Schwab re-signs for three years

[beelzebub 23,313]

FBT has killed salary packaging. Any so called "larks" are very restricted and limited. Loans to CEO have no tax benefits for the Club or the employee

depends what industry youre in whether salary packaging still benefits the recipient. My wife still benefits...all legit.

[nutbean 8,838]

FBT has killed salary packaging. Any so called "larks" are very restricted and limited. Loans to CEO have no tax benefits for the Club or the employee

Change your tax lawyer.

Having said that, if I was a gambling man I would put money that the loan was asked for and given for no other reasons that it was "easy" and possibly other avenues of finance may not have been open to him In hindsight I tend to agree that these types of arrangements made in private companies where the owners answer only to the owners is different to an organisation like the MFC where not only is actual financial propriety essential but the appearance of financial propriety must be paramount (it may be 100% kosher but how does it look to the members who are forking over good money every year)

[timD 994]

seriously this is making a mountain out of a molehill

if you understand psychology tim you should understand this

there surely are many more important issues for the mfc than this

gazing at one's belly too often achieves little

Uh, let me get this straight: If I understand psychology then I won't mind what people say and do? And I won't think about apparent problems and contradictions?

Did you think about this before you wrote it? No, don't tell me. I might make something of it....

THe only thing worse than this is when people start asking whether I know what they are thinking before they say it...and then I have to go gently point out that 'psychologist' and 'psychic' are different. And where am I navel-gazing? Whose navel are you talking about? NO! Don't answer that question either! I do not need to know. I definitely don't want to be accused of making a mountain/molehill of anyone's navel. That would just get wierd.

[daisycutter 29,604]

Uh, let me get this straight: If I understand psychology then I won't mind what people say and do? And I won't think about apparent problems and contradictions?

Did you think about this before you wrote it? No, don't tell me. I might make something of it....

THe only thing worse than this is when people start asking whether I know what they are thinking before they say it...and then I have to go gently point out that 'psychologist' and 'psychic' are different. And where am I navel-gazing? Whose navel are you talking about? NO! Don't answer that question either! I do not need to know. I definitely don't want to be accused of making a mountain/molehill of anyone's navel. That would just get wierd.

??? what a convoluted reply

I just thought you might be able to recognise when a molehill is a molehill........you obviously don't...keep gazing if you like

[rumpole 515]

Do you deny that all clubs under Schwab have had dismal on field results?

Do you deny that Schwab is directly responsible for significant instability at the Melbourne Football Club?

Given that the Board were about to sack Schwab last year, what has Schwab done since then that could possibly justify giving him a three year contract now?

Given his patchy record, how does it benefit the club to give Schwab a three year contract instead of a standard ongoing employment contract with a notice period?

Why do you beat your wife?

[Range Rover 1,935]

Why do you beat your wife?

????? :o :o :o ?????

[Hannibal 5,814]

????? :o :o :o ?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

[timD 994]

??? what a convoluted reply

I just thought you might be able to recognise when a molehill is a molehill........you obviously don't...keep gazing if you like

Perhaps you think that the board, their behaviour, decisions and views are a 'molehill'. That what they say doesn't matter. That what they do doesn't matter either. That little inconsistencies here and there are just by-the-by.

Perhaps it has escaped your attention that this club is a shocking embarrassment on & off the field. I think it is now 31 games in 6 years that we have won. We've been saved from collapse by the members. We've sacked two coaches, lost two head recruiters, changed fitness regimes at least twice, lost good sponsors...and you are clearly not bothered by the behaviour of the people responsible for the running of the club.

We are a total and complete joke. The oldest club and what do we have to show for it? A legacy we can never return to. A shambles everywhere you look. Not a single star on the field where there are clubs with several and who have had several in successive teams over decades. We've had one in 40 years. A team that, just three years ag, trained on a field without goalposts for half the year; clubrooms that were possum-infested; coaches offices with maggots falling out of the ceiling.

You might not get this yet, but what our boards say and do is actually important. It deserves scrutiny. Details are actually important.

And "navel gazing" is weak as the proverbial.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

depends what industry youre in whether salary packaging still benefits the recipient. My wife still benefits...all legit.

No doubt she does and if its substantive then its outcome peculiar to her industry. But its marginal at best for 98%of all employees and Schwab would be caught in that bracket. And the loan "benefits" would be definitely FBTable and not a tax effective strategy.

Having said that, if I was a gambling man I would put money that the loan was asked for and given for no other reasons that it was "easy" and possibly other avenues of finance may not have been open to him In hindsight I tend to agree that these types of arrangements made in private companies where the owners answer only to the owners is different to an organisation like the MFC where not only is actual financial propriety essential but the appearance of financial propriety must be paramount (it may be 100% kosher but how does it look to the members who are forking over good money every year)

Taking your scenario, I think its inappropriate for a CEO to ask for a loan from his employer, particularly in public companies or member based organisations. It would even more inappropriate for the Board/ Chairman to have approved such a move. While the amount was not large, the principle is a serious one and these principles have been recently flouted to an extreme by the HSU in NSW. It was a corporate governance lapse that I trust the Board will learn from and not repeat.

[Range Rover 1,935]

http://en.wikipedia....Loaded_question

Nice one. I like that. Clearly a few slippery legal types among us.

[rpfc 28,263]

Perhaps you think that the board, their behaviour, decisions and views are a 'molehill'. That what they say doesn't matter. That what they do doesn't matter either. That little inconsistencies here and there are just by-the-by.

Perhaps it has escaped your attention that this club is a shocking embarrassment on & off the field. I think it is now 31 games in 6 years that we have won. We've been saved from collapse by the members. We've sacked two coaches, lost two head recruiters, changed fitness regimes at least twice, lost good sponsors...and you are clearly not bothered by the behaviour of the people responsible for the running of the club.

We are a total and complete joke. The oldest club and what do we have to show for it? A legacy we can never return to. A shambles everywhere you look. Not a single star on the field where there are clubs with several and who have had several in successive teams over decades. We've had one in 40 years. A team that, just three years ag, trained on a field without goalposts for half the year; clubrooms that were possum-infested; coaches offices with maggots falling out of the ceiling.

You might not get this yet, but what our boards say and do is actually important. It deserves scrutiny. Details are actually important.

And "navel gazing" is weak as the proverbial.

Well that was something.

DC was talking about the 'deception' surrounding the $750k being a molehill, not 'our general state of being an effing joke.'

[daisycutter 29,604]

Perhaps you think that the board, their behaviour, decisions and views are a 'molehill'. That what they say doesn't matter. That what they do doesn't matter either. That little inconsistencies here and there are just by-the-by.

Perhaps it has escaped your attention that this club is a shocking embarrassment on & off the field. I think it is now 31 games in 6 years that we have won. We've been saved from collapse by the members. We've sacked two coaches, lost two head recruiters, changed fitness regimes at least twice, lost good sponsors...and you are clearly not bothered by the behaviour of the people responsible for the running of the club.

We are a total and complete joke. The oldest club and what do we have to show for it? A legacy we can never return to. A shambles everywhere you look. Not a single star on the field where there are clubs with several and who have had several in successive teams over decades. We've had one in 40 years. A team that, just three years ag, trained on a field without goalposts for half the year; clubrooms that were possum-infested; coaches offices with maggots falling out of the ceiling.

You might not get this yet, but what our boards say and do is actually important. It deserves scrutiny. Details are actually important.

And "navel gazing" is weak as the proverbial.

thats right, broaden the discussion. the discussion point was just the reason expressed for the fund raiser

that was the molehill as you well know

as you also know this is an annual fundraiser by the foundation heroes. they don't even need an excuse/reason they just do it

to avoid being guilty of the same hyperbole that's as much as i'll say

no doubt you will go on ad infinitum, be my guest I won't be reading

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I doubt I've read as much rubbish in all of my life as I have on this thread, I just wish I hadn't wasted my time.

Hazy you really are a doozy; absolutely full of it, you really do have an agenda, don't you?

You remind me of one of those self righteous pricks that would rather see a club fold than have the people you despise run it; lot's of accusations but no real hard evidence.

Maybe you would like "there are more important things than football" Gardner running the joint (in to the ground) again. Tell me where do you think we would be if he hadn't been given the arse?

I reckon playing Ammos or maybe VFL.

Edited August 30, 2012 by RobbieF

[old dee 23,781]

I doubt I've read as much rubbish in all of my life as I have on this thread, I just wish I hadn't wasted my time.

Hazy you really are a doozy; absolutely full of it, you really do have an agenda, don't you?

You remind me of one of those self righteous pricks that would rather see a club fold than have the people you despise run it; lot's of accusations but no real hard evidence.

Maybe you would like "there are more important things than football" Gardner running the joint (in to the ground) again. Tell me where do you think we would be if he hadn't been given the arse?

I reckon playing Ammos or maybe VFL.

You have covered it RobbieF

To answer your question Ammos!

We were run that way for quite a while

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Schwab didn't sack Bailey, as has already been pointed out and he didn't sack Jeans, which you've asserted. This from the Richmond Football Club website:

" 1992

A Jeans resigned as Senior Coach due to ill health. J Northey, dual Richmond Premiership Player appointed Coach for season 1993."

Why do you make things up ?

To say that I make things up is an unfair characterisation. I admit that what I should have written was that Bailey “saw off”, rather than "sacked" five coaches. In any case, as I have pointed out, this distinction does not detract from the point I was making about Schwab's bad record in terms of instability.

I actually like that you and others have gotten so worked up over this point. It just goes to show what little material you have to work with. I would like to point out that I could have been similarly petty about Jack saying that Daniher was sacked when he in fact resigned. I did not do this because this would be a minor quibble that would not greatly effect his argument.

I find your belittling of the debt reduction of $5mil weak. The interest bill on that debt was crippling and prevented football department spend, which is paramount to improve and remain competitive; and where previous administrations couldn't rid themselves of this anchor the current one did. The fact they were able to unify the club was a major achievement, especially when there are divisive figures around the club, such as your goodself. Gardner's Board couldn't fathom how the debt could be removed. It was a major achievement by the incumbents despite your sneering.

This is so wrong for so many reasons. How can the interest bill have been crippling when the club went from making average losses of $1.42 million/annum from 1999-2003 to four consecutive years of profits during Gardner's watch? You say that Gardner's Board could not fathom how club debt could be removed but our club debt was actually halved from around $5.5m in 2004 to around $2.7m by the start of 2008. All this was achieved without resorting to begging and without benefiting from the much more lucrative TV and stadium deals that Schwab currently enjoys (that were none of his doing).

As the record shows, much of this good work was undone by the loss that was forecast for 2008, a loss which largely came on the back of major increases to football operations spending in 2007 and 2008 ($500k and then $500k again). Nevertheless, Gardner left the club in much better shape than he found it and far from the crippled condition that you would have us believe it was left in.

As far as tin rattles go, the Debt Demolition tin rattle was a good one. It certainly helped to have Jim acting as a figurehead. Nevertheless, Cameron Schwab did not wipe off club debt, club supporters did. All he managed to do was a ) not stuff it up, b ) waste a lot of the proceeds instead of planning sustainably and c ) borrow some of it for property investments.

Also, the reunification with the MCC has been a major achievement as well as the far better stadium deal.

The “reunification” with the MCC is mostly spin. Having said that, I will acknowledge that this is one area where current administration deserves some credit. Of course good relations between the MFC and the MCC, including financial support of the former by the latter, already existed before Schwab. But, credit where it is deserved, he has built on this and managed not to stuff it up yet.

I am not sure what stadium deal you are referring to. Both the Etihad and AAMI deals had nothing to do with Schwab.

Chris Connolly has been the major driver of Casey, and yes, he was a Gardner appointment. Well done on that Paul.

Connolly certainly had a lot to do with the Casey move but it was actually Harris' idea and it was put into action under the Gardner Board that you unfairly malign - before Stynes took control and appointed Schwab. I could go on at greater length about Connolly's shortcomings but for the purposes of this thread I am content to point out that the Casey initiative owes nothing to Schwab.

Some facts:

Membership stronger

The membership levels is down this year but on the whole he has maintained the upward trend that was existed for the five years before he started. Schwab gets a pass on membership from me but how can you use this metric as justification of Schwab's new contract when membership has actually fallen since Schwab was almost sacked last year?

Stadium deals better

Nothing to do with Cam

Sponsorship greater

Cam's performance on sponsorship has been woeful, I don't think anyone serious would dispute this. Can you even tell me what our current major sponsorship deals are worth?

No debt

Thanks to supporters. I hope we don't find ourselves in trouble any time soon given the charity fatigue that now exists amongst the club’s support base.

$6mil net asset position

As mentioned previously, this is mostly due to Bentleigh Club, supporter charity and new stadium/TV rights deals. Again, nothing to do with Schwab.

The incumbent Board, despite some mistakes, is clearly a far better performed Board than the one it replaced. Thanks Jimmy, Don, et al, and a special thanks to Cameron for overseeing a major turn around in our off-field fortunes. We all want on-field success and hopefully we have a great summer with an injection of some much needed talent.

Aside from pointing out some of the false assumptions about the Gardner Board that you use to prop up what you might term an “agenda”, I have no wish to get into yet another argument about the Gardner Board. This thread is supposed to be about Cameron Schwab. The vast majority of your points about Cameron's performance are highly disingenuous and are based on assumptions that you know to be untrue (because I have pointed this out to you before). After scouring such rubbish away, the few valid points left behind in your post are freely admitted to by me, but they are dwarfed by Cameron's serious deficiencies as a CEO and provide no basis his re-appointment, let alone his three year contract.

[Trisul 664]

Nothing to se here, move along.

(And do NOT mention the war.)

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

This is one thing that really annoys me...

I guess I just don't see the tin rattle the way you do, I just don't think organising a charity drive is such an incredible achievement and I don't think resorting to begging is anything to be proud of. The success of the drive was primarily due to the generosity of the members and partly due to the charismatic figurehead of Stynes. The Debt Demolition began before Schwab was even at the club. If Schwab is the financial wizard that so many people on here make him out to be, we wouldn't still be holding the cap out over four years later.

The Energy Watch deal and the Kaspersky deal are treated differently because they are different situations. Both situations were damning in different ways. What are the Webjet and Opel deals worth?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Hazyshadeofgrinter

[old dee 23,781]

To say that I make things up is an unfair characterisation. I admit that what I should have written was that Bailey “saw off”, rather than "sacked" five coaches. In any case, as I have pointed out, this distinction does not detract from the point I was making about Schwab's bad record in terms of instability.

I actually like that you and others have gotten so worked up over this point. It just goes to show what little material you have to work with. I would like to point out that I could have been similarly petty about Jack saying that Daniher was sacked when he in fact resigned. I did not do this because this would be a minor quibble that would not greatly effect his argument.

This is so wrong for so many reasons. How can the interest bill have been crippling when the club went from making average losses of $1.42 million/annum from 1999-2003 to four consecutive years of profits during Gardner's watch? You say that Gardner's Board could not fathom how club debt could be removed but our club debt was actually halved from around $5.5m in 2004 to around $2.7m by the start of 2008. All this was achieved without resorting to begging and without benefiting from the much more lucrative TV and stadium deals that Schwab currently enjoys (that were none of his doing).

As the record shows, much of this good work was undone by the loss that was forecast for 2008, a loss which largely came on the back of major increases to football operations spending in 2007 and 2008 ($500k and then $500k again). Nevertheless, Gardner left the club in much better shape than he found it and far from the crippled condition that you would have us believe it was left in.

As far as tin rattles go, the Debt Demolition tin rattle was a good one. It certainly helped to have Jim acting as a figurehead. Nevertheless, Cameron Schwab did not wipe off club debt, club supporters did. All he managed to do was a ) not stuff it up, b ) waste a lot of the proceeds instead of planning sustainably and c ) borrow some of it for property investments.

The “reunification” with the MCC is mostly spin. Having said that, I will acknowledge that this is one area where current administration deserves some credit. Of course good relations between the MFC and the MCC, including financial support of the former by the latter, already existed before Schwab. But, credit where it is deserved, he has built on this and managed not to stuff it up yet.

I am not sure what stadium deal you are referring to. Both the Etihad and AAMI deals had nothing to do with Schwab.

Connolly certainly had a lot to do with the Casey move but it was actually Harris' idea and it was put into action under the Gardner Board that you unfairly malign - before Stynes took control and appointed Schwab. I could go on at greater length about Connolly's shortcomings but for the purposes of this thread I am content to point out that the Casey initiative owes nothing to Schwab.

The membership levels is down this year but on the whole he has maintained the upward trend that was existed for the five years before he started. Schwab gets a pass on membership from me but how can you use this metric as justification of Schwab's new contract when membership has actually fallen since Schwab was almost sacked last year?

Nothing to do with Cam

Cam's performance on sponsorship has been woeful, I don't think anyone serious would dispute this. Can you even tell me what our current major sponsorship deals are worth?

Thanks to supporters. I hope we don't find ourselves in trouble any time soon given the charity fatigue that now exists amongst the club’s support base.

As mentioned previously, this is mostly due to Bentleigh Club, supporter charity and new stadium/TV rights deals. Again, nothing to do with Schwab.

Aside from pointing out some of the false assumptions about the Gardner Board that you use to prop up what you might term an “agenda”, I have no wish to get into yet another argument about the Gardner Board. This thread is supposed to be about Cameron Schwab. The vast majority of your points about Cameron's performance are highly disingenuous and are based on assumptions that you know to be untrue (because I have pointed this out to you before). After scouring such rubbish away, the few valid points left behind in your post are freely admitted to by me, but they are dwarfed by Cameron's serious deficiencies as a CEO and provide no basis his re-appointment, let alone his three year contract.

Are you DR. WHO?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

You're right Tim but there's a time and a place where this should be done. What I and many others object to is the hostile and divisive way in which the campaign against the Board and Cameron Schwab in particular has been conducted. Ultimately, that approach is counterproductive and causes substantial harm to the club's core objectives which are to develop a team capable of winning a premiership.

If an internet football forum is not the right “time and place” to discuss your views on your football club's administration then I don't know where (and when?) is.

You keep referring to a campaign against the Board and Cameron Schwab but you haven't really given much detail about this. Surely you are not referring to the contributions of a lone forum participant?

My views are divisive because you do not share them. That is as much your fault as mine.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

From my understanding the reason there was a Stynes coup was the perilous state of the club at the time ie the massive debt, the concerns from AFL house on our viability, most believing we were on our last legs... I'm unsure as to why the previous board would have been so gracious given the state we were in.

Hazy I want all Melb people to be working towards our ultimate goal... long term stability and winning an Fing flag not playing agenda's and politics or causing more drama and factions within the club known for factions. Focus on the end goal, work together to achieve it. If there are issues, ideas, opportunities then raise them with the club without taking the clubs eye off the end goal.

As alluded to in my above response to Ben Hur, the “perilous state of the club” was much exaggerated. I suspect that the previous Board gave way because they knew they wouldn't stand a chance against a club legend like Stynes in a popular election anyway and they thought it would be best for the club to avoid a contested election.

Some of the Board members sought assurances from Stynes before they left (this was before Stynes had even announced who he was planning to bring with him) and they were criticised for this in some quarters for not getting out of the way quick enough. At least one Board member offered to stay on (voluntary position remember) and help manage the transition but had his offer refused despite there being a vacancy on the new Board.

I also want what is best for the Melbourne Football Club. It is a great shame that the club is as fractured as it is.

We all want an effing flag.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Hazyshadeofgrinter

[Dee Fan 3,247]

To say that I make things up is an unfair characterisation. I admit that what I should have written was that Bailey “saw off”, rather than "sacked" five coaches. In any case, as I have pointed out, this distinction does not detract from the point I was making about Schwab's bad record in terms of instability.

I actually like that you and others have gotten so worked up over this point. It just goes to show what little material you have to work with. I would like to point out that I could have been similarly petty about Jack saying that Daniher was sacked when he in fact resigned. I did not do this because this would be a minor quibble that would not greatly effect his argument.

This is so wrong for so many reasons. How can the interest bill have been crippling when the club went from making average losses of $1.42 million/annum from 1999-2003 to four consecutive years of profits during Gardner's watch? You say that Gardner's Board could not fathom how club debt could be removed but our club debt was actually halved from around $5.5m in 2004 to around $2.7m by the start of 2008. All this was achieved without resorting to begging and without benefiting from the much more lucrative TV and stadium deals that Schwab currently enjoys (that were none of his doing).

As the record shows, much of this good work was undone by the loss that was forecast for 2008, a loss which largely came on the back of major increases to football operations spending in 2007 and 2008 ($500k and then $500k again). Nevertheless, Gardner left the club in much better shape than he found it and far from the crippled condition that you would have us believe it was left in.

As far as tin rattles go, the Debt Demolition tin rattle was a good one. It certainly helped to have Jim acting as a figurehead. Nevertheless, Cameron Schwab did not wipe off club debt, club supporters did. All he managed to do was a ) not stuff it up, b ) waste a lot of the proceeds instead of planning sustainably and c ) borrow some of it for property investments.

The “reunification” with the MCC is mostly spin. Having said that, I will acknowledge that this is one area where current administration deserves some credit. Of course good relations between the MFC and the MCC, including financial support of the former by the latter, already existed before Schwab. But, credit where it is deserved, he has built on this and managed not to stuff it up yet.

I am not sure what stadium deal you are referring to. Both the Etihad and AAMI deals had nothing to do with Schwab.

Connolly certainly had a lot to do with the Casey move but it was actually Harris' idea and it was put into action under the Gardner Board that you unfairly malign - before Stynes took control and appointed Schwab. I could go on at greater length about Connolly's shortcomings but for the purposes of this thread I am content to point out that the Casey initiative owes nothing to Schwab.

The membership levels is down this year but on the whole he has maintained the upward trend that was existed for the five years before he started. Schwab gets a pass on membership from me but how can you use this metric as justification of Schwab's new contract when membership has actually fallen since Schwab was almost sacked last year?

Nothing to do with Cam

Cam's performance on sponsorship has been woeful, I don't think anyone serious would dispute this. Can you even tell me what our current major sponsorship deals are worth?

Thanks to supporters. I hope we don't find ourselves in trouble any time soon given the charity fatigue that now exists amongst the club’s support base.

As mentioned previously, this is mostly due to Bentleigh Club, supporter charity and new stadium/TV rights deals. Again, nothing to do with Schwab.

Aside from pointing out some of the false assumptions about the Gardner Board that you use to prop up what you might term an “agenda”, I have no wish to get into yet another argument about the Gardner Board. This thread is supposed to be about Cameron Schwab. The vast majority of your points about Cameron's performance are highly disingenuous and are based on assumptions that you know to be untrue (because I have pointed this out to you before). After scouring such rubbish away, the few valid points left behind in your post are freely admitted to by me, but they are dwarfed by Cameron's serious deficiencies as a CEO and provide no basis his re-appointment, let alone his three year contract.

The current president thanked the former boards for the Casey and AAMI outcomes, at the Foundation Heroes fundraiser the other night; they did something you don't seem to be able to do, acknowledge the work done by others. All you can do is pot shot anyone that you don't appear to like or agree with.

You are petty and vindictive and I reckon most on here will have worked you out by now.

[Hardnut 327]

I have attacked the Board, Neeld and the coaching staff on many posts - I have no known connection with HSOG - I have no knowledge of any 'campaign' against the Board and CS. Some of the apologists on the threads I have read are obviously very desperate.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I also want what is best for the Melbourne Football Club. It is a great shame that the club is as fractured as it is.

We all want an effing flag.

What a hoot, it's people like you that continue this "non existent war" and you continue to damage the club with the rubbish you post just to make sure it continues to be fractured.

As long as there are the likes of you lurking in the background we will never win a flag; you destabilise and then come out with this.

We all want an effing flag.

I don't count you in the "We", you just want to prove yourself right at whatever the cost.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I have attacked the Board, Neeld and the coaching staff on many posts - I have no known connection with HSOG - I have no knowledge of any 'campaign' against the Board and CS. Some of the apologists on the threads I have read are obviously very desperate.

Did you get the quadrella and attack the players as well; maybe you can go for 5 in a row and get stuck in to the supporters?

[Hardnut 327]

Did you get the quadrella and attack the players as well; maybe you can go for 5 in a row and get stuck in to the supporters?

If you had followed the posts, you would have seen that I have never attacked the players and I will not, until I believe they have been given a fair chance by good coaching.

As for supporters, why would anyone attack people who sincerely believe in MFC and yet still have to put up with the obvious rubbish in front of them - I admire the grass roots suppporters and from my experience they will stick true to the club.