Pratt Charged - No New Threads Please

[AlecDuncan]

Not good news. How serious is the evidence? We'll have to wait and see. These are criminal charges, not civil, so it's a lot more serious this time around.

Herald Sun
The Age

The charges seem to centre around an alleged conversation between Pratt and Amcor executives over lunch at the All Nations Hotel. On the surface it sounds like a he-said/he-said, but maybe the ACCC has a corroborating witness, turned a Visy participant, or even a recording. I doubt the word of the Amcor execs would be worth a pinch of proverbial.

In the meantime I expect Dick will stand aside, and the board will appoint an acting president - probably Sticks. I'm sure Dick will continue to give advice where possible. It doesn't matter whether the evidence is flimsy, the charges are serious enough to warrant that.

Crap. Not my best Friday.

An aside: haven't times changed? You probably would have been beaten up if you'd walked into that pub with a suit twenty years ago.

 

[sticks74]

Im really guttted to hear this news via the Herald Sun this morning....

I would expect Pratt to step aside, i appreciate everything Pratt has done for the Carlton FC but if these allegations are true he needs to go!

After the positive press and on field performance so far i hope this bad news doesnt slow or progress...

Sad news if true

 

[HBF]

Agree with the above posters.
Would have to think that RP has to stand down as President.

 

[Bluebear]

Funny, I thought he had to be found guilty of something.

According to SEN listeners its illegal to be charged with a crime.

How about this hypothetical:

What if Harry Debny and Rod Carroll were board members and Dick Pratt had nothing to do with footy.

Would the media still argue that the buck stops with the head of the company and that these "middle managers" are scapegoats?
No. They would be household names as Pratt now is and the mud would still be thrown.

IF he is guilty (which it seems he may be) then he should stand down.
IF the allegations don't hold up then why should he go?

 

[AlecDuncan]

IF he is guilty (which it seems he may be) then he should stand down.
IF the allegations don't hold up then why should he go?

IMNSHO he will stand aside - not resign - until any verdict (which is fine by me).

If he's found innocent, then he's back (assuming he doesn't just retire - he's 74 FFS). Otherwise he won't have a choice.

 

[Bee]

Warning to any opposition trollers who want to come in here and put shit on Pratt and the club!

Do so at your own peril an instant yellow card will be yours!

Post what you like on the main board and Bay 13, but do it in here and pay the price!

 

[mediumsizered]

Does anyone know the fate of Russell Jones of Amcor? Have the ACCC got him hiding away in the Bahamas, or in a nice villa on the French Riviera? Amcor were equally as culpable, if not more culpable than Visy & yet the whole blame seems to lay at the feet of Pratt & Visy. Of course Russell Jones rolled over like a good little lapdog & let Graeme Samuel give him a nice little 'belly rub'.

 

[Ole Gill]

Remember that these charges are about lying to the ACCC and not the actual cartel action - thats not a criminal offence.

I'm adopting a wait and see approach. He faces four years in prison ( a year for each of 4 charges), but may also only face a $2200 fine for each charge - so these penalties are designed to cover a broad spectrum of offences and we don't know how serious they are.

For mine, the fact that he was involved in a cartel is far, far worse than alledgedly lying to the ACCC.

 

[Ole Gill]

Does anyone know the fate of Russell Jones of Amcor? Have the ACCC got him hiding away in the Bahamas, or in a nice villa on the French Riviera? Amcor were equally as culpable, if not more culpable than Visy & yet the whole blame seems to lay at the feet of Pratt & Visy. Of course Russell Jones rolled over like a good little lapdog & let Graeme Samuel give him a nice little 'belly rub'.

The legislation governing Cartels is actually designed to help out the party that snitches on the other members. They took they fine, and thats it. Thats why Pratt and Visy cop all the heat.

Amcor and Visy are bothing copping it in the civil suit however.

 

[Crippa#9]

I would imagine he will step aside, untill the hearing is over. I think he would of at the end of the season anyway.

I applaud him for sticking around when pricks like Smith and co were throwing everything at him to resign, he held his guns and wouldn't let twisted journos dicatate his decision.

He has left a lasting footprint on the Carlton footy club and no matter what your opinion of him is, we should all be grateful of his contribution.

 

[SpiritR]

I personally think it has got nothing to do with footy,so Pratt should stay on or at the very least stand aside untill the court case is over,then if he's guilty maybe people should be asking the question on should he be allowed to be president!

If he does go,time to bring on Ahmed Fahour!!

 

[Bluebear]

Remember that these charges are about lying to the ACCC and not the actual cartel action - thats not a criminal offence.

I believe the charge is giving false evidence, and it is certainly being reported as a "criminal" charge.

IMNSHO he will stand aside - not resign - until any verdict (which is fine by me).

If he's found innocent, then he's back (assuming he doesn't just retire - he's 74 FFS). Otherwise he won't have a choice.

Fair call. I suspect this was going to be his last year anyway. When he came on board he said he'd probably do it for two years. They will probably get the trial adjourned until next year some time and he will hand over to Fahour............now there's a president that opposition fans will love........a banker.

I just hate our ability to find high profile people guilty before they actually have their day in court.

Can't wait to hear what Fatprick has to say.

I always picked you as a VH man AD.

 

[Ole Gill]

I believe the charge is giving false evidence, and it is certainly being reported as a "criminal" charge.

Sorry, I meant theres no crimincal charges available with respect to the cartel stuff....although there really should be.

Lying under oath is most certainly a criminal charge

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

Gone for all money.

Surely someone who really knows their law would have forseen that Pratt would have lied when first quizzed about price fixing. Did Dick's lawyers have their heads up their own arses??

I bet Patrick Smith is feeling all warm and fuzzy now he's got his man. Pratt is screwed.

 

[AlecDuncan]

For mine, the fact that he was involved in a cartel is far, far worse than alledgedly lying to the ACCC.

Maybe, but any conviction makes him ineligible to be a company director. He would have to stand down from the Carlton board.

I suspect he'd also have to resign from his own company as well - even though that would be farcical in a wholly owned private company.

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

Can't wait to hear what Fatprick has to say.

He was on SEN this morning.... gloating.

 

[Ole Gill]

I find this talk of stepping aside a bit perplexing. If he didn't step aside when he was found guilty of one of the biggest corporate frauds in Australian history, why would he step aside when charged with something that, by comparison, is a misdemeanour?

Until he actually gets the conviction I don't think he'll go anywhere

 

[AlecDuncan]

Lying under oath is most certainly a criminal charge

The charge isn't perjury. There's a big difference between lying under oath and making false statements to the authorities.

 

[AlecDuncan]

I always picked you as a VH man AD.

Stuffed if I can figure out what VH means! I hope it's nice. I'm leaning towards "va**na hound" myself.

 

[Ole Gill]

The charge isn't perjury. There's a big difference between lying under oath and making false statements to the authorities.

It's not perfury in a court sense as the charges are related to the ACCC hearing

But he was under oath and its the same thing for all intents and purposes.

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

I find this talk of stepping aside a bit perplexing. If he didn't step aside when he was found guilty of one of the biggest corporate frauds in Australian history, why would he step aside when charged with something that, by comparison, is a misdemeanour?

Until he actually gets the conviction I don't think he'll go anywhere

A misdemeanor that could put him in the clink for 4 years. Can't see him being the pres past 3pm today.

 

[Ole Gill]

There is no way Pratt ends up in prison for this charge, believe me. It's getting the conviction that is the problem.

 

[AlecDuncan]

But he was under oath and its the same thing for all intents and purposes.

I seriously doubt he was under oath (as in no freaking way). No, it's not the same thing.

They don't make you swear on the good book when they call you into the ACCC office for a chat. That said, it's still an offence to give false information to the authorities.

 

[The Grover]

Pratt or No Pratt, the blues are back so suck shit you Carlton haters.

I'm sure we'd be able to get a handy replacement.

 

[Ole Gill]

I seriously doubt he was under oath (as in no freaking way). No, it's not the same thing.

They don't make you swear on the good book when they call you into the ACCC office for a chat. That said, it's still an offence to give false information to the authorities.

Now that I check, you're right, it's not technically under oath, its failing to comply with a statutory requirement to provide information. But it's a bit more than just coming in for a chat and lying.