Roast Misleading and Deceptive representations / conduct by Koch breaches his fiduciary duty and has implications for all other board members

[Powerade 08]

lol

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The key thing to take from this is that there has been a failure of leadership from the Club’s administration from the board down. Directors who remain are giving their support for the way Koch has been (mis)managing things.

I don’t know that the legal concepts help as much as they may seem. There is a bit of grey-area when it comes to whether directors have been acting bona fide in the best interests of the club. The difficulty is that concept is interpreted pretty broadly, in a way that is reasonably deferential to directors. In the context, it is also difficult to work out who the ‘club’ is here and what it’s interests are.

In relation to misleading conduct, it’s likely that Koch was bullshitting us but everything was above board re the club. Basically, we don’t count in this regard.

What we have is a political problem with little to no power to resolve it. The only real power we have is in withdrawing our money from the club as the implications of that is something that is something the directors will have to take into account.

There is also the practical situation that if Koch has pissed off his fellow directors, breached the resolution to review everything post season,as we know at 0-5 the board made a resolution to wait to the mid year break to review the situation, then kicked the can down the road again and said post season, they might feel compromised by Koch. They then have to look at any reputational damage.

We the club members can't do anything directly, but the 2 club member elected directors and other directors can, especially if they believe they have, as the RBA put it so nicely a couple of months, been subject to reputational damage, by Koch bullshitting.

 

[FishingRick04]

Where are the board minutes? Technically members should be able to access them? They were accessible to our members on the board I was on.

 

[Kingfish73]

Koch would probably argue that Hinkley is already contracted and that there was no 'decision' involved - that the board did not raise an agenda item of whether to continue with Ken in 2023. We'd have to have minutes from the Board mtg as evidence of a discussion and then his subsequent shift in decision making.

Unfortunately this was exactly what I was thinking. He would argue it was an off the cuff comment to media...not the board room. And it's BAU. BAU being supporting a hic coach fleecing the club, gutless president, CEO governing with a wet lettuce and a board who do SFA.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Where are the board minutes? Technically members should be able to access them? They were accessible to our members on the board I was on.

Our constitution says Members = Directors.

Club members are subordinate to "Members."


4.9 "Member" means a person who is a Director of the Company and whose name is entered
as a Member of the Company in the Register and "Member of the Company" shall have a
corresponding meaning;

4.6 "Club Members" are "the Members of the Company, Club football players, the coaches
and the staff of the Company for the time being, those supporters of the Club who have
paid their annual subscription for Club Membership or are Patrons, Life Members or Life
Governors of the Club as determined by the Board from time to time under clause 8"
and "Club Membership" shall have a corresponding meaning;

 

[FishingRick04]

Our constitution says Members = Directors.

Club members are subordinate to "Members."


4.9 "Member" means a person who is a Director of the Company and whose name is entered
as a Member of the Company in the Register and "Member of the Company" shall have a
corresponding meaning;

4.6 "Club Members" are "the Members of the Company, Club football players, the coaches
and the staff of the Company for the time being, those supporters of the Club who have
paid their annual subscription for Club Membership or are Patrons, Life Members or Life
Governors of the Club as determined by the Board from time to time under clause 8"
and "Club Membership" shall have a corresponding meaning;

Hmmmm interesting

 

[Us against the rest]

Considering the deputy chairman in Jamie Restas is a corporate lawyer things could get interesting.

Chair - PAFC Governance and Integrity Committee.

 

[Portology]

The first step is simple, a call for directors to protect their own reputations and protect PAFC from being brought into disrepute

After that it simply gets ugly



The beacon of light for PAFC board members, is look at Collingwood floroush on the park the moment Toxic Eddie was shown the door. I have no doubt PAFC will follow suit, if the change is clean and now.

McGuire’s departure in February 2021, from a club with an independent board, hastened by massive player and community dissatisfaction with his handling of that report and with his long association with many things in it, removed protection from his mate the senior coach.

His mate, who had been minutes from a flag just two seasons earlier, lost a close prelim after that and at least made the bloody 8 in his last full season. But always with some murmurings of player unrest with him. Yes, they bottomed out, then bounced as you say. A double victory for “player power” then, but only because there was actual power to hold Eddie, then Bucks to account for… quite different grievances.

That is not the dynamic we face.

Against sacking Koch, which in effect means sacking Hinkley in the one real parallel to the Collingwood situation, some directors may even have bought the “what if it triggers a player exodus?” line. To which the answer is “if they prefer just to be here in cozy little dog boxes, rather than taking risks to win flags… goodbye and good luck”. Clearing out those who don’t and won’t belong… is not burning the house down.

By all means call out our “lame duck” passive directors and shame them. Shy of a “financial violence” that does damage the club it’s all the power we have and does no damage of itself. To paraphrase Marx & Engels…

“Directors of the Port, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shame.”


On iPhone using recycled electrons, via BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Uncle Neighbour]

This is all based on the assumption that the board didn't agree with Koch's statements.

 

[Lockhart Road]

Considering the deputy chairman in Jamie Restas is a corporate lawyer things could get interesting.

Chair - PAFC Governance and Integrity Committee.

Things could and should get interesting … but only if any and all director/s are doing their job honestly and completely.

 

[1954]

Several times in his speeches at Alberton, at pre match functions and in Hong Kong and China, David Koch has stated he is just a professional bullshiter. Well David your bullshit will cost you, your club and your fellow directors.

If we still had an August members info night or the AGM was close I would take the microphone and ask/say - David, several times during your presidency / chairmanship you have stated in public forums that you are a professional bullshiter. I would like to spend the next 20 minutes discussing that bullshit and the bullshit you have imposed on our club.

I am better informed on the old Trade Practices Act Section 52 about Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and and Section 53 ( and amendments to Sect 53A and 53B) False or Misleading Representations, but these sections have been rolled over into the Australian Consumer Law and are a bit more complicated to find and are a bit wider in coverage and you have to dig around to find the relevant legislation. Below is how you find the (new) Section 18 ( and 19 and 20) post the 2010 amendments and introduction of a new Act.

Whilst this section is more about an organisation's behaviour, it equally applies to directors via these sections and is in line with a directors' responsibilities under the Corporations Act.

Bottom line, David Koch and his board met and decided to wait until the end of the season before they would make any key decisions. David Koch went out in a public forum and on Monday 8th August said he wouldn't make any decisions until after the season. David Koch then on Thursday 11th unilaterally made a decision about Ken Hinkley that breached his Monday representation and changed what he/the board would do. His Monday representation was misleading and I'd put my money on him misleading his fellow board members, and changing what they had agreed to at a previous board meeting.

If those board members do not pull him into line, then they have passively accepted that its ok to make a misleading and deceptive representation.

Now the various Acts are about giving people the right to sue a corporation/business entity and its directors for compensation. I'm not saying anyone will sue Koch or Port, but I am saying he clearly has breached his responsibilities, and in doing so has exposed his fellow board members to being accused of the same misleading or deceptive representations, unless they censure him, maybe even vote that they have no confidence in him.

Now the AFL is full of this stuff and conflicts of interest and nobody does anything about it. Maybe it's time to start.

Koch's professional bullshiting has placed his fellow directors in an uncomfortable position. They all have a fiduciary duty to the club first and its members, even if the constitution says members = directors and club members are subordinate. They all have that duty first to the club and not the AFL despite people on here saying the AFL controls all these people. [put to one side the prison bar jumper issue, because that is completely separate legal issue that isn't about directors' responsibilities].

This is another reason why Koch has got to go. He has said he is in charge - he selects the other 7 directors not voted by the club members and the AFL rubber stamps them. He has overstepped his legal responsibility.

Its time to lobby other board directors to tell them they have to vote to pull Koch into line otherwise they are as misleading and deceptive as him.

I will ask Power Raid to make a few comments about directors responsibilities as he has sat on several boards in the past and sits on different ones currently.

MrMeaner is a lawyer who works in an area of law that assess the conduct of directors, so he might want to comment as well.

If you see a few Port board directors who work for large organisations resign over the next few weeks and months, long before their term is up, then its probably a sign that they understand they wont passively accept Koch's misleading representations. Those who work in the media will probably brush it off as just the usual bullshit they are used to. Well it's not.

This is how you find the relevant legislation since the 2010 changes.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 4 Interpretation​

Australian Consumer Law" means Schedule 2 as applied under Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part XI.

PART XI--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

DIVISION 1--PRELIMINARY​

• 130 Definitions
• 130A Expressions defined in Schedule 2

DIVISION 2--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

Schedule 2—The Australian Consumer Law
.....
Chapter 2—General protections
Part 2‑1—Misleading or deceptive conduct

18 Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

(2) Nothing in Part 3‑1 (which is about unfair practices) limits by implication subsection (1).

19 Application of this Part to information providers
.....
Part 2‑2—Unconscionable conduct
20 Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law


For those who like flowcharts and diagrams


View attachment 1478440

Top effort REH, and you would be the man to carry it through, but do you, or does anyone else know what discretionary powers the kokmeister may or may not have?

He is an arrogant clown, but if he has been that stupid and fired from the hip without the proper authority or majority approval, surely even our weak board or the AFL themselves would have jumped all over him by now.

 

[Chewy316]

Top effort REH, and you would be the man to carry it through, but do you, or does anyone else know what discretionary powers the kokmeister may or may not have?

He is an arrogant clown, but if he has been that stupid and fired from the hip without the proper authority or majority approval, surely even our weak board or the AFL themselves would have jumped all over him by now.

Sometimes board members are unable and unwilling to make a change unless a reasonable alternative is presented.

Let's see what happens in the next few days. Don't be so naive to think that nothing is happening behind the scenes. As Ken said a while back, "watch out, we're coming."

 

[MrMeaner]

There is also the practical situation that if Koch has pissed off his fellow directors, breached the resolution to review everything post season,as we know at 0-5 the board made a resolution to wait to the mid year break to review the situation, then kicked the can down the road again and said post season, they might feel compromised by Koch. They then have to look at any reputational damage.

We the club members can't do anything directly, but the 2 club member elected directors and other directors can, especially if they believe they have, as the RBA put it so nicely a couple of months, been subject to reputational damage, by Koch bullshitting.

Yep. I agree with all of that. If I was a board member, I wouldn’t just be thinking about my position now, I would have already quit.

 

[Malibu#27]

This is all based on the assumption that the board didn't agree with Koch's statements.

Thats the way I read it .... which isnt established.

 

[dirty2]

Thats the way I read it .... which isnt established.

That was the rumour the other day but... I'm sure someone said on here? Could be wrong but.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Top effort REH, and you would be the man to carry it through, but do you, or does anyone else know what discretionary powers the kokmeister may or may not have?

Koch has plenty of powers, but if the board has made a resolution of how to handle a matter and then he mishandles it, then he has potentially compromised fellow board members, who have told others what the club is doing based on that resolution.

He is an arrogant clown, but if he has been that stupid and fired from the hip without the proper authority or majority approval, surely even our weak board or the AFL themselves would have jumped all over him by now.

Some board members might say it was just Koch being Koch, and others will say hang on you have caused reputational damnage to me and the club. It will depend what the numbers are, as to what is done re any censure.

There is a reason why most public companies, professional sports clubs, the AFL Commission etc, that you only have the chairman and CEO make regular public statements, with occasionally hearing from the deputy chair. If all board members regularly talk publicly you can get different messages and they could contradict one another, and that would lead to misleading representations.

Part of the duties of directors is to act and say things that are consistent with company polices, procedures, resolutions etc. That includes the chairman.

 

[Vagabond0]

Several times in his speeches at Alberton, at pre match functions and in Hong Kong and China, David Koch has stated he is just a professional bullshiter. Well David your bullshit will cost you, your club and your fellow directors.

If we still had an August members info night or the AGM was close I would take the microphone and ask/say - David, several times during your presidency / chairmanship you have stated in public forums that you are a professional bullshiter. I would like to spend the next 20 minutes discussing that bullshit and the bullshit you have imposed on our club.

I am better informed on the old Trade Practices Act Section 52 about Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and and Section 53 ( and amendments to Sect 53A and 53B) False or Misleading Representations, but these sections have been rolled over into the Australian Consumer Law and are a bit more complicated to find and are a bit wider in coverage and you have to dig around to find the relevant legislation. Below is how you find the (new) Section 18 ( and 19 and 20) post the 2010 amendments and introduction of a new Act.

Whilst this section is more about an organisation's behaviour, it equally applies to directors via these sections and is in line with a directors' responsibilities under the Corporations Act.

Bottom line, David Koch and his board met and decided to wait until the end of the season before they would make any key decisions. David Koch went out in a public forum and on Monday 8th August said he wouldn't make any decisions until after the season. David Koch then on Thursday 11th unilaterally made a decision about Ken Hinkley that breached his Monday representation and changed what he/the board would do. His Monday representation was misleading and I'd put my money on him misleading his fellow board members, and changing what they had agreed to at a previous board meeting.

If those board members do not pull him into line, then they have passively accepted that its ok to make a misleading and deceptive representation.

Now the various Acts are about giving people the right to sue a corporation/business entity and its directors for compensation. I'm not saying anyone will sue Koch or Port, but I am saying he clearly has breached his responsibilities, and in doing so has exposed his fellow board members to being accused of the same misleading or deceptive representations, unless they censure him, maybe even vote that they have no confidence in him.

Now the AFL is full of this stuff and conflicts of interest and nobody does anything about it. Maybe it's time to start.

Koch's professional bullshiting has placed his fellow directors in an uncomfortable position. They all have a fiduciary duty to the club first and its members, even if the constitution says members = directors and club members are subordinate. They all have that duty first to the club and not the AFL despite people on here saying the AFL controls all these people. [put to one side the prison bar jumper issue, because that is completely separate legal issue that isn't about directors' responsibilities].

This is another reason why Koch has got to go. He has said he is in charge - he selects the other 7 directors not voted by the club members and the AFL rubber stamps them. He has overstepped his legal responsibility.

Its time to lobby other board directors to tell them they have to vote to pull Koch into line otherwise they are as misleading and deceptive as him.

I will ask Power Raid to make a few comments about directors responsibilities as he has sat on several boards in the past and sits on different ones currently.

MrMeaner is a lawyer who works in an area of law that assess the conduct of directors, so he might want to comment as well.

If you see a few Port board directors who work for large organisations resign over the next few weeks and months, long before their term is up, then its probably a sign that they understand they wont passively accept Koch's misleading representations. Those who work in the media will probably brush it off as just the usual bullshit they are used to. Well it's not.

This is how you find the relevant legislation since the 2010 changes.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 4 Interpretation​

Australian Consumer Law" means Schedule 2 as applied under Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part XI.

PART XI--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

DIVISION 1--PRELIMINARY​

• 130 Definitions
• 130A Expressions defined in Schedule 2

DIVISION 2--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

Schedule 2—The Australian Consumer Law
.....
Chapter 2—General protections
Part 2‑1—Misleading or deceptive conduct

18 Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

(2) Nothing in Part 3‑1 (which is about unfair practices) limits by implication subsection (1).

19 Application of this Part to information providers
.....
Part 2‑2—Unconscionable conduct
20 Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law


For those who like flowcharts and diagrams


View attachment 1478440

I admire and appreciate your passion and willingness to take the time to articulate so much information on scrutinising the workings of the club both on and off the field.

While at the same time, I feel disheartened by being enlightened because I'm not convinced those actually running the club are even close to applying as much scrutiny on themselves regarding how to better the club.

When is the next members info night and or AGM, and do you really think you'll be given enough time and access to the mic to fire off such questions?

Beats the only other solution I see at present which is voting with my hard earns and not financially supporting the club.
Which to me feels like not financially supporting the kids hoping they get a reality check and come out the other side better for the experience.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

When is the next members info night and or AGM, and do you really think you'll be given enough time and access to the mic to fire off such questions?

The last members mid August info night after 20 years or so, was in 2012 when KT produced his tour de force and spoke for almost 3 hours taking every bodies questions. 2 or 3 times he called for any more questions until finally there was nobody who wanted to ask another question.

It was a week or two after we sacked Primus and people were pissed off about the situation we were in at the time. Koch not being able to travel because of work has cut them out. In 2012 after about 90 minutes I asked about our "medical and fitness program" and what other clubs might be doing, between the back and forth of my questions and KT's answers, I was on my feet for about 15 minutes. I was supposed to be the second last question but KT did his first extension. People were engaged and wanted answers.

The AGM since we changed the constitution and got rid of the SANFL has moved from December to early February ( late January). Would I get 15-20 minutes? depends how many happy clappers, do and say nothings, and yeah let him continue members rocked up.

 

[Vagabond0]

The last members mid August info night after 20 years or so, was in 2012 when KT produced his tour de force and spoke for almost 3 hours taking every bodies questions. 2 or 3 times he called for any more questions until finally there was nobody who wanted to ask another question.

It was a week or two after we sacked Primus and people were pissed off about the situation we were in at the time. Koch not being able to travel because of work has cut them out. In 2012 after about 90 minutes I asked about our "medical and fitness program" and what other clubs might be doing, between the back and forth of my questions and KT's answers, I was on my feet for about 15 minutes. I was supposed to be the second last question but KT did his fiesr extension. People were engaged and wanted answers.

The AGM since we changed the constitution and got rid of the SANFL has moved from December to early February ( late January). Would I get 15-20 minutes? depends how many happy clappers, do and say nothings, and yeah let him continue members rocked up.

Reminds me of the quote that goes on the lines of three types of people, those that make things happen, those that watch things happen and those that wonder what the * just happened.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Several times in his speeches at Alberton, at pre match functions and in Hong Kong and China, David Koch has stated he is just a professional bullshiter. Well David your bullshit will cost you, your club and your fellow directors.

If we still had an August members info night or the AGM was close I would take the microphone and ask/say - David, several times during your presidency / chairmanship you have stated in public forums that you are a professional bullshiter. I would like to spend the next 20 minutes discussing that bullshit and the bullshit you have imposed on our club.

I am better informed on the old Trade Practices Act Section 52 about Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and and Section 53 ( and amendments to Sect 53A and 53B) False or Misleading Representations, but these sections have been rolled over into the Australian Consumer Law and are a bit more complicated to find and are a bit wider in coverage and you have to dig around to find the relevant legislation. Below is how you find the (new) Section 18 ( and 19 and 20) post the 2010 amendments and introduction of a new Act.

Whilst this section is more about an organisation's behaviour, it equally applies to directors via these sections and is in line with a directors' responsibilities under the Corporations Act.

Bottom line, David Koch and his board met and decided to wait until the end of the season before they would make any key decisions. David Koch went out in a public forum and on Monday 8th August said he wouldn't make any decisions until after the season. David Koch then on Thursday 11th unilaterally made a decision about Ken Hinkley that breached his Monday representation and changed what he/the board would do. His Monday representation was misleading and I'd put my money on him misleading his fellow board members, and changing what they had agreed to at a previous board meeting.

If those board members do not pull him into line, then they have passively accepted that its ok to make a misleading and deceptive representation.

Now the various Acts are about giving people the right to sue a corporation/business entity and its directors for compensation. I'm not saying anyone will sue Koch or Port, but I am saying he clearly has breached his responsibilities, and in doing so has exposed his fellow board members to being accused of the same misleading or deceptive representations, unless they censure him, maybe even vote that they have no confidence in him.

Now the AFL is full of this stuff and conflicts of interest and nobody does anything about it. Maybe it's time to start.

Koch's professional bullshiting has placed his fellow directors in an uncomfortable position. They all have a fiduciary duty to the club first and its members, even if the constitution says members = directors and club members are subordinate. They all have that duty first to the club and not the AFL despite people on here saying the AFL controls all these people. [put to one side the prison bar jumper issue, because that is completely separate legal issue that isn't about directors' responsibilities].

This is another reason why Koch has got to go. He has said he is in charge - he selects the other 7 directors not voted by the club members and the AFL rubber stamps them. He has overstepped his legal responsibility.

Its time to lobby other board directors to tell them they have to vote to pull Koch into line otherwise they are as misleading and deceptive as him.

I will ask Power Raid to make a few comments about directors responsibilities as he has sat on several boards in the past and sits on different ones currently.

MrMeaner is a lawyer who works in an area of law that assess the conduct of directors, so he might want to comment as well.

If you see a few Port board directors who work for large organisations resign over the next few weeks and months, long before their term is up, then its probably a sign that they understand they wont passively accept Koch's misleading representations. Those who work in the media will probably brush it off as just the usual bullshit they are used to. Well it's not.

This is how you find the relevant legislation since the 2010 changes.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 4 Interpretation​

Australian Consumer Law" means Schedule 2 as applied under Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part XI.

PART XI--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

DIVISION 1--PRELIMINARY​

• 130 Definitions
• 130A Expressions defined in Schedule 2

DIVISION 2--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

Schedule 2—The Australian Consumer Law
.....
Chapter 2—General protections
Part 2‑1—Misleading or deceptive conduct

18 Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

(2) Nothing in Part 3‑1 (which is about unfair practices) limits by implication subsection (1).

19 Application of this Part to information providers
.....
Part 2‑2—Unconscionable conduct
20 Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law


For those who like flowcharts and diagrams


View attachment 1478440

REH have I ever mentioned you're a champ? You are.

 

[GremioPower]

Several times in his speeches at Alberton, at pre match functions and in Hong Kong and China, David Koch has stated he is just a professional bullshiter. Well David your bullshit will cost you, your club and your fellow directors.

If we still had an August members info night or the AGM was close I would take the microphone and ask/say - David, several times during your presidency / chairmanship you have stated in public forums that you are a professional bullshiter. I would like to spend the next 20 minutes discussing that bullshit and the bullshit you have imposed on our club.

I am better informed on the old Trade Practices Act Section 52 about Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and and Section 53 ( and amendments to Sect 53A and 53B) False or Misleading Representations, but these sections have been rolled over into the Australian Consumer Law and are a bit more complicated to find and are a bit wider in coverage and you have to dig around to find the relevant legislation. Below is how you find the (new) Section 18 ( and 19 and 20) post the 2010 amendments and introduction of a new Act.

Whilst this section is more about an organisation's behaviour, it equally applies to directors via these sections and is in line with a directors' responsibilities under the Corporations Act.

Bottom line, David Koch and his board met and decided to wait until the end of the season before they would make any key decisions. David Koch went out in a public forum and on Monday 8th August said he wouldn't make any decisions until after the season. David Koch then on Thursday 11th unilaterally made a decision about Ken Hinkley that breached his Monday representation and changed what he/the board would do. His Monday representation was misleading and I'd put my money on him misleading his fellow board members, and changing what they had agreed to at a previous board meeting.

If those board members do not pull him into line, then they have passively accepted that its ok to make a misleading and deceptive representation.

Now the various Acts are about giving people the right to sue a corporation/business entity and its directors for compensation. I'm not saying anyone will sue Koch or Port, but I am saying he clearly has breached his responsibilities, and in doing so has exposed his fellow board members to being accused of the same misleading or deceptive representations, unless they censure him, maybe even vote that they have no confidence in him.

Now the AFL is full of this stuff and conflicts of interest and nobody does anything about it. Maybe it's time to start.

Koch's professional bullshiting has placed his fellow directors in an uncomfortable position. They all have a fiduciary duty to the club first and its members, even if the constitution says members = directors and club members are subordinate. They all have that duty first to the club and not the AFL despite people on here saying the AFL controls all these people. [put to one side the prison bar jumper issue, because that is completely separate legal issue that isn't about directors' responsibilities].

This is another reason why Koch has got to go. He has said he is in charge - he selects the other 7 directors not voted by the club members and the AFL rubber stamps them. He has overstepped his legal responsibility.

Its time to lobby other board directors to tell them they have to vote to pull Koch into line otherwise they are as misleading and deceptive as him.

I will ask Power Raid to make a few comments about directors responsibilities as he has sat on several boards in the past and sits on different ones currently.

MrMeaner is a lawyer who works in an area of law that assess the conduct of directors, so he might want to comment as well.

If you see a few Port board directors who work for large organisations resign over the next few weeks and months, long before their term is up, then its probably a sign that they understand they wont passively accept Koch's misleading representations. Those who work in the media will probably brush it off as just the usual bullshit they are used to. Well it's not.

This is how you find the relevant legislation since the 2010 changes.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 4 Interpretation​

Australian Consumer Law" means Schedule 2 as applied under Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part XI.

PART XI--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

DIVISION 1--PRELIMINARY​

• 130 Definitions
• 130A Expressions defined in Schedule 2

DIVISION 2--APPLICATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW AS A LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH​

Schedule 2—The Australian Consumer Law
.....
Chapter 2—General protections
Part 2‑1—Misleading or deceptive conduct

18 Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

(2) Nothing in Part 3‑1 (which is about unfair practices) limits by implication subsection (1).

19 Application of this Part to information providers
.....
Part 2‑2—Unconscionable conduct
20 Unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law


For those who like flowcharts and diagrams


View attachment 1478440

REHCKING BALL!!

 

[GremioPower]

I’m on board. I don’t know what I can do, but the current regime has expired. We need something new.

If things go wrong, we just try again.

 

[raptalia]

David Koch went out in a public forum and on Monday 8th August said he wouldn't make any decisions until after the season. David Koch then on Thursday 11th unilaterally made a decision about Ken Hinkley that breached his Monday representation and changed what he/the board would do. His Monday representation was misleading and I'd put my money on him misleading his fellow board members, and changing what they had agreed to at a previous board meeting.

What was the decision David Koch made on 11th August? Have I missed something?

 

[Us against the rest]

What was the decision David Koch made on 11th August? Have I missed something?

Announcing that Ken would coach Port in 2023.

 

[raptalia]

Announcing that Ken would coach Port in 2023.

That is not a decision as such. It is simply a statement supporting an existing legal agreement. As I understand the situation, under the current contract Ken Hinkley is contracted to coach Port until the end of 2023.

Terminating Hinkley's contract before it's expiry date would be a decision and heaven forbid, extending the contract beyond 2023 would also be a decision.

I ask again, what is the decision that Koch and the Board are alleged to have made on August 11th?