considering they are only in their second year of competition and they average between 11,000 and 15,000 supporters at a game (slightly less than the victory who are the biggest soccer club in the country) in a city where we have 10 AFL teams, 2 soccer teams AND the melbourne storm to compete against, have a number of current wallabies in their side, coached by Rod Mcqueen who coached the wallabies to a world cup win........ i do fail to see how they are amateur.

Hmmm... let's change that to:

"Melbourne Football Club - I don't really see the point in using these guys in the argument. If I ran a football club, and had a company come to me and say "You promote my products and I'll give you $500,000 every six months, and all you need to do is give me advertising on your jumper, publications and website", I couldn't care less what the financial background of said company is like."

Why does a different set of principles and ethics apply to MFC as opposed to the others?

FFS Maurie, it's a massive difference. Most obviously, in your above post it requires Melbourne receiving money from EW. In my point, it is EW receiving money from Tru or whoever. In that case, I wonder if EW did their background checks on Tru, etc. Who knows, and who cares.

The principles in this example are totally different.

considering they are only in their second year of competition and they average between 11,000 and 15,000 supporters at a game (slightly less than the victory who are the biggest soccer club in the country) in a city where we have 10 AFL teams, 2 soccer teams AND the melbourne storm to compete against, have a number of current wallabies in their side, coached by Rod Mcqueen who coached the wallabies to a world cup win........ i do fail to see how they are amateur.

Benno, I think they are doing well considering their age, but let's put it in to perspective. Getting 11,000-15,000 is a great effort, considering the other codes they are competing with. Red's average around 30,000 to their games, and Warratah's, who are in a similar situation to the Rebels, around 18,000.

Australian Rugby has 4 sides at this level, so of course they are going to have Wallabies players.

The team, as you rightly said, is coached by a former World Cup winning coach. He coached the Wallabies back in the late 90's to 2001. It's like saying how good GWS' coach is becuase of how many premierships he has won.

As I said, when you compare them to the other sides in the leauge, and base it on current facts, I wouldn't consider the Rebels to be a professional outfit, especially when I'm looking at how sides like the Reds go about things. It's not an attack on them personally, it's just my view.

The principles in this example are totally different.

So the ethical difference is purely in who's giving or receiving the money. Thanks for clearing that up.

So the ethical difference is purely in who's giving or receiving the money. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not sure if there is sarcasim in that post, but I'll throw it this way (in case there is!)...

Why would a company is Tru, need to do a financial check on EW? As far as Tru's concerned, they see a new customer on their screen, see that it's come from EW, that customer is signed on to a 2 year contract, and as soon as the first payment is processed, Tru give EW $150. A small amount to pay from Tru's perspecitve, considering they did bugger all in getting the customer.

When EW sponsor on the other hand, it's great that they claim to give us $2m a year, but we need to make sure we will get that $2m a year, espeically when we are budgeting on that money, given our increased expenditure in to the football department.

Hope that clears up any confusion, and eliminates the need to compare a sporting team's CEO with an energy providers CEO, where both parties are delaing with EW. Totally different circumstances.

So Polis just bounces money from the last mess to the next. Not the first time that has happened. Hopefully EW is the last.

Such a shame i have his logo on the back of the first footy jumper i have bought in 25 years!!

Not sure if there is sarcasim in that post, but I'll throw it this way (in case there is!)...

Why would a company is Tru, need to do a financial check on EW? As far as Tru's concerned, they see a new customer on their screen, see that it's come from EW, that customer is signed on to a 2 year contract, and as soon as the first payment is processed, Tru give EW $150. A small amount to pay from Tru's perspecitve, considering they did bugger all in getting the customer.

When EW sponsor on the other hand, it's great that they claim to give us $2m a year, but we need to make sure we will get that $2m a year, espeically when we are budgeting on that money, given our increased expenditure in to the football department.

Hope that clears up any confusion, and eliminates the need to compare a sporting team's CEO with an energy providers CEO, where both parties are delaing with EW. Totally different circumstances.

Simply because if you say EW is unethical, then TruEnergy should be concerned as to whether the new customer has been signed under false pretences or not. If EW was misleading customers to signup with TruEnergy (could be because e.g. TruEnergy pay a bigger commission etc) then it DOES become TruEnergy's issue because EW are acting as an authorised broker for them

That is why there really is no difference ETHICALLY whether the money is flowing in or out

There may be a difference economically but certainly not ethically

Simply because if you say EW is unethical, then TruEnergy should be concerned as to whether the new customer has been signed under false pretences or not. If EW was misleading customers to signup with TruEnergy (could be because e.g. TruEnergy pay a bigger commission etc) then it DOES become TruEnergy's issue because EW are acting as an authorised broker for them

That is why there really is no difference ETHICALLY whether the money is flowing in or out

There may be a difference economically but certainly not ethically

The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know.

Tru, etc, wouldn't need to do finanical checks, not to the extent that the MFC would've needed to.

Anything discussion about it outside that is irrelevant sorry.

From my understanding, the energy provider finalise all contract and payment terms, etc, so it has nothing to do with EW at that stage. It's only when that customer agrees that EW would be ontified of a "new customer", therefore, they are entitled to their "spotters fee".

Edit - the last paragraph.

Edited April 11, 201213 yr by billy2803

The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know.

Tru, etc, wouldn't need to do finanical checks, not to the extent that the MFC would've needed to.

Anything discussion about it outside that is irrelevant sorry.

hmmm, seems you are shifting the goalposts now Billy. But hey that's ok

I think economically that EW was always a risk for a large 3 year sponsorship. When you factor in what they were offering other sponsors it was a big grab for what was really just another dot.com company banking on making billions in the future with a one-trick-pony. There was always a big risk (even ignoring Polis's past activities) that this could easily go pear-shaped.

But was due diligence done? Difficult. You keep saying how 'big' MFC was compared to rebels, etc. but how 'big' really do you think a $30M company like mfc is? Well in the scheme of companies it is [censored]-small and has limited resources so it is reasonable to expect that they took some of their diligence by observing the other companies prepared to do business with EW. May be in hindsight not good enough, but a sacking offence? Maybe not on its own, but if symptomatic of other poor choices then maybe. You and I just don't know enough of what goes on inside.

Are you the scenario Queen of Demonland? Let's not make up stories lets just go on the facts we have. Why would we factor in your above scenario, if it's just a figment of your over imaginative mind?

Answer this; do you really believe the board would have sanctioned the sponsorship if they were given the whole story about Polis?

I'm not making up stories - I'm just trying to indicate to you that we don't know all the facts and thus it is a brave person who calls for heads to roll.

Re your question: dunno.

Re Queen: You don't even know if my name is an indication of my sex or just my general policy to my opponents in life.

That said, I have no problem with a forum speculating further than the facts the public has to hand. I just hope that people who don't always assume the worst are given a hearing. I'd love to have a contract for the supply of razor blades to many on this forum.

The club obviously needs to emply someone with a Masters in Hindsight, not a Masters in Business Administration.

Maybe they just needed to employ someone that would get off his ass and check to make sure the money on the table was real or fake. In this case it would have saved us a huge amount of embarrassment if they had; so perhaps a Masters Degree in just doing your job properly would have been enough.

I'm not making up stories - I'm just trying to indicate to you that we don't know all the facts and thus it is a brave person who calls for heads to roll. Re your question: dunno. Re Queen: You don't even know if my name is an indication of my sex or just my general policy to my opponents in life. That said, I have no problem with a forum speculating further than the facts the public has to hand. I just hope that people who don't always assume the worst are given a hearing. I'd love to have a contract for the supply of razor blades to many on this forum.

Read closer person/sue, I wasn't the one who was calling for CS to be sacked it was another poster.

With regard to your sex I couldn't be less interested.

And finally there is a difference between speculating and making up a stupid story that it's possible the board of the MFC were aware of the past indiscretions of the EW directors but wanted the money so badly they didn't care.

Benno, I think they are doing well considering their age, but let's put it in to perspective. Getting 11,000-15,000 is a great effort, considering the other codes they are competing with. Red's average around 30,000 to their games, and Warratah's, who are in a similar situation to the Rebels, around 18,000.

Australian Rugby has 4 sides at this level, so of course they are going to have Wallabies players.

The team, as you rightly said, is coached by a former World Cup winning coach. He coached the Wallabies back in the late 90's to 2001. It's like saying how good GWS' coach is becuase of how many premierships he has won.

As I said, when you compare them to the other sides in the leauge, and base it on current facts, I wouldn't consider the Rebels to be a professional outfit, especially when I'm looking at how sides like the Reds go about things. It's not an attack on them personally, it's just my view.

This is only a very recent turn around, the Reds were a shambles for years on field and off field in fact I think the ARU controls the QRU's finances and has for the last 2-3 years. The success on field and off field has only been in the last couple of years but it would be great to have the kind of turn around they have had, funnily it seems to equate to on field success.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/follow-the-reds-example-says-aru-chief-john-oneill/story-e6frg7o6-1226264124510

"Over the past two years the Reds came from provincial also-rans to Super Rugby champions, capitalising off the field with improved crowds and sponsorship.

O'Neill said yesterday it was critical for the Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs and Western Force to also play entertaining and winning rugby.

hmmm, seems you are shifting the goalposts now Billy. But hey that's ok

I think economically that EW was always a risk for a large 3 year sponsorship. When you factor in what they were offering other sponsors it was a big grab for what was really just another dot.com company banking on making billions in the future with a one-trick-pony. There was always a big risk (even ignoring Polis's past activities) that this could easily go pear-shaped.

But was due diligence done? Difficult. You keep saying how 'big' MFC was compared to rebels, etc. but how 'big' really do you think a $30M company like mfc is? Well in the scheme of companies it is [censored]-small and has limited resources so it is reasonable to expect that they took some of their diligence by observing the other companies prepared to do business with EW. May be in hindsight not good enough, but a sacking offence? Maybe not on its own, but if symptomatic of other poor choices then maybe. You and I just don't know enough of what goes on inside.

Haven't changed the goal posts at all DC. Here is what I wrote in my initial arguement...

"AGL/Red Energy/Tru/Momentum - I don't really see the point in using these guys in the arguement. If I owned an Energy Company, and had a broker come to me and say "I will promote your products, and get you "x" amount of customers a month, and all you need to do is give me $150 for each one that signs up", I couldn't care less what the financial background of said company is like. I only have to pay them when I've signed a new customer up, so it's a no-brainer for me. The only time I'd step in is if the company that I use (ie EW) are known to be working on behalf of my company, and they do something stupid."

The last senetence could be the confusing issue, but what I am getting at is that while Energy Watch are making me money by getting new customers, I couldn't care less what their financial issues are. But, as soon as something is made public, like what happened, Tru, etc acted how they should.

My understanding of the whole issue about EW/MFC is wondering if we performed appropriate background checks, with particualr emphasis on EW's financial situation. There are no doubt other issues, but that's the part I've been posting about.

Maybe they just needed to employ someone that would get off his ass and check to make sure the money on the table was real or fake. In this case it would have saved us a huge amount of embarrassment if they had; so perhaps a Masters Degree in just doing your job properly would have been enough.

Maybe. But you make these statements as if they are fact. I'm not justifying lack of due diligence, btw.

The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a major financial "contributor".

Again, a statement as fact. How do you know, exactly? From the outcome? In that case, it's just pure hindsight.

hmmm, seems you are shifting the goalposts now Billy. But hey that's ok

I think economically that EW was always a risk for a large 3 year sponsorship. When you factor in what they were offering other sponsors it was a big grab for what was really just another dot.com company banking on making billions in the future with a one-trick-pony. There was always a big risk (even ignoring Polis's past activities) that this could easily go pear-shaped.

But was due diligence done? Difficult. You keep saying how 'big' MFC was compared to rebels, etc. but how 'big' really do you think a $30M company like mfc is? Well in the scheme of companies it is [censored]-small and has limited resources so it is reasonable to expect that they took some of their diligence by observing the other companies prepared to do business with EW. May be in hindsight not good enough, but a sacking offence? Maybe not on its own, but if symptomatic of other poor choices then maybe. You and I just don't know enough of what goes on inside.

I agree with the above DC.

I have a couple of friends who work in the finance industry and when this was announced they raised their eye brows.

one commented that he was not sure that this such a great idea, "I will be surprised if the MFc ends up with all the money."

At the time a few people raised questions on Demonland, I clearly remember RobbieF raising questions about Energy Watch.

I kept my mouth shut out of hope it was all ok . After an awful 2011 playing season a number of things seemed to be improving

and wait for it... not wanting be negative and Rain on the parade.

However it must be a negative for CS.

I seem to remember that while his contract goes till October either party has to give three months notice.

Does anyone else remember that part?

I would say he has a couple of months to pull a rabbit out the hat.

Does not look Good.

This is only a very recent turn around, the Reds were a shambles for years on field and off field in fact I think the ARU controls the QRU's finances and has for the last 2-3 years. The success on field and off field has only been in the last couple of years but it would be great to have the kind of turn around they have had, funnily it seems to equate to on field success.

http://www.theaustra...6-1226264124510

"Over the past two years the Reds came from provincial also-rans to Super Rugby champions, capitalising off the field with improved crowds and sponsorship.

O'Neill said yesterday it was critical for the Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs and Western Force to also play entertaining and winning rugby.

Sorry Cards, I'm not sure how this makes me change my opinion of the Rebels compared to the Reds? All it says to me is that for the Rebels to be seen as a more professional club, they need to win games and championships.

I'm not sinking the boot in to them, as I am fully aware of the challenges they face, and especially consdiering it's a code that is not strong in Victoria. I do wish them every bit of success, and hope that they continue to improve onfield, so that offield they have more sponsors knocking on their door other than the dodgy brothers.

Read closer person/sue, I wasn't the one who was calling for CS to be sacked it was another poster.

With regard to your sex I couldn't be less interested.

And finally there is a difference between speculating and making up a stupid story that it's possible the board of the MFC were aware of the past indiscretions of the EW directors but wanted the money so badly they didn't care.

sorry about confusing you with another poster, my apologies.

But I don't think speculating that CS may have presented the Board with a risk assessment and they decided to take the risk is 'making up stories'. it is just more speculation to match the anti-CS speculation of some here where 'making up stories'/'assuming they know what happened' seems to be all the rage.

BTW, I have no axe to grind either for or against CS. I didn't like his management-speak last year, but I have no idea if he is the right person for the job since that sort of crud permeates the managing classes these days. I would hope the Board and those more connected to the club have a better idea of his competence.

We don't know what happened, but if what she said was in fact correct then the club as a whole is finished; do you really believe that's how it all went down.

I have no idea what happened inside the club. That's the point. You cannot make concrete claims about what happened because you don't know either. sue clearly put up a hypothetical alternative to demonstrate to you that you don't know what happened. Did she believe it? Probably not, but she understood that she didn't know ..... which you did not understand.

I don't know if CS should resign or not, only the Board know who is responsible for this mess ....

Exactly.

Again, a statement as fact. How do you know, exactly? From the outcome? In that case, it's just pure hindsight.

Brilliant Maurie. Now, let's actually post the full comment that I wrote...

"The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know."

So, as you can see, and from all my other posts regarding this topic, I have not made the statement that I know they didn't do certain things. As I have questioned above...who knows? Obviously the Club knows, or some within it, but for everyone else, it's gueww work. I have an expectation that it was just a case of bad luck, more than someone now doing their job, but that's an opinion.

Disappointing that you're like that Maurie.

Maybe they just needed to employ someone that would get off his ass and check to make sure the money on the table was real or fake. In this case it would have saved us a huge amount of embarrassment if they had; so perhaps a Masters Degree in just doing your job properly would have been enough.

Sadly i have to agree RobbieF. If Polis had already bounced 4-5 previous companies leaving staff high & dry then it is fair to say that this will always be his mode of business.

Who is to blame for this fiasco i am not privvy to, but if the deal was done because the offer was just "too good to refuse" then it is shameful. That dodgy style of business invades the internet and newspaper classifieds every day. The only person who makes anything is the man at the top. So i am genuinely suprised the MFC got paid at all.

Maybe. But you make these statements as if they are fact. I'm not justifying lack of due diligence, btw. Again, a statement as fact. How do you know, exactly? From the outcome? In that case, it's just pure hindsight.

As I said in another post, I believe there is a sponsorship coordinator so it may be that has failed to check all the facts and not CS.

That's what I said, nor really a statement of fact.

Haven't changed the goal posts at all DC. Here is what I wrote in my initial arguement...

"AGL/Red Energy/Tru/Momentum - I don't really see the point in using these guys in the arguement. If I owned an Energy Company, and had a broker come to me and say "I will promote your products, and get you "x" amount of customers a month, and all you need to do is give me $150 for each one that signs up", I couldn't care less what the financial background of said company is like. I only have to pay them when I've signed a new customer up, so it's a no-brainer for me. The only time I'd step in is if the company that I use (ie EW) are known to be working on behalf of my company, and they do something stupid."

The last senetence could be the confusing issue, but what I am getting at is that while Energy Watch are making me money by getting new customers, I couldn't care less what their financial issues are. But, as soon as something is made public, like what happened, Tru, etc acted how they should.

My understanding of the whole issue about EW/MFC is wondering if we performed appropriate background checks, with particualr emphasis on EW's financial situation. There are no doubt other issues, but that's the part I've been posting about.

By shifting goal post Billy I was referring to you seeming to back off the 'ethical' argument with respect to differentiating between money-in vs money-out, that was all

By shifting goal post Billy I was referring to you seeming to back off the 'ethical' argument with respect to differentiating between money-in vs money-out, that was all

When was I on the ethical arguement?

When was I on the ethical arguement?

Sorry if i mixed you up with another poster Billy

Can't be bothered going back thru posts