Wow you really are naive and stupid
What! for not believing some poorly researched beat up by a reporter like you obviously have.Maybe you should complain to the Sunday Star Times because this could be another beat up article
Permalink
Permalink
Nightz..... Is Lower Hutt Football Club teaching kids to swim at Bell Park?
Permalink
Permalink
Not sure you are in a position to call anyone stupid when you have the wrong 'your' in your signature. Should be "You're".
Permalink
Permalink
Nightz..... Is Lower Hutt Football Club teaching kids to swim at Bell Park?
Based on the state of it I'd say that's more than possible.
Another thing though, isn't all this confusion being caused by the name of the Trust alone? Wouldn't a name change solve the problem? I don't think anyone could realistically say that pokie machine gamblers choose to gamble at their local because they think they are supporting Water Safety, could they?
Why don't they just change their name to the Mermaid Trust or whatever, and then this becomes a non-story.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
The false promise of mermaids will cause problems particularly with the gamblers. "Money For Whoever We Choose (GGF)"
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
Nightz..... Is Lower Hutt Football Club teaching kids to swim at Bell Park?
Based on the state of it I'd say that's more than possible.
Another thing though, isn't all this confusion being caused by the name of the Trust alone? Wouldn't a name change solve the problem? I don't think anyone could realistically say that pokie machine gamblers choose to gamble at their local because they think they are supporting Water Safety, could they?
Why don't they just change their name to the Mermaid Trust or whatever, and then this becomes a non-story.
I doubt many gamblers would gamble in certain pubs because they think the money is going to a particular trust. You are right the confusion is in the name but then again the purpose of the trust was set up to support water safety and some water safety funding is getting turned down. The main concern i have is about the conflict of interest and how a club could use that much money on admin costs.
Permalink
Permalink
Nightz..... Is Lower Hutt Football Club teaching kids to swim at Bell Park?
Based on the state of it I'd say that's more than possible.
Another thing though, isn't all this confusion being caused by the name of the Trust alone? Wouldn't a name change solve the problem? I don't think anyone could realistically say that pokie machine gamblers choose to gamble at their local because they think they are supporting Water Safety, could they?
Why don't they just change their name to the Mermaid Trust or whatever, and then this becomes a non-story.
I doubt many gamblers would gamble in certain pubs because they think the money is going to a particular trust. You are right the confusion is in the name but then again the purpose of the trust was set up to support water safety and some water safety funding is getting turned down. The main concern i have is about the conflict of interest and how a club could use that much money on admin costs.
You sound like a reporter. I suggest you check again the purpose of the trust. It is stated earlier in this thread, as is the reason that a certain orgainisation was turned down for funding.
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
Wow you really are naive and stupid
What! for not believing some poorly researched beat up by a reporter like you obviously have.
before you try and take the mick out of him - have you even read sundays paper?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Wow you really are naive and stupid
What! for not believing some poorly researched beat up by a reporter like you obviously have.
before you try and take the mick out of him - have you even read sundays paper?
Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
I as a footballer and resident hippie hate the way our sport is funded. And the water safety/LHFC is a perfect example of why. Dirty money sourced by dirty means.
Time for a government overhaul methinks.
Time for a government overhaul methinks.
I let my guitar speak for me
Permalink
Permalink
Nightz..... Is Lower Hutt Football Club teaching kids to swim at Bell Park?
[/QUOTE]Based on the state of it I'd say that's more than possible.
Another thing though, isn't all this confusion being caused by the name of the Trust alone? Wouldn't a name change solve the problem? I don't think anyone could realistically say that pokie machine gamblers choose to gamble at their local because they think they are supporting Water Safety, could they?
Why don't they just change their name to the Mermaid Trust or whatever, and then this becomes a non-story.
Except that the confusion around the name of the trust vs its authorised purpose is only one of three different issues under investigation.
The key passage in the story is this one:
[Quote=Sunday Star Times]In January 2010, in response to questions from the Sunday Star-Times, Department of Internal Affairs said it was auditing the trust, and "investigating" the grants process for conflicts of interest and any possible "unlawful involvement of key persons... it is too early to reach any conclusions".
That audit report, released last May, criticised the foundation's excessive administrative costs, but didn't dip a toe into investigating its grants, saying these were the subject of separate investigations.
Last month, in response to another inquiry, the department said Water Safety was making grants which matched its authorised purpose, which was to give grants to its local communities. The department said an investigation into "possible conflicts of interest" around the Lower Hutt football club was "unfinished"
So...
Issue 1: Are the administration costs of the Water Safety Education Foundation excessive? (meaning less money is available to be distributed through grants).
Answer: Yes, but the DIA has already warned them about this in May 2010 and presumably they are taking corrective action.
Issue 2: Is the Water Safety Education Foundation making grants outside of its authorised purpose?
Answer: No. Despite the confusing name, its authorised purpose allows it to make grants to other community organisations and the DIA has confirmed this is OK.
Issue 3: Are there "possible conflicts of interest" and "unlawful involvement of key persons" in the relationship between the Water Safety Education Foundation, its venues and Lower Hutt City Football Club?
Answer: We don't know yet. The DIA's investigation is unfinished.
Permalink
Permalink
Wow you really are naive and stupid
What! for not believing some poorly researched beat up by a reporter like you obviously have.
before you try and take the mick out of him - have you even read sundays paper?
Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
You know its a witch hunt Feverish.Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
I don't particularly like that New Zealand has become so completely reliant on the proceeds of gambling for community funding.
Given that it is the system currently in place, however, the least we should all expect is that it is being run fairly and that organisations are competing for funding on a level playing field.
Yes, it is good that the sport can obtain funding but only if all clubs have the same chance of getting some. If some clubs are able to get more than their fair share through improper relationships between clubs, venues and trusts then that not only reduces true competition on the field but also brings the whole system into disrepute. I'm all in favour of those involved being prosecuted if caught.
Permalink
Permalink
Wow you really are naive and stupid
What! for not believing some poorly researched beat up by a reporter like you obviously have.
before you try and take the mick out of him - have you even read sundays paper?
Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
Thought a relative (son IIRC) plays or played for LH?
Permalink
Permalink
That was a number of years ago 2ndbest, one of the many that has now moved on.
I don't particularly like that New Zealand has become so completely reliant on the proceeds of gambling for community funding.[/QUOTE]
Agree with you there but the booze/tobacco money is long gone.
Where do you suggest the funding comes from? I know of sponsers that pulled out because they weren't getting a return, in other words benefiting members choose not to support their business.
[QUOTE=terminator_x]
I'm all in favour of those involved being prosecuted if caught.
[QUOTE=terminator_x]
I'm all in favour of those involved being prosecuted if caught.
They should be and have been in other sports.
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
Wow you really are naive and stupid
What! for not believing some poorly researched beat up by a reporter like you obviously have.
before you try and take the mick out of him - have you even read sundays paper?
Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
Permalink
Permalink
You know its a witch hunt Feverish.Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
I don't particularly like that New Zealand has become so completely reliant on the proceeds of gambling for community funding.
Given that it is the system currently in place, however, the least we should all expect is that it is being run fairly and that organisations are competing for funding on a level playing field.
Completely agree with this.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Just in defence of Lower Hutt here - they haven't been smoking the money, or spending outrageously on players.
They pay Brendan McIntyre. I have no idea how much, but I'm sure it's a fairly modest salary. And they pay some of their first team to run coaching programmes, but they do actually run those coaching programmes.
And they have spent a whole lot of money upgrading their gym at Fraser Park, but that's a good thing surely? The sort of thing we would hope to see gaming machine funding used for.
I suspect the remaining investigation is historical. If I'm right, to what extent is it fair to punish the club for things that have happened some time ago under different management?
They pay Brendan McIntyre. I have no idea how much, but I'm sure it's a fairly modest salary. And they pay some of their first team to run coaching programmes, but they do actually run those coaching programmes.
And they have spent a whole lot of money upgrading their gym at Fraser Park, but that's a good thing surely? The sort of thing we would hope to see gaming machine funding used for.
I suspect the remaining investigation is historical. If I'm right, to what extent is it fair to punish the club for things that have happened some time ago under different management?
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Just in defence of Lower Hutt here - they haven't been smoking the money, or spending outrageously on players.
They pay Brendan McIntyre. I have no idea how much, but I'm sure it's a fairly modest salary. And they pay some of their first team to run coaching programmes, but they do actually run those coaching programmes.
And they have spent a whole lot of money upgrading their gym at Fraser Park, but that's a good thing surely? The sort of thing we would hope to see gaming machine funding used for.
I suspect the remaining investigation is historical. If I'm right, to what extent is it fair to punish the club for things that have happened some time ago under different management?
They pay Brendan McIntyre. I have no idea how much, but I'm sure it's a fairly modest salary. And they pay some of their first team to run coaching programmes, but they do actually run those coaching programmes.
And they have spent a whole lot of money upgrading their gym at Fraser Park, but that's a good thing surely? The sort of thing we would hope to see gaming machine funding used for.
I suspect the remaining investigation is historical. If I'm right, to what extent is it fair to punish the club for things that have happened some time ago under different management?
Actually it is completely fair as the club is the entity that benefited from any (alleged) conflict of interest & should have had procedures in place to prevent it happening. Although is saying that if there is proved to be any issues then those that instigated them are more deserving of legal sanction.
Permalink
Permalink
I don't follow you Teza?
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
I was commenting on your last paragraph Smithy:
1: If there is shown to be a conflict of interest that allowed the club to gain unfair access to funds then the club as a whole benefited from this so the 'club' needs to face the music (as well as any officers of the club who were involved of course). It would also indicate (to me at least) that the processes and procedures that the club ran under were deficient as they did not flag the conflict of interest (or it was ignored which to my mind is worse).
Of course until Internal Affairs come out with a report then this is all just a theoretical discussion.
Permalink
Permalink
In this particular case there doesn't seem to be any issue around what Lower Hutt applied for funding for and what they spent it on (which are meant to be the same thing).
The only unresolved issue is whether there is, or has been, a "conflict of interest" or "unlawful involvement of key persons" which means Lower Hutt FC has received favourable treatment from the Water Safety Education Foundation.
The various sections of The Gambling Act 2003 specify whether it is an individual or an organisation that will be prosecuted for contravening the particular section. For the types of offences that we are talking about here it is mainly individuals who are liable, so Lower Hutt FC would be unlikely to be prosecuted. The punishments for individuals are typically fines of up to $10,000 (plus a criminal record of course).
Permalink
Permalink
[QUOTE=nightz
I dont see whats so funny about that Buildit. Most know I'm a member at Petone.Shoulldnt we, as football players/supporters, be happy that our sport is able to obtain funding. I know that I am, and for those that are wondering I have no affilation whatsoever with LHFC.
[/QUOTE]
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
Just in defence of Lower Hutt here - they haven't been smoking the money, or spending outrageously on players.
They pay Brendan McIntyre. I have no idea how much, but I'm sure it's a fairly modest salary. And they pay some of their first team to run coaching programmes, but they do actually run those coaching programmes.
And they have spent a whole lot of money upgrading their gym at Fraser Park, but that's a good thing surely? The sort of thing we would hope to see gaming machine funding used for.
I suspect the remaining investigation is historical. If I'm right, to what extent is it fair to punish the club for things that have happened some time ago under different management?
I"m starting to get really worried now Smithy. We are agreeing way to often for my liking.They pay Brendan McIntyre. I have no idea how much, but I'm sure it's a fairly modest salary. And they pay some of their first team to run coaching programmes, but they do actually run those coaching programmes.
And they have spent a whole lot of money upgrading their gym at Fraser Park, but that's a good thing surely? The sort of thing we would hope to see gaming machine funding used for.
I suspect the remaining investigation is historical. If I'm right, to what extent is it fair to punish the club for things that have happened some time ago under different management?
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
I was commenting on your last paragraph Smithy:
1: If there is shown to be a conflict of interest that allowed the club to gain unfair access to funds then the club as a whole benefited from this so the 'club' needs to face the music (as well as any officers of the club who were involved of course). It would also indicate (to me at least) that the processes and procedures that the club ran under were deficient as they did not flag the conflict of interest (or it was ignored which to my mind is worse).
Of course until Internal Affairs come out with a report then this is all just a theoretical discussion.
Right I getcha.
I guess what I'm wondering is what would be a fair consequence IF (as I'm guessing) this all happened some time ago.
Remember if you're punishing the "club" you're effectively punishing hundreds of football playing men, women and children who had nothing to do with any of these decisions except insofar as they might have exercised their voting right to elect a Board to manage the club.
I also think it's poor to judge the club in the court of public opinion. There's a lot of info we don't have, so I think people should at least give them some benefit of the doubt.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
LHFC probably didn't get the funding illegally, rather though an unscionable route. Fairness in accessing the pokie fund by other applicants would be another issue. Transparency, conflicts of inetrest, ethical issues and governance at the Water Safety Education Foundation should be examined by Internal Affairs though. Water Safety Eduvcation Foundation sounds like a sham just to collect the pokie money to benefit a small select group of applicants.
Permalink
Permalink
Teza's right that it's not a good look for Lower Hutt if they are found to have benefited from any dodgy funding deals. If there was any dodginess going on there are also bound to people within the club who weren't directly involved but who had their suspicions (and I'm sorry but a club owning bars paying pokie proceeds to a trust that then makes grants back to the club is, at least at face value, wrong!).
terminator_x2011-06-24 13:45:53
But, as I've already posted, The Gambling Act seems pretty clear - it is individuals, not organisations, who can be prosecuted for these types of "conflict of interest" or "unlawful influence" situations.
I might be wrong but I don't think the members of Lower Hutt need to worry too much about the club itself being adversely affected by this. Individual past and present members might be sweating over it though.
If anyone at Lower Hutt knows something and is concerned they might be implicated the DIA actually has a Leniency and Cooperation Policy that offers immunity from proceedings where an investigation has not started or suitable evidence has not yet been gained.
Permalink
Permalink
Teza's right that it's not a good look for Lower Hutt if they are found to have benefited from any dodgy funding deals. If there was any dodginess going on there are also bound to people within the club who weren't directly involved but who had their suspicions (and I'm sorry but a club owning bars paying pokie proceeds to a trust that then makes grants back to the club is, at least at face value, wrong!).
But, as I've already posted, The Gambling Act seems pretty clear - it is individuals, not organisations, who can be prosecuted for these types of "conflict of interest" or "unlawful influence" situations.
I might be wrong but I don't think the members of Lower Hutt need to worry too much about the club itself being adversely affected by this. Individual past and present members might be sweating over it though.
If anyone at Lower Hutt knows something and is concerned they might be implicated the DIA actually has a Leniency and Cooperation Policy that offers immunity from proceedings where an investigation has not started or suitable evidence has not yet been gained.
You are completely right about the individual thing. You would think even though they are applying for the grant for the club that they should automatically become liable for any wrong doing or "dodgy deals". As much as i don't like Lower Hutt AFC I would still be quite upset if the Club as a whole got punished if it turns out there was any conflict of interest or wrong doings. It wouldn't be fair on the players and current members who had nothing to do with it
Permalink
Permalink
You are completely right about the individual thing. You would think even though they are applying for the grant for the club that they should automatically become liable for any wrong doing or "dodgy deals". As much as i don't like Lower Hutt AFC I would still be quite upset if the Club as a whole got punished if it turns out there was any conflict of interest or wrong doings. It wouldn't be fair on the players and current members who had nothing to do with it
As both a Junior Coach and a player for Lower Hutt. I would be really pissed if the whole club got punished. I don't care if individuals get punished if they did something wrong. But I would hate to see the kids I coach keep punished for mistakes others have made.
If club gets punish, it would most likely collapse with everyone leaving it. Just look 3 senior members of the club have left and gone to Upper Hutt. So quite worried about what is happening internally.
I'm an optimistic pessimist.
I'm positive things will go wrong.
Permalink
Permalink
Lower Hutt City Association Football and Sports Club Inc
Not up to speed with latest legislation, but I always thought that the Incorporated Societies Act protected individual club members from being prosecuted. We're Forever Causing Trouble
Permalink
Permalink
"You are completely right about the individual thing. You would think
even though they are applying for the grant for the club that they
should automatically become liable for any wrong doing or "dodgy deals".
As much as i don't like Lower Hutt AFC I would still be quite upset if
the Club as a whole got punished if it turns out there was any conflict
of interest or wrong doings. It wouldn't be fair on the players and
current members who had nothing to do with it"
It's not fair but I cant see why not. The whole of New Zealand Football usually gets punished when those at the top get it wrong.
It's not fair but I cant see why not. The whole of New Zealand Football usually gets punished when those at the top get it wrong.
Permalink
Permalink
I wonder if patterson saw something coming and that might of contributed to the reason he left.
Permalink
Permalink
With all these people leaving its starting to feel like rats leaving a sinking ship!
I'm an optimistic pessimist.
I'm positive things will go wrong.
Permalink
Permalink
Rumours are a committee meeting was held to get rid of Macca, the entire Senior Committee voted to sack him, the entire Junior not to sack him.
Permalink
Permalink
Why would the Junior Committee have a say on who's the 1st team coach?
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
Remember these are only rumours but what I gathered was that it was a full committee vote, the juniors voted to keep him because of his youth policy
Permalink
Permalink