Time for the broom

[Brown_DOG68]

yes you did - well done!

 

[1970crow]

There has been no mass exodus from the club as far as I can tell if there was it would be well known

You're right it's not well known. In fact one of the reasons put forward for keeping trigg was the sponsors were all signing on in droves. This was generally accepted until a young lad going by the name of Kane McGoodwin got a hold of the financials. I'm on an iPad and don't know how to link posts, but maybe someone else can.

 

[fabs33]

You completely miss the point on purpose so you don't have to answer the question well done Mr Politician

The reason people are reluctant to answer your questions is because you specifically formulated them in a manner that restricts what responses can be given to one's that damn those answering the questions regardless of what answer they choose to give, in other words your questions are loaded questions. For example, you asked the following:

Do you think that he should give a full explanation if it cost the club millions in sponsorship dollars?

So what you are saying is that even if doing so would destroy the club he should do it?

Now a person arguing the opposing view can't very well say that they don't what him to say the truth because that would go against their view entirely, nor can they say that they want him to tell the truth because you'll immediately move to question the person's desire to see justice held considering it comes at a high cost to their club.

The problem however is that your questions are flawed. Firstly they are based on assumptions; assumptions that a) Chapman is telling the truth when he says that legal reasons prevent him from disclosing any more information than they already have and b) that if he did so it would have a negative impact on the club. And secondly, you've gone down the path of believing that your questions are the 'be all and end all' when it comes to judging the opposing side's arguments and the fact that people are unwilling to answer your questions validates your argument, neither of these beliefs are accurate.

So I suggest you either provide evidence which turns your assumptions into facts or you cease making these sort of questions.

 

[Sanders]

I answered your first question(Even though my question was not answered) and now I need to answer a second question and then a third and then a fourth and then a fifth and a sixth. I will not give an 10 page dissertation that you will then try and dissect while avoiding a very very simple question

My point is simple there is a scale of consequences and at a point any sane person would not perform the action

yeah nah. You make no sense

It all came out to the commission so there are no consequences from them

The fan base assumes the worse so no impact

The sponsors already fled the ship

The reason you can't explain why an explanation would make things worse is cause it wouldn't.

Might make things worse for the individuals though. Not the club

 

[CrowEater888]

You're right it's not well known. In fact one of the reasons put forward for keeping trigg was the sponsors were all signing on in droves. This was generally accepted until a young lad going by the name of Kane McGoodwin got a hold of the financials. I'm on an iPad and don't know how to link posts, but maybe someone else can.

Now that is something I'd love to read!

 

[King Elvis]

Do you think that he should give a full explanation if it cost the club millions in sponsorship dollars?

If the Chairman and CEO oversaw behave where that would be likely, they should've stood down immediately.

 

[King Elvis]

I answered your first question(Even though my question was not answered) and now I need to answer a second question and then a third and then a fourth and then a fifth and a sixth. I will not give an 10 page dissertation that you will then try and dissect while avoiding a very very simple question

My point is simple there is a scale of consequences and at a point any sane person would not perform the action

You're talking s**t.

They didn't keep quiet to protect the Club - they kept quiet to protect themselves.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You're right it's not well known. In fact one of the reasons put forward for keeping trigg was the sponsors were all signing on in droves. This was generally accepted until a young lad going by the name of Kane McGoodwin got a hold of the financials. I'm on an iPad and don't know how to link posts, but maybe someone else can.

Now that is something I'd love to read!

Thanks to Johnny Panther I have cast my eye over AFC's financial statements ... once getting over the smiley board faces & outstanding CV's, my main points on why we have ended up with a $1.9M loss, compared to a $0.1M profit the previous year & even bigger profits previously:

• Overall revenue was stagnant - only grew from $34.1M to $34.4M. Whilst most areas grew, sponsorship dropped a staggering $1.7M from $10.6M to $8.9m! Has there been any explanation why? It has been alleged one of the main sponsors funnelled $'s originally intended for AFC to pay for a suspended member of staff ... but that wouldn't explain the full hit. This is a major concern for AFC how we could run down our sponsorship so much & whilst Adelaide Oval should be a boost - this shouldn't be to get us back to where we were but higher!

• Other Expenses increased massively by $1.6M from $3.4M to $5M ... yet there is no note to the account why. Well we know, as just need 1 word - Tippett-gate. Lawyers fees, fines, etc. Given this was an extraordinary item, I find it unprofessional as an accountant that there is no explanation on this item.

• AFC is struggling with liquidity. Net Current Liabilities (over Assets) is now $3.7M up from $2.3M. Ie. We have a cash flow issue! Only had $200K cash in the bank when we have $1.5M in short-term payables + $1.1M short-term borrowings (less than 1 year). Can see why we have needed bailouts & will need a significant short-term injection of cash. This was never the case in the glory years.

• AFC's net worth took a hit from $18.8M to 16.9M. You would say we have plenty of equity, but when that is all + more due to the current $18.1M of the player facility, that will need to be depreciated significantly more now with the move ... that really is our only asset.

• BTW, depreciation only increased by $200K due to the impairment with the Adelaide Oval move, so this is not a significant reason in our deterioration - unlike the 1st 2 points!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/crows-to-report-a-1-6m-loss.1043979/page-15

 

[Slippery Pete]

Did we sign a confidentiality agreement?

 

[1970crow]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/crows-to-report-a-1-6m-loss.1043979/page-15

There you go AJB84 , be very interested in reading how Kane's analysis fails your evidence test.

 

[Elite Crow]

Rucci writing that Burton is being targeted for fitness coach. Tad disappointed, surely we can aim a bit higher than that?

Also this whole Roorevolution is surprising, why is he being given such control? Yes he's a club legend but why are they all bending over so easily?

 

[FR0GGY]

Maybe he knows the truth

 

[1970crow]

Maybe he knows the truth

Well, if I know some of the truth, then he'd know the lot.

 

[FR0GGY]

Or maybe they asked josh carr what happens if you don't agree with him.

 

[Mattrox]

Did we sign a confidentiality agreement?

I think this is speculation too, given Vlad and the AFC's behaviour right after penalties.

Much later Vlad started saying stuff about AFC..... but this was only AFTER the Essendon penalties. Deflection I suspect. But he never mentioned specifics. Just we were uncooperative- Chapman had a mini meltdown "I'll crack you" moment live on air when they played Vlad's comments.

 

[boffo]

The reason people are reluctant to answer your questions is because you specifically formulated them in a manner that restricts what responses can be given to one's that damn those answering the questions regardless of what answer they choose to give, in other words your questions are loaded questions. For example, you asked the following:




Now a person arguing the opposing view can't very well say that they don't what him to say the truth because that would go against their view entirely, nor can they say that they want him to tell the truth because you'll immediately move to question the person's desire to see justice held considering it comes at a high cost to their club.

The problem however is that your questions are flawed. Firstly they are based on assumptions; assumptions that a) Chapman is telling the truth when he says that legal reasons prevent him from disclosing any more information than they already have and b) that if he did so it would have a negative impact on the club. And secondly, you've gone down the path of believing that your questions are the 'be all and end all' when it comes to judging the opposing side's arguments and the fact that people are unwilling to answer your questions validates your argument, neither of these beliefs are accurate.

So I suggest you either provide evidence which turns your assumptions into facts or you cease making these sort of questions.

Fabs, gold medal for your patience explaining this to him.

I couldn't be bothered as I didn't think he would be capable of understanding that his question was constructed around an unsubstantiated assertion i.e. if they had told the truth the club would be destroyed.

 

[Glenno23]

Rucci writing that Burton is being targeted for fitness coach. Tad disappointed, surely we can aim a bit higher than that?

Also this whole Roorevolution is surprising, why is he being given such control? Yes he's a club legend but why are they all bending over so easily?

Aren't there rumours saying Roo had some pretty big dirt on some people within the club. He came out and said after we were 0-3, that if we went 0-6, he'd dish some of that dirt to start the clean out?

Now he has power AND the dirt? Hence the control and the changes

I for one welcome our new overlord, the Roo