I was disgusted when I was listening to the news on the radio that the Pro Joe group are asking for donations to help their campaign. Firstly, money like that should be going TO THE CLUB, where it is needed. Secondly, Joe is not short of a dollar. If he wants the Presidency that bad he can fund his own campaign as far as I am concerned.
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Poor Mr Gutnick needs our help
- Thread starter dees01
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2001
- Posts
- 3,082
- Reaction score
- 3
- Other Teams
- Melbourne ...HELLO i mean how easy?
well that is pathetic....... i mean seriously, the guy is made of money. He can fund his own friggin campaign if he wants...... GRRRRR. the only good thing about living in adelaide is the fact that i wont get that propaganda crap on the radio here 
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 3,186
- Reaction score
- 15
- Location
- The GraveYard Olympic Park.Melb.
- Other Teams
- Melb. Storm
Dees01 find out the facts first please..
Joe was not aware that the Melbourne First Campaign was trying to be somewhat self-funding....what they were trying to do was raise some money TO RUN THE CAMPAIGN AND NOT go to Joe to fund it,....they thought he had already put enough into the club...and anyway...it was only a small sum anyway. Get real!
Your blatant bias against anything "Joe" is so obvious.
Joe was not aware that the Melbourne First Campaign was trying to be somewhat self-funding....what they were trying to do was raise some money TO RUN THE CAMPAIGN AND NOT go to Joe to fund it,....they thought he had already put enough into the club...and anyway...it was only a small sum anyway. Get real!
Your blatant bias against anything "Joe" is so obvious.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 3,186
- Reaction score
- 15
- Location
- The GraveYard Olympic Park.Melb.
- Other Teams
- Melb. Storm
Dees01 find out the facts first please..
Joe was not aware that the Melbourne First Campaign was trying to be somewhat self-funding....what they were trying to do was raise some money TO RUN THE CAMPAIGN AND NOT go to Joe to fund it,....they thought he had already put enough into the club...and anyway...it was only a small sum anyway. Get real!
Your blatant bias against anything "Joe" is so obvious.
Joe was not aware that the Melbourne First Campaign was trying to be somewhat self-funding....what they were trying to do was raise some money TO RUN THE CAMPAIGN AND NOT go to Joe to fund it,....they thought he had already put enough into the club...and anyway...it was only a small sum anyway. Get real!
Your blatant bias against anything "Joe" is so obvious.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Thread starter
- #5
Re: Dees01 find out the facts first please..
Your blatent bias towards Joe is so obvious!
Anyway, all I am saying is money like that is wasted when you can consider it can go to the Club.
Secondly, If Joe wants it that bad he should fund it himself.
Your blatent bias towards Joe is so obvious!
Anyway, all I am saying is money like that is wasted when you can consider it can go to the Club.
Secondly, If Joe wants it that bad he should fund it himself.
The Melbourne Football Club Board must act swiftly to disassociate itself from scurrilous claims made by unnamed sources in today’s Sunday Herald Sun article about Joseph Gutnick’s proposed return to the club presidency.
The article entitled "Joe campaign query" was written by Hun reporter Rod Nicholson. In it he stated that the Demon board would fight Gutnick’s campaign "on the issue of money – what he has allegedly cost the club, not what he has contributed." It quotes club figures obtained by the Hun that suggest the club lost $2.18 million during Gutnick presidency in "unnecessary expenses". The article then goes on to list what unnamed critics – presumably board members or those supporting the board – consider to be expenses that were unnecessary or related to financial problems incurred by the club as a result of the Gutnick presidency.
Among the list of "unnecessary expenses" are the following:-
* legal actions - $210,000
* sacking payouts - $550,000
* overpayment of a football official - $100,000
* half of the cost of a pre-season training camp - $40,000
* salary cap breaches - $1,200,000
The article then goes on to say that "the existing board believes it can sort out the financial mess, but insists it can happen only without Gutnick". It ends with the unsubstantiated claim that Gutnick is asking for donations to fund his campaign. There is no sign in the article that Nicholson sought the opinions of either Gutnick or members of the Melbourne First campaign. My reading of the story is that Nicholson has little or no understanding of the pro Gutnick campaign and that his article is little more than a propaganda piece for the current board.
Which makes Nicholson’s article nothing more than a piece of sensationalist crap. The Melbourne board is supposed to be in the middle of a truce and bound by an agreement not to discuss the Gutnick issue and yet this is the second article appearing in the Melbourne press in a matter of days containing leaked information and quoting sources apparently associated with the incumbent board. It should immediately disassociate itself from this nonsense.
As a concerned supporter I have to say that the allegations – even if they had substance – raise more serious questions about the competency and suitability of the existing board than they do about Joseph Gutnick.
For example –
1. The claim is made that certain expenses were "unnecessarily incurred". So let’s cut to the chase and look at the big one – the salary cap cost. The breaches of which the club was found guilty began before Gutnick’s presidency and continued until Gutnick was made aware of them. The evidence available suggests that Gutnick correctly and in keeping with the rules of honesty and good corporate governance immediately made the AFL aware of the breaches.
As a result of the club taking this stand it was conceded by the AFL that the club’s penalty was substantially reduced compared to what it would have been if the breaches were discovered independently.
If current board members are suggesting that the $1.2m penalty was an "unnecessary expense" to be blamed on Gutnick, does it not follow that they must be suggesting that they would not disclose such matters if the decision was up to them? I ask the board members who are seeking election and are possibly quoted in Nicholson’s article the following question –
Are you prepared to deliberately conceal the truth and deliberately commit illegal acts including tax fraud if you are elected a member of the Melbourne Football Club Board at the next election?
2. Legal actions, sacking payments and overpayment of officials. The Gutnick detractors would have you believe that Joseph acted in a dictatorial manner when he was the alleged chairman of the club. I use the word "alleged" because although I always regarded him as the chairman and he was identified in this manner at AGM’s, the club has disingenuously argued in the Supreme Court of Victoria that he was never elected to the position. The facts are that decisions about legal actions, sacking of officials and employees and most other financial arrangements are usually discussed at board level and ratified by decisions of the board. Is it now being alleged that these matters were "unnecessary expenses" attributable to Gutnick’s action independently of the board. If so then it raises serious doubts about the competence of the current chairman Gabriel Szondy. What was he and his predecessor (Bill Balcam who was made a life member in 1999) doing in their roles as board directors in control of club business? Sucking oranges?
If you sack employees like CEO’s and coaches who don’t come up to board standards then you have to pay them out of their contracts sometimes. It happens all the time in business and sacking decisions during the Gutnick era were soundly based and I’m certain ratified by every board member including the faceless alleged Nicholson sources. As to the "overpayment to an official" could the board tell me more. Who was the business director who signed the cheque that constituted the overpayment? Balcam or Szondy? If there was an incorrect overpayment why wasn’t it pursued?
3. The preseason camp in Queensland. This one shouldn’t even be dignified with a response but seeing that Queensland is Pauline Hansen territory could someone PLEASE EXPLAIN why the cost of a preseason camp is considered an "unnecessary expense"? In fact I would ask any board member who believes this tripe to identify him/herself so that I can immediately put an X next to his name as a person never to be trusted near a football club. And if these bozos regard pre-season training camps as unnecessary then what of the millions spent over the years in paying coaches and players. Is that also an unnecessary expense?
4. The gains from the Gutnick years. If the argument is raised that certain expenses incurred during the Gutnick presidency should be debited against the benefits of the man’s benevolence then surely we should also bring into account the money raised by the club under his leadership as it increased its membership and gave supporters great pleasure in its climb up the ladder, developed a young team of the future and reached the Grand Final in 2000. That puts the Gutnick camp millions of dollars ahead of the financial minnows opposed to him.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that the board and its supporters are playing the man and not the ball. There is a concerted whisper campaign suggesting that the Gutnick people will be divisive if they gain control of the club. I am hopeful that all concerned will see the light and that there will be a genuine compromise between true Demons everywhere to avoid the politics but if that can’t happen and we go to a democratic vote then if the members want Joe then so be it – leave the scaremongering McCarthyist tactics for the real world of politics.
The Age report the other day covered the Melbourne First letter sent out to some members a fortnight earlier and only saw the light of day because certain people went out of their way to emphasise a minor aspect of the letter. I refer you to the Melbourne First website at www.melbournefirst.com/about.htm.
Two things are very obvious here –
1. The substance of what Melbourne First people are doing is to gather information on what Melbourne people want. The call for campaign funding is a secondary issue at the end of the introductory screed on the group.
2. The document states clearly and unequivocally that the campaign "is not the Joseph Gutnick campaign. It is the Members' campaign supporting a united Joseph Gutnick led board. As such we are not expecting Joseph to fund the entire campaign. As members it is our club and our campaign"
Very clear. Very unambiguous. It is not Joseph Gutnick who is "asking for donations to fund his campaign" as Nicholson’s article states. Do your homework next time sir!
I have not fully made up my mind about the forthcoming election but I am interested in hearing about Melbourne First's policies. I sense that I will not learn much about them in the mainstream media and I recommend that all true Demon fans who want the club to stand up and be a thriving independent entity to attend the following neighbourhood forums to hear first hand what the Melbourne First campaign is all about:-
Wednesday 15 August
The Max Hotel
32 Commercial Road
Prahran (near Alfred Hospital)
7.30 p.m.
Tuesday 21 August
The Skinny Dog Hotel
155 High St
Kew (near Kew junction)
7.30 p.m.
Wednesday 22 August
Northern meeting – venue to be confirmed.
Tuesday 28 August
10 Stathmore Crescent
Hoppers Crossing
7.30 p.m.
The article entitled "Joe campaign query" was written by Hun reporter Rod Nicholson. In it he stated that the Demon board would fight Gutnick’s campaign "on the issue of money – what he has allegedly cost the club, not what he has contributed." It quotes club figures obtained by the Hun that suggest the club lost $2.18 million during Gutnick presidency in "unnecessary expenses". The article then goes on to list what unnamed critics – presumably board members or those supporting the board – consider to be expenses that were unnecessary or related to financial problems incurred by the club as a result of the Gutnick presidency.
Among the list of "unnecessary expenses" are the following:-
* legal actions - $210,000
* sacking payouts - $550,000
* overpayment of a football official - $100,000
* half of the cost of a pre-season training camp - $40,000
* salary cap breaches - $1,200,000
The article then goes on to say that "the existing board believes it can sort out the financial mess, but insists it can happen only without Gutnick". It ends with the unsubstantiated claim that Gutnick is asking for donations to fund his campaign. There is no sign in the article that Nicholson sought the opinions of either Gutnick or members of the Melbourne First campaign. My reading of the story is that Nicholson has little or no understanding of the pro Gutnick campaign and that his article is little more than a propaganda piece for the current board.
Which makes Nicholson’s article nothing more than a piece of sensationalist crap. The Melbourne board is supposed to be in the middle of a truce and bound by an agreement not to discuss the Gutnick issue and yet this is the second article appearing in the Melbourne press in a matter of days containing leaked information and quoting sources apparently associated with the incumbent board. It should immediately disassociate itself from this nonsense.
As a concerned supporter I have to say that the allegations – even if they had substance – raise more serious questions about the competency and suitability of the existing board than they do about Joseph Gutnick.
For example –
1. The claim is made that certain expenses were "unnecessarily incurred". So let’s cut to the chase and look at the big one – the salary cap cost. The breaches of which the club was found guilty began before Gutnick’s presidency and continued until Gutnick was made aware of them. The evidence available suggests that Gutnick correctly and in keeping with the rules of honesty and good corporate governance immediately made the AFL aware of the breaches.
As a result of the club taking this stand it was conceded by the AFL that the club’s penalty was substantially reduced compared to what it would have been if the breaches were discovered independently.
If current board members are suggesting that the $1.2m penalty was an "unnecessary expense" to be blamed on Gutnick, does it not follow that they must be suggesting that they would not disclose such matters if the decision was up to them? I ask the board members who are seeking election and are possibly quoted in Nicholson’s article the following question –
Are you prepared to deliberately conceal the truth and deliberately commit illegal acts including tax fraud if you are elected a member of the Melbourne Football Club Board at the next election?
2. Legal actions, sacking payments and overpayment of officials. The Gutnick detractors would have you believe that Joseph acted in a dictatorial manner when he was the alleged chairman of the club. I use the word "alleged" because although I always regarded him as the chairman and he was identified in this manner at AGM’s, the club has disingenuously argued in the Supreme Court of Victoria that he was never elected to the position. The facts are that decisions about legal actions, sacking of officials and employees and most other financial arrangements are usually discussed at board level and ratified by decisions of the board. Is it now being alleged that these matters were "unnecessary expenses" attributable to Gutnick’s action independently of the board. If so then it raises serious doubts about the competence of the current chairman Gabriel Szondy. What was he and his predecessor (Bill Balcam who was made a life member in 1999) doing in their roles as board directors in control of club business? Sucking oranges?
If you sack employees like CEO’s and coaches who don’t come up to board standards then you have to pay them out of their contracts sometimes. It happens all the time in business and sacking decisions during the Gutnick era were soundly based and I’m certain ratified by every board member including the faceless alleged Nicholson sources. As to the "overpayment to an official" could the board tell me more. Who was the business director who signed the cheque that constituted the overpayment? Balcam or Szondy? If there was an incorrect overpayment why wasn’t it pursued?
3. The preseason camp in Queensland. This one shouldn’t even be dignified with a response but seeing that Queensland is Pauline Hansen territory could someone PLEASE EXPLAIN why the cost of a preseason camp is considered an "unnecessary expense"? In fact I would ask any board member who believes this tripe to identify him/herself so that I can immediately put an X next to his name as a person never to be trusted near a football club. And if these bozos regard pre-season training camps as unnecessary then what of the millions spent over the years in paying coaches and players. Is that also an unnecessary expense?
4. The gains from the Gutnick years. If the argument is raised that certain expenses incurred during the Gutnick presidency should be debited against the benefits of the man’s benevolence then surely we should also bring into account the money raised by the club under his leadership as it increased its membership and gave supporters great pleasure in its climb up the ladder, developed a young team of the future and reached the Grand Final in 2000. That puts the Gutnick camp millions of dollars ahead of the financial minnows opposed to him.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that the board and its supporters are playing the man and not the ball. There is a concerted whisper campaign suggesting that the Gutnick people will be divisive if they gain control of the club. I am hopeful that all concerned will see the light and that there will be a genuine compromise between true Demons everywhere to avoid the politics but if that can’t happen and we go to a democratic vote then if the members want Joe then so be it – leave the scaremongering McCarthyist tactics for the real world of politics.
The Age report the other day covered the Melbourne First letter sent out to some members a fortnight earlier and only saw the light of day because certain people went out of their way to emphasise a minor aspect of the letter. I refer you to the Melbourne First website at www.melbournefirst.com/about.htm.
Two things are very obvious here –
1. The substance of what Melbourne First people are doing is to gather information on what Melbourne people want. The call for campaign funding is a secondary issue at the end of the introductory screed on the group.
2. The document states clearly and unequivocally that the campaign "is not the Joseph Gutnick campaign. It is the Members' campaign supporting a united Joseph Gutnick led board. As such we are not expecting Joseph to fund the entire campaign. As members it is our club and our campaign"
Very clear. Very unambiguous. It is not Joseph Gutnick who is "asking for donations to fund his campaign" as Nicholson’s article states. Do your homework next time sir!
I have not fully made up my mind about the forthcoming election but I am interested in hearing about Melbourne First's policies. I sense that I will not learn much about them in the mainstream media and I recommend that all true Demon fans who want the club to stand up and be a thriving independent entity to attend the following neighbourhood forums to hear first hand what the Melbourne First campaign is all about:-
Wednesday 15 August
The Max Hotel
32 Commercial Road
Prahran (near Alfred Hospital)
7.30 p.m.
Tuesday 21 August
The Skinny Dog Hotel
155 High St
Kew (near Kew junction)
7.30 p.m.
Wednesday 22 August
Northern meeting – venue to be confirmed.
Tuesday 28 August
10 Stathmore Crescent
Hoppers Crossing
7.30 p.m.
