His angle is to get the Sharks in the paper for something good for a change - a positive spin.
With due respect to those in this forum that can recite the history of the club, decisions made, key dates and by who etc, the vast majority of the NRL and reading public dont have, (and will never care to have) a clue...its about showing that the club is on the up and up and not a car crash all the time.
I for one am surprised each time I look in the paper and not see a headline about us at all, especially when we are so used to seeing stories where we (or someone linked to us) f$#ked something up.
We will still have bad stories in the media to come...I say lets not dwell too much on a good one...
Honestly, save the truth for the biography. The question asked was "what is his angle"?
As per my first post, and with repect to alot of people on this forum, they are too close to the story to have an objective view; even when we see something positive in the paper, it is still seen in a negative light because of personal perception.
Truth or not, the ship needs to plot a course so that people not only see and identify with the club, but want to be a part of it (i.e. sponsership)..and all that equals survival.
Unfortunately In this situation, as with a million times in History, the truth is not always the most important thing...
The "objective view" would be that he didn't do **** to get the development over the line. That's a fact.
When you do things like this you lose credibility. Why not just come out and say anything if it doesn't matter? Why not just say "we've got a million-squillion-cajiliion dollars now"?
This is not a good way to earn trust or show integrity.
"When I got elected as chairman, the club had $14 million debt.
"Now, $10 million of that debt has been paid, we only owe $3 million."
He could have easily just said:
"In year X we had 14 million dollars debt. Now because of the hard work of many people and the development we have reduced it to 3 million"
or, if he didn't want to be so kind, he could have said:
"In year x we had 14 million dollars debt, but now because of the development we only owe 3 million"
The above would have been correct AND it would have got good publicity FOR THE CLUB. Same "postive" outcome, no controvery.
It's pretty simple stuff.
And the funny thing is, if he did actually use one of the above statements it would have probably reflected well on him anyway, as he's the one spruking it.