0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Perception for conflict of interest is John Mitchell's latest problem
Bret Harris and Wayne Smith | February 17, 2009
Article from: The Australian
JOHN Mitchell is wearing two hats as coach of Western Force and as a director of one of the Super 14 side's financial supporters, which may lead to the perception he has a conflict of interest.
Mitchell sits on the board of underground equipment sales company ET Mining, which has third-party endorsement agreements with several players.
ET Mining was involved in an attempt to retain Australia five-eighth Matt Giteau in Perth for the 2010 and 2011 seasons. The revelation of Mitchell's involvement with one of the Force's sponsors comes at a highly sensitive time, given he has been the subject of an inquiry into his working relationship with the club's staff and players and speculation about his future in Perth.
"It is not implicitly improper, but given the sensitivity around these things, there is the potential for conflict," leading sports lawyer John Mullins said.
"It's not impossible for him to do both roles, but he needs to be careful not to put himself into a position of conflict. The problem he's got is the perception. He may not know things, but if there is a perception that he does, it puts him in an invidious position.
"He may have a valuable contribution to make to the company. It is where the circles intersect that he needs to be careful."
Mitchell insisted he had never been involved in any third-party deals between ET Mining and Force players and deliberately kept himself at arm's length during contract negotiations.
He specifically said he had taken no part in the deal ET Mining boss Ross Graham offered to Giteau, which was designed to cover the Wallaby five-eighth's missing Firepower payments.
Pete Jarman, the lawyer acting for Ross Graham, also said that Mitchell had no involvement in negotiating the third-party deal with Giteau.
Firepower had been one of the Force's main financial supporters until the fuel technology company collapsed.
Ultimately, Giteau turned that offer down, seemingly believing he stood to do even better if the Force entered into a bidding war with the Brumbies.
Although Mitchell was extremely keen to retain his chief playmaker, he was adamant he played no role in those negotiations.
"I don't know what's in any player's contract and I don't care," Mitchell said. "Obviously, I have a major say in drawing up player acquisition lists, but any contract negotiations are handled by Mitch Hardy (general manager, rugby) and signed off by Greg Harris (chief executive)."
Mitchell said he had been invited by Graham, a close friend and fellow New Zealander, to join the board of ET Mining last June as a non-executive director, which means he contributes to strategy, planning and performance evaluation, but is not a part of the executive management team. He does, however, receive a director's fee.
He stressed that senior Force and Rugby WA officials had been made aware of his intention to become a director of the company and had expressed no reservations to him. "It was all totally up-front," Mitchell said. "I have an interest in the business, which I'm entitled to do.
"I have an interest in developing my skills outside rugby. That's the purpose of going on to the board. It's purely personal development.
"I might point out that I'm a quantity surveyor with an MBA, so I think I have something to offer the company.
"It's a mining company and we (the Force) are in a mining state. We have a huge rugby fan base in the mines who can't get to our games and I think I have a responsibility in an AFL market to promote rugby as best I can.
"I never carry out any outside commitments if they are going to conflict with my work as a coach."
Mitchell said that because the Force initially could not afford to pay him what he might have commanded had he gone elsewhere to coach, the club's founding CEO, Peter O'Meara, had agreed for him to do outside work.
Harris said the Force was comfortable with Mitchell's involvement with ET Mining.
"We have a long-term commercial relationship with ET Mining through sponsorship," Harris said.
"ET Mining supports some of our players through third-party endorsements.
"There would only be a conflict if ET Mining and Rugby WA didn't have a good relationship. We have a good relationship so there's no conflict.
"If there were any discussions between ET Mining and Rugby WA, John would excuse himself and leave the room.
"We are very comfortable with his role there."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015652,00.html
It seems like a non issue to me.
let the free for all begin! this speculation about mitchell and gits will just not die!
wait for it,
wait for it,
pretty soon my old buddy mudskipper will launch in to some scintilating diatribe of Firepower shareholders and also be able to link the whole thing back to Peter O'Meara being the Devil.
Muddie - I hope I didn't steal your thunder
Exile
Port Macquarie
"Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!" - Rocky Balboa
after the firepower deal, you would think the force would try not to s@#t were they eat, but its a different thing. but still nto good to invest in a sponsor.
I'm still waiting for the revelation... did he join the board yesterday??
You might point that out Mitch, but injecting reason into a debate that hangs solely on someone's 'perception' really misses the point entirely.Originally Posted by Mitch
The man's a non-executive director, who excuses himself from discussions where the two interests overlap. Apparently there were a few spare column inches at The Australian today.
Last edited by Swee_82; 17-02-09 at 06:54.
Next headline - John Mitchell is to blame for the end of the mining boom
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
This is over the top. Leave the man alone FFS.
In contrast a Professional who is engaged in legal or financial advice isn’t allowed to have shares in the company there are servicing. This even extends to their wife or husband.
This is to protect integrity of the individual’s recommendations to either company and to appear completely impartial to those recommendations.
Mitchell can’t do this without a person raising the question is or is he not conflicted by his dual association with both enterprises. As a ET paid board member he has greater influence than any share holder.
Conflicts of interest can be managed; however the players and their managers will always view Coach Mitchell as a man with a foot in each camp.
“Implicitly improper”, means unconditionally improper. Personally I think it is questionable and doesn’t put the interests of the team first. Hasn’t the Force had enough of this nonsense?
However Force CEO Harris has stated, "We are very comfortable with his role there." Mitchell did disclose this openly last year. So it is up to both of them to navigate this slippery slope within the team...
i fully agree with mudskip, you would think with the money mitchell is on the force could ask him to step down while et is a sponsor, at some point, if mitchell is there or not someone who makes decisions at both the force or et are going to be in his presense, if et start to develop fuel systems, then basically we know it was john mitchell all along!