Okay, what's to stop anyone within the club ... from someone in the marketing department to Juice Newton to Todd Viney (citing three random examples) to now seek and receive a loan?

On what grounds would they be refused if they asked and their request seemed reasonable?

Nothing's stopping them from seeking it, but they'd obviously be refused. On what grounds? There's hundreds of legitimate reasons, one of which includes "we're not a bank and you're not the CEO". Clearly this is a once-off special loan to a senior manager. It doesn't set any sort of precedent. If that person tried pulling the "but you gave one to Cam" trick they'd be laughed out of the boardroom.

..........

This was a short term loan of some three years at a more than acceptable rate of interest so I can’t see the problem.

..........

Then you don't understand what a conflict of interest is.

It doesn't mean that what has happened is illegal or untoward. It means that an individual has an advantage over others that is IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR JOB/ROLE which gives them an unfair advantage over others. For example, if I approached the MFC board for a loan, I am sure I would have been knockde back; he wasn't. And that advantage is NOT part of his job description.

It aint hard.

Then you don't understand what a conflict of interest is.

It doesn't mean that what has happened is illegal or untoward. It means that an individual has an advantage over others that is IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR JOB/ROLE which gives them an unfair advantage over others. For example, if I approached the MFC board for a loan, I am sure I would have been knockde back; he wasn't. And that advantage is NOT part of his job description.

It aint hard.

But how much work have you done to resurrect this club from the position it was in at the beginning of 2008?

How many hours a day have you put in to get this club to where it is now. This may also be a one off Thankyou for the work done thus far.

I have no problem with it as long as it is transparent and is paid in full by the due date.

if the loan wasn't being serviced well then yes, i would ask questions.

As more than 50% of it has already been paid then you are creating a storm in the proverbial Teacup.

Sometimes it is good to be a little flexible. "Spend money to make money"

If the club continues to turn a profit and grow, then i am more than happy our CEO is doing a good job

I prefer to say Eddie McGuire has more of a conflict of interest than CS, but then that is my personal opinion.

It's not a dirty deal, they are done in car parks at 3AM without reciepts.

This one was fully recorded, and agreed.

I find this thread & Caroline Wilson's article a little offensive actually-but once again that is my opinion.

Time to move on folks....we are better than this...without the work of CS over the last 3 years we may well have not been here anymore, so for this one off i can let it ride.

Maybe a viewing of a few "whiteboard Wednesday" clips from last year is needed so you may get an idea as to what has been done and is being done still.

yawn

So from what you say Ned has the right to know the salary of every employee of the club just because he pays a membership?

Is that correct? The pettiness of some people on here amazes me, let's go hammer and tong at each other over a loan that was all above board and forget about discussing the football. Let's make life uncomfortable for the CEO and with a bit of luck at the next Annual Meeting we can embarrass him enough to force him out.

I don't think Schwab would be embarassed as such and I think he would expect a question. I'll explain why it annoys me. He is the CEO of a club. We're members of that club. He's preaching good governance and a single-minded focus on rebuilding Melbourne and we're all on board for that. All is going rather well and one of the nice aspects of being a Melbourne supporter is that we know our club is now well run and operating in a contemporary fashion. Then it pops up that Schwab borrowed 140k for a business transaction. My immediate reaction is that no one does that in the 21st century. That's the sort of rubbish that occured in Australian management in the 1970s. I'm not accusing him of improprietary. It's just a bad look and it's silly. It jars with everything that MFC has been about in the past three years.

I'm a bit of a believer in transparency, yes, and I don't know why people are getting stuck into Caroline Wilson. Any journalist worth their salt would've written that article if they'd seen that.

As to me, well I don't hold office as such. But I know if I went to my employer and asked to borrow 140k they'd tell me where to go -- and I'd expect nothing less.

Then you don't understand what a conflict of interest is.

It doesn't mean that what has happened is illegal or untoward. It means that an individual has an advantage over others that is IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR JOB/ROLE which gives them an unfair advantage over others. For example, if I approached the MFC board for a loan, I am sure I would have been knockde back; he wasn't. And that advantage is NOT part of his job description.

It aint hard.

Like I stated earlier, it is an investment in a KPP within the club. One who is of importance (CEO) and a major component and significant contributor to the turn around and future viability of the club's future. Don McLardy said as much in the article:

''Cameron came to us and asked if we could assist in a transaction,'' McLardy told The Age. ''We saw it as an investment in one of our key personnel. It is a personal matter for Cameron.''

It's been stated at the AGM, it's been lodged for all MFC members to see (& publicly); it's transparent. This board and with Jim and CS - they've stated repeatedly in the rebuilding of the club since '08 that they'll inform members and communicate to it's membership ranks (will remain transparent and open) to all developments. They're holding up their bargain and this is another example.

At best it's a perk at worst it's a perk. You all need to grow up and get over yourselves, that is , those that have a problem with it all. Why is this even a thread !!!

But how much work have you done to resurrect this club from the position it was in at the beginning of 2008?

........

Irrelevent

I don't think Schwab would be embarassed as such and I think he would expect a question. I'll explain why it annoys me. He is the CEO of a club. We're members of that club. He's preaching good governance and a single-minded focus on rebuilding Melbourne and we're all on board for that. All is going rather well and one of the nice aspects of being a Melbourne supporter is that we know our club is now well run and operating in a contemporary fashion. Then it pops up that Schwab borrowed 140k for a business transaction. My immediate reaction is that no one does that in the 21st century. That's the sort of rubbish that occured in Australian management in the 1970s. I'm not accusing him of improprietary. It's just a bad look and it's silly. It jars with everything that MFC has been about in the past three years.

I'm a bit of a believer in transparency, yes, and I don't know why people are getting stuck into Caroline Wilson. Any journalist worth their salt would've written that article if they'd seen that.

As to me, well I don't hold office as such. But I know if I went to my employer and asked to borrow 140k they'd tell me where to go -- and I'd expect nothing less.

Re-read your post. Schwab is in the wrong, as is the MFC. Trasparency does not make it right.

Like I stated earlier, it is an investment in a KPP within the club. One who is of importance (CEO) and a major component and significant contributor to the turn around and future viability of the club's future. Don McLardy said as much in the article:

..

As I said, transparency does not make it right.

If you run a club, you do NOT organise a loan for yourself. Simple. Easy. End of story.

<Sigh>

Irrelevent

Re-read your post. Schwab is in the wrong, as is the MFC. Trasparency does not make it right.

As I said, transparency does not make it right.

If you run a club, you do NOT organise a loan for yourself. Simple. Easy. End of story.

<Sigh>

well it aint irrelevent to me, and there is our difference.

As I said, transparency does not make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong either.

<sigh>

I think this has been done in the best way possible, totally transparent and above board.

I don't have a problem with the loan itself in this instance.

However, I'd prefer it didn't happen at all.

It just doesn't feel right.

At best it's a perk at worst it's a perk. You all need to grow up and get over yourselves, that is , those that have a problem with it all. Why is this even a thread !!!

Even better than the thread is this contribution.

Maturity is shown by those that don't let little things work them up. Three exclamation marks tells me you are far too emotive and demanding that those that don't agree with your point of view should not say anything at all.

Perhaps you should have taken that advice.

Why is it a thread? Um, because it concerns MFC and we all have an investment and have a right to an opinion. Regardless of how you feel about that.

DH...BB59 uses three exclamation marks (!!!) every time he gets up of a morning. It's not always words either....