Why Tiger director resigned | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Why Tiger director resigned

Tigerdog

Tiger Legend
Dec 18, 2002
9,776
77
By Caroline Wilson of The Age
March 25, 2004



Richmond vice-president Brendan Schwab quit the Tigers after accusing president Clinton Casey and his treasurer Garry Cameron of breaching the Corporations Act in a fiery board meeting earlier this month.

Schwab is understood to have outlined in a letter to his former directors his concerns over a revelation that the club would lose $2 million in 2004. The meeting, which provoked the resignations of both Schwab and Peter Welsh, is believed to have recorded that the club was facing a massive 2004 loss despite forecasting a break-even result last October.

As the financial and political crisis that has engulfed the Tigers deepened on the eve of the club's round-one clash against Collingwood, Casey's position appeared under increasing threat as he worked to shore up support.

Schwab's concerns about corporate law, which were shared by Welsh despite earlier reports the resignations were not linked, could provoke AFL scrutiny should the Tigers be forced to request a seven-figure handout from the competitive balance fund.

The Age has learnt that the March board meeting was the first time the directors had met - apart from January's annual meeting - since October when Schwab is understood to have opposed Casey's proposal to underwrite the club.


It is understood that Schwab had been pushing for urgent talks for some months after learning that the club's 2003 accounts had been sent to members without being signed off by directors. His request was refused.

Under federal corporate law, the club's concise financial accounts - which recorded an $800,000 loss last year - require a directors' declaration. While Casey and Cameron signed the accounts as having been declared and adopted by the board, no such declaration had taken place.

The club is understood to have applied since then for a redirection order from the AFL. The potential $2 million loss is expected to be improved following an injection of funds from the club's fund-raising arm - the Jack Dyer Foundation.

Schwab, a lawyer, has outlined his concerns in the potentially explosive letter distributed to all directors earlier this week.

The letter is expected to be tabled at the Tigers' next board meeting early next month. Schwab is understood to have written his resignation before the March meeting but attended to address his concerns with the club's corporate governance.

His questioning of the board's corporate procedure sparked an angry personal attack from treasurer Cameron. Welsh is understood to have made it clear to colleagues that despite taking on the football director's position this year, his resignation was not linked to concerns with Danny Frawley's position as coach, as has Schwab.

Casey yesterday stood by his vow to rid the board of non-performing directors. It is understood he retains strong support of Cameron, and Don Lord, chairman of the Jack Dyer Foundation.

The Richmond meetings are attended not only by directors but also former National Party leader Peter Nixon, who acts a consultant to the board, and corporate lawyer Ian Dixon, the board's legal adviser.

Casey did not return calls from The Age last night.

www.theage.com.au www.realfooty.com.au
 
If this is true, then are Richmond in breach of corporations law by trading whilst (technically) insolvent?
Is the fecal matter about to hit the fan even harder?
 
Caro (unlike Patrick Smith) has hit the nail on the head.

The entire matter has very little to do with Frawley.

The response from the RFC Board on this issue has been very disappointing. When two directors resign because of corporate governance concerns, this is not something that should be glossed over.

The very least that the remaining Board could do would be to issue a statement outlining the reasons for the departures and the Boards stance on the issues raised.

This years profit result could be very very interesting particularly after Casey has promised a breakeven result in the worst case scenario.
 
If true (and it does sound convincing), it is a damning indictment on the Board when the truth is finally revealed without a squeak from the club.

Onya Caro.

Shame, RFC, shame :-[
 
From the Fox site:

$3.5m Tigers bail-out
By Greg Denham and Patrick Smith
March 25, 2004

RICHMOND is facing a serious cash-flow problem which forced the club to approach the AFL for a $3.5million bail-out this week.

The cash-flow drama, which comes in the middle of a boardroom crisis, was confirmed to The Australian yesterday by AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou.

Richmond approached the AFL for help in securing the $3.5m by way of a bank redirection, which the AFL will almost certainly guarantee via its $4.08m annual dividend to clubs.

"As part of the routine meetings between clubs and the AFL, we met Richmond yesterday and Ian Anderson (AFL general manager of finance) told me they were seeking a redirection facility," Demetriou said.

Believed to be the first redirection order sought by the Tigers, it comes after president Clinton Casey last year provided a personal guarantee with the ANZ Bank over $1.7m worth of the Tigers' debt.

The facility Richmond is seeking this week is twice as much as the cash redirection the perennially financially stricken Kangaroos are operating on.

Included in Richmond's 2003 annual report, lodged this month with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (as sporting clubs must do by law), is a worrying report by independent auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The report says: "In respect of the overdraft facilities expiring within the next 12 months, there is consequential uncertainty whether the Richmond Football Club will be able to continue as a going concern if debt facilities are not extended or other support not provided."

Casey said yesterday: "We have been in constant talks with our bank to try to have our overdraft facility extended. If the bank does not continue the service, we need to know what the fall-back position is.

"We have talked to the AFL about alternatives, one of which is a redirection. It is not uncommon in the AFL. The bank wants to see a better set of numbers. If we can't deliver that, then it is simply a matter of looking at another solution.

"To seek information about a redirection order is merely prudent business management."

Richmond will continue discussions with their bankers, the ANZ, this week.

While there are fears the Tigers may head down a similar path as the Kangaroos, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne who seek special financial assistance from the AFL's $5m competitive balance fund, Casey said things were not that bleak.

"We do not face a financial crisis," he said.

After an operating loss of more than $1.2m in 2003, the Tigers are at least $500,000 behind revenue forecasts for this season.

Richmond posted an official loss last year of $882,000, but that figure was made to look better by the donation of up to $400,000 from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which was set up for capital works but was called on to ease
debt.

With two directors having already resigned over the past fortnight and another two expected to follow suit within a week, Richmond has imploded off the field on the eve of tomorrow night's season-opener against Collingwood at the MCG. The club is understood to be paying the maximum non-salary cap allowances to its players for the additional services agreement (marketing) and the veterans-list concession.

The recruiting of former Western Bulldog Nathan Brown will ensure Richmond pays close to 100 per cent of its total player payments, already burdened by having to pay half of Ben Holland's wage this year at Melbourne.

Holland was axed late last year to give the Tigers salary-cap relief to secure Brown and Dean Solomon, who remained at Essendon after initially pledging his loyalty to Richmond.

The Tigers have also this year increased their full-time assistant coaching staff by one.

Richmond's income is well down on budget despite a 26 per cent surge in membership from the corresponding time last year.

However, the Tigers are still about 1600 members down on last year's final total of 25,101, which was a decline of 2150 from the 2002 figure. This year's figure may remain static if Richmond are not successful early in the season.

Vice-president Brendon Schwab resigned on March 12 and fellow board member Peter Welsh followed last week, leaving a board of seven.

The exacting leadership style of Casey is expected to also claim the scalp of director Michael Daddo and possibly Rob Turner.

After spending all day yesterday in discussions with the remaining board members, Casey is expected to make a statement regarding the composition of the board to the membership today.

Casey may end up having to fill up to four directors' vacancies at Punt Road.

This week, Casey said: "The timing of these things is difficult. We have a big year ahead. If you are not up to it, then it's best you move on."

Casey has denied his continuing support of coach Danny Frawley had any part in the resignations of Schwab and Welsh. Given Casey's $1.7m guarantee, it
is believed he could be personally liable for a pay-out to Frawley should the coach be axed before his contract expires.

The Australian believes a quarrel with Casey over his guarantee of Frawley's 2004 tenure helped influence the resignations of the directors.

Casey publicly supported Frawley's role as senior coach until at least the end of the 2004 season following an attack on Frawley from long-time mentor and former board member Tony Jewell this month.

Casey reacted by declaring Richmond would honour Frawley's contract.

"As a board we are hugely supportive of Danny," Casey said earlier this month. "Danny Frawley will coach Richmond until the end of the season. That position is quite clear with the club and Danny."

It was confirmed yesterday not all directors wanted Frawley's position guaranteed, rather favouring a position of ongoing review.

The Australian
 
David C said:
Richmond's income is well down on budget despite a 26 per cent surge in membership from the corresponding time last year.

Who the hell does the budget down there ??  Was he expecting a 100% increase on memberships when he put pen to paper ??  We are obviously being run by people who don't know what they are doing, both football wise and financially.  These clowns need to go asap otherwise we'll start rattling those tins again.

How can such a strong a club like Richmond go down this track......again ?? 
 
I'm a little tired of Richmond saying one thing and doing another.

The last few years our leaders are always making predictions that don't eventuate. They are dishonest with their supporters, and this will hurt them until they deliver.

Talk is cheap, Richmond!
 
Last night l read our annual report from 2002 and the club was debt free!
How can things have gone that bad in 12-18 months??
Have all these annual reports been smokescreens to appease the members??
Sounds to me like we have been seriously mis-led :mad: :mad:
I heard Ian 'octer' Wilson (ex prez) saying to him it was simple to run a club last night on SEN.
Win on saturday, and you do that by employing the best players and back up staff you can
Balance the books, thats what the board are there to do
How and Why are we in this position all of a sudden???
 
David C said:
Believed to be the first redirection order sought by the Tigers...

This doesn't match up with what's below.


Casey said yesterday: "We have been in constant talks with our bank to try to have our overdraft facility extended. If the bank does not continue the service, we need to know what the fall-back position is.

"We have talked to the AFL about alternatives, one of which is a redirection. It is not uncommon in the AFL. The bank wants to see a better set of numbers. If we can't deliver that, then it is simply a matter of looking at another solution.

So what Casey is saying here, is that they are exploring alternatives,
not that they have actually asked for a 3.5M bail out yet?
Who knows maybe the bank will extend their overdraft?

Still, it's a sorry state of affairs no matter what the outcome of
this particular "news" report item is.
 
Agree, baktiger, the report doesn't seem to be consistent (not that that's all that unusual with The Australian's sports coverage).

Casey seems to be saying we are looking at our options, and one of those is to request a rediection order if the ANZ does not continue the overdraft facility we have been operating on. The report, however, says that we have already made this request.

The report also says they have "confirmed" that Frawley's tenure was part of the reason for the recent resignations. They have certainly not provided any evidence of this confirmation in any of their reports I have seen. Patrick Smith led with that story, but it seemed to be debunked by the reports in The Age, which is a far more reliable source IMO.

While I have reservations about the way Clinton Casey has handled this matter, and his honesty with the supporters, I'd be inclined to take his word at this time over that of Patrick Smith's rag.

In any case, it's worrying that we have been unable to retire any debt over the past couple of years. It would seem our financial management might need a shakeup. Maybe a couple more board resignations wouldn't be such a bad thing, but then we would have to trust Clinton Casey to either get the best people into those positions (and not just "yes" men) or for him to call a new election.
 
There is no doubt about this whatsoever:

This club is an absolute basket case; in all manner of speaking. We haven't got the on field stuff right in more than 20 years but at least the Daphne administration was financially capable, even if they were football inept.

Casey's administration took over a very financially sound club and have methodically turned it into football's version of the infamous banana republic. We are again wallowing in a financial disaster zone which has traditionally been the domain of the less popular clubs such as the Kangaroos and Bulldogs.

This is nothing short of a disgrace :mad:
 
As has been the norm for the last few years the RFC has been feeding all supporters a whole lot of Bull**** about their finances and on field performance.
The c@@p has really hit the fan theres no room to hide no more. We need a thorough explanantion as to what is going on and get rid of the basket Casey.
 
The real concern here is that both the Roos and the Dogs had to agree to operate on 92.5% of the salary cap in order to obtain financial assistance from the AFL!

That being the case, we'd have to get rid of a good portion of the top end of our list to satisfy a similar criteria.

And to think, we are running around during draft time throwing big money at everyone while giving away our early - inexpensive draft picks.

Hate to say it folks, but Sheedy's words "You are ruining football" aren't far off the mark. The financial demise of our club ruins football for me!
 
Geeeez.....how bad would our list be if we were at 92.5% of the salary cap. This can't happen to us...can it ?
 
Harry said:
Geeeez.....how bad would our list be if we were at 92.5% of the salary cap.  This can't happen to us...can it ?

Nobody wants that, but I guess it would force us to rebuild the list....properly. :p
 
This will set us back years................oh wait,we already are set back years ::)
 
Sounds like Henry Kaye is in charge of the RFC and we all no what happened to him.
 
frickenel said:
The real concern here is that both the Roos and the Dogs had to agree to operate on 92.5% of the salary cap in order to obtain financial assistance from the AFL!

I could be wrong here, but I think that was to get money from the Competitive Balance Fund. What we have asked (and the jury is still out on whether we have actually asked or just asked if it is a possibility) is whether we can have a redirect order on the dividend the league pays each club each season.

This would see the money (or some/most of it) go to ANZ, rather than the club.

This is different to assistance from the Compeitive Balance Fund, as I understand it, and should not impact on how much of the Total Player Payments figure we choose to pay.
 
OneTel, HIH, Richmond Footy Club

We're at 100% of our player payments, but our list is good enough to win only 7 games a year.

And we are paying Danny's coaching assistants more money than Kevin Sheedy's entire salary.

Get the tins out out boys and girls. Its going to be an even worse year than the previous 2.