Tullio Cofrancesco v Parramatta Leagues Club

[Gronk]

Says it all really.

You "guess" the result of a full forensic investigation, and find in favour of guess who.

Why did they pay for a forensic audit when they could have asked you to guess?

Does it come easy for you to be such a trolling prick ? :roll:

 

[Bigfella]

So will there be criminal charges or not ? Still seems petty that the court case is all about membership IMHO. Call the cops in or back off I say

He asked someone to pay his bill and that person did.

That appears to be in direct breach of the duties of a member under Section 10 of the Registered Clubs Act, as set out in the judgment (the statutory obligation not to receive a personal benefit not available to other members).

That is not a criminal offence.

It is a matter that impacts directly on his right to continue to be a member - he breached his membership duties - apparently fairly blatantly.

The board invited him to a meeting to explain his actions and why his membership should be retained.

He then sought an injunction to stop termination of his membership. The board agreed not to take any action.

He then sought - unsuccessfully - to use his settlement agreement to prevent the Board investigating his actions before settling.

It is clear from the judgment relating to that case that the Board has at least seven specific allegations of misconduct against him relating to breaches of statutory and licensing obligations. That case is before the Court and yet to be heard.

You have characterised the board's actions in this thread and the one relating to the other case as "petty" "revenge" and "a witchhunt".

As facts emerge it becomes clear that there was no basis for the position that you and some of your mates have taken in relation to the current board. You had plenty of mates too.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

He asked someone to pay his bill and that person did.

That appears to be in direct breach of the duties of a member under Section 10 of the Registered Clubs Act, as set out in the judgment (the statutory obligation not to receive a personal benefit not available to other members).

That is not a criminal offence.

It is a matter that impacts directly on his right to continue to be a member - he breached his membership duties - apparently fairly blatantly.

The board invited him to a meeting to explain his actions and why his membership should be retained.

He then sought an injunction to stop termination of his membership. The board agreed not to take any action.

He then sought - unsuccessfully - to use his settlement agreement to prevent the Board investigating his actions before settling.

It is clear from the judgment relating to that case that the Board has at least seven specific allegations of misconduct against him relating to breaches of statutory and licensing obligations. That case is before the Court and yet to be heard.

You have characterised the board's actions in this thread and the one relating to the other case as "petty" "revenge" and "a witchhunt".

As facts emerge it becomes clear that there was no basis for the position that you and some of your mates have taken in relation to the current board. You had plenty of mates too.

So this entire Audit relates to Denis and Tullio? There are far more people now not at our club, who were named in the report, and far more who were not named.

As to calling this revenge, I would not say either way, I would say some of the comments attributed to the victors 2 years ago would point to what this could be.

But a Witch Hunt, that is not that hard. I AM RIGHT HERE.

 

[ParraAds]

So this entire Audit relates to Denis and Tullio? There are far more people now not at our club, who were named in the report, and far more who were not named.

As to calling this revenge, I would not say either way, I would say some of the comments attributed to the victors 2 years ago would point to what this could be.

But a Witch Hunt, that is not that hard. I AM RIGHT HERE.

Exactly... that board report (propaganda spiel) conveniently left out a whole bunch of information which would portray the board in a rather unpleasant light.

 

[Ollie Webb]

I think if the full report ever became public the staff who have left or pressured into leaving over the past 18 months would be looking for cover. These people are the former gaming manager, former 2IC, former finance manager, former PA etc. If they had grounds to fight their causes they would not have moved on by their own choice, they would have taken the Club on with FWA. They did not! Some took the easy option of extended sick leave!

I am over it, it's time everybody moved on!

 

[born an eel]

He asked someone to pay his bill and that person did.

That appears to be in direct breach of the duties of a member under Section 10 of the Registered Clubs Act, as set out in the judgment (the statutory obligation not to receive a personal benefit not available to other members).

That is not a criminal offence.

It is a matter that impacts directly on his right to continue to be a member - he breached his membership duties - apparently fairly blatantly.

The board invited him to a meeting to explain his actions and why his membership should be retained.

He then sought an injunction to stop termination of his membership. The board agreed not to take any action.

He then sought - unsuccessfully - to use his settlement agreement to prevent the Board investigating his actions before settling.

It is clear from the judgment relating to that case that the Board has at least seven specific allegations of misconduct against him relating to breaches of statutory and licensing obligations. That case is before the Court and yet to be heard.

You have characterised the board's actions in this thread and the one relating to the other case as "petty" "revenge" and "a witchhunt".

As facts emerge it becomes clear that there was no basis for the position that you and some of your mates have taken in relation to the current board. You had plenty of mates too.

why wait to see what the courts decide as you seem to already know all the facts and are the judge, jury and executioner.


Apparently Gronk and his mates (I assume this is me :lol are the only ones in your eyes, jumping to conclusion and need to be pounced on but people speculating about 30 years of corrupt behavior without the slightest bit of evidence are allowed to go thru to the keeper.:crazy:

You have also taken a very narrow minded interpretation of the Registered club act and Legal fees can, in some circumstances, be covered for directors and offices of the club. The fact that these payments were for services in the future are the most "interesting aspects".

 

[born an eel]

I think if the full report ever became public the staff who have left or pressured into leaving over the past 18 months would be looking for cover. These people are the former gaming manager, former 2IC, former finance manager, former PA etc. If they had grounds to fight their causes they would not have moved on by their own choice, they would have taken the Club on with FWA. They did not! Some took the easy option of extended sick leave!

I am over it, it's time everybody moved on!

you mean the same staff who have taken the matter further and the club "settled" with and have released no further information on the terms of settlement or the employee who after taking the matter received 12 weeks pay that the board had denied her of.

Don't let facts get in the road of a good story ollie.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

you mean the same staff who have taken the matter further and the club "settled" with and have released no further information on the terms of settlement or the employee who after taking the matter received 12 weeks pay that the board had denied her of.

Don't let facts get in the road of a good story ollie.

X2

 

[mickdo]

:sleeper:

 

[Gronk]

He asked someone to pay his bill and that person did.

That appears to be in direct breach of the duties of a member under Section 10 of the Registered Clubs Act, as set out in the judgment (the statutory obligation not to receive a personal benefit not available to other members).

That is not a criminal offence.

It is a matter that impacts directly on his right to continue to be a member - he breached his membership duties - apparently fairly blatantly.

The board invited him to a meeting to explain his actions and why his membership should be retained.

He then sought an injunction to stop termination of his membership. The board agreed not to take any action.

He then sought - unsuccessfully - to use his settlement agreement to prevent the Board investigating his actions before settling.

It is clear from the judgment relating to that case that the Board has at least seven specific allegations of misconduct against him relating to breaches of statutory and licensing obligations. That case is before the Court and yet to be heard.

You have characterised the board's actions in this thread and the one relating to the other case as "petty" "revenge" and "a witchhunt".

As facts emerge it becomes clear that there was no basis for the position that you and some of your mates have taken in relation to the current board. You had plenty of mates too.

I think your interpretation of the matter is a little skewed. From what I understand from the facts reported in the Tullio matter, Fitzy cut a cheque from club funds to pay a personal bill. How can that not be a criminal offence ? Sounds like theft to me.

 

[eelz47]

did anybody else get a copy in the mail today

 

[MarkInTheStands]

did anybody else get a copy in the mail today

Yep, Courtesy of Mr Price.

 

[Suitman]

Yep, Courtesy of Mr Price.

I got one from Pricey as well.

What a coincidence.

Suity

 

[fish eel]

Have to say, thats quite thoughtful of Pricey, I mean, just in case you guys missed it in the papers it's really good of him to send it around and not expect anything in return

 

[Maroubra Eel]

I got nothing. Maybe takes longer to get to the beautiful eastern suburbs.

 

[Jodeci]

I think if the full report ever became public the staff who have left or pressured into leaving over the past 18 months would be looking for cover. These people are the former gaming manager, former 2IC, former finance manager, former PA etc. If they had grounds to fight their causes they would not have moved on by their own choice, they would have taken the Club on with FWA. They did not! Some took the easy option of extended sick leave!

I am over it, it's time everybody moved on!

That pretty such sums it up

As I said before, if guys like Andrew Hill and co have not bothered to take legal action, then why bother bringing them up.

I said earlier, everyone was named in the Leagues Club report and the only donkey to come forward and fight their case is Tullio.

Why haven't Mr Hill and co done the same thing?

Case Closed - Get Over It People

 

[Jodeci]

you mean the same staff who have taken the matter further and the club "settled" with and have released no further information on the terms of settlement or the employee who after taking the matter received 12 weeks pay that the board had denied her of.

Don't let facts get in the road of a good story ollie.

The people mentioned have been at the place for years.

Do you think 12 weeks leave will make them happy?

C'mon, please....

If I had been at the club for over 10 years, told to pack my bags and take 12 weeks leave, I'll be taking the buggers to court for sure....

 

[ParraAds]

The people mentioned have been at the place for years.

Do you think 12 weeks leave will make them happy?

C'mon, please....

If I had been at the club for over 10 years, told to pack my bags and take 12 weeks leave, I'll be taking the buggers to court for sure....

LOL... staff at all levels are flocking out of that place, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence and nothing to do with the new management.

 

[Jodeci]

LOL... staff at all levels are flocking out of that place, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence and nothing to do with the new management.

Like who?

 

[ParraAds]

Like who?

LOL ... if you're as connected as you think you are someone will be happy to provide you with a list.