Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

[Raw Toast]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Just seems pretty silly and wrong that Pratt isn't up for jail.

I reckon the AFL are happy to have him at Carlton because they want the Blues to be successful again (after all they've been through ). But it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and I'm sure Carlton is doing they're bit to escalate the spending war going on at the moment (a war we can hardly enter, let alone try and break even in).

[LostDoggy]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Because his lawyers ran a brilliant defence that not only got him off but directly led to the abolition of the National Crime Authority which was the force that brought the charges against him.

Have you ever had the opportunity to read John Elliott's autobiography? Very interesting book, I read it all in one hit.

Throughout it all, it is obvious that John Elliott believes in the born to rule and the born to servitude philosophy and he views himself as belonging in the former category. He discusses the supposed stinking toilets at the Western Oval- near the Whitten Stand.
Obviously he never watched Carlton from the standing room area near the Scoreboard- the toilets there, adjacent to the main scoreboard had no roof, all up until they built their Legends Stand, but he does not mention that in his book- perhaps he didn't know? He probably never ventured to that part of the ground.

He also talks of taking Malcolm Fraser to the football in 1975 as his guest, just after Fraser had toppled Billy Snedden as Liberal Pary leader (and then at that time Federal Opposition leader- November 11th was still months away). Sir Maurice Nathan who was the then President of the VFL had as his guest Billy Snedden. He mentions how Fraser and Snedden barely spoke a word to each other during the day, Billy Snedden no longer was on the job as Liberal Pary leader after Memphis Mal Fraser had stitched him up. Anyhow Elliott lambasted Sir Maurice for inviting Snedden when he (Elliott) had Malcolm Fraser as his guest saying it was poor form of Sir Maurice to invite Billy Snedden?

I could not work that one out- why was Sir Maurice Nathan out of order and but not Elliott? Or at least why were both Elliott and Sir Maurice Nathan in the wrong, rather than just Sir Maurice Nathan?

I have seen him at the races at Flemington - heading off up to the exclusive Chairman's Club on Level 3 of the new Grandstand. For a bankrupt he seems to be slumming it better than other down and outers. One of those occassions happened to be the night of the 2005 Fosters Cup Final, so when I watched him in action on the telly at half time, letting us all know on National Televsion his opinions of Ian Collins, I knew he would be pretty Rasputin the Mad Monk and sure enough he didn't let me down.

Elliott's headstrong attitude went a long way to turning Carlton into the rabble they are now.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

We talked briefly about it in history today, from what I learnt he really hasn't benefited from this whole thing, but he's rich enough for it to not be such a problem at the moment.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Elliott IMHO is an arrogant and ignorant cock head and certainly doesn't appear to be doing it tough. I attended the President's lunch for the Carlton v Roos match at TD recently. Elliott and Kekovich left at half time with Elliot saying "I'm not staying to watch this shit". Not somebody I admire.

[The Underdog]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Elliott IMHO is an arrogant and ignorant cock head and certainly doesn't appear to be doing it tough. I attended the President's lunch for the Carlton v Roos match at TD recently. Elliott and Kekovich left at half time with Elliot saying "I'm not staying to watch this shit". Not somebody I admire.

Amen sister.

It's funny but his son Tom has done the finance report on RRR on monday mornings for ages. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a pretty good perspective on the ridiculousness of the business world, although he is involved in it.
Unlike in the so very controversial Chaser song the other night, Jack Elliott will hopefully not be one of those people who are suddenly fondly remembered in death.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Amen sister.

It's funny but his son Tom has done the finance report on RRR on monday mornings for ages. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a pretty good perspective on the ridiculousness of the business world, although he is involved in it.
Unlike in the so very controversial Chaser song the other night, Jack Elliott will hopefully not be one of those people who are suddenly fondly remembered in death.

I met Tom and he is a really nice bloke. For some reason it didn't click the he was Jack's son. He never mentions it. Do remember him being a typical arrogant Calton supporter though in the mid 90s.

[Dry Rot]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Looks like the Gaming regulators may go after the crim and he may not be able to continue as President

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/blues-will-be-ok/2007/10/23/1192941065453.html

What a pity....

[Topdog]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Looks like the Gaming regulators may go after the crim and he may not be able to continue as President

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/blues-will-be-ok/2007/10/23/1192941065453.html

What a pity....

It would be just what he deserves

[The Underdog]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Can we add the word breathing to the end of this thread title?
I vote no

[Missing Dog]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Trevor Grant wrote a very good article yesterday on this topic.

Trevor Grant

November 06, 2007 12:00am

A GENERATION ago, AFL football asked no more of its players and officials than to reflect the lowest common denominator in community standards.

Players who racially abused Aboriginal opponents were merely being competitive and those who denigrated women were just being lads.

In the last decade of the 20th century, things began to change. A few enlightened administrators listened to the objections and had the foresight and courage to deem such behaviour intolerable.

They campaigned against it, which led to a dramatic reduction in racist abuse on both sides of the fence.

Next came the misogynists. The AFL has been loudly preaching respect for women for some time. Players appear in ads condemning violence against women. There is still a way to go, but the message is gaining plenty of traction.

On drugs, amid much controversy, it has steadfastly championed the health issue and developed a policy based on rehabilitation.

Suddenly, the wider community has begun to look and listen. The AFL is no longer a follower. It is a leader.

So, it should follow that when one of its major figures commits a serious offence, the league acts quickly to censure him. Or at the very least condemn his appalling behaviour.

If the drug-addicted former West Coast player Ben Cousins has sullied the reputation of the AFL, then the Carlton president and Visy boss Dick Pratt has left an indelible mark on it after pleading guilty, and being fined $36 million, for stealing an estimated $700 million from customers through a secret cartel.

Such was the gravity of the offence that Graeme Samuel, the former AFL commissioner and current Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, has declared that white-collar offenders such as Pratt should go to jail.

You might expect then that as Cousins prepares to answer a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, the papers are already on their way to Pratt.

After all, we know good leadership is about consistency, and league chief executive Andrew Demetriou is mightily proud of the role his organisation plays in the community.

Indeed, he knocks up telling players they must accept they are role models in society.

Yet all we have from the AFL is silence and from Carlton a contingency plan to ensure Pratt remains president if gaming authorities who oversee the club's right to poker machines rule he is unsuitable to hold a licence.

By saying and doing nothing in the face of Carlton's actions, the AFL is effectively condoning Pratt's offences.

If the league needs reminding, here's what Samuel thought of Pratt's actions: "Cartels are theft, usually by well-dressed thieves. They are callous, deliberate acts of greed designed to line the pockets of business executives."

Not much equivocation there.

The fact that Demetriou, between 2002 and 2006, was non-executive chairman of a waste management company in which Pratt's company had invested heavily would play no part in any league decision to remain silent.

But it is the sort of thing that leaves Demetriou, and therefore, the AFL, open to the conspiracy theorists.

The AFL continues to work hard to maintain its position as a leader in social responsibility. But it cannot pick and choose the issues.

Just as important as any other is the need to disassociate itself from illegal behaviour, whether it's committed by Australia's third-richest man, and a valuable benefactor, or a kid on a rookie list.

[Topdog]

Re: Should Pratt be allowed to continue?

Well done Trevor. Good article.