing to argue so all the chest beating about it being illegal comes to nought.

 

[sooperdooper]

this thread is hi jacked haha
but serious question....
Ron, if you were such good mates surely you would have contacted her to comfort her through this 'tough' time? (nearly a year ago)
and surely that would mean you would know a few bits of info??

 

[blacktip-reefy]

So yes, he was correct in referring to the clause about lawful interest - which probably woukdnt be a hard thing to argue so all the chest beating about it being illegal comes to nought.

Apology accepted.

In regards to lawful interest.

he Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) (SD Act) repealed the Listening
Devices Act 1984 (NSW) (LD Act). The LD Act prohibited the use of a
listening device to overhear, record, monitor, or listen to any private
conversation by any person who was not a party to that conversation, except
with the express or implied consent of the parties or where authorised by
warrant. The publication or communication of the substance or meaning of
any private conversation was also prohibited except in the course of legal
proceedings or as otherwise provided for in the LD Act. The SD Act
encompasses the listening devices covered by the repealed Act, but has
much broader application. It also encompasses the use of a wide range of
listening, optical, data, and tracking surveillance devices. The SD Act is due to
come into operation on 1 April 2008.

She can argue all she like. But once she used that recording outside of a police station or a court of law, she f**ked herself.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

this thread is hi jacked haha
but serious question....
Ron, if you were such good mates surely you would have contacted her to comfort her through this 'tough' time? (nearly a year ago)
and surely that would mean you would know a few bits of info??

no i haven't, she moved down to Sydney and we lost contact, i never knew she was the one at the centre of the scandal until she moved back up here temporarily, she told me the events, showed photos and other stuff....

I'm not close to her, but know her well enough, and well enough to know to believe her - she's not one to back down, and tell it how it is.

 

[Gronk]

New scandal rocks Tony Zappia


Article from:
By Dean Ritchie
June 15, 2009 12:00am

NRL chief executive David Gallop last night strongly urged the Cronulla board to immediately investigate claims that Sharks CEO Tony Zappia asked for donations to the club to be sent directly to his home address.
Zappia has yet to tell the board about donations from a terminally ill Sharks fan, aged 27, to the financially struggling club.
The man, who did not wish to be identified, has set up the Beyond Sharks Foundation and has already made donations of $30,000. It is understood Zappia sent the money to his home without the knowledge of his staff or board members.
"It is obviously a serious allegation," Gallop told The Daily Telegraph last night. "We have been made aware of the allegations.
"The next step is for the Cronulla board to investigate the matter. I would expect a report from them."
Zappia's mobile phone was turned off last night, his voicemail full.
In yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph, it was reported the money had been spent on team camps and football equipment. The man contacted the club last August telling them he wanted to donate money as part of his dying wish.
The man told Channel 7 last night Zappia called him straight back and said he would be interested in setting up the fund he called the Beyond Sharks Foundation.
But, according to Seven, all but one of the six cheques sent by the man were sent to Zappia's home, four in the name of the club and two made out to Zappia personally.
The man did not get any receipts but has his bank account details and 73 emails from Zappia's personal email account, made at his request for "confidentiality" reasons.
"I have emailed you from my personal email . . . to maintain complete confidentiality as my PA has access to my emails at work," an email stated. The emails and other documents have been forwarded to the Cronulla Sharks board and the NRL.
The supporter has pledged $1.5 million of his savings and life insurance to help save the embattled club. The drama continues Zappia's problems at the club.
Just last week he announced he was standing down after being taped asking a former female club employee to "spank" him.
He also gave the woman, Jenny Hall, a black eye he claims was accidental. Zappia was still in line for the vacant Parramatta CEO position but this latest incident may hamper his chances. It is believed that the terminally ill man has signed over everything he has to the club.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25636065-5001023,00.html

 

[Gronk]

Zappia has yet to tell the board about donations from a terminally ill Sharks fan, aged 27, to the financially struggling club.
The man, who did not wish to be identified, has set up the Beyond Sharks Foundation and has already made donations of $30,000. It is understood Zappia sent the money to his home without the knowledge of his staff or board members.
"It is obviously a serious allegation," Gallop told The Daily Telegraph last night. "We have been made aware of the allegations.
"The next step is for the Cronulla board to investigate the matter. I would expect a report from them."
Zappia's mobile phone was turned off last night, his voicemail full.
In yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph, it was reported the money had been spent on team camps and football equipment. The man contacted the club last August telling them he wanted to donate money as part of his dying wish.
The man told Channel 7 last night Zappia called him straight back and said he would be interested in setting up the fund he called the Beyond Sharks Foundation.
But, according to Seven, all but one of the six cheques sent by the man were sent to Zappia's home, four in the name of the club and two made out to Zappia personally.
The man did not get any receipts but has his bank account details and 73 emails from Zappia's personal email account, made at his request for "confidentiality" reasons.
"I have emailed you from my personal email . . . to maintain complete confidentiality as my PA has access to my emails at work," an email stated. The emails and other documents have been forwarded to the Cronulla Sharks board and the NRL.

As Gallop said, this is a serious allegation. They way I see it it will be resolved in 3 ways;

1. It will be found that the donations were made legitimately and that the funds were in deed used for ground improvements and that Zappia kept none of the cash. Result: nothing.

2. It will be found that Zappia has not been honest and has kept some of the money. Result: Zappia could face charges of obtaining funds by deception and could see time in the big house.

3. The funds were gathered by Zappia in a covert fashion to make player payments outside the salary cap. Result: Sharkies lose all comp points and could start 2010 with a negative position on the table.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

not his go....

 

[Gronk]

not his go....

Fine, it may not be. However asking for contact to be made via his personal email to maintain confidentiality and having cheques made payable to himself suggests monkey business.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

lol

 

[Belly in Brisvegas]

Gee he's copping it deluxe.

 

[Gronk]

The board is also set to question Mr Zappia about $5000 collected at a match last July on behalf of Guide Dogs NSW. The Herald understands this money was finally given to the charity days after the Herald asked to view financial details about the fund-raising several weeks ago.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/more-trouble-for-zappia/2009/06/14/1244917933662.html

 

[fish eel]

It just seems a bizarre way to manage the donations.

Not saying he missused the money-just that the process seems odd.

 

[SDM]

This bloke is a bad publicity machine.

 

[Belly in Brisvegas]

It just seems a bizarre way to manage the donations.

Not saying he missused the money-just that the process seems odd.

It does but I can see why he would have run the process via himself personally as to respect the man's confidentialility.

Obviously the issue is how and when the funds were processed.