Pratt Charged - No New Threads Please

[Ole Gill]

My previous post on the page:

Can I just say, this is something I know something about.

Visy and Amcor both acted illegally and cost Australian companies money. Theres just no doubt about it

 

[Ole Gill]

Two points. Firstly, the Act allows for the participant that is not the instigator of the cartel to roll over. Amcor initiated the cartel and that is spelled out in Amcor documents and statements from staff involved. The ACCC contended that Visy for the senior partners in the cartel based on the fact they took over most of the organisation after the initial setup.

Second point, does anybody find it curious that all of the companies suing Amcor and Visy were Amcor clients? Visy clients are not suing anybody and have not commented publicly.

Pratt's claims that he was actually going along with Amcor to do the dirty on them have some merit. Amcor ripped off their clients, Visy continued to keep prices to their clients down and against the agreement, Visy tried to acquire Amcor clients. The ACCC and the magistrate said 'hogwash' to this claim but the whole reason Amcor rolled over was because Pratt was NOT honouring the agreement.

Pratt had the smoking gun, a cartel was in operation, but there are plenty of queries as to his true intention. Perhaps Amcor were the real intended victim here.

These arguments have a degree of merit - from what I know, Amcor were probably the more 'culpable' client. However, i can assure you that Visy were involved and made money out of the arrangement, regardless of their ultimate intentions.

Look guys, I say this from a position of reasonable confidence. I know what I'm talking about. i'm not going to get into the hows and whys but trust me. Even if you don't, consider this - Visy admitted to the ACCC that they were involved and settled the case. In doing so, they (for all intents and purposes) admitted liability in the civil case that followed, the cost of which dwarfs the fine. You think they're going to do this if they think they can fight it?

As much as I love Pratt for everything he's done for this club, and as much as I think he's actually a pretty reasonable citizen, as evidenced by his philanthropic deeds, VISY engaged in price fixing behaviour. They knew what was going on and they got found out.

ODN, you're completely correct that a party that is a clear leader of the cartel can't get immunity under the current legislation. But the fact remains that Amcor did get leniency and given the army of lawyers at the ACCC and Pratts disposable, I would argue that this can be justified on some level. Further, it's not just Amcor clients running the civil suits, clients of Visy are also involved.

Quite frankly, I don't care whether they deserved leniency or otherwise and I couldn't care less who started it. All I care about is that I know VISY were knowingly involved.

The arguments about what should have happened to Amcor are irrelevant for mine. All I'm concerned with is what Visy did and what it means for our club, and Visy were in it up to their eyeballs. It's just not in issue.

It's a very easy after the fact to argum that you were just going along with it to undermine your opponents and I agree, this may have ultimately had a degree of truth. But Visy engaged in illegal behaviour and you're kidding yourself if you think they were not culpable.

 

[KarmaGeddon]

Can I just say, this is something I know something about.

Visy and Amcor both acted illegally and cost Australian companies money. Theres just no doubt about it

Everybody costs everybody money. Get over it.

It's not what you cost, it's what you make.

What my friend is Visy/Amcor's contribution to society - Say compared to our current account deficit from our Government for example?

Or the fiscal cost from the time you omitted to do your chores for your mother?

 

[Ole Gill]

Everybody costs everybody money. Get over it.

It's not what you cost, it's what you make.

What my friend is Visy/Amcor's contribution to society - Say compared to our current account deficit from our Government for example?

Or the fiscal cost from the time you omitted to do your chores for your mother?

Absolutely. You'll see from my earlier posts that I think Pratt needs to be applauded for his contributions to society. Like I said, he's not Skase, Bond or Elliot. But it's still illegal.

I love what he's done for us, but I'm not prepared to ignore what I think is disgusting behaviour from his company. The issues that Visy and Amcor's behaviour raise go beyond footy.

 

[mediumsizered]

you're deflecting from the issue. with all of the stuff that went on and got you guys into the situation you were in from elliot's time (forgive me for not knowing your club's history all that well, as a queenslander) i feel that i'm raising a valid point in questioning whether you would continue to receive money from visy, while pratt's case gets drawn out over several years. on the main board a lot of carlton supporters are doing the same, pointing out faults of others as though it acts as precedent. arguing using precedent should be left to the lawyers, which i definitely am not... though fwiw phantom i am pretty sure that amcor and my mob have parted ways, though i could be wrong. if they had not, i really wish that they would in light of amcor (and to a greater extent visy) about to have their name dragged through the mud.

sorry that i was ambiguous in my question, i will try to reiterate... carlton have had well documented problems with remaining above board in the recent, would it not condemn them to the same derision should they not remove themselves from this situation as best they can?

Given the price fixing of which Visy was found guilty of ceased 3 years ago, unless otherwise proven, the company has been trading legally for the last 3 years (plus many years prior to the short period of price-fixing) & therefore has as much right as any company to sponsor a football club.

The charges laid against Richard Pratt relate to the price-fixing investigation, not to any current activities, therefore once again he has every right to contribute to a football club. Do you think the many charities to which he donates a total of $10 million a year, are going to stop accepting his donations? Recent history would tell us otherwise.

And what of the AFL continuing to accept sponsorship money from Qantas? What is your position on that? Have you written to Andrew Demetriou to express your concern about this? There are so many self-righteous people out there who want to tell us what our football club should be doing. I think some of them should have a closer look at the activities of their own football club administrators, corporates etc, because Richard Pratt & Visy are not the only ones who have been involved in illegal activities. He is just richer & has a higher profile than the small fish associated with other AFL clubs.

 

[KarmaGeddon]

Absolutely. You'll see from my earlier posts that I think Pratt needs to be applauded for his contributions to society. Like I said, he's not Skase, Bond or Elliot. But it's still illegal.

I love what he's done for us, but I'm not prepared to ignore what I think is disgusting behaviour from his company. The issues that Visy and Amcor's behaviour raise go beyond footy.

We all need to strive for excellence, but at what stage should we sacrifice our lawful cooperative effort against laws that we disagree with?

 

[Ole Gill]

Given the price fixing of which Visy was found guilty of ceased 3 years ago, unless otherwise proven, the company has been trading legally for the last 3 years (plus many years prior to the short period of price-fixing) & therefore has as much right as any company to sponsor a football club.

The charges laid against Richard Pratt relate to the price-fixing investigation, not to any current activities, therefore once again he has every right to contribute to a football club. Do you think the many charities to which he donates a total of $10 million a year, are going to stop accepting his donations? Recent history would tell us otherwise.

And what of the AFL continuing to accept sponsorship money from Qantas? What is your position on that? Have you written to Andrew Demetriou to express your concern about this? There are so many self-righteous people out there who want to tell us what our football club should be doing. I think some of them should have a closer look at the activities of their own football club administrators, corporates etc, because Richard Pratt & Visy are not the only ones who have been involved in illegal activities. He is just richer & has a higher profile than the small fish associated with other AFL clubs.

This is a good point. The relationship between Dick Pratt (businessman) and Dick Pratt (Carlton president) sells paper and has accordingly been blown out of proportion

 

[GoalSneak38]

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!

People can't have an opinion?

 

[mediumsizered]

People can't have an opinion?

Opinions are fine, trolling is not. Anyone that doesn't think they can post on here without making comments that could inflame the posters on our board, would be best served stick to the threads on the main board or Bay 13.