Lucifers Hero

Tried Greenwoods Asset Management and came up with a some good info: http://www.asiaasset.com/news/Greenwoods_PECH1703.aspx China’s Greenwoods Asset Management (Greenwoods AM) has become the country’s first private equity (PE) firm to invest into a domestic mutual fund business by purchasing a majority stake in mid-size asset manager Chang An Fund Management (CAFM). Greenwoods AM is one of the top PE companies in China, and is engaged in a wide array of investments domestically and overseas, including A-shares, H-shares, red chips and American Depository Receipts (ADRs). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-08/top-performing-golden-china-hedge-fund-exceeds-1-billion-assets "Golden China Fund, the best-performing hedge fund investing in the nation over 10 years, exceeded $1 billion in assets for the first time with bets on financial, real estate and technology stocks...The fund, managed by Greenwoods Asset Management Ltd. founder George Jiang.." All good!

I tried that and google came up with a US based coy. ...so are you going to post a link...

ok, i'll bite...what?

Yes, according to the ABC: Past, present Essendon players launch appeal against CAS judgement to clear their names over supplements saga Tanner says: "The legal advice, I understand, indicates that their prospects for success are at least reasonable." Tbh I would want odds that are far better than 'at least reasonable' to embark on something this big, even with someone else's money. Tanner doesn't sound convincing or even remotely confident. A big waste of time if you ask me!

The page behind that link is coming up blank for me. I've tried to find some info about Greenwood Capital but come up with zip:. - I googled Greenwood Park - a park close to or part of Deakin Uni - I googled Greenwood Capital - a company in the US but no Chinese presence in sight. - I googled Mr Fu Jianping - nothing. - I tried Yellow Pages - nothing It seems quite odd that there is nothing, no website, address, phone no, contacts etc. What am I missing? With Melbourne Victory signing with them, it has some eerie echoes of Energy Watch. But Jackson is very thorough and would do decent due diligence. Nonetheless I would feel more comfortable if google found something, somewhere...

I noticed that but it looked as if the author was paraphrasing Jones so I "quoted" the author but I can see it looks like it was quoting Jones. Jones is quoted as saying: "Not hurting one another's the main thing," Jones said. "We try to sort of not dump blokes in tackles. Be it those specific quotes or the paraphrasing there seems little doubt there was a message for Viney. I thought Jones handled it really well either way.

Nicely handled by the captain: Managed to give Viney a message ("The scuffle...came about after Viney broke a crucial unwritten rule: don't smash your teammates in training) and downplayed the episode at the same time! ("At times, it's a split second decision and accidents happen.") Our captain gets better by the day!

Neil Balme claims Howe told him the frisbee story: “I can only report what he told me and I do understand that he played cricket, which is OK. But, he didn’t break his finger playing cricket so I don’t know why he wouldn’t tell me he broke his finger playing cricket, If he broke his finger playing cricket,” football manager Neil Balme told SEN radio.' http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl Hope Jeremy told the club the true story whatever it is...Eddie went ballistic last time a player lied to the club. Not an auspicious start by JH. Edit: The article above also says: "Howe bowled four overs in the match — finishing with 0-20 — despite battling stress fractures in his feet earlier in the pre-season and not yet resuming full training". Why on earth would be be bowling while injured! Perhaps playing cricket is not quite as ok as Balme wants us to think. My guess is he is getting quite a talking to.

He is one of the very few Ess supporters to accept the CAS decision: From his bf post: "...And yeah, I've been pretty open about the fact I think the CAS probably came to the right decision, but got there in a very strange way..." While he was challenging I always thought he argued his case well (albeit unconvincingly), without hyperbole or offending on DL. Kudos to him for taking it on the chin.

Stadium Australia wins rights to new Perth stadium http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wa-football-loses-in-perth-stadium-bid-20160208-gmosd4.htmlto the potential detriment of Freo and Eagles. It may seem no big deal except the AFL Chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick sits on the Board of a company with shares in Stadium Australia. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/mike-fitzpatrick-could-have-second-conflict-to-manage-at-major-afl-stadium-in-perth/news-story/33a1d79e556bd6b13a9faacdb2c7d3f2 Not in any suggesting something untoward. But it must limit the energy and resources the AFL commits to fully support the WAFL for its consortium to manage the new stadium. You would think the AFL would have learnt from the problems of not having management/ownership of its major stadiums and being locked into financially unattractive contracts. This applies to ANZ stadium in Sydney, Adelaide Oval and Etihad - all with contracts detrimental to the AFL tenant clubs. We complain about Gil but Fitzpatrick's approach and his many conflicts of interest has probably done more harm to the AFL than Andy D and Gil put together.

Here is the full story: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-08/deepening-our-china-connections "TODAY marks the start of Chinese New Year with the arrival of the Fire Monkey under the Chinese Zodiac and Greenwood Capital as a new commercial partner of the Melbourne Football Club" "Jackson further remarked that Greenwood Capital relies on relationships and believed “that as a partner of the Melbourne Football Club, we can assist Greenwood [to] develop further relationships with the broader Melbourne and Australian communities.”. The opportunity to further expand the Club’s work with local Chinese communities, through this partnership was further reinforced by Jackson when he suggested that it will, “not only raise the awareness but increase the interest of AFL and the Melbourne Football Club among Melbourne’s Chinese communities so that we can continue to represent all elements of this great city”. I guess it fits nicely with the new AFL Multi-cultural Academies, altho I'm not sure our allocated zone covers the Chinese communities. The article doesn't talk to length of the sponsorship or what level but great news regardless. MFC kicking more goals, off field!

from what I've heard that is also on the cards!

It seems the numbers are very 'rubbery'!!! Some just don't make sense eg MFC profit of $.562m on Rev of $44.5 while CFC figures are $.850 on $66.2m. Carlton $2.7 loss on $54.1m. As the core costs of running a football club are the same eg Sal cap, # of coaches/support staff etc you have to wonder what creative accounting the 'power' clubs are doing to make such small profits/big losses. I'm not even sure the AFL has mandated accounting policies, practices and formats...at least none that are apparent whenever I have looked at comparing financial reports from clubs' annual reports. It would help if we could compare 'apples with apples'. But I fear the AFL is quite happy to have a certain opaqueness in club financials - it enables them to use their financial discretion without other clubs/club supporters saying: 'what about me'?! That is just another ?mark on how the AFL operate.

Another voice in the wilderness calling out the AFL's weakness: http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/08/afl-commission-lacks-courage-counts/ "Both times, the AFL will have consulted with other people who have clear conflicts of interest. Watson with his own medal and the other clubs preventing a competitive advantage to teams losing players through suspension...It’s time the AFL and the commission develop enough conviction in their thoughts to back themselves to make the right decisions without weight added from people on the outside." Shame the more serious mainstream media don't say the same. Credit to Greg Healy for speaking his mind. He seems the only one: Gerard Whateley is sitting quietly on the sidelines. Patrick Smith is writing puff pieces about membership numbers and Caro is still on holidays. She is one of the very few who does, at times, take aim at the AFL...I'm hoping when she returns that she will be a voice for the good.

The groundwork is being laid to defer AFL decision on Jobe's Brownlow: http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/08/afl-delays-decision-on-watsons-brownlow/ The article says if Jobe joins in the proposed appeal the AFL will delay the decision. No surprise, I guess the AFL has little choice there. It would be very telling if Jobe does not join in an appeal!

If we ever had any doubt about the AFL leaking to the press: "I was utterly dismayed to learn of the blatant backgrounding to journalists by the AFL in an attempt to discredit me" From the woman who was the target of Dusty's attention. http://www.theage.com.au/national/afls-dustin-martin-said-sorry-so-why-does-the-victim-feel-betrayed-20160204-gmlbrd.html#ixzz3zW0AweVL The woman would know about AFL 'backgrounding to journalists' as she works for Channel 7. Also, the article relates some fairly low acts by the AFL investigators (who would have been acting under Gil's instructions 'guidance') eg: 'During her dealings with some officials she felt pressured to downplay the event and says she was told details of Martin's private life that were, frankly, none of her business. So those who were trying to protect Martin, actually betrayed him.' The investigators showed no respect at all for Dusty nor the woman. I mention this not to reopen discussion of that incident (has been done to death elsewhere) but to highlight the AFL's callous, stop at nothing approach to people. They were both victims of the AFL's pathological need for 'brand protection'!! To think that Gil is a member of 'Male Champions for Change'! What a mockery, he should resign that post. Won't happen of course - further evidence of so much of his work being mere 'window dressing'.

I'm wonder about this. In the extremely unlikely event the appeal is upheld it would mean a CAS rehearing could not consider it de novo. This would throw into doubt the calling of witnesses and possibly require the panel to stick to the AFL Tribunal case of 'links in the chain'. Even if the latter wasn't a requirement in the new hearing the players would strongly object to the 'threads in the rope' approach...something they failed to do last time, with fatal consequences for the player's case. WADA would be in a really tough spot to make their case under those circumstances. I'm with beezlebub...if there is an 'appeal' it won't get as far as the Swiss Federal Court.

Thanks WJ. Is it correct to conclude that Chip LG's comment: "The (appeal) case before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court pits Australian contractual law against a guiding principle of the World Anti-Doping Code. The case will turn on a fine legal point; whether the changes to the 2015 AFL anti-doping code were procedural or substantial." means that the appeal will be against the conclusions in para 114, precedents notwithstanding?

49! Really! I swear I thought he was in his 60's...he certainly looks it!

For what it is worth I wonder if the result was any different if CAS only reviewed the decision of the AFL Tribunal ie it wasn't 'de novo' at all. From what I can tell there was no new material as evidence. Players and an expert or two were called as witnesses. But the damning evidence of no player noting on their ASADA testing forms of substances given, was presented to the AFL Tribunal. But ASADA did not make a song and dance about it (...maybe they didn't trust the AFL Tribunal and knew it was their trump card should it get to CAS) but at least covered the bases to make sure it wasn't rejected as 'new' evidence. The major differences between the AFL Tribunal and the CAS hearing appear to be: - CAS called witnesses: One expert who testified the chemical makeup of what Alvi compounded had a 97% fit to that of TB4. Or was that 99%, I don't recall. It called 7 players as witnesses. The player interviews were already submitted as evidence. So was their call to testify new evidence? If the expert's testimony is eliminated it leaves 15 of the 16 'threads in a rope' in tact. - WADA relied on a 'threads in a rope' rather than 'links in the chain' approach to which the players counsel did not object at the beginning nor at the end of the hearing. - CAS placed a higher bar on 'comfortable' satisfaction' than the AFL Tribunal which is its right. So the players may find it a tough task to prove it was, in fact 'de novo'!! Hopefully, the appeal won't get past first base...btw it has not been lodged...they have till Wed and may yet see the light and not go ahead with this charade. Players no longer profess innocence. It is now: 'you went about it the wrong way'. Spare me!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-players-to-fight-on-against-cas-judgment/news-story/9893d062863029eedb3b153f5ab052e9 According to ChipLG the players did raise the question of CAS's right to hear the case 'de novo' before it considered the evidence: "An objection to CAS hearing the case de novo, or anew, was raised in lengthy pre-hearing submissions by the players and dismissed by CAS in a single-page letter. In its judgment, CAS noted that its principal task was not to review the merits of previous decisions but to determine for itself whether an athlete had doped". I couldn't find a copy of that letter on line to see what it says. I guess it comes down to the basic role of CAS: To review a previous decision or decide for itself! Even Chip acknowledges it is a highly technical area: "The case before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court pits Australian contractual law against a guiding principle of the World Anti-Doping Code. The case will turn on a fine legal point; whether the changes to the 2015 AFL anti-doping code were procedural or substantial." The downside of this is that the saga re Jobe's brownlow will go on for another year...the AFL won't take it from him while an appeal is pending. Maybe they hope we will all forget about it.

Neil Mitchell interviewed Michele Cowan the other day: http://www.3aw.com.au/news/melbourne-coach-michelle-cowan-speaks-with-neil-mitchell-on-3aw-mornings-20160204-gmlbsz.html The track goes for 8+minutes so here are the main points I heard: - Mitchell’s first up question: ‘When can we have a flag?’ - Her role is to work with 1st and 2nd year players and help identify leaders - Very glowing of Peter Jackson: …the most forward thinking man she has met and a remarkable leader - Mitchell asked if her role was player skills or motivation. Answer: both - PJ made the call re a part-time role. She couldn’t do it full-time due to a young family. He rang her and said: 'how can we make this happen'. I recall that as a very similar question that PJ asked Roos several times until we eventually landed him! - Roos empowers his coaches and is very encouraging of her which helps earn player respect. - Mitchell question: …Can you get inside Jack Watts’ head and turn him into the player he should be!! Her response: He is very different now from what she has seen in the last few years. - Mitchell tongue-in-cheek question …Can you stop LH from running around in circles and hand balling to the opposition? I thought Michele spoke very well and sound a fairly relaxed, quietly confident person. She will be valuable at the club. Don’t think she will take any rubbish from the players or anyone else for that matter!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-05/afls-topup-call-doesnt-make-sense-says-power?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News Finally someone in football land gets it and is prepared to speak up against the AFL, albeit in a small way. Port CEO says: '"Let me throw this one at you, I'm assuming all clubs said no, and I don't know that, but can you imagine what Eddie (Maguire) would have said had this ruling come down against Collingwood, there would have been hell to pay," he said..."There was a consultation process with all the other clubs ... we felt it was a unique situation that required AFL leadership - make a call and get on with it, one way or another.' I would imagine Eddie would have been one of the 'stridently opposed'! And this: 'He (Keith Thomas) also said Port won't pay Ryder or Monfries at all and they were last paid in January.' You have to wonder why StK has been carrying on about who is paying Carlise when the players are not allowed to be payed. I feel for the players not been paid especially those like Ryder who has a young family. But I believe rules need to be upheld something there has been precious little of throughout this sad and sorry saga.

This is the Age piece on top-ups: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drugs-saga-other-clubs-with-banned-former-essendon-players-cant-replace-them-20160205-gmmzo7.html Quote: "The AFL canvassed the remaining AFL clubs for their view of the bid by the four clubs to be given access to replacements. The clubs varied from the stridently opposed to those who didn't care". Who do they fear: a resurgent Bulldogs, a knocking-on-finals-door Port. Certainly not us nor the Saints! Realistically, top ups won't make much difference to results and the AFL were always going to say 'no'. So I think it is very poor sportsmanship for some clubs to 'stridently oppose' the idea. What sticks in my craw is the hypocrisy of those clubs. They sit quietly while the cheats prosper from AFL largess then squeal when clubs who have wallowed at the bottom of the ladder for the best part of the last 5 years ask for help.

I just heard Chip LG speak and he said the appeal is not based on the evidence or the decision. They are appealing on a technicality - jurisdiction and CAS's right to hear the case 'de novo'. So even if they win it won't clear their names. If they really believed they were innocent they would appeal the decision and the evidence. It is the same Hird's/EFC challenge in the Fed court on a technicality ie the legality of the AFL and ASADA doing a 'joint' investigation. It was (and Hird's later appeal) emphatically turned down. I'm a bit over their attempts to use 'the law' to get out of accepting their guilt as if technicalities will erase the taint of being cheats. Let's hope the player appeal is thrown out of the Swiss court just as emphatically as Hird/EFC in the Fed court!!