Opinion Cameron Flog

[Andy_Mac]

Guys, seriously lets wait till we know all the facts before we make reactionary and uninformed calls for people to be sacked.

This isn’t Richmond.

 

[Demons 64]

Guys, seriously lets wait till we know all the facts before we make reactionary and uninformed calls for people to be sacked.

This isn’t Richmond.

I should have clarified...told them I won't renew membership until those responsible have left the club. Didn't nominate anyone. Your comments are correct.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

No players were told to lose.

At least have a witch hunt based on some semblance of the facts.

Actually, they were. And it's a fact. Of course, no one was literally told to lose, but sending out your players in the wrong positions purely to minimise your chances of winning amounts to the same thing.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Actually, they were. And it's a fact. Of course, no one was literally told to lose, but sending out your players in the wrong positions purely to minimise your chances of winning amounts to the same thing.

Um, no. It doesn't.

Not in ANY kind of legal sense.

 

[Viney]

Actually, they were. And it's a fact. Of course, no one was literally told to lose, but sending out your players in the wrong positions purely to minimise your chances of winning amounts to the same thing.

That's more of a reach than Lucas Cook at 12

 

[ponsdale]

That's more of a reach than Lucas Cook at 12

A reach around?

 

[bing181]

Of course, no one was literally told to lose ....

No, of course, no-one was told to lose.

 

[Syrus]

Actually, they were. And it's a fact. Of course, no one was literally told to lose, but sending out your players in the wrong positions purely to minimise your chances of winning amounts to the same thing.

Can you please show such a document or evidence that proves this "fact".

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Actually, they were. And it's a fact. Of course, no one was literally told to lose, but sending out your players in the wrong positions purely to minimise your chances of winning amounts to the same thing.

Oh so they were told to lose... but then they weren't, it was just done via position on the ground?

Clever thinking right there if ever I've seen it.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

Clever thinking right there if ever I've seen it.

It's not really that clever; quite the opposite really. Is telling someone to play in a position they are clearly incapable of, to decrease the chances of the team winning, the same as telling them to lose? Yes, I think it is.

Can you please show such a document or evidence that proves this "fact".

I'm sure you can find evidence easily enough; Brock McLeans interview on national television, Dean Bailey's admission that he had no problems "ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks"...

Of course, there is no document that proves (conclusively) that we tanked... yet. Let's hope it stays that way.

Um, no. It doesn't.

Not in ANY kind of legal sense.

I agree with this. I can't see the AFL sanctioning us for making positional changes as long as we can (legitimately or not) say that player development was the reason for the postitional changes.

This doesn't change the facts though- we were tanking.

 

[Praetorian]

It's not really that clever; quite the opposite really. Is telling someone to play in a position they are clearly incapable of, to decrease the chances of the team winning, the same as telling them to lose? Yes, I think it is.

Who decides which player is incapable of playing a position? unless its Davey in the ruck, footy players are all pretty flexible. And I'd imagine they wouldn't think "oh I've never played in the forward line before, it must be time for us to tank"

 

[Andy_Mac]

Who decides which player is incapable of playing a position? unless its Davey in the ruck, footy players are all pretty flexible. And I'd imagine they wouldn't think "oh I've never played in the forward line before, it must be time for us to tank"

And that will be the basis for any legal challange.

Miller and PJ where shit forwards, lets try them in other positions before we delist them...

 

[DeesFan]

from the great saying of Hommer Simpson "Shoot'em all and let god decide"

Get rid of all the admin that were there at the time and replace them.

 

[Vardy]

I have been saying this for a while now, but Schwab should have gone a long time ago. He is like a cancer, destroying everything he touches.

Some people seem to forget that he was CEO of the club in 1999, when we were fined for salary cap breeches and had subsequent fines and draft penalties. Then he went to Freo and royally screwed them up leaving them in the red. Then someone at the club decided it was a good idea to re-hire him again. Now we find out that he was allegedly involved in systematically losing games. Seriously he has to go and he can take that idiot Connolly with him.

The Freo part is inaccurate, Schwab turned then around massively off-field IIRC.

 

[Syrus]

The Freo part is inaccurate, Schwab turned then around massively off-field IIRC.

My apologies to Cameron if it is incorrect. This is what I have been told and why most Fremantle supporters don't like him. Maybe we can ask Moo why they dont like him.

I shall remove the reference from my post.

 

[Moo]

Yep - generating cash off our pretty strong base - I will give him that.

However to achieve it, he massively interfered with the footy dept. We traded picks, we should of kept and went after immediate short term fixes.

Looks like a rat and is a rat basically.

 

[Andy_Mac]

Schwab has always been a very good operator provided he can be kept away from the on field stuff. And since 186 and his re ppointment it would appear he has been. Although i cant imaging Neeld and Craig would listen to his shyt!

 

[Moo]

Schwab has always been a very good operator provided he can be kept away from the on field stuff. And since 186 and his re ppointment it would appear he has been. Although i cant imaging Neeld and Craig would listen to his shyt!

However why allow him a 6 month pay out clause if you get rid of him?

He would of been retained by the skin of his teeth - yet he gets a buffer like this?

The Board are culpable in this regard.

I just hope you eventually get him out - bad things happen when he is about.

Peace

 

[Syrus]

However why allow him a 6 month pay out clause if you get rid of him?

He would of been retained by the skin of his teeth - yet he gets a buffer like this?

The Board are culpable in this regard.

What also more baffling is that the club/board gave him a personal loan of $140K.

 

[Viney]

What also more baffling is that the club/board gave him a personal loan of $140K.

Which was paid back in full.....why is this an issue?

 

[Moo]

Which was paid back in full.....why is this an issue?

Not an issue of impropriety but why should your employer loan you cash for a property transaction ?

It is more a question of the decision making of your board - want a loan, go to a bank.

If the Dees had a lazy 140k laying around - retire debt or interest bearing account, loaning it to your CE is bad business.

 

[Syrus]

Which was paid back in full.....why is this an issue?

It's not an issue but like Moo said, but more of why.

 

[00Stinger]

Not an issue of impropriety but why should your employer loan you cash for a property transaction ?

It is more a question of the decision making of your board - want a loan, go to a bank.

If the Dees had a lazy 140k laying around - retire debt or interest bearing account, loaning it to your CE is bad business.

Why?

He would be charged interest on that money and I'd he wasn't the ATO would.

 

[Syrus]

Why?

He would be charged interest on that money and I'd he wasn't the ATO would.

I understand it would be all above board and approved by the AFL, but why leave yourself open to scrutiny if something goes pear shaped and we did end up sacking him in 2011.

 

[Moo]

Why?

He would be charged interest on that money and I'd he wasn't the ATO would.

Why loan money from your employer?

This why not BS - is just deflective.

He is on good money, he wants to invest in property do it the old fashioned way and use a bank.