Cousins or Pratt? Who has brought the game into disrepute more?

[- PC -]

This is about the fourth post on this thread which has noted that "Pratt's offences don't have anything to do with football".

On that note, would it be right for a former convicted murderer (who has served his sentence) to be a president of a football club? Surely his offence too would have had "nothing to do with football".

Isnt that what justice served means?

If he is the best person for the club and the club wants him then so what?

If he killed a Collingwood supporter I am certain it would be a landslide vote

 

[- PC -]

This is about the fourth post on this thread which has noted that "Pratt's offences don't have anything to do with football".

On that note, would it be right for a former convicted murderer (who has served his sentence) to be a president of a football club? Surely his offence too would have had "nothing to do with football".

But sure if you equate dodgy business practices to murder then go right ahead and build that strawman

 

[OneEyedPie7]

what is it wif ppl trying to find anything to rubbish carlton. we been down for years and now we r rising they still want to put the boots in. carlton will shut all of you up in the near future. he who laughs last , laughs loudest. our day is coming you sooky lala's

Boo ****ing Hoo. Whos sooking again?

 

[BLue_Bloys]

Not true. In this instance Richmond supporters are just dispassionate observers discussing a very topical thread. The belligerent, inane defence you offer however reflects your fear of losing your President. Which you will. Just make sure you've changed the safe combination before he leaves. What a laughing stock of a club!

You don't want to make yourself look stupid and say something like that would you?

You do realise regardless of what the outcome with the gaming license ( high morals, how ironic) Pratt will be stepping down as president at the conclusion of 08.... did you know that?

 

[HappyHawk]

Absolutely one thing for certain. There is barely a Carlton supporter around who calls it as it is. There is no way any President could remain (Hawks or otherwise), when you're found guilty on this level and the Judge says it's the most dishonest case ever brought before the Federal Court.

The ACCC flatly rejected Pratt's claim that he didn't know anything - so they are also calling him a liar as well as dishonest. You can't then go on and lead an AFL club because the whole system relies on people abiding by rules and playing it fair.

Carlton fans - you'd have gained a lot of respect if you stated what is plainly the right thing to do.

 

[Blue Dimension]

Seems like the obsessive Richmond supporter YellowandBlackBlood has learned a few tricks from Terry "I live in the Bahamas" Wallet. A little bit of spin doctoring here, as the Richmond football club has left the 'door ajar' for Ben Cousins himself...Oh and how would i forget - Lance Whitnall

What a laugh. Good work though.

 

[Schwabie]

But sure if you equate dodgy business practices to murder then go right ahead and build that strawman

I actually didn't think my post was that difficult to understand but clearly it was.

Of course price fixing isn't akin to murder. My point was non-football issues can be of importance. The analogy drawn was of a convicted murderer - in that, murder is of course, not related to football, but members would not want a convicted murderer as president of their club.

Using that analogy, the argument was - why would some non-football offences be relevant (i.e. murder) to holding office - while other non-football offences be swept under the carpet because they are "not related to Pratt's role as President of Carlton"?

Hope that makes sense.

 

[celtic_pride]

BTW What Pratt did was a 'Civil' case, not a 'criminal' case.

Cousins problems were more of a 'criminal' matter, and thus is more problamatic for the AFL.


Interesting to hear that the AFL isn't commentating on Pratt or asking him to stand down (techincally they can't either the Carlton board has the power to elect the president of the club)

And how the $%#$ does what Visy did affect the common person out on the street ..
You guys are talking crap, and I hope the fact that Pratt is going to be president of Carlton for a while longer sticks in ya guts ...

he is a hero, and has brought the best player in the AFL to Carlton ..

 

[Seadog]

BTW What Pratt did was a 'Civil' case, not a 'criminal' case.

Cousins problems were more of a 'criminal' matter, and thus is more problamatic for the AFL.


Interesting to hear that the AFL isn't commentating on Pratt or asking him to stand down (techincally they can't either the Carlton board has the power to elect the president of the club)

And how the $%#$ does what Visy did affect the common person out on the street ..
You guys are talking crap, and I hope the fact that Pratt is going to be president of Carlton for a while longer sticks in ya guts ...

he is a hero, and has brought the best player in the AFL to Carlton ..

In the Judges opinion,the common person on the street was affected because just about everything someone buys was at some stage in a cardboard box.
So in effect he has ripped off every Australian.
As for the subject of this thread- Pratt is the bigger criminal, Cousins did more harm to the game of football.
That could change if Pratt uses his personal buisness ethics in the administration of the Carlton football club.

 

[wally funk]

neither cousins nor pratt has brought the game into disrepute because neither cousins' drug problem nor pratt's business deals have a single thing to do with the game. not one bit. at all. in the slightest.

the only connection between these men and the sport is they were both employed by AFL clubs, and that their respective issues were outside problems with no relevance to football or the league.

if i had to pick one, i'd pick cousins because as a gun player and former league champion, kids probably looked to him as a role model. kids don't look to pratt to be a role model, trust me. "yay i wanna be a rich old man, mummy!" yeah, i'm sure they're saying that.

i also realise i'll probably get booed by fans of the other 15 clubs for defending pratt, but i'm not defending him at all, so don't bother suggesting as much. i'm defending both, but picked cousins for the sole purpose of the thread.

 

[Monkey King]

...... you conveniently overlooked the fact that Cousins has NO convictions

And in your thrist to sink the boots in, you've conveniently overlooked the fact that neither does Pratt.

I don't agree with what Pratt has done, but FFS, at least get your facts right.

 

[Simche]

BTW What Pratt did was a 'Civil' case, not a 'criminal' case.

Cousins problems were more of a 'criminal' matter, and thus is more problamatic for the AFL.


Interesting to hear that the AFL isn't commentating on Pratt or asking him to stand down (techincally they can't either the Carlton board has the power to elect the president of the club)

And how the $%#$ does what Visy did affect the common person out on the street ..
You guys are talking crap, and I hope the fact that Pratt is going to be president of Carlton for a while longer sticks in ya guts ...

he is a hero, and has brought the best player in the AFL to Carlton ..

What Visy have done does affect the ordinary people on the street. Every time you buy a chocolate bar or a slab of beer 15c of that goes to Visy. In the scheme of price fixing your paying 15c when you should be paying 10c. Now when I personally think back to how much beer I drank or just generally the amount of products I bought contained within Visy packaging between 01-04 that small amount starts to add up and I'd wager I've probably put close to $50 into the coffers of Visy when I shouldn't have had to. Basically Visy have stolen $50 from me and that's the way I look at it.

As for it being a 'civil' matter in this case it is but if the government had actually delivered on it's promise 3 years ago Pratt would have faced a criminal conviction as he would have in most developed nations. He should be made to step down on the basis of not being of 'fit and proper character' most probably in the best interests of Carlton (it becomes incredibly hard to get a gaming license once a court has found you guilty of the level of dishonesty Pratt has shown).

 

[celtic_pride]

What Visy have done does affect the ordinary people on the street. Every time you buy a chocolate bar or a slab of beer 15c of that goes to Visy. In the scheme of price fixing your paying 15c when you should be paying 10c. Now when I personally think back to how much beer I drank or just generally the amount of products I bought contained within Visy packaging between 01-04 that small amount starts to add up and I'd wager I've probably put close to $50 into the coffers of Visy when I shouldn't have had to. Basically Visy have stolen $50 from me and that's the way I look at it.

As for it being a 'civil' matter in this case it is but if the government had actually delivered on it's promise 3 years ago Pratt would have faced a criminal conviction as he would have in most developed nations. He should be made to step down on the basis of not being of 'fit and proper character' most probably in the best interests of Carlton (it becomes incredibly hard to get a gaming license once a court has found you guilty of the level of dishonesty Pratt has shown).

Um I don't think the prices of chocolate or beer has gone up dramatically in the past few years, so I don't see the problem.

You are clutching at straws, and I don't think the AFL really cares about it to be honest.

 

[Monkey King]

On the one hand, we have a troubled young man who has a medical condition (drug addiction) that he has admitted to and is seeking help for.

Question. Who has brought the game into disrepute more? The young guy who has mainly hurt himself and his family or the older guy who has robbed everyone in the country through price fixing?
I know who I would choose.....

It's amazing how a little twist here and turn there can alter the truth of a situation. Yes poor little Benny and his medical condition that led to him associating with criminals and being questioned over stabbings in nightclubs. I've checked my medical books, but I can't find that one

I suggest you go and ask the family of those killed by drug drivers what they think about Consins' running away from booze buses and refusing to be tested for drugs while driving. Don't down play the severity of Counsins actions, if you do, you really are underestimating their seriousness.

Pratt's actions are inexcusable, but I'd still welcome he and his associates into my home over Cousins and his gangland associates anyday, and I'm confident, if confronted with the reality of the choice, you would also.

 

[Simche]

Um I don't think the prices of chocolate or beer has gone up dramatically in the past few years, so I don't see the problem.

You are clutching at straws, and I don't think the AFL really cares about it to be honest.

You don't seem to be able to understand that it's not about the prices of beer or chocolate. We have a regulated industry that protects competition and ensures consumers get a fairly priced product. In this case that has been circumvented through dishonesty. On each slab of beer or piece of fruit you buy or for that matter anything that has been transported or packaged in a cardboard box you pay a surplus in the total price which goes towards the cost of purchasing that packaging. The price of beer or chocolate hasn't gone up but regardless of that I and for that matter you have been paying Visy or Amcor 15c (an example) of ill gotten gains for price fixing when you purchase an item of this nature when you should be paying 10c. Considering the majority of your consumer goods at some stage have been packaged in a cardboard box, over a period of 3 years the price difference really starts to add up. You asked how it affected everyday people on the street, well that's how it does.

Do the AFL care? of course not. We're talking about an administrator that is arguably in breach of restraint of trade laws with regards to the elimination of passouts to increase catering revenue.

 

[since82eags]

Why not have a president who would be in jail for this crime? It's not like Carlton doesn't have it's share of colourful characters. He's a perfect fit. Frankly thank god for the equalisation system and a corrupt businessman like Pratt otherwise clubs like Carlton would actually fall over. Because that's what happens to clubs that can't pay the bills and rort the salary cap. But this is the AFL and more to the point Carlton if that club was allowed to die then the world would end.

 

[unstable punt]

Carlton should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute for having a president who swindled 700 million dollars off the Australian people.

they should be kicked out of the league for being the biggest liars and cheats the game has ever seen

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Definitely Pratt - my kids have come home from primary school and telling me stories where some of the Grade 6 boys have entered into Footy Card cartels that is driving up the price of cards for all the other kids.

Upon hearing about this, parents have removed their children from the Auskick program citing the dangers of being involved in a game with associations to Dick Pratt.


Get real - if it was someone not associated with Carlton most of you wouldn't even have read the articles.

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

Definitely Pratt

 

[monoccular]

The very aptly named Pratt - surely any deals done on his watch should be regarded as null and void!!!

A long history including ..... Nicholls....Elliott.....Pratt.

 

[btdg]

You don't seem to be able to understand that it's not about the prices of beer or chocolate. We have a regulated industry that protects competition and ensures consumers get a fairly priced product. In this case that has been circumvented through dishonesty. On each slab of beer or piece of fruit you buy or for that matter anything that has been transported or packaged in a cardboard box you pay a surplus in the total price which goes towards the cost of purchasing that packaging. The price of beer or chocolate hasn't gone up but regardless of that I and for that matter you have been paying Visy or Amcor 15c (an example) of ill gotten gains for price fixing when you purchase an item of this nature when you should be paying 10c. Considering the majority of your consumer goods at some stage have been packaged in a cardboard box, over a period of 3 years the price difference really starts to add up. You asked how it affected everyday people on the street, well that's how it does.

Do the AFL care? of course not. We're talking about an administrator that is arguably in breach of restraint of trade laws with regards to the elimination of passouts to increase catering revenue.

I think you hit on the exact point with your comparison to the AFL. Every business out there wants to decrease competition, and its arguably in breach of restraint of trade laws in every case. In the industry I work in, there is an unspoken agreement in place not to speak directly to clients of the opposition; partly this stops them being harassed non-stop by sales pitches, but it also serves to reduce competition. The AFL does the same thing with regards to pass-outs. A potential successor to the Pratt prosecution as the largest antitrust suit in Australian history is currently being fought between the 3 commercial TV stations over AFL tv rights - with channel 7 suing channels 9, 10 and foxtel (including, by association, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire). Microsoft in the USA were prosecuted for anticompetitive behaviour - but would anyone have an issue with Bill Gates running the Western Bulldogs if he wanted to? I'd go so far as to say ALL large corporations seek to act anti-competitively where possible. That's why we have the ACCC, and occasionally it leads to prosecution.

The ACCC rarely, if ever, chases up large companies for anti-competitive behaviour. Generally, they are outmatched finanically and don't have the resources, or the evidence to do so. In this case, they only made a prosecution because one of the parties involved spoke out - and that appears to have happened only because Pratt's company (note, Visy is a separate entity to Dick Pratt) broke the agreement. When they do prosecute, they seek massive punitive damages (that are rarely fully awarded) as a way of publicising the case to detract others from doing the same.

Don't be fooled by the publicity. What Pratt did was unethical and stupid. It ripped off thousands of Australians (although by negligible amounts - despite the press, the people who really would have lost are the shareholders of the other major corporations that Visy ripped off. If it was actually about the public, no-one would care). But its no worse that than the actions of hundreds of other businesses, and it certainly doesn't impact at all on Pratt's role as president of Carlton (unless he loses his pokie eligibility).

 

[Monkey King]

......Pratt - surely any deals done on his watch should be regarded as null and void!!!

Surely? I couldn't see why if they're above board. This topic is really starting to go stale. People seem to be just jumping on to these threads and typing the first thing that comes into their heads, true or false; reasonable or not.

A long history including ..... Nicholls....Elliott.....Pratt.

Nicholls

 

[Simche]

I think you hit on the exact point with your comparison to the AFL. Every business out there wants to decrease competition, and its arguably in breach of restraint of trade laws in every case. In the industry I work in, there is an unspoken agreement in place not to speak directly to clients of the opposition; partly this stops them being harassed non-stop by sales pitches, but it also serves to reduce competition. The AFL does the same thing with regards to pass-outs. A potential successor to the Pratt prosecution as the largest antitrust suit in Australian history is currently being fought between the 3 commercial TV stations over AFL tv rights - with channel 7 suing channels 9, 10 and foxtel (including, by association, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire). Microsoft in the USA were prosecuted for anticompetitive behaviour - but would anyone have an issue with Bill Gates running the Western Bulldogs if he wanted to? I'd go so far as to say ALL large corporations seek to act anti-competitively where possible. That's why we have the ACCC, and occasionally it leads to prosecution.

The ACCC rarely, if ever, chases up large companies for anti-competitive behaviour. Generally, they are outmatched finanically and don't have the resources, or the evidence to do so. In this case, they only made a prosecution because one of the parties involved spoke out - and that appears to have happened only because Pratt's company (note, Visy is a separate entity to Dick Pratt) broke the agreement. When they do prosecute, they seek massive punitive damages (that are rarely fully awarded) as a way of publicising the case to detract others from doing the same.

Don't be fooled by the publicity. What Pratt did was unethical and stupid. It ripped off thousands of Australians (although by negligible amounts - despite the press, the people who really would have lost are the shareholders of the other major corporations that Visy ripped off. If it was actually about the public, no-one would care). But its no worse that than the actions of hundreds of other businesses, and it certainly doesn't impact at all on Pratt's role as president of Carlton (unless he loses his pokie eligibility).

Couldn't agree with you more re the ACCC. They are a pathetically weak entity that continues to let a few companies (Telstra among them) do as they like whilst crucifying others. In this case however I am totally behind them. We really aren't tough enough on white collar crime in this country and I hate the general perception bandied about that it does nothing to your everyday joe.

To be honest I think you'll find that Pratt will most likely have to step down with regards to the pokies as he has to be of 'fit and proper character' according to legislation to get a license, though debate will be about the lack of a criminal conviction. Mind you he wouldn't be the first person to get the license in someone else's name say Stephen Kernahan and use him as a puppet.

As for the perpetrator being Visy a seperate entity to Dick Pratt there are few here that will debate that. The Federal Court however singled out Pratt, who still maintains that he knew nothing of his directors actions for special criticism regarding dishonesty. I don't think for a minute though that anybody in here actually believes that the Visy directors were acting on anyone other than Dick Pratt's orders.

Finally the massive punitive damages he was charged of 36m is just a drop in the ocean and most probably doesn't even cover the gains made by price fixing. It is as you said more for publicity purposes than actually to reprimand Visy as financially it does nothing.

I certainly don't like Dick Pratt for his actions and prefer he wasn't involved in football at any club or level however I think it's a rather rich scenario where the AFL can manage to frown upon a charge of holding drugs without prescription (later dropped because it wasn't in liquid form) and failure to take a blood test (which again will be thrown out as he's under no legal obligation) and charge Cousins with bringing the game into disrepute yet remain entirely silent on the Pratt matter.

 

[btdg]

Couldn't agree with you more re the ACCC. They are a pathetically weak entity that continues to let a few companies (Telstra among them) do as they like whilst crucifying others. In this case however I am totally behind them. We really aren't tough enough on white collar crime in this country and I hate the general perception bandied about that it does nothing to your everyday joe.

To be honest I think you'll find that Pratt will most likely have to step down with regards to the pokies as he has to be of 'fit and proper character' according to legislation to get a license, though debate will be about the lack of a criminal conviction. Mind you he wouldn't be the first person to get the license in someone else's name say Stephen Kernahan and use him as a puppet.

As for the perpetrator being Visy a seperate entity to Dick Pratt there are few here that will debate that. The Federal Court however singled out Pratt, who still maintains that he knew nothing of his directors actions for special criticism regarding dishonesty. I don't think for a minute though that anybody in here actually believes that the Visy directors were acting on anyone other than Dick Pratt's orders.

Finally the massive punitive damages he was charged of 36m is just a drop in the ocean and most probably doesn't even cover the gains made by price fixing. It is as you said more for publicity purposes than actually to reprimand Visy as financially it does nothing.

I certainly don't like Dick Pratt for his actions and prefer he wasn't involved in football at any club or level however I think it's a rather rich scenario where the AFL can manage to frown upon a charge of holding drugs without prescription (later dropped because it wasn't in liquid form) and failure to take a blood test (which again will be thrown out as he's under no legal obligation) and charge Cousins with bringing the game into disrepute yet remain entirely silent on the Pratt matter.

The issue with white-collar crime is that it stems so often from grey areas. Companies almost by definition want to be anti-competitive. Publicly listed companies have an obligation to be anti-competitive; directors can be prosecuted for not acting in the best interests of their shareholders, which may mean trying to get rid of the competition. In some cases, that might mean not being competitive; not targetting competitors clients in the hope they do the same to you, or targetting new markets rather than competitors to minimise the costs of competing (if that makes sense). But make that too explicit, as happened with Pratt, and you are acting illegally (and actually discussing prices doesn't help, either).

As for Cousins - I think the issue is that he has been dealt with harshly, not that Pratt has been dealt with leniently. Its a red herring to throw up Pratt, almost as if people can't make Cousin's case strongly enough so they try and deflect attention. Has Pratt, in any way, brought the game of football into disrepute? Absolutely not. Did Cousins? That's another issue totally. For mine, he didn't this time around, but did 12 months ago; West Coast and the AFL did nothing then, were criticised for it, and over-reacted this time.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

pratt. cousins has only been hurting himself.