Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
To the top wrote:
So the references to un-named parties who will come on board but do not want to become associated or named carries no weight with me.
and you carry no weight with me.......your reference to naylor and fraser is grubby to say the least......
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
I noticed you again chose not to answer my question again TTT.
I did notice however you chose to make yet another completely irrelevant rant.
BTW, I missed the point in the previous post where you question the financial expertise of the challengers. Not everyone that sits on a board needs to bring the same skill set. I know you're a Merchant Banker but not everyone on a board needs to come from a purely financial background. I notice too you chose to focus on the those that don't (BTW Klim isn't part of the proposed board). IMO the proposed board has a much more balanced set of skills than the current board and unlike the present board, doesn't have a host of common financial interests outside the club. A big plus in my books.
Anyhow, rather than rant on about issues that are completely irrelevant, could you do me the courtesy of answering that one question?
Did you also pick upon my previous comparative to One-Tel and those who invested because Murdoch and Packer were involved?
Or Cooper coming onto the Collingwood FC Board?
For stating the obvious, and saying we need more detail to make an educated decision in this matter, you are attacked by the likes of you and your fellow travellers.
To the top wrote:Stinger, you are one of those I refer to.
Did you also pick upon my previous comparative to One-Tel and those who invested because Murdoch and Packer were involved?
Or Cooper coming onto the Collingwood FC Board?
For stating the obvious, and saying we need more detail to make an educated decision in this matter, you are attacked by the likes of you and your fellow travellers.
JD, there is such a thing as an Annual General Meeting.
That is where you ask your questions.
ALL I am addressing here is that the presentation we have before us from the alternate ticket is light weight, and light weight in the extreme, riding on the back of Nathan Burke and asking you IMMEDIATELY return you proxies to him.
The alternate ticket introduce financial acumen by saying that revenue has fallen, expenses have been reduced and that the Net Profit of $1 Million has been applied to debt reduction instead of being spent on the Football Department.
Then they say they are going to diversify the income stream by investing "good debt" into something or other, like you or I financing the buying of a house.
These statements in the material that has been sent to us by the alternate ticket are why the financial expertise of the alternate ticket is under the microscope.
It is because of what they ARE saying - and then because of what they are NOT saying.
To the top wrote:JD, there are a few who post in a similar manner to you.
One of those is SRS, who posted on the thread "Substance or rhetoric" on 12th September at 3.30PM.
.
Well for a guy so high and mighty about accurate comparitive analyis.....I find it somewhat amusing that you think that JD and I are the same in our posts.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
