Probe puts Pratt's presidency in doubt

[Father Jack]

Your exactly right THS

It is irrelevant what the gaming commission decides to do.

A structure will be created or job titles changed so that the club still gets the gaming license and Pratt will still run the club whether it is as the official "President" or not.

It is a just a matter of working out small details, and Pratt isnt a guy who will let any small hiccup like this end his commitment to Carlton.

From the article:

Board members of clubs or companies that hold gaming licences must be assessed for their suitability by the Victorian Commission for Gaming Regulation.

So it sounds like the Gaming Commission people do try to avoid this sort of 'restructuring' shenanigans.

 

[Asgardian]

Good Point.

Visy seems to be the personification of that old chestnut "failure is an orphan". Much like how Pratt's old mate, John Elliott, never did anything wrong at Elders, of course, it was all Ken Jarrett's fault...

Ahhhhh, the things an old Elders employee, me, could say, pity about those contracts

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

Carlton supporters - gotta luv 'em, the gullibility and stupidity - the gaming commission operates under the strictest guidelines in the country to keep organised crime figures and criminals out of the gaming industry.

But no, we'll just restructure it and put Swanny's name up!

You will find if you want pokies you will have to put a lot of distance between your club and Mr Pratt and not just in a token way.

 

[Atomboy]

The difference between Crazy John and Richard Pratt is so stark it is unbelievable.

Life just isn't fair sometimes......

 

[Monkey King]

The difference between Crazy John and Richard Pratt is so stark it is unbelievable.

Life just isn't fair sometimes......

Oh! The script writers for Home and Away are out in force. Oh the pain!

Hope all you guys will be back on this thread when it is bumped after Pratt is allowed to continue in his role as President of Carlton. I figure though, that you'll all be on the next big Blue bagging crusade by then.

 

[Father Jack]

Oh! The script writers for Home and Away are out in force. Oh the pain!

Hope all you guys will be back on this thread when it is bumped after Pratt is allowed to continue in his role as President of Carlton. I figure though, that you'll all be on the next big Blue bagging crusade by then.

Well that added a lot to the discussion.

What are your reasons for being so confident re Pratt?

 

[MarkT]

Pratt won’t be around that long anyway but I’d be willing to bet no one will prevent him holding a gaming licence and if they try by the time they lose in court Pratt will have passed away and global warming will lead to flooding of the venues anyway. Pratt may chose to walk away in his official capacity just to expedite matters if it comes to that.

“It is difficult to imagine who would be denied a gaming license if Pratt was permitted one.”

Well Mr. Gleeson, it is pretty simple. You don’t have to imagine. You can find out who has been granted a gaming license and answer your own question. Try a bit of work. Like Pratt, many people who don’t have a criminal conviction can still hold a gaming license.

 

[The Fireman]

As a Carlton supporter I couldn't care how we get our act in order or what the perceptions may be in the football world,
Write what you want about us oppostion supporters, we've never cared what others think of us & we never will. Let the good times roll.

I think this is where the main problem lies, the club itself doesn't seem to care how it does it's business but worse still the supporter base like this guy seems to care even less

The Gambling Regulation Act requires a person seeking a gaming licence to be "of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity".

Something totally lost on the club and it's supporters.

 

[MarkT]

Something totally lost on the club and it's supporters.

I don’t think you have the first idea what that means, how it is interpreted or the concept of the corporate veil.

 

[Atomboy]

The Gambling Regulation Act requires a person seeking a gaming licence to be "of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity".

Lucky those requirements don't apply to organisations, or Carlton as a club would fail on all accounts

 

[79Vintage]

I think this is where the main problem lies, the club itself doesn't seem to care how it does it's business but worse still the supporter base like this guy seems to care even less
Something totally lost on the club and it's supporters.

Why would anybody aiming to create an environment for success care what feeble minded people like yourself think? It would only take our minds off what is important. All the best, with building your culture down there at Moorabbin.

 

[Father Jack]

The Gambling Regulation Act requires a person seeking a gaming licence to be "of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity".

Lucky those requirements don't apply to organisations, or Carlton as a club would fail on all accounts

I was about to applaud you for those comments, and then I remembered something ...

 

[Tony_Soprano1111]

16 Premierships 'Carn the Coaster' ....enough said!!!

 

[Schwabie]

I don’t think you have the first idea what that means, how it is interpreted or the concept of the corporate veil.

I haven't looked at the Act - but how on earth is the "corporate veil" relevant here?

 

[The Fireman]

I don’t think you have the first idea what that means, how it is interpreted or the concept of the corporate veil.

how hard is it to get your head around honesty and integrity?
I find it insulting that you think I can't.

 

[The Fireman]

Why would anybody aiming to create an environment for success care what feeble minded people like yourself think? It would only take our minds off what is important. All the best, with building your culture down there at Moorabbin.

I wonder if Richard Nixon thought the same way, we all remember him for one thing.

 

[Aussie Joe]

Oh dear, the dishonesty at Carlton has reared it's ugly head again and provoked more sanctions. Is this club the most dishonest in Australian sporting history?

Your creditors might disagree with that comment

 

[Aussie Joe]

The Gambling Regulation Act requires a person seeking a gaming licence to be "of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity".

Lucky those requirements don't apply to organisations, or Carlton as a club would fail on all accounts

Bloody Hell. Really?

Thank God the AFL doesn't have that clause in regards to winning premierships

 

[enosis7]

I don't see how the corporate veil is relevant either. The legislation clearly directs that pretty much anyone involved in the management or board of a non-natural person applicant is of good repute. In matters such as this it doesn't matter whether conduct the person is accused of is criminal in nature. If it goes to dishonesty, then you're facing a battle.

Under s 3.4.11(2), in determining whether a venue operator licence application should be granted, regard must be had to whether:

a) each applicant and associate of the applicant is of good repute,
having regard to character, honesty and integrity;

(b) in the case of an applicant that is not a natural person, the
applicant has, or has arranged, a satisfactory ownership, trust or
corporate structure;

(c) any of those persons has any business association with any person,
body or association who or which, in the opinion of the Commission, is
not of good repute having regard to character, honesty and integrity
or has undesirable or unsatisfactory financial resources;

(d) each director, partner, trustee, executive officer and secretary and
any other officer or person determined by the Commission to be
associated or connected with the ownership, administration or
management of the operations or business of the applicant is a
suitable person to act in that capacity.

"Associate" is defined very broadly and includes directors, secretary, officers, executives and manager:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/gra2003190/s1.4.html

If Pratt maintained involvement in the running of the club, including arguably financing it or obtaining business deals for it, but didn't have any officer title, he would still be caught under this requirement. IMO, it doesn't matter. If he thinks he will prejudice the application, he will most likely step down. as others have pointed out, his work is pretty much done. It's up to the rest of the management to keep things rolling.

 

[greennick]

Surely if Pratt is deemed not fit to hold a gambling license someone else at the club can take that responsability.

All directors need to be able to hold a gambling licencse, so it has nothing to do with him being chariman, he would have to step down from the BoD.

The deceptive methods you mention are not deceptive at all.
They are a practical alternative and will be completely out in the open.
Your club and President may not be able to do what it takes to acheive a goal, too bad.

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

If Swann becomes President and Pratt's name is not on the permit application there no issue at all.

As above, Pratt would have to step down from the BoD.

But anyway think of Pratt as a Ned Kelly type figure as he is a major philanthropist.
He cheated big companies and gives to the needy.

Carlton is not a charity (although I forgive you for thinking so). Those big companies have shareholders like me and I pay for the goods they end up making, Pratt is not more needy than me.

 

[Schwabie]

I don't see how the corporate veil is relevant either. The legislation clearly directs that pretty much anyone involved in the management or board of a non-natural person applicant is of good repute. In matters such as this it doesn't matter whether conduct the person is accused of is criminal in nature. If it goes to dishonesty, then you're facing a battle.

Under s 3.4.11(2), in determining whether a venue operator licence application should be granted, regard must be had to whether:

a) each applicant and associate of the applicant is of good repute,
having regard to character, honesty and integrity;

(b) in the case of an applicant that is not a natural person, the
applicant has, or has arranged, a satisfactory ownership, trust or
corporate structure;

(c) any of those persons has any business association with any person,
body or association who or which, in the opinion of the Commission, is
not of good repute having regard to character, honesty and integrity
or has undesirable or unsatisfactory financial resources;

(d) each director, partner, trustee, executive officer and secretary and
any other officer or person determined by the Commission to be
associated or connected with the ownership, administration or
management of the operations or business of the applicant is a
suitable person to act in that capacity.

"Associate" is defined very broadly and includes directors, secretary, officers, executives and manager:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/gra2003190/s1.4.html

If Pratt maintained involvement in the running of the club, including arguably financing it or obtaining business deals for it, but didn't have any officer title, he would still be caught under this requirement. IMO, it doesn't matter. If he thinks he will prejudice the application, he will most likely step down. as others have pointed out, his work is pretty much done. It's up to the rest of the management to keep things rolling.

Good research.

My guess is Pratt will resign quietly soon. He doesn't need the aggravation, he has already saved Carlton and is recovering from cancer.

 

[HappyHawk]

"Gambling experts have called on the VCGR to refuse Mr Pratt's application. Dr Charles Livingstone, senior lecturer in the School of Primary Health Care at Monash University, said it would "not be a good look" for someone who had admitted such significant deception offences to be deemed appropriate to hold a gaming licence.
"I think it would be inappropriate if he was able to continue as a gaming operator. He is the principal person at the club and it would not be a good look in my opinion. If the authority is disposed to give him the licence he is seeking, I think people might well be concerned about that," he said.
Dr James Doughney, senior researcher at Victoria University, also said Mr Pratt should not get a licence."

BUT, you will find there are two laws. One for the mega rich and one for the not so mega rich. The mega rich cheats still get special consideration and Pratt the crim will remain President and get accepted by the Gaming Commission.

It's fitting however that a cheat remains as President of the Blues.

 

[hustla]

I thought they only give gaming licenses to criminals? I mean, the license allows them to rob everyone doesn't it?

 

[HappyHawk]

I thought they only give gaming licenses to criminals? I mean, the license allows them to rob everyone doesn't it?

 

[HappyHawk]

Schwabie (Sts supporter) also made some good comments regarding the serious nature of Pratt's conduct:

COMPANY bosses who collude to fix prices should face criminal penalties, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says.

Mr Rudd said today the federal government had failed to introduce criminal sanctions over cartel activities, despite Treasurer Peter Costello previously expressing support for such a move.
"In terms of criminal sanctions in relation to cartel-type practices, our policy is already established on that, and we have long advocated criminalisation," he told reporters.

This is what many of my posts have argued. If Kennett was proved to have conducted himself in such a mannor, I wouldn't back him up for shit. I would be calling for his immediate sacking and I hope other Hawk supporters would follow.

BUT WHAT IS IT WITH CARLTON FANS. THEY HAVE ZERO INTEGRITY. WHY DO THEY WANT PRATT? COZ HE'S RICH. Don't bother taking Carlton players to Kokoda. Their history of cheating THEN wanting ANOTHER more deceitful person than Elliott to remain President says everything. Morally BANKRUPT. Sorry fans, have to call it as I see it. You can't throw stones at Cousins then put up a shield for Pratt - who in my opinion committed breaches far far worse than poor Ben who has an addiction problem.

Carlton = No respect from most AFL supporters.