MFC Loan to Schwab

[gOLLy 401]

Wonder if it'e got anything to do with keeping Tom?

[Sir Why You Little 36,894]

Wonder if it'e got anything to do with keeping Tom?

Officeworks shares sent to a certain persons new and growing Portfolio gOLLy???

Now that would be a win/win.!

[Arrow 1,257]

EXACTLY...Maybe Caro could do some real Journalism and find out how Jarrod Waite got off his report for kicking someone in the Knacks...I cannot believe that.

4-6 weeks for mine. That is just not on. Blokes just do not do it.

I do not want to hear Anderson Spin either. I want to hear the real deal Caro.

Do some real work.

Personally I was more shocked Rance got 3 weeks for his bump on him off the ball!

That was the softest thing i've ever seen. He caught him off guard, that was the only reason he got 'concussed'. I just thought that was totally B to the S

[Mono 455]

While they have made disclosure to the AFL etc and the Board approval, I dont understand why the Club needs to provide any financing arrangements to CEO above and beyond agreed salary.

If the deal is arms length why couldn't Schwab have arranged this with a bank of third party administrator? I dont see the use or the validation of doing this particularly in a cash strapped club.

I dont think it is appropriate for company/club to be making loans to directors, CEO's or senior management.

Agree 100%. Nothing to do with Schwab, but if the loan is secured etc, why not go to a bank. Unless....... I know not what, but even a bridging loan would be better.

This is very odd and not just a little disturbing.

The board should not have agreed. Fullstop.

[rpfc 28,220]

Here's something to think about - would Cam Schwab be paid more if he was working for the AFL (I believe they were chasing him before Jimmy gave him the hard sell).

And in that case, would it not be in our best interest to loan him money to keep him happy, as opposed to putting it in his package?

[Sir Why You Little 36,894]

Personally I was more shocked Rance got 3 weeks for his bump on him off the ball!

That was the softest thing i've ever seen. He caught him off guard, that was the only reason he got 'concussed'. I just thought that was totally B to the S

Both of them were a joke-agreed, but going the cods like that is despicable.

It's not acceptable anywhere. Lets see if kids start doing it on a saturday morning at Auskick?

Pathetic Decision.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Here's something to think about - would Cam Schwab be paid more if he was working for the AFL (I believe they were chasing him before Jimmy gave him the hard sell).

And in that case, would it not be in our best interest to loan him money to keep him happy, as opposed to putting it in his package?

My understanding was that there was significant pressure on Schwab from the AFL to take the MFC role some years ago. The AFL were very happy with what he had done at Freo and were keen to have him clean up MFC. I am not sure there were competing interests b/w Jimma and the AFL on this.

Why wouldn't we just up his salary for the interest with the bank? As a club we dont have spare funds. We are paying off debt. I dont like loans to a CEO or any director or senior manager of a public company/club as they are a potential and perceived conflicts of interest and not good governance practice for the Board. We are not a short term credit facility for anyone. The sooner its paid back and the loan closed the better.

I am all for rewarding and incentivising our key on field and off field people. But there are smarter cleaner ways of doing that than a related party loan.

[demon3165 2,662]

My understanding was that there was significant pressure on Schwab from the AFL to take the MFC role some years ago. The AFL were very happy with what he had done at Freo and were keen to have him clean up MFC. I am not sure there were competing interests b/w Jimma and the AFL on this.

Why wouldn't we just up his salary for the interest with the bank? As a club we dont have spare funds. We are paying off debt. I dont like loans to a CEO or any director or senior manager of a public company/club as they are a potential and perceived conflicts of interest and not good governance practice for the Board. We are not a short term credit facility for anyone. The sooner its paid back and the loan closed the better.

I am all for rewarding and incentivising our key on field and off field people. But there are smarter cleaner ways of doing that than a related party loan.

Wouldn't it be good if you knew the facts before you got on your high horse on this issue, so could you please step down from it, find out the facts first then you can get back on it and continue your moral crusade on all subjects relating to the MFC.

[Roost It 1,434]

Around here facts, or lack of them have never stopped people getting on their high horse.

[Tim 3,413]

The home loan rate over 15 years is irrelevant for this purpose on the basis of term and security. In addition, the relevant comparison is what rate the banks would have issued the loan at back last year and what the club did it all.

Any difference on the interest rate is a fringe benefit to the employee and the tax payable by the club. There is no advantage. Related party loans are an inappropriate way to reward executives. I cant think of any public company with a high profile these days that would do this. And it is not the purpose of the Club to finance executives with loans otherwise we should get John Symonds and Mark Bouris on the Board. If the Club is getting a lower rate of interest than would be charged by the bank then it is not "commercial" and not commensurate with the market risk.

You dont build related party loans into salary packages. Its poor business ethics and is tax neutral for the employee and employer. There should be better and more transparent ways to do this arrangement. The club should not be in the arena to provide employee finance.

Supporters may not have right to know but hell members sure do.

Agree it doesn't look great at all. Companies dont give out staff loans anymore particularly football clubs

We should have increased his salary if we wanted to give him a benefit.

What he said. The fact that there is so much speculation on the circumstances of the loan, and whether or not it is fully arm's length, means the optics are bad. I'm a big fan of Cam and what he has done around the club. However, the "Caesar's wife" principle should apply here - it is at least demeaning to Cam that his personal circumstances are on display and connected with the club's finances.

Doesn't have to be untoward to be not a good look. And I'm nowhere near a high horse, let alone on one.

[Mono 455]

Wouldn't it be good if you knew the facts before you got on your high horse on this issue, so could you please step down from it, find out the facts first then you can get back on it and continue your moral crusade on all subjects relating to the MFC.

Around here facts, or lack of them have never stopped people getting on their high horse.

The facts are Schwab sort and recieved a loan (market % rate and secured) from the business he is CEO of.

Be it open and transparent or not, there is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple. It contravenes good corporate governance.

This is a significant black mark against Schwab and the MFC board. He and they know better.

One wonders how the AFL let it happen (as I understand it, they were informed).

3rd world.

[Red Sox 2]

Don't like this very much.

Like a lot less the insinuation that the journalist has any blame?????

Seriously, do some of you expect Caroline Wilson to write about our kicking out issues? She is there for other stories and for the most part is spot on.

More so than many others who highlight all over the place when she is wrong, much like Triple M & SEN having a go at her for picking Dane Swan as the player likely to go to GWS, they never mentioned the other three journo's that looked bad on that call. But hey, why wreck a good story.

She has written the story and I'm glad she did as I want to know about this.

I'm sure Cam and MFC didn't really want it out there and therein lies my problem. It's not right.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Don't like this very much.

Like a lot less the insinuation that the journalist has any blame?????

Seriously, do some of you expect Caroline Wilson to write about our kicking out issues? She is there for other stories and for the most part is spot on.

More so than many others who highlight all over the place when she is wrong, much like Triple M & SEN having a go at her for picking Dane Swan as the player likely to go to GWS, they never mentioned the other three journo's that looked bad on that call. But hey, why wreck a good story.

She has written the story and I'm glad she did as I want to know about this.

I'm sure Cam and MFC didn't really want it out there and therein lies my problem. It's not right.

May I suggest if you want to read about it, or know about it, you read the Club's annual report it was mentioned there. It wasn't a secret and to suggest the club didn't want to let it out is scurrilous.

[Nasher 33,607]

I'm sure Cam and MFC didn't really want it out there and therein lies my problem. It's not right.

I don't agree with this line - the transaction appears in our financial statement in the annual report. Anyone who is interested in our finances can see it there, as clear as day. The only way it could be more transparent is if Cam put an ad in the paper which is clearly over the top.

Once again the only question here is whether or not this is good business practice.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Wouldn't it be good if you knew the facts before you got on your high horse on this issue, so could you please step down from it, find out the facts first then you can get back on it and continue your moral crusade on all subjects relating to the MFC.

The only thing we dont know is why the club did it? Giving loans to CEOs by public enterprises is not good business practice.Its simple. I note the lack of information or knowledge has never deterred you. How do you do it? B)

Around here facts, or lack of them have never stopped people getting on their high horse.

Is that another uninformed hunch or a personal reflection Roost?

Be it open and transparent or not, there is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple. It contravenes good corporate governance.

This is a significant black mark against Schwab and the MFC board. He and they know better.

At the very least the conflict of interest is perceived if not actual and its not prudent governance practice.

The amount is realitvely small and the loan is soon to be repaid. I would hope this is a one off event and the Club does not do this again.

While I dont think this is a significant black mark, its not something that they would want to repeat.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Up until very recently we were millions in debt with backs against the wall. Debt Demolition and all that.

No-one is questioning the legality of the loan but that is the backdrop upon which Cam Schwab sought and received it.

Seems a poor error of judgement and to blame Caro for bringing it up is nonsense.

[Red Sox 2]

May I suggest if you want to read about it, or know about it, you read the Club's annual report it was mentioned there. It wasn't a secret and to suggest the club didn't want to let it out is scurrilous.

I don't agree with this line - the transaction appears in our financial statement in the annual report. Anyone who is interested in our finances can see it there, as clear as day. The only way it could be more transparent is if Cam put an ad in the paper which is clearly over the top.

Once again the only question here is whether or not this is good business practice.

Yes, your both correct as it does appear.

Still not sure they would want it out there in a column as it was and would have preferred it stayed buried in the report perhaps?

Not scurrilous at all Robbie.

[hoopla 418]

[quote name='Demon Hill' timestamp='1301433437' post='409528

Like a lot less the insinuation that the journalist has any blame?????

She has written the story and I'm glad she did as I want to know about this.

I'm sure Cam and MFC didn't really want it out there and therein lies my problem. It's not right.

[demon3165 2,662]

The only thing we dont know is why the club did it? Giving loans to CEOs by public enterprises is not good business practice.Its simple. I note the lack of information or knowledge has never deterred you. How do you do it? B)

The only thing we dont know is why the club did it? well at least you answered my question you don't know, thought you would have picked that up in the annual report or do you need help understanding it?, would have thought that if it was a conflict of interest the AFL would have raised it but they didn't.

As for "I note the lack of information or knowledge has never deterred you" on what subject RR?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The only thing we dont know is why the club did it? Giving loans to CEOs by public enterprises is not good business practice.Its simple. I note the lack of information or knowledge has never deterred you. How do you do it? B)

The only thing we dont know is why the club did it? well at least you answered my question you don't know, thought you would have picked that up in the annual report or do you need help understanding it?, would have thought that if it was a conflict of interest the AFL would have raised it but they didn't.

The annual report only discloses the existence of the loan not why it was done. Its Board responsibility not the AFL's job to assess conflict of interest. Glad you are on top of the facts on this.

[demon3165 2,662]

The annual report only discloses the existence of the loan not why it was done. Its Board responsibility not the AFL's job to assess conflict of interest. Glad you are on top of the facts on this.

Well why did you not query it then? I don't know the facts as I have said before that is why I am not taking a moral view on this unlike you, and still waiting for my the last question to be answered!!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Well why did you not query it then? I don't know the facts as I have said before that is why I am not taking a moral view on this unlike you, and still waiting for my the last question to be answered!!

I did not get to see the annual report at the time and when it was reported in the press I expressed an opinion. And if you are not taking a moral view on this can I deduce that your view is immoral? You dont appreciate the corporate governance issues here and that fine. I am not sure why you want to condemn those that do. And I would have thought your performance on this thread ably answered your question.

[Roost It 1,434]

Is that another uninformed hunch or a personal reflection Roost?

I wasn't on my horse with the hunch about Tapscott, which by the way I've accepted it's weak premise. Of course feel free to use it against me every time I make a comment in the future. With regard to horses you and several others do ride around on them alot. I have no problem with that but you need to accept the truth.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I wasn't on my horse with the hunch about Tapscott, which by the way I've accepted it's weak premise. Of course feel free to use it against me every time I make a comment in the future. With regard to horses you and several others do ride around on them alot. I have no problem with that but you need to accept the truth.

Careful your saddle is slipping. B)

[demon3165 2,662]

I did not get to see the annual report at the time and when it was reported in the press I expressed an opinion. And if you are not taking a moral view on this can I deduce that your view is immoral? You dont appreciate the corporate governance issues here and that fine. I am not sure why you want to condemn those that do. And I would have thought your performance on this thread ably answered your question.

I will then accept that you did not see the report and I do not have a problem with you having an opinion, but for you and others to imply that the board without the FACTS of why the loan was given have acted improperly or implied that they have is wrong.

I am still waiting for my last point to be answered or are you going to try and have another crack without answering it?