Scandal Old Man Pickers and his business dealings

Remove this Banner Ad

pazza

pazza

Hall of Famer
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Ex-Moderator
Feb 18, 2003
32,703
6,816
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
It would seem to any observer that Liam Pickering is one dodgy unit.

The AFL Players Association's Agent Accreditation Board will have to decide on whether Pickers retains his licence, as a result of the handing down of the case against him and his company, Precision Sports and Entertainment Group, was sued by previous firm Strategic Management Australia $625000.
 
pazza said:
It would seem to any observer that Liam Pickering is one dodgy unit.

The AFL Players Association's Agent Accreditation Board will have to decide on whether Pickers retains his licence, as a result of the handing down of the case against him and his company, Precision Sports and Entertainment Group, was sued by previous firm Strategic Management Australia $625000.
Click to expand...
Did you need this court case to realise that Pickering was dodgy ?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

pazza said:
It would seem to any observer that Liam Pickering is one dodgy unit.

The AFL Players Association's Agent Accreditation Board will have to decide on whether Pickers retains his licence, as a result of the handing down of the case against him and his company, Precision Sports and Entertainment Group, was sued by previous firm Strategic Management Australia $625000.
Click to expand...

The Agent Board should make him an executive member. News just in: agent is dodgy.
 
Strategic didn't exactly come off well in the judgment either, from my quick read of it.

Their records were described as a "mess" and the managing director of Strategic and his mother were found to have given false evidence.
 
I doubt very much that Pickers is an angel, but the one-sided reporting of his case has been a joke.

Sure, Rob Waters is his brother-in-law, but the stuff he said last Sunday week that was left out of the reporting is an embarrassment.
 
Waters' comments are on here:
http://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/06-16/rob-waters-pickering-media-treatment-slanted-and-unbalanced

'Strategic Management Australia boss Jason Sourasis sued Pickering and demanded $2.5 million worth of compensation for taking a host of big-name players Pickering managed with him to a new firm.

However, Pickering counter-sued Sourasis for misleading and deceptive conduct and misappropriated funds, which Waters says Pickering won, despite needing to pay damages to his former partner of which have yet to be calculated.

“As the judge in the case in the Supreme Court said, both parties won and both lost, and it hasn’t been adequately reported. Only one half of the story has come out,” Waters said on SEN radio.

“Now, Liam Pickering did some things wrong, obviously; he's been ordered to pay some damages, but he wasn’t the only one.”

Waters continued by explaining what Sourasis now has to do in the wake of the case, which he believes has not been reported in any detail in the media.

“Jason Sourasis, according to the Supreme Court judge in his verdict, was found to have unlawfully have taken $197,000 from the strategic books. He was described as giving false evidence and he fabricated evidence,” he said.

“The books of business were described as a mess and inadequate that had severe consequences and in the end, Sourasis defence that he had loaned this money with the verbal consent of Liam Pickering and the judge total rejected that. So that may give some sort of context as to why the business relationship fell down.”

“Sourasis was also ordered to buy out Pickering’s 40% stake, his equity holding that he still holds in the business, and if they can’t come to an adequate and suitable deal, he’s going to wind the company up.”

“The original damages Jason Sourasis was seeking was two and a half million bucks and within a day of the hearings in the Supreme Court that was downgraded to just $625,000.”

When asked for reasons why he believes the meida have treated Pickering unfairly by The Age writer Rohan Connolly, Waters says that his public profile makes him an easy target and that certain media outlets may hold grudges against the football player manager.

“Liam Pickering is the public figure so he’s going to cop the sting in the tail of a lot of the public commentary,” he said.

“Obviously (Herald Sun writer) Mark Robinson and Liam Pickering don’t like each other at all. It’s a slinging match they have been having publically but it’s not just about that but your own papers coverage about that I don’t think has been entirely balanced.

“Liam just seems to have taken the bigger public hit. You need balance in court reporting so you can have some context.”
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

While I'm at it, here are the court findings. The bits I've quoted will be tricky to find in the press.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2016/303.html

"Sourasis had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making representations to Pickering in around June 2010 to November 2010 that: Pickering would own 50% of Strategic; Sourasis would own 50% of Strategic in exchange for a capital contribution to fund its operations

Sourasis engaged in further misleading and deceptive conduct by making representations to Pickering in around June and July 2013 that: the “sign on” fee of $200,000 had been paid to Pickering in full; and Strategic would receive 33% of SMA Accounting for a consideration of $60,000.[8]

Pickering was not paid his “sign on” fee of $200,000;

Sourasis caused Strategic to repay him monies that he lent to Strategic contrary to an alleged “Funding Obligation” (wherein Sourasis was to provide capital contributions to Strategic in exchange for his shareholding);[12]

Sourasis failed to disclose to Pickering an agreement between Michael Firrito (‘Firrito’) and Sourasis/Strategic that Firrito would provide up to a $200,000 line of credit in exchange for a 20% shareholding of Strategic;[13]

Sourasis failed to disclose to Pickering a secured loan agreement Strategic entered into with Strategic Group on 4 June 2012 and the obligation on Strategic to repay said loan;[14]

Strategic paid $35,000 to SMA Accounting Pty Ltd (‘SMA Accounting’) between 25 May 2012 and 11 July 2012, purportedly to acquire an interest in SMA Accounting, though Strategic did not acquire any interest and did not disclose these payments to Pickering;[15]

Chillimia and Pickering were not provided with information about Strategic’s books and records prior to 2 May 2014 despite requests on 6 March 2013, 8 April 2013, 21 June 2013, 29 July 2013, and 22 August 2013;

Sourasis removed confidential information from the premises of Strategic on 11 December, 2013"

---------------------
Eh, it goes on and on. It's much longer than I thought. Ha






 
Last edited:
Player agent dodgy? Who would have thunk it?
 
Donners said:
Strategic didn't exactly come off well in the judgment either, from my quick read of it.

Their records were described as a "mess" and the managing director of Strategic and his mother were found to have given false evidence.
Click to expand...

Dude is a high end muppett of the highest order and always has been.
 
Ha! Funny:

The Aus Press Council has found that Robbo's hatchet job on Pickering "failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading in this respect.....

The Council also considers the article implied the complainant had suffered a significant defeat, and did not refer to serious adverse findings made by the Court against his former partner, or its conclusion that “both parties have won and lost”.

While the article did note one of the aspects on which the complainant’s counterclaim for oppression was upheld, the Council considers that this was not sufficient to ensure fairness and balance

Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance in this respect.

As the material was also presented without reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3, the publication was obliged under General Principle 4 to take reasonable steps to give the complainant a fair opportunity for a reply if reasonably necessary to address the breach. In this case, the publication eventually offered to publish a “succinct letter” from the complainant. However, given the number and complexity of the issues, as well as the delay involved, the Council concludes that this offer did not amount to a fair and timely opportunity for a response. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is also upheld'

etc:
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1699/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Rumour Dogs financial squeeze?? - ordered tp pay $6m compensation to victim of historic paedophilia
Replies
1
Views
2K
Gralin
Gralin
fatmike
Scandal Ex-Collective Mind Wolfgang Wildgrace and wife missing.
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
14K
Leap of Faith
Leap of Faith
Donakebab
Scandal Barry Cable being sued for historical child sexual abuse
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
140
Views
18K
Aussie in exile
A
BigVic
Rumour Ross Lyon back to Freo and rift
Replies
21
Views
5K
ruck r0v3r
R
Bunk Moreland
Scandal What is it with North and women??
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
18K
applepie15
A
bresker
What the heck? Paul Licuria and ALFFIE
Replies
24
Views
5K
SuperMal
SuperMal
Slats
  • Locked
Scandal Jack Ginnivan and Isaac Quaynor laying in bed together and rating women
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
301
Views
16K
biggiemediums
biggiemediums

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top