Fourth consecutive profit for Dees

[Slartibartfast 17,261]

What an extraordinary comment; you come out with the comment that the club have fudged the books but when challenged to provide proof you run away and refuse to answer.

I defend the club against baseless allegations made by you and RR and you accuse me of being a coward.

From RR.....

The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. Many of those issues were beyond the Club's control (Jurrah, Mifsud and the passing of Stynes).

What major derailment can you see in the FD department, it seems to be completely on track to me but RR seems to think there was.

The club seems to be travelling well off the field and hopefully will improve on field this year, but I reckon you and RR are just waiting and probably hoping they will fail, just to prove your point.

You have something to say, say it, but don't just hide behind innuendo and how about you provide evidence.

Also the FH's numbers are increasing not reducing, so if anything it will get stronger, sorry to burst you bubble there as well.

You're very scared of the Club being questioned. Toughen up.

[hoopla 418]

There is no need to make a disclosure about the AFL investigation as the directors dont believe there is any wrongdoing and it has no impact on the financial statements. Furthermore the AFL investigation is being held behind closed doors. What possible informed or knoweldgeable disclosure with reference to the financial statements could or should be made by the directors. They dont know the status or disposition anymore than the media. And its inappropriate to make a categorical statement of innocence when it has no bearing to the financial statements. And how can you deny liability (contingent or otherwise) when at the date the accounts would have been signed does not exist? Its not a matter of an option.

I dont think the disclosure of the loan is a notable positive given it was disclosed last year and the loan has not been repaid. I just hope its disclosure was initiated by the Directors and not the auditors. Its most bizarre that we make a loan to a CEO who is also a FH donor. I cant see why the loan was made in the first place

Disclosure of "events subsequent to balance date "with potentially significant effects on the reader's assessment of the financial health of the organisation is always an option.The directors have decided that nothing of financial significance will emerge from the investigation - and that the best way to convey that is to sign off the accounts without mentioning it. As I have said that's fine by me. They'll just answer the question if its asked.

I also struggle to comprehend the reason for the initial loan - but now that it has effectively been repaid I'm happy to move on.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You're very scared of the Club being questioned. Toughen up.

What a stupid thing to say, I have no problem with the club being questioned as long as the questioner has all the facts which you obviously don't, otherwise you would answer the question, where did the club fudge the books. You're the Demonland version of Kerowhine, no wonder you like her.