Schwab on SEN - summary

[1980]

Schwab may be a nuff nuff, but he's not the one that made the club lose $2m+

Nuff Nuff aint the word.

With regard to him not being the one that made the club lose $2m+ - I could argue that Clinton Casey didn't either. There are 9 people on the board - this seems to be constently lost. Who's to blame? All of them - not 1 person, not 2 all 9 of them. Brendan Schwab has not and will not take any responsibility for decisions that were made while he was on the board (and he was part to) and that is one of the main reason I don't trust or respect him.

The fact is whether Brendan wants to admit it himself he is as responsible as every other board member.

There's a few ppl on this site that are too quick to forgive just because Wallace is coach. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have Wallace and a healthy bank account that lets him go out and get us another team full of Nathan Browns, than a Wallace with his hands tied behind his back for the next 2 years.

I haven't fogiven anyone nor, have I forgetten the people who are responsibility. But as I said there is more than 1 person to blame here.

No. There is only one person to blame. Casey.

If you go back to the start of the season when Welsh and Schwab resigned, it was because Casey was making the decisions without consulting his board. Their allegation was that Casey was misleading his board as to the club's financial position. Casey did not share with his board the clubs books in 2003, but signed them himself and gave them to the AFL.
Not one board member was given the 2003 financial statements to review or sign. That was the reason they gave for resigning from the board.

Just because you dont like Schwab, doesnt mean Casey is all of a sudden a democrat in the way he runs the club. He was accused of being a dictator when Frawley was coach, and he still is. Wallace's appointment doesnt all of a sudden change the way the club is run at the board level.

Both of them are bad for the club. But only one of them is responsible for the money we're losing. And $2m losses set clubs back 2-3 years in their development, and no matter how good a coach Wallace is, this makes his job harder.

Its a sad indictment on our club that we have a shocker like Casey as president who loses $2m and misleads both his board and members about it, and the only challengers are the Pahoffs and Schwabs. Where the fk is Macek and Daphne when we need them?

[WilliamPowell]

No. There is only one person to blame. Casey.

Cannot agree with you here 1980. Brendan Schawb & Peter Welsh were on the board when decisions were made and therefore as Directors of the club they are repsonsible. 

If you go back to the start of the season when Welsh and Schwab resigned, it was because Casey was making the decisions without consulting his board. Their allegation was that Casey was misleading his board as to the club's financial position.

When Peter Welsh resigned he said "it was nothing sinister, he just didn't have the time" but now it is because of Casey - which is it?

Allegation is the key word - they have made allegations but the haven't backed it up with much fact at this stage.

Casey did not share with his board the clubs books in 2003, but signed them himself and gave them to the AFL.


Not one board member was given the 2003 financial statements to review or sign.

Incorrect - firstly because under Corporation Law they are required  to be signed by 2 directors  which they were.

How do I know this? I have a copy of the RFC Club's annaul report with me - and believe me it is signed by 2 Directors

Secondly, they are lodged with ASIC first then the AFL receive a copy of them. Members receive an extract of the accounts but on request can have full copy of them.

They make an interesitng read by the way 

[om21]

They make an interesitng read by the way 

Do they mention the smoking legislation? I cant get past this......I almost burst out laughing loud during the AGM when he mentioed this as an excuse for lack of revenue 2 years after it had been enforced.

[WilliamPowell]

Do they mention the smoking legislation? I cant get past this......I almost burst out laughing loud during the AGM when he mentioed this as an excuse for lack of revenue 2 years after it had been enforced.

Yes it does say that the Government's anti smoking legislation effected revenues from gaming venues - it was down $400k+ on budget in 2003.

An intresting sidenote to that is that the State Government cut from Pokie revenues in 2002/03 was down by around 50-60%.

[1980]

WP, 2 directors is not 9 board members. We have 9 ppl on the board. And the other 7 were not shown the books and still have not seen them. What sort of stuffn board is this with everyone sitting around not caring a less about money being thrown away?

Out of the 2 directors that signed it, neither Welsh nor Schwabs name is there. Hence they have the right to challenge the board for poor governance. In fact, I am shocked the others are not jumping up and down. Its a directors duty, and I'm not yet sure what is worse. Casey bankrupting the club, or the other directors sitting there letting him do it.

I wouldnt be commenting on any of this, except for the fact that Casey still refuses to hand over the books. There is something he is hiding. Clearly.

Casey has been shadowy on the books all along. Announcing small losses, then larger ones, until when the heat was on, he came out and declared the full $2m.

We share the same view about Schwab, but leaving Casey there to do as he pleases will not help the club move forward. He is responsible for losing money and not telling either his board or members.

Both should fk off. And I want both to be criticised equally

[WilliamPowell]

WP, 2 directors is not 9 board members. We have 9 ppl on the board. And the other 7 were not shown the books and still have not seen them. What sort of stuffn board is this with everyone sitting around not caring a less about money being thrown away?

1980 - there was a board meeting in December and an AGM in January - ther other 7 people would have seen the books - because we (the members) all had the information prior to the AGM. Then the info was available a the AGM because we had to vote on it. So they saw them - because as I said we all did.

If Schwab and Welsh were not happy with what they were reading why didn't they say sometihng at the AGM. They both sat there and said nothing - absolutely nothing. Another one of the reasons I don't trust them.

Do I trust Casey? - not really but with the choices currently available - I go with Casey because IMHO he is a much better option that Schwab

[froars]

If the ticket filled the 2 places with, say, one of them Rex Hunt or someone with cred like Benny Gale, how would you feel about the ticket then ppls?

Just curious.  I'm almost persuaded to go with the status quo in Casey because they seem to be doing a few good things of late - Wallace, new ceo, etc and after the draft, if we do well there, i don't see much hope for Schwab and co. 

But if they brought in 2 other ppl with cred would be a tough decision, especially if one of them were to usurp Mickey Mouse as leader of the group.

Your thoughts please.

[Tiger Spirit]

No go for me froars.  Any group that elects Schwab as their leader has less of a clue than he has.

Regarding others coming into the group, people who know what they are doing wouldn’t want to have any part of anything Schwab was involved in to begin with.

No credibility as far as I am concerned.  The damage was done at the very beginning.  Adding one or two new people now would just be window dressing.

[froars]

Regarding others coming into the group, people who know what they are doing wouldn’t want to have any part of anything Schwab was involved in to begin with.

I thought Benny gave the group the thumbs up at the beginning - anyone know what Leon Daphne and others said?

[1980]

1980 - there was a board meeting in December and an AGM in January - ther other 7 people would have seen the books - because we (the members) all had the information prior to the AGM. Then the info was available a the AGM because we had to vote on it. So they saw them - because as I said we all did.

If Schwab and Welsh were not happy with what they were reading why didn't they say sometihng at the AGM. They both sat there and said nothing - absolutely nothing. Another one of the reasons I don't trust them.

Do I trust Casey? - not really but with the choices currently available - I go with Casey because IMHO he is a much better option that Schwab

There's no way to answer this without looking like a Swab supporter. Which I'm not. I'm just anti-Casey, and even more pisd off because he's being challenged by a limp dik like Swab, which means he'll get away with losing us lots of money.

But, before Frawley announced he'd not continue in 2005, everyone called Casey a dictator and wanted him to go. Now that Wallace is coach, we're happy to sweep it all under the carpet.

The thing that will hold back Wallace will be he's got no money. And for that Casey, not swab, is responsible. And whether swab resigned before or after the AGM, the fact is he resigned. And his basis for doing so was that Casey was witholding from the board the club finances and books. And he is still doing it.

If swab had a stronger ticket, Casey would be gone. The fact that he doesnt means Casey will continue to fill the board with Anthony Mitten.

Before swab challenged, Daphne and Macek were on the radio screaming that Casey was a dud. Now they're nowehere to be found. And that is what I'm most pisd off about.

[mightytiges]

I think TS summed it up beautifully with the "replacing one nuff-nuff with another nuff-nuff" comment. We did that 5 years ago with the choice (or lack) of coach and we saw what mess that eventually got us into. In fact it's these stupid decisions in regards to the footy department that are the main reason for where we are now and Casey, Schwab and Welsh were all boards members for at least 5 of the past 6 years and all carry blame whether they admit it or not. So no I don't see anti-Schwab comments as pro-Casey nor anti-Casey as pro-Schwab unless someone is openly pushing for the election of one of these twits.

Although it looks unlikely I hope a third alternative free of ex-board members comes forward. To answer froars question the "names" would have to replace Schwab and Welsh as part of the ticket as well as demontrate commitment and present their plans for RFC's future. Unfortunately when those that claimed publicly Casey should go were pressed to run against him they said they didn't have the time nor inclination. We can all state the bleedingly obvious about what went wrong. It's a whole different ball game to come up with viable solutions.

The current alternative hasn't after all this time publicly presented any future plans for the RFC (apart from fairy-floss keywords) and as a result they have given Casey the political up-hand and as each day goes by Schwab's chances of winning diminishes. As I said in my last post, in a year where we have lost $2 million and come last on-field, a half-decent alternative should have Casey on his knees with no support whatsoever. The fact that that hasn't occurred alone says something about how poor and weak the current alternative really is.

As for not being shown the books. It's called playing polictics and no giving your opponent an advantage. Technically no time-frame was publicly agreed upon that I can recall so as long as Casey eventually shows them the books he can string Schwab along. This would only backfire if there's something to hide. Now that Casey's said publicly he will show Humphris the books sometime next week he has to show them. I'm not defending Casey's actions but it's no surprise that the incumbant doesn't jump when the challenger says so.   

[bg25]

Casey's ego and money won't allow RFC to go under, which is much more than Schwab can guarantee therefore he gets my vote.

What has Schwab been doing to help the club in the last 5 years - Zip, nada, niet, nil, nothing, zero....I think you get the drift!

[Ox]

Casey's ego and money won't allow RFC to go under, which is much more than Schwab can guarantee therefore he gets my vote.

Couldn't agree more bg

[Fishfinger]

But, before Frawley announced he'd not continue in 2005, everyone called Casey a dictator and wanted him to go. Now that Wallace is coach, we're happy to sweep it all under the carpet.

Not so 1980. The same reservations about the alternative ticket were being raised prior to the Frawley announcement and well before the Wallace appointment.
You could rightly claim that some are leaning toward Casey since, but the overwhelming majority on the boards have not changed. They are still not pro-Casey but are still not convinced about a Schwab-led ticket being a viable alternative. Me included.

[om21]

Tidbid in the H.Sun saying a third party may be formed...did not mention names.