Opinion Commentary & Media VII

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Putting aside the ethical aspect, what is the agent's game here?

Liquidating properties to use funds elsewhere (or not pay interest). Then buying back in at a small loss (basically paying a holding fee to Pickett) to give the transaction a "cleaner" look prior to doing a subdivision?

Was he trying to remove himself from the papertrail by getting Byron to own them in the middle for other reasons? eg - having dodgy access to purchase these properties or maybe being in a privileged position about zoning / planning permission etc at the time of purchase?

It's a curious little rort if that's what it was. The agent was $55k down on the deal before doing the developments.
 
King Corey said:
Putting aside the ethical aspect, what is the agent's game here?

Liquidating properties to use funds elsewhere (or not pay interest). Then buying back in at a small loss (basically paying a holding fee to Pickett) to give the transaction a "cleaner" look prior to doing a subdivision?

Was he trying to remove himself from the papertrail by getting Byron to own them in the middle for other reasons? eg - having dodgy access to purchase these properties or maybe being in a privileged position about zoning / planning permission etc at the time of purchase?

It's a curious little rort if that's what it was. The agent was $55k down on the deal before doing the developments.
Click to expand...

Well there's also a capital gains issue in a subdivision from date of original purchase to date of eventual sale of the subdivided properties even if the original property is an owner occupier residence. Offloading ownership of the property before subdivision is not subject to capital gains. So they probably spent the time when Pickett was the owner gathering up plans and were then able to do the buyback and subdivision with minimised tax.

Whatever else was going on, it does seem like they used Pickett's savings as their interim financing. AFL player management was no doubt less regulated back then but there surely needs to be clear ethical limits and distinctions in the services they are allowed to offer.
 
chubbspeterson said:
The agent looks shifty as hell even from just the picture of him lol.
Click to expand...
Some excerpts from his Wikipedia:

"While a police officer he was charged with six counts of promoting a pyramid marketing scheme. However no evidence was tendered in the case and all charges were dropped."

"Richardson was preselected to contest the state seat of Mawson at the 2010 election, but he stepped down amid revelations that he faced the criminal charge of impersonating a police officer.[7][8] On 14 January 2010 a pre trial hearing into the matter was heard in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.[9] It was revealed in the pre-trial hearing that the allegation was related to an attempt to dissuade a witness from testifying in an assault case against Richardson's son. The telephone call had been traced to federal Parliament House where Richardson was then serving as an MP. Police did not proceed with a charge of impersonating a police officer as the statute of limitations had expired, and he was eventually acquitted on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice."
 
big_e said:
Some excerpts from his Wikipedia:

"While a police officer he was charged with six counts of promoting a pyramid marketing scheme. However no evidence was tendered in the case and all charges were dropped."

"Richardson was preselected to contest the state seat of Mawson at the 2010 election, but he stepped down amid revelations that he faced the criminal charge of impersonating a police officer.[7][8] On 14 January 2010 a pre trial hearing into the matter was heard in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.[9] It was revealed in the pre-trial hearing that the allegation was related to an attempt to dissuade a witness from testifying in an assault case against Richardson's son. The telephone call had been traced to federal Parliament House where Richardson was then serving as an MP. Police did not proceed with a charge of impersonating a police officer as the statute of limitations had expired, and he was eventually acquitted on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice."
Click to expand...
Colour me shocked that police never found an ex-policeman guilty of anything.
 
big_e said:
Some excerpts from his Wikipedia:

"While a police officer he was charged with six counts of promoting a pyramid marketing scheme. However no evidence was tendered in the case and all charges were dropped."

"Richardson was preselected to contest the state seat of Mawson at the 2010 election, but he stepped down amid revelations that he faced the criminal charge of impersonating a police officer.[7][8] On 14 January 2010 a pre trial hearing into the matter was heard in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.[9] It was revealed in the pre-trial hearing that the allegation was related to an attempt to dissuade a witness from testifying in an assault case against Richardson's son. The telephone call had been traced to federal Parliament House where Richardson was then serving as an MP. Police did not proceed with a charge of impersonating a police officer as the statute of limitations had expired, and he was eventually acquitted on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice."
Click to expand...
Sounds like a real standup guy.
 
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

big_e said:
View attachment 1717644
Click to expand...

Without saying I agree or disagree, it's a big call. The findings against Cable are disgusting. But judging the Hall of Fame for non-football acts is a can of worms. They'd be a lot of old-timers who'd be a bit nervous about their place. How do you judge Cable's crimes against Ablett's negligence in the death of a young woman? Is it a bit off that they should be compared?

And if being a shit-bloke is a mark against you, then being a positive force in the community should therefore count for you. How Wayne Schwass isn't in the Hall of Fame yet is mystifying.
 
Marstermind said:
Without saying I agree or disagree, it's a big call. The findings against Cable are disgusting. But judging the Hall of Fame for non-football acts is a can of worms. They'd be a lot of old-timers who'd be a bit nervous about their place. How do you judge Cable's crimes against Ablett's negligence in the death of a young woman? Is it a bit off that they should be compared?

And if being a s**t-bloke is a mark against you, then being a positive force in the community should therefore count for you. How Wayne Schwass isn't in the Hall of Fame yet is mystifying.
Click to expand...
I dont think it is a can of worms. We shouldn’t celebrate pieces of shit or put them on pedestals. Theres pieces of shit and out right campaigners. Pieces of shit have no place in being held to high honours. Especially in the above circumstances.
 
Marstermind said:
Without saying I agree or disagree, it's a big call. The findings against Cable are disgusting. But judging the Hall of Fame for non-football acts is a can of worms. They'd be a lot of old-timers who'd be a bit nervous about their place. How do you judge Cable's crimes against Ablett's negligence in the death of a young woman? Is it a bit off that they should be compared?

And if being a s**t-bloke is a mark against you, then being a positive force in the community should therefore count for you. How Wayne Schwass isn't in the Hall of Fame yet is mystifying.
Click to expand...
People who have committed disgraceful acts should be nervous of keeping any public accolades, even sporting ones.
 
DuckYeah said:
I dont think it is a can of worms. We shouldn’t celebrate pieces of s**t or put them on pedestals. Theres pieces of s**t and out right campaigners. Pieces of s**t have no place in being held to high honours. Especially in the above circumstances.
Click to expand...
100% this.
 
Marstermind said:
Without saying I agree or disagree, it's a big call. The findings against Cable are disgusting. But judging the Hall of Fame for non-football acts is a can of worms. They'd be a lot of old-timers who'd be a bit nervous about their place. How do you judge Cable's crimes against Ablett's negligence in the death of a young woman? Is it a bit off that they should be compared?

And if being a s**t-bloke is a mark against you, then being a positive force in the community should therefore count for you. How Wayne Schwass isn't in the Hall of Fame yet is mystifying.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are saying that but I don't think this is a can of worms opener, pretty clear these actions are another level of heinous and everybody would universally agree it's a bridge too far. We all know Ablett snr and Carey would be HOF legends if they weren't dodgy characters off field and are lucky to be in the HOF in any capacity, but doubt they will be chucked out based on whats happening with Cable, if for no other reason than the AFL will want this discussion over and done with and out of the papers asap.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Warlord
  • Locked
  • Poll
Should ex club staffers and execs stop bagging us on social media?
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
2K
Chadwiko
Chadwiko
Yianni
Roast The state of modern football media...
Replies
5
Views
766
ferball
ferball

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top