Rhino Richards

Agree. He hounds the media and gives them fodder to print. He was the one who negotiated to go on the Footy Show. He is soely responsibility Your agony aunt insights only highlight how uninformed you are on this. Its getting worse.

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) Is that another uninformed hunch or a personal reflection Roost? 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.

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.

There are more appropriate and transparent means of rewarding a club executive than related party loans.

In public enterprises, you find it isnt common at all. In ASX listed companies its an absolute no no. If Caro did go through the annual report of each club, I bet there would not be one loan to a CEO.

You're quite misplaced about Cam Schwabs achievements at Freo and more recently at MFC. And anyone who actually did understand probity, good corporate governance & conflict of interest would realise that while this is not a big issue it would have been preferable that the Club did not do related party loans notwithstanding the disclosures made.

Wow thats a relief....Here was I thinking he was perpetually destructive and abusive to himself and others ansd bingo.... Praise the Lord. A true example of reaping what you have sown.

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.

Why would Cam have been "punished" by a bank for bridging finance? How is MFC interest rate more commercial than a bank ( )? If our rate is less than a bank then MFC are taking on the same risk at a cheaper price (return) than the market. I cant see how it benefits the Club at all. A CEO is remunerated by salary and not by cosy loans. We are not in the business of money lending and should not be doing that. Potential conflict of interest. Sooner it is bad back by Schwab the better. I dont agree with jobs for the boys and I scertainly dont abide with loans for the boys. The Club should not be doing that again.

While there appears no apparent harm I think it is inappropriate corporate governance standards for a company/club to have. IMO it should not have been done particularly for a club that has focussed on reducing debt. We are not a finance house. There may be reasons why it was done but I am stumped why it could not have been done outside the Club with Schwab keeping his personal affairs seperate from the Club.

Cordner debuted in 1982. When he started his 1985 year, he had played 25 games or so. Petterd's first game some years ago in a beaten defence was as good as I have seen for a long time. There was a thin willowy 17yo who played his 1st game against Geelong in 1973 then looked the good then and wnet to become a club great...Robert Flower.

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.

Exactly Nasher.

A sense of irony missing here JCB. Your persistent and erroneous criticisms of Grimes are not reflection of his shortcomings but your own failings in reading and understanding the game. If you dont get it JCB you dont get it. And the irony of the last sentence cannot be overlooked B)

x2 Well said. Its not a 180cm player that exposes you for height when you have Rivers. Garland and potentially Martin down back to deal with the marking forwards. As Bob said, Garland shut out Goodes after 1/2 time.

We went into the game with a very young side and missing Scully, Morton, Frawley and a couple of others who would challenge for a spot. Based on our pre season form, the performance was credible and the last quarter was noteworthy. The players were absolutely spent at the end of the game. If we are serious about challenging for the 8, then Sydney is one of the sides we have to be capable against. All things considered there is enough to work with and to build upon. Some people need to be realistic about the performance.

He certainly wont survive as a KPB and as you have point outed his marking is not outstanding to counter the other areas of his game. I dont think he is tall enough for either KPF or KPB. If he is going to make his mark he needs to do so in the 1st half of this year otherwise he will be relying injury and the form of others to get a run in the seniors.

If its not this week and I dont think it is, then he has sent notice that he needs to be considered in future weeks if he continues to build on his debut effort. Really good first up effort.

The issue with Scully is largely beyond the scope of the Coach unless there are issues with the players development or performance. The responsibility for the Scully outcome really rests with Stynes, Schwab and Harrington. And given the AFL rules, their cards in this game may have been largely marked or played without their control.

Its all about match ups. Garland can play tall/small. JoelMac is mainly small. Who would you play Rivers on this week ?? Buddy...no (Garland for me). Roughy....Rivers will be killed over head (Chippa makes him accountable), Hale...too tall for Rivers (Martin is a good choice). Other weeks you might play Garland small and give Rivers a tall/kp forward (but not Buddy)

Good debut today for Tapscott. If he keeps this up he will make a fool of some of the critics and hunch merchants around here. Like all first year players he is still learning the caper and I look forward to his improvement this year.

Fair call Nasher. Then do you need Rivers??? Possibly only if Frawley is held back.

If we are dropping Rivers or MacDonald for Frawley, who are our talls that will cover Hale, Roughhead and Franklin? Garland for Buddy Frawley for Roughy Rivers for Hale. Anyone for Warnock (replacing Rivers) on Hale??

Hardly a joke but a realistic position of where Fevola is at atm. No training, 15kgs over playing weight and his mind and jumbled mess. Its not surprising he did nought yesterday. How much game time did he last for? The real joke is that some posters had him in MFC colours next year.....Amazing.

Glad we agree that the No 6 position is a furphy. Hindsight is wonderful tool but there is no evidence that Hastings would have done better than Johnson with bat and ball. And Johnson has form (albeit patchy) that he can rip through sides. Its makes no sense to playing different (2nd string) bowlers in the lead up games if they deprive your preferred front line bowlers of match practice and opportunity to get form. And given the closeness that the minnows went to pushing Australia and also other sides on ordinary wickets, why would you take the risk??