The new Shiel deal & his kicking

[Bombfire]

Nice try attempting at justifying the cheating but I complained about it before the game.

Your coach was well prepared for it, but even then he got it all wrong.

 

[TallyHawk]

Since the AFL is keen for the Bombers to become relevant again, and this was all part of the agreed contract when Shiel signed-on...

More compensation for not being able to sweep the doping scandal under the rug.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TallyHawk]

This happened way before Judd and Visy. Remember Wanganeen receiving a McDonald's Franchise for signing on with Port Adelaide ?

Interstate (aka Non Victorian) clubs started this third party deal malarkey

Shane Crawford offered similar deal from Port.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bombfire]

More compensation for not being able to sweep the doping scandal under the rug.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Fairy dust compensation.

 

[TallyHawk]

To be fair Gary Ablett jnr should ask the AFL to reconsider Frank Costa's offer at Cotton On.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Growing up in a country town, I worked at a servo for some extra pocket money. For a while, the owner would have me ride down to the other servo on the main drag and check the price. He’d then undercut it by a cent or whatever it was, in order to steal business. Eventually the other bloke caught wind of what was happening and sent his lad down to do the same and a price war broke out. So stupid that they were eventually taking a loss on sales, they came to an agreement to stop the price war and go back to what is was like before. A fair business decision and STILL A FAIR RESULT FOR THE CUSTOMER, who got cheap petrol for about 3 weeks and when it went back to normal, were not paying any more than the next town over. The only problem here was, these two guys agreed upon a return to normal.

Happy for one to defend Pratt but a 'fair result for the customer' is just B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Visy and Amcor collaborated to increase prices, they colluded in providing higher quotes and price increases. As the judge stated their actions were “inherently likely to cause loss”. This wasn't just putting prices like 'they were before', they actively increased prices and colluded on quotations.

It took years for businesses and their customers to get their money back from overcharging (see Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed), and we, the consumer as the end result, got shafted.

A settlement was reached in this case where Pratt admitted liability - end of story. Not a bad outcome for Pratt considering our pissweak civil penalties and law....

This is one case in a long list of cartel behaviour in Australia that hurts other businesses and consumers alike (eg. Hello Petrol industry)......

A reasonably (long) summary of the case is here...http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UMelbLRS/2008/2.html

 

[Pessimistic]

Does the asterisk go on the flag or cup or on the side of your arse. If it’s the latter, we can cope.

It’s exclusively in bigfooty.

Where are all those flogs insisting sheil came to essendon for less money than hawthorn or Carlton we’re offering?

 

[Pessimistic]

Happy for one to defend Pratt but a 'fair result for the customer' is just B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Visy and Amcor collaborated to increase prices, they colluded in providing higher quotes and price increases. As the judge stated their actions were “inherently likely to cause loss”. This wasn't just putting prices like 'they were before', they actively increased prices and colluded on quotations.

It took years for businesses and their customers to get their money back from overcharging (see Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed), and we, the consumer as the end result, got shafted.

A settlement was reached in this case where Pratt admitted liability - end of story. Not a bad outcome for Pratt considering our pissweak civil penalties and law....

This is one case in a long list of cartel behaviour in Australia that hurts other businesses and consumers alike (eg. Hello Petrol industry)......

A reasonably (long) summary of the case is here...http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UMelbLRS/2008/2.html

Pratt was fined the equivalent of about $150 pro rata to your average home owner

 

[Sector 7G]

Conversely for 5 days a week it puts him on 100k per annum. So based on what Essendon are paying him, do you truly believe that he's rorting the system? If I offered the guy 20k a week he'd tell me to jump. Seemingly it's something he wants to do and there's something in it for him. Do you think that 1 day per week of his time is really worthy only 20k to him?

$100K a year for someone who is only qualified to do photocopying is grossly over paid. It should be an unpaid internship as he has no relevant skills.

If he wants to learn about property development he should enrole in the RMIT property economics degree part time.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

$100K a year for someone who is only qualified to do photocopying is grossly over paid. It should be an unpaid internship as he has no relevant skills.

If he wants to learn about property development he should enrole in the RMIT property economics degree part time.

Mmm

It isn't a $100k a year though. That's just silly.

 

[Bombfire]

It’s exclusively in bigfooty.

Where are all those flogs insisting sheil came to essendon for less money than hawthorn or Carlton we’re offering?

No one called Sheil came to Essendon.
As for Dylan Shiel, is it any wonder an Essendon power broker liked the cut of his jib and got on board the Shiel train.

 

[Sector 7G]

Mmm

It isn't a $100k a year though. That's just silly.

That is the rate it works out at if he only does one day a week more than double what he should receive.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

That is the rate it works out at if he only does one day a week more than double what he should receive.

And if Aliens had interfered in his contract negotiations with innapropriate mnnd control he might have got a bigger contract. I don't think that happened either.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Pratt built a great Aussie company that pays out a billion a year to employees. His net contribution to Australia and Australians would far exceed most of the nuffs who get on their imaginary high horse when hearing his name. It’s a pity that for Average Joe, Pratt is only remembered for what AMCOR CEO called a Clayton’s cartel, a false ceasefire after a decade of price wars, a deal done by his execs while he was battling cancer.

ASIC estimated Pratt made $750M from price fixing. He was found guilty and fined $35M from memory.

Should have done time. At the time of his death it was estimated he'd donated c$135M - admittedly a very large sum. Still given he did not have to repay the money gouged from price rorts, he came out well ahead.

The Age did a series on Pratt after his death about his unusual business practices, inc use of Bikie gang members to recover debts. Great bloke - not.

Who can also forget his purchase hundreds of South Melbourne memberships as part of a broader attempt to stack votes in favour of relocation to Sydney.

The Visy-Judd deal was small vc spuds by comparison.

 

[Monkey King]

Happy for one to defend Pratt but a 'fair result for the customer' is just B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Visy and Amcor collaborated to increase prices, they colluded in providing higher quotes and price increases. As the judge stated their actions were “inherently likely to cause loss”. This wasn't just putting prices like 'they were before', they actively increased prices and colluded on quotations.

A reasonably (long) summary of the case is here http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UMelbLRS/2008/2.html

“In the two-year period to late 1999 both Visy and Amcor had incurred significant trading losses due in part to a price war between them. The overarching understanding was a measure to reduce the intense competition between the two firms and to “increase CFP prices to more realistic levels”.

That document supports everything I’ve said. The collusion was about returning prices to realistic levels. A goal that in itself, is perfectly fair and reasonable when you’re suffering trading losses. The achievement of the goal is neither here nor there for customer. It’s not reasonable to expect your suppliers to wear losses in order to keep getting your product on the cheap, so price increases are not only fair, they should be expected.

It was suggested that the price of Visy’s cardboard actually fell in inflation-adjusted terms, as they kept stealing AMCOR customers anyway and increasing their market share, which is why the AMCOR exec called it a Clayton’s cartel.

 

[Monkey King]

ASIC estimated Pratt made $750M from price fixing. He was found guilty and fined $35M from memory.

I’m not posting on the matter again. Intelligent, open minded discussion is tough when at first glance you can’t even get the basic newspaper level facts straight and yet think you’re somehow educating me about it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Growing up in a country town, I worked at a servo for some extra pocket money. For a while, the owner would have me ride down to the other servo on the main drag and check the price. He’d then undercut it by a cent or whatever it was, in order to steal business. Eventually the other bloke caught wind of what was happening and sent his lad down to do the same and a price war broke out. So stupid that they were eventually taking a loss on sales, they came to an agreement to stop the price war and go back to what is was like before. A fair business decision and STILL A FAIR RESULT FOR THE CUSTOMER, who got cheap petrol for about 3 weeks and when it went back to normal, were not paying any more than the next town over. The only problem here was, these two guys agreed upon a return to normal.

I suppose you could calculate this as “lost expected benefit” and claim these guys ripped the whole town off by that amount, rail on them even beyond their death and forget all the good they did in the community. Personally, I think that would reflect more on those who settle for this incomplete picture than it does the men they would judge.

Dude. It’s price fixing. It’s illegal, for very good reason. Do some research on how a market works.

It’s the product equivalent of bid rigging. Which is mafioso behaviour, used to rip off customers.

I get people irrationally defending their footy club, but the illegal actions of a private company for which they were rightly prosecuted? Wow.

 

[Monkey King]

Dude. It’s price fixing.

That you think I’m somehow defending the cartel just shows why there’s no point trying to discuss this here.

 

[Bombfire]

That you think I’m somehow defending the cartel just shows why there’s no point trying to discuss this here.

Your problem is you think a duopoly is entitled to collude on price rises and customer preservation because they’re not making money. Your other problem is accepting that it’s illegal. Pratt had the same issues.

 

[The_Steadier]

Obviously this will be included in the Salary cap like Judd's deal had to be.

You mean the judd deal that WASN'T included in the salary cap for the first 5 years??!!

Poor carlton/visy only got to pay juddy ~$1.2million outside the cap before the AFL put an end to the party.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ks-down-on-judd-visy-deal-20121116-29fo0.html

 

[The_Steadier]

Salary cap or not there is simply no way of legally stopping these deals, just deal with it.

Yeah there is mate.

Restricting other employment in employment contracts is legal and easily enforceable.

 

[The_Steadier]

Nope. Visy the company was fined and the execs who hatched the scheme were fined. Pratt himself was never fined.

The collusion’s aim was to cease a long running price war, not hike high prices higher. Just to stop undercutting the market (which in duopoly means each other) and allow prices to rise along with CPI like most other products. It was the right decision for both companies and fair for customers; the idea of being “ripped off” is actually based on customers losing access to unsustainable under market prices. The only problem is, the execs talked about it and agreed upon it. That agreement is the civil matter for they were brought before the court.

But I get it, people read a headline and with a slither of perspective, grab their pitchforks and forget the millions this guy gave to charity, the billions he distributed to employees, from a company he build ground up. I mean the guy was far from an angel, but gives me pause for thought about the comparative contributions from those who sit in judgement.

Consumer laws hold companies liable, not individuals.
Pratt not being personally fined means nothing.

 

[Bombfire]

Consumer laws hold companies liable, not individuals.
Pratt not being personally fined means nothing.

Pratt was a serious beneficiary of the collusion and it bankrolled his philanthropy.

 

[davis_756]

Shame he didn't go to Carlton, he would have been the perfect candidate to fill the Environmental Ambassador role vacated by Chris Judd.

Why is there such strong hate for us that you continue to remind us about the cap cheating from 20 years ago, the tanking, the outside cap payments yet you have little old Essendon here who cheated the cap, injected their players with unknown drugs and is continuing to this day to make outside cap payments yet no one bothers to have a crack at them for any of it.

 

[The_Steadier]

Consumer laws hold companies liable, not individuals.
Pratt not being personally fined means nothing.

Actually it appears pratt WAS personally fined as he was proven to be the approver of the overarching understanding which led to the collusion.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-relea...es-against-visy-calls-for-stronger-cartel-law

What a great bloke.

I echo the sentiments of earlier posters- why on earth people's football allegiance transfers blindly across to the business conduct of club connections has me baffled.

Simpleton lemmings following the leader off the cliff I suppose.