club employee "threatened by director"

[evertonfc]

I want what's best for St Kilda FC.

I'm looking forward to the club tracking a new path - one to success.

I'm sick of tracking the wrong path. This behaviour has got to stop.

[To the top]

JeffDunne, don't you think the Board and the alternate ticket are in opposition to each other?

Could have fooled me!

There is an allegation of a "threat", but no detail. Virtually anything can be described as threatening, even walking toward someone, and in the current climate both parties are looking for a political advantage.

So let's get some more detail including if charges are to be laid before jumping to conclusions.

If threat has been made it should be referred to the authorities.
Simple as that.

So far, as I understand it, the process to ensure an Extraordinary General Meeting to spill the Board has not concluded. No doubt, on current indications, it will be, but due process has to be followed.

Accordingly, as I understand it again, the Board is under no obligation to provide details to the alternate ticket at this time, and that includes membership lists although these lists would have been on-sold for commercial purposes, which is normal. But it would be extraordinary if such a source further on-sold the list - or provided it to a third party.

I must repeat my view that using Nathan Burke as the invitation to return proxies at this time, when all we have from the alternate ticket is a load of windy rhetoric, is premature and un-professional - and aimed at a certain constituancy, unfortunately.

This premature action alone raises questions for me.

They are flying under the radar in seeking proxies on the information currently out there, and deliberately so in my view.

I want to see a detailed prospectus, signed off by those seeking Board positions. I want to see the structure they will implement, including names and resumes. And I want to see what "clout" they have in Corporate Australia and exactly who the major sponsors will be under their regime. Because successful clubs do not have private companies as their major sponsors. That was the stuff of Fitzroy. Great guys, great lunches, all Company Directors but where was the real folding stuff?

The record of the current administration is there for all to see, courtesy of the St Kilda FC Annual Reports.

If this has been on foot for 6 weeks, and we are 7 weeks from an EGM, you would expect the counter offer to have substance to it- and more particularly if proxies are being sought.

What does concern me is the effect this is having on negotiations with any alternate major sponsor who has been approached by the incumbent Board.

We lose 13 weeks, so the alternate ticket had better have long term, major sponsors set to go, because it is the current Board which is compromised in negotiations - and particularly given the weight of ill-informed comment on this forum.

In these circumstances it is the "raider" who has the advantage, because they can act knowing the current Board is compromised.


Damage is done accross the board when these circumstances can not be satisfactorily negotiated - because the club is paralysed.

The alternate ticket are the predators, and they had better have the goods lined up and in their pockets.

And I, for one, want to see the colour of their money, and how much they have committed to their cause before I even consider them.

Lots of people around the place give an appearance of wealth, but when you grab them by the ankles and shake them surprisingly little falls out.

[The OtherThommo]

Oh, FFS. Freakin' drama queens. How 'bout this angle - we have a board of directors - some aren't happy with that board - they stick their hands up and say "we are opposed, vote for us".

It's called democracy. Vote for who you like, but don't ever bitch about the chance to vote. That's what makes it.

[Joffa Burns]

Lots of people around the place give an appearance of wealth, but when you grab them by the ankles and shake them surprisingly little falls out.

Gold TOT!

Wonder if a former employee who is suing the club for supposed entitlements would fall into this category?

Can you enlighten me on the value system put on Sponsorship?
ie. Number of logo appearances in Press, TV, Function attendance, Game tickets etc and the associated dollar value to a sponsor and return of the sponsors spend to the club.

It may give some of us laypersons an understanding of the difficulties of securing and maintaining major sponsors. It may also give us an understanding of StKFC's brand and value in the market.

[To the top]

Joffa Burns, I have to be careful not to identify the club or the sport, because they were nationally known and have since merged.

But, by a set of circumstances, this sporting club came to bank with me because of one of its Directors, whose businesses I banked, was the driving force at the time.

The last thing I wanted, but they invited the CEO and me to a match, feted us and the result was the account was transferred to me.

Them 10. Me 0. A lamb to the slaughter! And another lesson learnt that there was never a free lunch!!

Anyway, I asked for the CFF's for the upcoming season, and they wanted money, obviously.

On the revenue side were all these sponsorship monies.

They included a major car manufacturer, among others.

So I started questioning, only to find out that this sponsorship was this Company providing motor vehicles for the coaching staff and players to drive around in during the season. There was no actual money involved.

And it was the same accross the rest of the sponsorships - they were all contra entries!

None put actual money into the bank account to pay the outgoings of the club.

Plus there was the hospitality these sponsors received, at cost to the club.

Anyway, called a meeting where I required that all 10 Board members be present plus the CEO and the Financial Officer.

And when I sought Director's Guarantees with Statement's of Position from each, there was only one Director with any significant net wealth. And he was a client of mine already!

So I had to acquaint him with the purport of the document being a Joint and Several liability, and that he was the person standing.

Not that the other Director's ever knew this!

But the CFF's were revamped to actually reflect what was to be banked, including match day revenues, the needed paying crowd sizes were identified, stadium costs re-negotiated, certain "wank" expenses were eliminated and we managed the season to break even.

It was Collingwood under MacAllister re-visited.

Something you do not want!

So, yes, you have to look at the contra components of sponsorships and what is actually brought to the club in terms of folding money, and the off-sets the club incurs to gain the sponsorships.

The sponsors want "bang" for their bucks, obviously but, like everyone else, they do not like actually writing out a cheque.

This is why the main game is the major sponsors, from nationally identified institutions actually looking for brand identification and being prepared to pay, principally, the "readies" for it by giving the club a cheque at the optimum time in regards the clubs expenditure requirements.

With the next tier down there is just to much scope for contras and off-sets to significantly impact on revenues.

And the expenses are un-remitting - as they are with transport companies, also a very difficult business.

Lesae payments, fuel costs, human resource costs, power, repairs and maintenance, rent, registrations etc. etc. etc. all hitting each and every day/week whilst you have a Trade Debtor ledger being financed.

Not my favourite industries, sporting clubs and transport companies, by a very, very long shot.

[Joffa Burns]

Anyway, called a meeting where I required that all 10 Board members be present plus the CEO and the Financial Officer.

And when I sought Director's Guarantees with Statement's of Position from each, there was only one Director with any significant net wealth. And he was a client of mine already!

So I had to acquaint him with the purport of the document being a Joint and Several liability, and that he was the person standing.

Not that the other Director's ever knew this!

TOT, we at least we can console ourselves that the genre of Private Equity Investment may have been a flash in the pan if not for the type of Business person to whom you refer.

I recently came across the financial dealings of a high profile former club president whom most would believe to be extraordinarily wealthy, yet his financial position is precarious to say the least.

I think STKFC has been guilty of this type of sponsorship arrangement in the past and not so distant past – Crazy Johns springs to mind as a ‘loss leader’ for want of a better expression.

Do you have any idea how a club like StKFC values their sponsorship?

For example - 7 Friday night maximum exposure games - what value is given to this in a dollar term?

Logos on jumper and the amount of times they appear in all forms of the press - what value is given to this?

I believe there is a point system with a corresponding dollar value placed on all forms of sponsors’ exposure – can you elaborate on this?

[To the top]

No, Joffa, I can not.

I did know the demographics of viewing audiences once, and it surprised me then that Channel 9 had their strength in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

In terms of free to air coverage, there is virtually none during the minor round so how audience numbers hold up in such circumstances I do not know.

Potential sponsors would review the demographics of audience numbers and locations and match them to the target audience.

I must add that there is one thing I have never understood and that is that the promoter of the competition, the AFL has sponsorships which places them in direct competition with their member clubs.

I view this as a conflict of interest and yet another reason I have no brief with the AFL.

This position is even more puzzling when you consider that the AFL then make distributions from its revenue stream to the member clubs.

So, it competes directly with its member clubs then distributes those revenues to the member clubs!

[JeffDunne]

JeffDunne, don't you think the Board and the alternate ticket are in opposition to each other?

Could have fooled me!

They are in opposition for control of the business, but that's not what you said and it's not what I quoted.

FWIW, there is actually an overlap of the current board and the challengers. Talk or comparisons of disclosure to an opposition business is hysterical clap-trap.

[Teflon]

Anybody know who the 'employee' referred to is?

rogerfox knows, but he has been told in confidence so all he can do is let us know that he knows

But later on when the names come out he'll have a quiet chuckle because he knew all along

Yeas hes quite the "after the fact" oracle old Rodger...the king of ...."I got howled down for saying this exact thing 8 years ago...."

[Teflon]

chook23, if the story is a fabrication then I'm sure we'll hear the standard reply "we are seaking legal advice".

Maybe the so called Director involved could use the Westaway defence......"I was belting the broader picture....not the individual..."

Ofcourse Greg.....ofcourse you were......

[Brewer]

Caro has just announced on Footy Classified that the carpark incident was about Glen Casey threatening somebody in relation to the leaking of the member database outside of the proper channels.

Apparently the board have secured a lawyer for the incident and there is a meeting tomorrow.

[saintsRrising]

Apparently the board have secured a lawyer for the incident and there is a meeting tomorrow.

No ....Loveridge is the lawyer concerned and has been engaged to advise & represent the Admin (ie Archie and Staff), as opposed to the Board or FF, during the EGM process so that they can act appropriately and independantly.

As part of this he will attend tomorrows Board meeting where the car park issue will be discussed.

[saintsRrising]

to the leaking of the member database outside of the proper channels.

.

If it was taken without permission...and given to FF....then effectively FF will have used stolen goods.

[fonz_#15]

this could get messy and probably will since our club seems to never keep its fights secret (see thomas vs RB). We need some farking professionalism around our club, its a joke.

[saintsRrising]

this could get messy and probably will since our club seems to never keep its fights secret (see thomas vs RB). We need some farking professionalism around our club, its a joke.

Well in this case the leak would not seem to have been likely to have been the Board......but rather someone in Admin.


Perhaps the Deep Throat that JD is concerned with is not RB after all...but someone in the Admin????

[fonz_#15]

this could get messy and probably will since our club seems to never keep its fights secret (see thomas vs RB). We need some farking professionalism around our club, its a joke.

Well in this case the leak would not seem to have been likely to have been the Board......but rather someone in Admin.


Perhaps the Deep Throat that JD is concerned with is not RB after all...but someone in the Admin????

i dont give a sh1t how it was leaked, it is still classless and unnacceptable.

[Brewer]

Well in this case the leak would not seem to have been likely to have been the Board......but rather someone in Admin.

My guess (it's no more than that) is that the member of staff was asked for the member records by one of the directors involved with the rival ticket. The staff member may not have realised the sensitive nature of what they'd done, but they haven't done anything dishonest themselves. This might explain why there was an incident in the carpark rather than an official disciplinary action.

[saintsRrising]

i dont give a sh1t how it was leaked, it is still classless and unnacceptable.

My point is that if Deep Throat...is Admin....that even with FF coming in Deep Throat will probably still be active...

[saintsRrising]

. The staff member may not have realised the sensitive nature of what they'd done, but they haven't done anything dishonest themselves. This might explain why there was an incident in the carpark rather than an official disciplinary action.

If you theory is correct then systems are very lax at the Saints.

All staff handling membership records (or other private records such as staff etc) should be briefed in the relevant aspects of the Privacy Legislation.


It should also be the case that private inforamation such as membership records should be controlled.

[The Peanut]

There has to be more to unfold in this story . . . we only know what Caro said so far and then she burst out laughing and couldn't stop.

[saint66au]

Passing on personal information of fellow employees (phone No's/email addy etc) without their permission is a sackable offence at my work

[Joffa Burns]

I never want to hear these two terms used in the same thread again please...

1/ Deep throat
2/ Caro

*shudders* uncontrolably

[saintsRrising]

There has to be more to unfold in this story . . . we only know what Caro said so far and then she burst out laughing and couldn't stop.

Sorry Peanut..you are on the wrong horse there...... what set her off was the suggestion/question of what about Bedwell.

....which set Caro off in an uncontrollable laughing fit....


....and Hutchy then started to outlinea Bedwell ticket which was full of comedians.

[Brewer]

Somehow, I don't think providing a club director with his own membership list is going to be a sackable offence or even an indictment of lax security measures. Staff members do what their superiors tell them to do. That's their job.

I can see why a stressed and unhinged director might get his knickers in a twist about one of his 'rival' directors getting one up on him, but come on - all this talk of 'deep throat' and violation of privacy legislation is a bit far-fetched if it's essentially a club matter anyway.

Are you suggesting that even the St Kilda board should not have access to its own membership list?!

[joffaboy]

Now we aren't a rabble or in turmoil