Hawthorn's AGM- Will you attend and are you willing to vote against any further Tassie games

[Splodge15]

I would prefer someone with the business acumen and impartiality from the board in Stuart Fox to be nutting out the deal, rather than the President, but nevertheless....

 

[Henry Jr]

You see if you can work it out henry.

BTW what do you think?

I believe (not fact btw) that Jeff was given the go ahead from board, as the best person to negotiate the Tassie deal since he has close ties with the Tassie Gov.

Thought I did answer your question BB.

As you suggested.

when responding to a question from the floor.........

What do you think would happen as it is clear he wouldn't be telling the truth?

Do you think members should be happy that the president of our club is telling an obvious lie?

You seem pretty sure on your facts BB. Perhaps rather than bringing it into the public domain and naming your source, you can PM me with your information.

Do you think the press would have extreme interest in this?

Of course, anything Jeff says makes back page news doesn't it?

Do you think he could potentially face charges for breaches of the corporations act as there would be no evidence that any vote actually took place?

Again BB, your assuming that no board meeting took place.

 

[Brown Blood]

Thought I did answer your question BB.

How - saying he was appointed the negotiator doesn't amswer the Q at all.

You seem pretty sure on your facts BB. Perhaps rather than bringing it into the public domain and naming your source, you can PM me with your information.

- its been publically stated there was no vote and the compensation agreement was not fully investigated.

Even you suggest kennett was appointed to make the decision himself.

Again BB, your assuming that no board meeting took place.

Its not an assumption - posters (including you) have even been quoting it here

You can't have it both ways - either he was responsible for the decision or he took it to the board .

 

[Henry Jr]

Even you suggest kennett was appointed to make the decision himself.
Its not an assumption - posters (including you) have even been quoting it here

Kennett was appointed by the board to negotiate as the board's representative. Don't believe corporations send all their board members in to negotiate deals do they?

You can't have it both ways - either he was responsible for the decision or he took it to the board .

Actually I can.

Kennett and the board met prior to the negotiations with Tasmania and yes, he (being the board's representative) was responsible for the decision.

 

[Brown Blood]

Kennett was appointed by the board to negotiate as the board's representative.

This is not relevent to whether he had board approval to reject the offer.

Don't believe corporations send all their board members in to negotiate deals do they?

Again not relevant but most corporations don't send any of their board to do negotiations - that is what the executive team is for.

Kennett and the board met prior to the negotiations with Tasmania and yes, he (being the board's representative) was responsible for the decision.

Not relevant they met prior as the offer from the AFL came towards the end of negotiations - what is relevent is whether he investigated the offer and then took that to the board for a vote.

And we all know it wasn't voted on.

And that is why he couldn't state at the AGM:

Originally Posted by jeff- quoted by henry jr
"I, along with the board, discussed ALL of our options before hand and we, the board, ALL voted on the decision of approving the Tasmanian Deal."

As you suggested he would when responding to a question from the floor.........

 

[Henry Jr]

Guess we will agree to disagree BB.

Look forward to see you standing up at the AGM.

Remember now, big loud voice....

 

[Brown Blood]

Guess we will agree to disagree BB.

Look forward to see you standing up at the AGM.

Remember now, big loud voice....

Oh I'll be at the AGM henry (I do always go) but I don't think I will need to stand up as it is clear jeff will not be stating the AFL offer was fully investigated and then went to the board because as I have been repeatably stating we all know it wasn't.

And jeff wouldn't put himself in a position where he would be caught out telling a lie.

As far as other matters go if you bother to read other posts of mine (and I know you do) then you would realise it is clear that I am prepared to put up with the current deal - it is just that I don't have rose coloured glasses on or am prepared be an apologist like some for everything kennett, the board or club does.

They do sometimes make mistakes or take strategic directions that aren't always optimal or in the best interests of the members - and like many others I find this sometimes concerning. Though of course I do understand that they are severely under resourced from a management talent perspective being a relatively small organisation (turnover sub $50M).

 

[mchawk]

Guess we will agree to disagree BB.

Look forward to see you standing up at the AGM.

Remember now, big loud voice....

Low blow.

 

[TAITA]

Low blow.

Why? All he is asking is you back up the rhetoric with action Chalkie. That is directed at you btw.

 

[Brown Blood]

Why? All he is asking is you back up the rhetoric with action Chalkie. That is directed at you btw.

Yes it was hardly a "low blow" - I thought my post more than adequately responded to henry's.

Actually I don't know what mchawk is on about!

 

[Fabulous]

Low blow.

FYI: Definition of "low blow"

1. An attack to mens genitalia (sometimes womens). Sometimes enjoyed sexually, sometimes just outright painful. In the wrestling world women wrestlers low blow men wrestlers a lot, primarily to help their man win a match, or to excite the ballbusting fetishists who watch.
2. A comment which is cruel and callous. Meant to cut like a knife. Hence the term low blow, it hurts.
3. Basic requirement is a person with genitalia.