Official Cronulla Sharks Board + Management

[Fitzy2513]

I will be. But Cobb isn't any part of those plans.

Of course not your CSSC. You are obviously happy with No Stadium sponsor, no major sponsor, civil litigation and a club divided.

 

[Garbs]

Of course not your CSSC. You are obviously happy with No Stadium sponsor, no major sponsor, civil litigation and a club divided.

I've got no interest in voting mindlessly with any bloc, CSSC or otherwise.

Your mate's running platform is as shallow as 'doing things differently.' That's fantastic! When he can provide specific details about how he would have done things differently, I'll pay attention. Until that point he's got nothing to offer.

At the moment your mate's campaign is as convincing as campaigns from 12 year olds running for school captain on the platform of putting Coke in the bubblers. Lots of populism but very little substance.

 

[Born&bred]

Of course not your CSSC. You are obviously happy with No Stadium sponsor, no major sponsor, civil litigation and a club divided.

It's been obvious you hate the CSSC from the start - so you have an agenda and bring Mr Cobb along.

I'll put this back on you, CSSC hater - what have you done for our club fwit?

 

[ben]

I've got no interest in voting mindlessly with any bloc, CSSC or otherwise.

Your mate's running platform is as shallow as 'doing things differently.' That's fantastic! When he can provide specific details about how he would have done things differently, I'll pay attention. Until that point he's got nothing to offer.

At the moment your mate's campaign is as convincing as campaigns from 12 year olds running for school captain on the platform of putting Coke in the bubblers. Lots of populism but very little substance.

And the sad thing is that his campaign is better than the incumbents.

 

[Born&bred]

ben - you need a holiday

 

[Fitzy2513]

It's been obvious you hate the CSSC from the start - so you have an agenda and bring Mr Cobb along.

I'll put this back on you, CSSC hater - what have you done for our club fwit?

Don't roll around in the gutter with me AO.

 

[josho]

Peter your statement about there being no way you would have taken the same action as the board is, in my view, supremely arrogant. You DON'T know what they do, none of us do, and until you do any such statement is downright foolhardy.

You are a lawyer, right?

You know that, in addition to Kavanagh & Redman, the board took advice from Alan Sullivan QC, don't you?


Honestly, your statements on this matter (the sackings and ASADA case) are becoming comical. Really, it's like the fictional Denis Denuto claiming he knows more about Constitutional Law than old Bud Tingwell's character.

I don't mean to insult or ridicule, but take a step back and have an objective look at it from a legal standpoint.

No doubting Sullivan QC is a very, very knowledgeable man, but something I took from his interview with Hadley was his reference to the decision of the Board (in sacking the 4 staff members and standing down the coach and no doubt fronting a press conference with Kavanagh) as a very brave move. In my experience when a solicitor or Barrister has described something to me as a brave move they weren't necessarily in agreement with said "brave" move. i.e. your client goes to the police station for a "chat" and subsequently provides a formal statement. Brave and even honorable move, maybe...smart or prudent move, maybe not so much.

 

[josho]

Thanks Fitz for the Gow - De la explanation. The whole unity thing leaves me cold.

I have to take issue with you commenting "That's a bit like someone telling someone else how they would play a hand in poker without actually knowing what cards that person is holding." It is nothing anywhere near that.

Without having any more knowledge than what is read in the media. The starting point is that the Sharks are entitled to due process and natural justice. The Sharks are entitled to proceedings being carried out fairly and according to rules and principles, no bias and a fair hearing. I am at a loss to understand why the Board chose not to sit back and put the accusers (ASADA or whoever) to proof. This is a fundamental right to all of us. If a government agency (Police, ASADA or whoever) come with an allegation you are entitled to put them to proof.

The sensible thing would have been to remain silent on issues until faced with proof. And please don't say that telephone conversations and second hand hearsay about needles and equine stickers is proof. In any jurisidiction that could be defeated. I am talking actual evidence. Off the top of my head I could think of many matters I would want proof of starting with the drug allegations. Is there a certificate confirming what the drug was? These is a pretty basic undergraduate question that I have not heard an answer to yet. So it is not like not knowing someones hand at poker, not even remotely close.

Whilst ever we have people like Frenzy who crumble early we are in trouble. "Oh dear" alright.

Law 101. Right or wrong I agree the decision by the board seemed premature, of course Kavanagh had nothing to do with that....no doubt she had the clubs best interest at heart and in no way would she approach the matter with any degree of prejudice given her background.

 

[Fitzy2513]

No doubting Sullivan QC is a very, very knowledgeable man, but something I took from his interview with Hadley was his reference to the decision of the Board (in sacking the 4 staff members and standing down the coach and no doubt fronting a press conference with Kavanagh) as a very brave move. In my experience when a solicitor or Barrister has described something to me as a brave move they weren't necessarily in agreement with said "brave" move. i.e. your client goes to the police station for a "chat" and subsequently provides a formal statement. Brave and even honorable move, maybe...smart or prudent move, maybe not so much.

Nail on the head Josho.
And was it Sullivan or someone else (not exactly sure) who said words to be effect of "they (ASADA) may have overstepped their charter". (Don't quote me). Who was that ?

 

[ben]

All good here. b & b. Just a different take on it. I dont give a **** about cssc or the de la conspiracy or beleive that all journalists have an agenda or hate the sharks. I am voting against the board for real simple reasons. They are the ones relating to sponsorship asada and the litigation. Also the fact that cullen is making changes to management that should of been made previously. In my mind the good work done previously does not vindicate them from accountability.

 

[josho]

I can assure you that there is no way I would have acted as the Board did. Never. Other clubs such as Manly and Essendon have shown how to manage the ASADA inquiries. Our Board wilted and panicked at the first bit of pressure. All reports say that the Board wanted players to sign deeds of release to absolve them of any civil action. The Club and the players security should have been priority one.

To WillyinBris I simply did not nominate.


One matter I would like clarified (and once again you guys have the inside "mail") is whether Gow is behind the Unity ticket? I realise he came out with some press release a few weeks ago. However, is it confirmed that he has put it together? And the obvious question stemming from that is why is Gow behind the ticket and not at the front?

As soon as we heard the board had put documents to the playing group to sign you could see a mile away the Board were trying to indemnify themselves against any claim by the players. Like I said at the time, genius move. Hardly going to inspire confidence or "unity" when the first move of the board was to cover their own arses.

At this point though I don't give a **** who's on the board, they all seem to have their own agendas and it looks like the Board is going to be a cluster **** of disagreement as a result. I just want a CEO appointed who is experienced in running an NRL club and does it well and does it full ****ing time. The Board just needs to support the CEO.

 

[Born&bred]

Don't roll around in the gutter with me AO.

Intelligent response?

You've obviously got an agenda here & I don't respect you chin-nuts

 

[fitz]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...igibility-issues-continue-20130406-2hdml.html

 

[tips]

Ok here's a question for Peter Cobb;

If you believe that the board has mismanaged the sponsorship and finances, how can you work with Pat Woods and Gy Wallace going forward?
Or do you intend on sacking them after an investigation?


If you do, then how is this different to the others that is the platform of your election attempt?

If you don't, then do you consider that you would resign (if you we're elected) due to the fact that you misled the members in your comments to be elected?

 

[tips]

Sorry, just in case, pat woods is sponsorship and Gy Wallace is finance

 

[fitz]

Election promises...

Easy to make - sometimes impossible to keep.

 

[Frenzy]

Frenzy,
I lurked around the LU forum for a number of years. Finally joining up when Quiqs pulled out the unmerged shirts. I know Peter
Cobb and have declared this. Personally i find it disturbing and questionable that those entrusted to run the club would recommend an inducement of signing a waiver of ciivil action and an acceptance of a 6 months penalty be given. not to be in the best interest of those they are elected to govern over.

Over to LU, which one of us is the most upstanding, Frenzy who continually calls Damian Irvine Elmer on LU and comes on SF as a sheep and in agreeance with those he bags, or myself who says it as I see it.

No Frenzy. I don't think I'm doing Peter Cobb any harm.

Haha. No point in makng a personal vendetta against me, I'm not seeking office.

 

[fitz]

Phil Rothfield at it again...

SHANE Flanagan won't say anything publicly but we're hearing he is not happy about former chairman Damian Irvine standing for the Sharks board at the upcoming election. He will never forgive Irvine for being stood down and for the sacking of four of his coaching staff and best friends. There was never evidence of Flanagan knowing about illegal drug use.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-through-the-eyes-of-our-refs/story-fndujljl-1226613934539

So Shane wont say anything publicly but Rothfield will say it publicly on his behalf via his column?

And then he goes on to speak for Flanagan's ability to "forgive?"

Huh?

From my information, Flanagan has said nothing of the sort.

He has maintained his support for the current Board and that he and his staff will work together with whoever the Club's membership chooses to elect.http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-through-the-eyes-of-our-refs/story-fndujljl-1226613934539

 

[Frenzy]

Rothfield is playing with the minds of the gullible.

SHANE Flanagan won't say anything publicly but we're hearing he is not happy about former chairman Damian Irvine standing for the Sharks board at the upcoming election. He will never forgive Irvine for being stood down and for the sacking of four of his coaching staff and best friends. There was never evidence of Flanagan knowing about illegal drug use.

Was also never the reason he was stood down. Correct me if I am wrong but Flano admitted to management failings himself, in a press conference, in words from his own mouth for everyone to see. That was why he was suspended.

 

[fitz]

Rothfield is playing with the minds of the gullible.



Was also never the reason he was stood down. Correct me if I am wrong but Flano admitted to management failings himself, in a press conference, in words from his own mouth for everyone to see. That was why he was suspended.

And... at that very same press conference, Shane Flanagan, out of his own mouth in his own words, publicly acknowledged and accepted why the Board had made the decisions it had and wouldn't make any further comment as his focus was now on the team and winning football games.