SA Footy

Brodlach wrote:

Booney wrote:So they weren't going to make a statement until the "investigation" was finalised,but 3 days later make a statement anyway?

4 days of same story in the paper made it difficult not to say anything

I cant see how the same article rehashed 4 days in a row means the board need to make a comment?

I understand why you're defending them as you are, it's your club, but 3 days ago they said they wouldn't be making any further comment and then they make a comment.....

Hopefully West complete their internal review and then bring in the police to deal with it properly. I don't care if the money has been returned (by a separate party it seems), or who the person is or what they've done since being caught, this person deserves a lengthy jail term. Surely it won't just get swept under the rug like it sounds like it will be. It's not even Wests job to investigate such serious criminal activity.

Booney wrote:

Brodlach wrote:

Booney wrote:So they weren't going to make a statement until the "investigation" was finalised,but 3 days later make a statement anyway?

4 days of same story in the paper made it difficult not to say anything

I cant see how the same article rehashed 4 days in a row means the board need to make a comment?

I understand why you're defending them as you are, it's your club, but 3 days ago they said they wouldn't be making any further comment and then they make a comment.....

IMO the article portrays the club poorly, either tell the whole story or dont write it up at all. Four days in the paper with no new facts, members are getting a little annoyed (and i cannot blame them)


I thinks thats what will happen pafc1870

Brodlach wrote:

Booney wrote:

Brodlach wrote:

Booney wrote:So they weren't going to make a statement until the "investigation" was finalised,but 3 days later make a statement anyway?

4 days of same story in the paper made it difficult not to say anything

I cant see how the same article rehashed 4 days in a row means the board need to make a comment?

I understand why you're defending them as you are, it's your club, but 3 days ago they said they wouldn't be making any further comment and then they make a comment.....

IMO the article portrays the club poorly, either tell the whole story or dont write it up at all. Four days in the paper with no new facts, members are getting a little annoyed (and i cannot blame them)


I thinks thats what will happen pafc1870

What portrays the club poorly is the fact it hasn't become a police matter. Mistake one - not having systems in place to prevent this happening in the first place. Mistake two - having the same people who let this mistake happen in the first place try and fix it.

Westies statement says a new board and new president appointed and they are reviewing all processes etc. etc. trying to make out like it is a mistake from the past. What is there, 3 new board members and the president that was there is still on the board? Hardly a whole new board.

Meanwhile they hadn't been paying suppliers and were pleading for donations and at the same time were breaching salary caps, someone in admin was syphoning big money and a safe was stolen.

If the money hasn't been paid back by the person who took it then the financial pressure has been placed on those who had to pay it back. Hardly fair for them.

Money has been paid back by the family of the alleged thief

alleged thief ...

Is it still a sensitive issue?

When is a thief not a thief?

The repayment of funds would suggest alleged is incorrect, wouldn't it?

When they haven't been convicted of being a thief, i.e. when there are pending Court proceedings and guilt or innocence hasn't yet been decided.

An interesting question of whether, if there are no Police investigations and no request that Police instigate any, you can just straight-out call the supposedly guilty party a "thief", but once Police and ultimately the Courts get involved, it has to go back to "alleged thief" until proceedings are done!

Shall we say he borrowed the money with out their knowledge or asking for permission?

DW don't get me started with the word alledgedly!!! Apparently if you shoot and kill someone and admit to it - you still have to say they alledgedly killed them.

scoob wrote:Shall we say he borrowed the money with out their knowledge or asking for permission?

DW don't get me started with the word alledgedly!!! Apparently if you shoot and kill someone and admit to it - you still have to say they alledgedly killed them.

I know you're cross about the issue, but no need to (allegedly) shoot and kill anyone over it!

In fact, you can say (and West Adelaide, and anyone else can say) that the money was nicked, stolen, pilfered, robbed and embezzled, as much as you want, with no 'allegedly' in sight. It's only when you name names of who is claimed to have done it, that you potentially get into strife and have to pull out the 'a' word.

My love of the West Adelaide Football Club is well known but ....
If this is the one who was caught how many others were not caught and how much did they get away with ?
A former long serving club legend was rumored to have been " overpaid " !

Brodlach wrote:

Booney wrote:

Brodlach wrote:

Booney wrote:So they weren't going to make a statement until the "investigation" was finalised,but 3 days later make a statement anyway?

4 days of same story in the paper made it difficult not to say anything

I cant see how the same article rehashed 4 days in a row means the board need to make a comment?

I understand why you're defending them as you are, it's your club, but 3 days ago they said they wouldn't be making any further comment and then they make a comment.....

IMO the article portrays the club poorly, either tell the whole story or dont write it up at all. Four days in the paper with no new facts, members are getting a little annoyed (and i cannot blame them)


I thinks thats what will happen pafc1870

I don't know what members youve been speaking today but the numerous amounts (actual members who go to the club 4+ times a week) are not angry by the articles at all. They are angry about the club not getting police involved.

Once again the board are looking after there own interests first. It doesn't look great for financial people on the board and those that have been in charge of the club over the last couple of years

So, I wonder if Rubbers will significantly change the gamestyle or is it so ingrained now that he'll have to go for the tweak instead ?

CoverKing wrote:Once again the board are looking after there own interests first. It doesn't look great for financial people on the board and those that have been in charge of the club over the last couple of years

If what I have heard is correct, perhaps the board are worried this incident might show they did not do their due diligence in appointing this employee

IIRC it was only 12 months ago they reappointed him when contract was up.

Heard the full story today and yes it is "sensitive" but not sure that Westies should worry too much about that, they have a business to run/save.

Has the board changed significantly in recent times?

Dutchy wrote:IIRC it was only 12 months ago they reappointed him when contract was up.

Heard the full story today and yes it is "sensitive" but not sure that Westies should worry too much about that, they have a business to run/save.

Has the board changed significantly in recent times?

Last agm earlier this year IIRC saw 3 new board members with a new president. Old president still on the board

Yes it's sensitive in some regards for the family, but it doesn't affect the club and they need to look after the members rights. Police should've involved. I would think Graeme Barton (former assistant commissioner of sapol) would be pushing for police action

I've read a lot of the last posts on this topic and I appreciate that the West Adelaide Football want's to handle this internally, for reasons they are aware of no doubt, I understand completely if no police involvement is to be engaged, so with that in mind are we ever going to find out who it was??

My reason for asking is not sinister in any way, I know of a former employee where I work, who was walked out after a similar incident, and we are still receiving letters trying to track this person down, but he is/was heavily involved in the West Adelaide Football Club, now this may or may not be this person, but if it is he is also very heavily involved in junior football as well and there may be a duty of care to kids and parents who may be asked to trust this person, when they probably need to help this individual, there may also be a duty of care to any people that may or may not have dealing with this person in the future, I am trying to be as sensitive as possible about this as I can, but I think we are not doing the majority any favours by keeping this person unidentified..

His name and photo have been printed many times.