Perception for conflict of interest is John Mitchell's latest problem

[James]

This is bollocks. Is it not a bit of a conflict of interest for the SMH to sponsor the Waratahs and write reports about them or their opposition? Is it not unethical that during a financial crisis the Brumbies are looking to have 'the boys from the hill' make a third party deal for Giteau? Thats our bloody tax payer dollars.

There is no conflict of interest, ET mining will put all their money readily available into Giteau regardless of Mitchell being on the board. End of.

[travelling_gerry]

Geeeez....isnt this thread a pile of crap over nothing. Even without reading mudflaps contributions.

I get excluded from every board meeting I attend.

[brokendown gunfighter]

only because they wont open the grog cabinet Gerry

[Bondiflyer]

Hi
Just thought I'd join this conversation as I thought it was half interesting. Though it does concern me that the Oz wrote this piece when they have been quite friendly about the Force of late?

Perhaps I'm cynical, but I suspect someone is trying to destablise Mitchell. Is that fair? Probably not. But since when is off-field rugby fair.

But apart from this, I thought I would raise a few points.

Personally, I think its unfair that Mitchell is being criticised for this, but perception is just so important in the sporting world.

Firstly, I dont believe ET mining is a public company, however, if they were, they most certainly would need to disclose the fact that directors of the company (Mitchell) have 'related party transactions'. The RPT being the relationship between Mitchell, ET and the Force. And this transaction is quite material to the Force as a business. Related Party transactions are often frowned upon in the corporate world - anyone with a degree of experience at board level of public co's would know this. ET should, in my mind, be conscious of this and so should Mitchell as RPT often give rise to the question of whether a conflict does exist.

Now, I'm not saying it does in this case, but the question would be asked. And the objective person would ask.

Secondly, ET Mining recently owned an equitable interest in a Firepower related entity. In fact it had a joint venture agreement with Firepower. It is my understanding that ET still does have a claim over some Firepower assets and owns part of the remains of Firepower and some Firepower entities owe money to ET. This matter, perhaps, should also be considered by Mitchell when considering whether his board role is a conflict. Some consideration to the 'ethics' of the matter should, perhaps, also be considered.

Doesn’t Firepower still owe the Force some money?

Thirdly, when considering the ethical issues, it is interesting to note that Mitchell was paid in excess of $100,000 by Firepower during 2007/2008. This was just before one of the companies went into administration and liquidation. This money was paid to Mitchell many, many months after millions of dollars were taken by the directors of Firepower. Many mums and dads in Perth lost thousands of dollars in the fraud that was Firepower and I'm not sure they're entirely happy about where money from Firepower went. Should they be upset about this? Probably reasonable that they are.

I would imagine most of the victims of Firepower may be upset with the content of this article.

Could those that received many thousands of dollars in cash now consider repaying that money to the mum and dad investors who were defrauded?

Would that be fair? Probably. It would certainly be ethical.

[brokendown gunfighter]

here we go
half truths to justify your position
this is not an article as you claim,just a typical attempt at trolling
by the way what are the firepower assets you allude to
the liquidators would like to know no doubt

[travelling_gerry]

Good first post Bondi....

[travelling_gerry]

Did you lose much?

[Bondiflyer]

Thanks Gerry

Brokendown, I'm just adding bits of articles together to make comment. This whole matter for Mitchell is about 'perception'. Conflict of interest usually is.

And these arent half truths. These are cold hard facts.

Personally, I believe the article was a little unfair. It seems to me that someone is trying to upset Mitchell and this whole review/investigation was all about that.

If the Oz really wanted to have a go at people with conflicts they could start with most overpaid bankers in the sydney CBD. But of course, thats not sexy enough.

I was trying to point out some facts, thats all.

[brokendown gunfighter]

only his shirt

[Bondiflyer]

Broken, is this your way of encouraging new members?

Diversity of opinion and comments should be welcomed not abused. Or were my comments too complex for you?

[travelling_gerry]

ease in Bondi......

[Bondiflyer]

Thanks Gerry. I can see you're a man of wisdom.

This conflict issue does exist but should it not be diminished by the generosity, support and dedication of the people behind ET and Mitchell too?

It appears to me, though I know little of them, that ET has honourably, albeit clumsily, tried to help the Force a hell of a lot in the last few years.

I'm quite surprised by the Oz. Something is behind this change of direction in their views.

[brokendown gunfighter]

Thanks Gerry

Brokendown, I'm just adding bits of articles together to make comment. This whole matter for Mitchell is about 'perception'. Conflict of interest usually is.

And these arent half truths. These are cold hard facts.

Personally, I believe the article was a little unfair. It seems to me that someone is trying to upset Mitchell and this whole review/investigation was all about that.

If the Oz really wanted to have a go at people with conflicts they could start with most overpaid bankers in the sydney CBD. But of course, thats not sexy enough.

I was trying to point out some facts, thats all.

The irony is ,of course,the owner of ET mining(or his company) lost millions in the firepower fiasco,but still provides sponsership to the force
also do you also consider Giteau should return his earnings from Firepower to the liquidator as he received such monies from a company that was ripping off its investors?

[brokendown gunfighter]

Broken, is this your way of encouraging new members?

Diversity of opinion and comments should be welcomed not abused. Or were my comments too complex for you?

yes & no

[Bondiflyer]

Broken,

Good to see a grin!

I dont think it would be fair to discuss whether players should refund money (to Firepower). They were, in the main, taken for a ride in the whole fiasco that was and is, Firepower. Its only the people that promoted the business and covered up along the way that deserve criticism. I have faith that the truth has probably sorted this mess out. And if it hasnt completely, perhaps it will some day.

I notice Volvo has stepped up to the mark. How is that deal viewed? I would think it was a great coup.

On a positive note, and perhaps I should raise this elsewhere, the Force only lost by a handful of points last week after playing below par. I actually view this as a positive. We know how good they CAN be when they're consistent.