SA Footy

Dutchy wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:More?

One fitty...

Big Phil wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:More?

One fitty...

And that's all the club could find. Is that all or is there more?

CoverKing wrote:

Big Phil wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:More?

One fitty...

And that's all the club could find. Is that all or is there more?

I'm pretty sure that is all of it...

I'm not sure anyone knows how much it was really ... it may or may not match the amount repaid.

I seem to be banging on about this a fair bit, but correct me if I'm wrong this person has no legal case against him/her, so there should be no legal reason for not naming him besides possibly defamatory, but as everyone on here is more or less anonymous, does that matter anyway? Clearly No one on here knows who it is, No one in the Media knows who it is, I'm going to keep my suspicions on who it is -

Most on here know who it is. No need to name them.

The Rooster wrote:I seem to be banging on about this a fair bit, but correct me if I'm wrong this person has no legal case against him/her, so there should be no legal reason for not naming him besides possibly defamatory, but as everyone on here is more or less anonymous, does that matter anyway? Clearly No one on here knows who it is, No one in the Media knows who it is, I'm going to keep my suspicions on who it is -

Possibly defamatory? Definitely defamatory.

Waiting with interest to see the blizzard of writs the ex CEO of Westies lodges against News Limited for defamation given he was effectively named in the Sunday Mail a few weeks back.

Wont happen, because if he does sue, he will then have to prove that he didn't do the things said by the Tiser.
and im pretty sure a National news rag will have the funds to Lawyer him into the ground even further!

It won't happen because here is the article, and it does not say who the thief is.

The following facts are stated in the article, and I would have thought are likely to be uncontroversially true:
1. Money has been discovered to be missing and the thief "may have" been a former employee
2. The exact time frame of the theft is unclear but it's "understood" to have fallen within Kym Russell's time as CEO, which spanned January 2009 to September 2013
3. Kym Russell tendered his resignation in September 2013.

If people want to draw certain inferences from the facts as stated, that's up to them. The article does not state who the thief is. It does not even state who it's likely to be or suspected of being. It only states that Andrew Collins is not linked to the theft in any way.

People should be pretty careful about throwing around accusations against particular people on internet fora, not just this forum on this issue, but generally. "We are anonymous and so we can say what we want with no consequences" is plumb foolishness—apart from the fact that SA Footy would be shut down, and Wedgie (who is effectively not anonymous) would potentially be bankrupted, in today's age do you really think that any competent IT geek hired by a lawyer for an intending plaintiff, would take more than about half an hour to find out your real name?

I say that without knowing whether anyone would sue, is interested in suing, could have a winning case if they did sue, has definitely done the dastardly act etcetera. But that's exactly the point—where you don't know, unless you're prepared to put your personal and financial future on the line that you're right, you don't play with fire. "Sure, I've not investigated it, have no first-hand knowledge, and I hadn't even spoken with anyone who did have first hand knowledge before posting the claim, but… it's the vibe… y'know, everyone knows that they really done it", is not a defence.

The only problem is in this case is the person involved has alleged he loaned the club the large amount of money,the club have stated that the money was a donation,not a loan,if it was a loan surely all the paperwork involved would have been done appropiately.

teaoby wrote:Wont happen, because if he does sue, he will then have to prove that he didn't do the things said by the Tiser.
and im pretty sure a National news rag will have the funds to Lawyer him into the ground even further!

This is incorrect. You have your burden of proof all mixed up. It would be the burden of proof on the plaintiff in a law suit to demonstrate damage, but if the defense claims truthfulness as a defense, they would have to prove the facts thy stated were true.

hottie wrote:The only problem is in this case is the person involved has alleged he loaned the club the large amount of money,the club have stated that the money was a donation,not a loan,if it was a loan surely all the paperwork involved would have been done appropiately.

That throws a bit of a spanner in the works.

ANy further word from the WAFC on this?

When are the board meeting, one would think they would maybe meet ASAP and deal with it. Or will they have a meeting in 2016 to discuss it so they dont have to release a statement/let their members know what has gone on til then?

Aerie wrote:

hottie wrote:The only problem is in this case is the person involved has alleged he loaned the club the large amount of money,the club have stated that the money was a donation,not a loan,if it was a loan surely all the paperwork involved would have been done appropiately.

That throws a bit of a spanner in the works.

If it was in fact a loan to the club, why did the family (allegedly) pay the money back to the club?

That is the $100,000 question?

How much do you think that westies have tried to bury this because West Torrens Council are such big supporters of the club. How much influence has the Mayor had being the father in law of the Ex CEO?

If it was in fact a loan to the club, why did the family (allegedly) pay the money back to the club?

Isn't that how a loan usually works? You have permission from the club to have the money and then sometime in the future you return the money.

How could a club that just made consecutive significant losses loan money to an employee in such a large amount?