Notes from the 2016 South Melbourne Hellas AGM (no, not the one from earlier in the year, the other one, the proper one)

Usual necessary disclaimer
This report was done in something more akin to a thematic order rather than reflecting the precise order of the events of the evening. Circumstances on the night made it much harder to take notes in my usual and only slightly more precise manner, as you will see.

Man, we're missin' the Death Blow!
Due to an unfortunate confluence of events, I missed the first 15 minutes or so of the 2016 South Melbourne Hellas AGM because of first, family duties and later, a disappearing tram. What took part during my absence was described as both a non-event, but also as the most contentious part of the evening, as matters of constitutional validity were apparently discussed in a heated manner. My arrival at the AGM coincided with the end of that discussion, where someone from the floor attempted in vain to put up a motion to demand president Leo Athanasakis' resignation. Unfortunately, having not been present for those exchanges, I can't report on them with any reliability.

With regards to the possible need for an election and its attendant bloodletting and turmoil, in the end there was no need for elections. One of the four alleged nominees for the board appears to have pulled out, and thus the other three have joined the board without issue or the need to force an election. How that was organised or played out behind the scenes, I don't know. What I do know is that I am glad that it did not need to come to an election at this point in time. We'll see how it all plays out in practice however.

Should the Democratic People's Republic of South Melbourne Hellas implement the policy of changing to rule by philosopher kings? Philosopher kings say 'yes', low income nobodies say 'no'.
That sequence of events therefore passed almost without issue. One member, towards the end of the night's proceedings, asked that in future we consider setting strict(er) criteria about who should be allowed to sit on the board of the club. While this was probably intended in the context of a strengthening of our board's overall corporate governance expertise and credentials, especially considering the range of sponsor, stakeholder and statutory bodies we deal with, it was taken by some (and not without good reason) as an attack on the status of the club as a member run club; one where any member is entitled to apply to join the board regardless of some esoteric notion of 'qualification'.

For his part, chairman Nick Galatas noted that there were already such provisions in place from the 1977 constitution, but more importantly that the club was looking to modernise the constitution in the future, something which I have been an advocate of for some time. The club that exists now, and the conditions that it exists in now, need to operate under a constitutional framework that reflects that reality. The reduction of the board from 21 to 11 earlier this year was one of those necessary changes.

Still, as a member run club we must be wary of unreasonably diluting the rights of members. Circumstances will seemingly always arise in such entities whereby people, either because of the effects of meritocracy or plutocracy, will come to dominate board positions, and in our late capitalist state of being that's to be expected. But this club is still at least nominally a collective, and it needs to reflect that fact - or at least until such time as the members willingly decide to forfeit their status as nominally equal members of that collective.

It's money that I love/social club progress
The financial report came towards the end of the evening, which was an unusual occurrence - usually it is among the first items dealt with. The consolidated accounts showed a profit of about $16k, up from about $7k from the previous financial year. The president, who as usual provided the report instead of the treasurer, noted that over the course of the past ten years, our turnover has gone from roughly $600k to about $1.4 million. With the operation of the social club, futsal court and the addition of the WNPL/Women's component, the club hopes (expects?) to double that turnover.

On the question of how the social club will operate in terms of management, a venue manager will be hired - and rather than reporting to a general manager (a role which at present does not exist at the club since the departure of Peter Kokotis a year or so back I think), the venue manager will report directly to the board. One of the goals of the board is to gradually delegate the day to day management of the club away from board members and towards paid staff. Apart from lessening the heavy workload currently undertaken by our board members, it would also allow them to focus more on strategy as opposed to the day to day implementation and operation of the club.

Whereas in the past the club had asserted that it would probably take out a loan of about $200k to finish the social club redevelopment, the actual figure that the club plans to take out is about $450k. The confidence in being able to take manage such a loan is based (at least from my understanding) on two separate but related criteria. The first is that an operational social club and futsal centre will bring in money to the club. The second relates to the paying off of the Wellington Investments debt

The paying off of the debenture loan debt is near completion - there are at most two payments left to make on that as of yesterday. Athanasakis sought to emphasise the burden of the paying off of that debt, which was incurred from the machinations of the club's attempt to stave off extinction back in 2004. Apart from managing to erase that debt once and for all, the end of this saga means a debt that added nothing to the club, finally allows the club to turn towards investment and expansion of its operations. On the related matter of whether the club had enough working capital to commence operation of the bistro and futsal centre, the answer was 'yes'.

There have been delays in aspects of the social club rebuild, though the cause of the delays was not specified. It did seem to be confirmed in a circuitous fashion that these delays were the reason we will be playing our opening seven games of the season away from home. The club is optimistic however that the extended build period will allow the build team to complete the task er, completely, as opposed to I suppose having a functional operation that will still require further work even after its official opening.

Intruder alert!
The underused upstairs function space has had a redesign, decreasing the size of the function room space and adding some office space. The club is open to options in utilising that function space, while the newly added office space will apparently be used by the Sydney Swans as part of their Melbourne presence. This presents an opportunity for the Swans and ourselves to liaise - even if only limited to them hiring out or using our social club space - in a manner which has not happened for many years.

Winning is our business... and business is good... but also expensive
Following the end of the South Melbourne Hellas AGM, we went almost immediately into the SMFC AGM, which was very brief, and was more or less a procedural formality. I can't recall if it was during this meeting where the on field aspect was discussed, but I'll put that discussion here anyway. Apart from looking back at the year that was, senior football director Nick Maikousis outlined the signings we have made; the signings we are likely to make; the youth players we're looking to promote; the players who have left; and the remaining players whose status at the club remains up in the air.

Also, it was confirmed that one of our new signings, Ajdin Fetahagić, did his ACL during a training session, and will probably miss most of the 2017 season.

It was noted that the season was by and large a success - after all, we won the title - but that it was also a difficult season, and one perhaps salvaged by coming good at the right time of year. It was noted that, as we had run out of legs in 2015, so did Bentleigh in 2016, and that managing such a lengthy campaign with its increasingly congested schedule is difficult for semi-professional footballers to manage. While there is ongoing consternation among some of our fans for our failure to take advantage of the FFA Cup opportunity, the reality is that the FFA Cup is an unreliable means of getting national attention. One bad game, one difficult opponent, and it's over.

(I will note here as an aside, that despite some talk about the national NPL playoff series being scrapped, this appears to not be the case, and thus there is always the second chance raffle of qualifying for the FFA Cup via that route. Not us, of course, because we'd bugger it up, but I'm speaking from a theoretical point here).

It was noted also that winning in senior men's football in this competition is an expensive business, but since winning is our main business, it can be difficult to contain the costs of wages. Nevertheless, as the board has reiterated at previous AGMs, the club does not believe that it pays as much as some rival teams - especially in terms of signing on bonuses - and more importantly, it is trying to create a sustainable winning culture. Maikousis also noted, I believe in response to a question from the floor, that we wanted to and would continue to aim for winning every trophy that was available to us.

A word about the women
Mention was made of the on field success of the women's teams in 2016, and the reappointment of Socrates Nicolaides as the senior coach. There was also mention made of course about our successful bidding for a WNPL licence, and the preparation that took place in order to secure that licence - it's fair to say that there was some moderate boasting about the quality of the licence bid document that the club put together for that purpose. There was also much praise for the fact the women are now back in the fold.

There was no mention that I can recall of SMWFC and how it would function from 2017 onwards, nor anything about the relationship between SMFC and SMWFC. Also not very many women in attendance at the AGM either. Just saying.

And here come the procedural complaints, finally
Unusually for these effectively consolidated meetings - two separate groups, two separate boards, but basically one and the same - the whole thing was over in less than two hours. That meant that the agenda was largely adhered to by those in attendance, but it did feel like there could have been more time made for questions from the floor. While several board members did make the time after the meeting to discuss things one on one with members who had further questions - a gesture which I applaud - I felt that the official part of the meeting could have had more time for questions.

On a personal level, I think next year I will make a more concerted effort to get the club to provide membership breakdowns and attendances. These used to be provided in AGMs, but have gone missing over the past five years or so. I see no good reason for the members not to know what our membership and attendance figures are - though of course I could come up with reasons why the board or the club would not want to do so.

Now being armed with an annual list of questions, even in my late rush to compile a list this year (and thanks to 'anonymous' for adding some good ones to the comments at such late notice). it was disappointing not to be able to ask a few more questions. I don't expect to have them all answered, because otherwise we'd still be there now, but I feel like we - perhaps against the usual procedure - rushed through things a bit. Or maybe the absence of Tom Kalas and his 'legendary PowerPoint presentations' (which were noted in the 2015 AGM minutes) made things run much more smoothly.

One hopes that this will be the final time the Presidents Room will ever be used as an AGM venue. Despite the poor delivery of the notice of an AGM and the lousy timing of the meetings, the AGM was very well attended. Indeed, there were so many members in attendance that about a dozen people, including your correspondent, had to stand at the back of the room for the near two hour duration of the meetings - a fact which was made less pleasant by the smell of paint or plaster or some such at the back of the room.

(Arriving late and standing at the back as opposed to sitting also served to direct more attention to myself, which was not entirely a desired outcome. I expected to not have very much to say at this meeting, what with all the apparent discontent among some of the masses; in the end I also ended up proposing and occasionally seconding several of the procedural motions - adopting minutes, approval of the auditor, etc - because it seemed that no one else would, which also became a sort of weird joke. There was also some notable absentees last night, such as George Karantonis.)

Next year one hopes that the redeveloped social club will play host to the AGM, which one also hopes will be held at a more reasonable time of year, and on a more reasonable day. While acknowledging also that scheduling conflicts can occur, one would also like to see the full complement of board members at next year's meeting; on that front the absence yesterday of Bill Papastergiadis and Andrew Mesorouni was unfortunate. While Mesorouni's absence was adequately covered by Nick Maikousis, who shares football director duties with him, Papastergiadis' absence (for legitimate personal reasons) meant that the A-League bid discussion did not have its main figurehead present to discuss strategy and detail with the members.

Overall the club seems to be continuing on a steady journey of consolidating its on and field positions as a leading soccer club in this state. Its members seem to be as engaged as I've ever seen them with the operation of the club, if last night's attendance is anything to go by; that in itself is cause for quiet celebration. Nevertheless the challenges the club faces in this restrictive operational environment will persist, continuing to make it difficult to realise the club's full potential, whatever that may be. One hesitates to fall back on the notion of being too big for this competition, but too small for the next one, for fear of coming across as arrogant, but there is a measure of truth to that.

You didn't think we'd forgotten about this issue?
And so we come in a very roundabout way to the matter of the A-League bid. The club noted last night that it was the lack of a likely creation of a second division that saw the club head towards the direction of formulating a bid. For those hoping for a curbing of the club's, shall we say, 'extroverted' approach to publicity, you're out of luck. For those who are interested in how Lakeside as an A-League venue may look in terms of added (temporary) seating capacity, the Usain Bolt/Nitro athletics series in early February 2017 will provide some guide.

The nature of the bid also, and whether it will be a private/public partnership, has also been thrown up into the air somewhat. Despite previous comments by Papastergiadis that the bid will involve 'several investors' - a claim which the board representative answering my question seemed to deny existed - the board retreated under cover of the line that the club will wait for the bid criteria to be released next year before making further comment on the structure of a South Melbourne aligned A-League licence bid. Because the release of the bid criteria by FFA has apparently been pushed back to some vague point mid next year, be prepared for a lot more idle speculation.

Although there was some discussion, and I may be reading too much into this, that it may be a possibility that South would still be keen an a W-League place regardless of its success/failure to win an A-League licence.

A little bit of offhand theory about future directions
Apart from its A-League ambitions, the club is aiming to take on what some have seen as a risky venture in the operation of a social club/bistro/futsal centre that is as much targeted outwards into the public as much as satisfying the needs of its own members. It is, I think, a risk that must be taken - the last thing the club needs to do is revert to a safe and comfortable introversion. That does not mean that things will necessarily go smoothly, or as well as hoped for. How an organisation deals with failure or obstacles is arguably a far better measure of its resilience than how it deals with success - and within the bounds of our circumstances, this club has had a lot of success recently.

Some of the subjects that I don't remember being broached
Why the AGM mail out was done so poorly - though that may have been covered before I got there.

Likewise why the AGM was being held so late in the year.

Anything other than the most cursory mention of our social media efforts.

Real Madrid 'relationship' and stuff to do with GISS.

BLK fiasco - admittedly not in the club's control for the most part.

Match day experience at Lakeside, in terms of being harassed by security/SSCT employees.

SM Crisis 2012 - Sandy Island Edition (with bonus whinge)

Ever heard of the island that didn't actually exist, and yet no one can quite figure out how it got onto maps?

For once a short and sharp media release.

South Melbourne FC advises that it has settled its dispute with Wellington Investments (Australia) Pty Ltd. Accordingly, the County Court Trial which was scheduled to commence in early December 2012 will now not proceed. The club will provide further information to its members in due course.

I suppose the members will find out in due course what this settlement actually means, and how it was brought about. No point in speculating until such time arrives, but if you, loyal reader, want to go for it, the comments page is there for your amusement.

It'll be interesting of course to see how the Greek Media Group goes about reporting this. We already know how Neos Kosmos feels - they don't care. And not because they don't think it's an issue - rather, because sports editor Elias Donoudis both claims not to have have any expertise on legal and financial matters, but also because South isn't important enough to talk about any more.

And not important in large part because according to him, we're not the real South Melbourne. The real South Melbourne was the one that was winning national championships. It was the South of Puskas, Anezakis, Papasavas and Vasilopoulos.

It's a gripe he has made frequently in his little Thursday column, perhaps most notably when some members of the post NSL committee (along with Paul Trimboli and Jimmy Armstrong, who still attend matches) attended the London ceremony where South was awarded the Oceania Club of the Century award.

Donoudis was appalled that Vasilopoulos and other assorted former committee members weren't representing Old South, instead of these charlatans who were pretending that Old South and New South were the same thing.

Frankly, it's a shit argument. The majority of people supporting South now would not be supporting it if they didn't feel it was a legitimate continuation of the old South. Legally, financially and historically, since we didn't go broke and start again, it is the same enterprise.

But what about socially? Well, there you may well have an argument, albeit a weak one. But just because most of our fans, as is their right, have abandoned ship in the post NSL era, it does not mean that those who stayed behind should also be required give up the more glorious parts of the South Melbourne story.

The successes - and failures - of South Melbourne Hellas do not belong to any one individual. They belong to the club. And as long there are even a smattering of recalcitrants who want to keep South Melbourne alive - and that includes all 53 years of our history, and whatever we can steal from before 1959 - then the club will continue, and so will we hope, a view of history that sees itself as part of a continuum.

If some of our former supporters want to assuage their guilt by coming up with the Old South/New South model, they can do that. But to those of us who are still here, it's offensive when they try and force that view on everyone else.

And really, I would like to see Donoudis try and tell Preston North End's supporters (for example) that their club has no relation to the one that won English league championships and FA Cups so long ago that most of their fan base has no recollection of them, that they are not the same club.

Mmm, that's some good sports rorting right here!

Firstly, this post is going to have some really bloody long sentences. I hope none of my students read this.

Secondly, I must declare that I am a Collingwood season ticket holder.

Thirdly, there's one thing that I really want to do, and that's get away from the topic du jour, so I can write about the recent Worlds of Football Conference hosted by Victoria University, even if the interest in that will only be a fraction of the recent goings on.

But that doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, especially when even the Herald Sun has decided to join the fray. And then in all likelihood, back to 3XY tomorrow...

Anyway, the article included in this blog entry is from this link, but due to the News Limited paywall, there's probably no point in clicking on it. The best to get around it is to Google the article, then visit their site from there, as for some reason that seems to get around it.

Insofar as 'smell the fear' articles go, this one I don't personally think is too bad, though who can definitively say who the dog whistling will reach?

It's biggest failing is in the details it is missing. One of these is the alleged (by rank and file athletics supporters) interference of the Collingwood triumvirate of Eddie McGuire (both Collingwood president and board member of Athletics Australia), John Brumby (then Victorian premier and noted Collingwood supporter) and Robin Fildes (former decathlete and Collingwood player, then of Athletics Victoria, now of Athletics Australia), to get the deal done for Collingwood's benefit.

While certainly understanding how such a view could be constructed, no one has ever found the smoking gun to definitely prove that there was collusion between these parties to force Athletics Victoria out of Olympic Park (and wouldn't there be fireworks if there was!).

I sympathise with the Victorian athletics community who wanted to stay there - it was their home and it had history that has been trampled on. Remembering also that Collingwood had left Victoria Park in a terrible state, and many Collingwood supporters are still very uncomfortable about having left at all. And while I'm not disappointed with the new facilities, which South supporter wouldn't have preferred to be playing at an upgraded Lakeside Stadium that was purpose built for soccer, as it was originally intended?

And at the same time, Olympic Park had had very little work done on it for about two decades. As crap as this situation is for many of the parties (except Collingwood for some reason), well at least athletics got some nice new facilities (they would never have received otherwise) and South gets to survive for another five minutes until we get sent broke by the ingrained mismanagement of the club, and the vultures - you know who you are - can swoop in and do what they've always wanted to do to us.

I am just so tired.

Here's some other things to take umbrage at:

• It's not a building of a social club, it's a redevelopment of the social club. The social club is already there.
• They've given money to upgrade the rest of Lakeside Stadium, so leaving our social club out of those plans would be kind of stupid.
• The redeveloped social club will, it is hoped and planned for anyway, be able to provide an income independent of the government stipend, which will end eventually. 
• The redevelopment money is apparently required to be used for football purposes, so the community, via the futsal court, will have access to it (as is the case with much of the rest of the facility).
• Unlike Olympic Park, which will be for the exclusive use of Collingwood (as one would expect) the $50 million spent on the facility benefits three tenants and the community at large.
• As has also been noted, it's a crappy headline, which ignore the huge state and federal grants given to Collingwood to redevelop Olympic Park, which dwarf what South is getting.
• It also ignores the entirety of what South to give up in exchange for this apparently 'free' money. This included income derived from other parts of the stadium, as well a cut of our (now admittedly meager) gate takings.
• A bit more detail on the details of the court case would be nice. The club have sent out media releases on the matter. The phrasing in the article makes us look a bit more shabby then we probably are.

And I'm glad that negotiations were viewed by the Labor Government as difficult. South had something they badly needed. Why wouldn't South do its homework in terms of ascertaining the worth of its lease, and then going for the jugular?

Taxpayers fund $4 million soccer deal as part of plan to give Collingwood Football Club control of Olympic Park

          By James Campbell

TAXPAYERS are shelling out almost $4.5 million to a Victorian Premier League soccer club under a secret deal agreed to by the Brumby government, as part of its plan to give the Collingwood Football Club exclusive control of Olympic Park. 

The payments - which run for 15 years and cost taxpayers up to $300,000 a year - were signed off by then sports minister James Merlino in return for South Melbourne FC, formerly known as Hellas, giving up its exclusive lease at the Bob Jane Stadium in South Melbourne.

When the deal was signed in 2009 the Brumby government was keen for a reluctant Athletics Victoria to move to the stadium so Olympic Park could be given to Collingwood.

The payments have come to light through documents filed in a court case that could see a receiver appointed to South Melbourne FC over a $120,000 loan it was given by supporters in 2004 and which it has never repaid.

The County Court will be asked next month to decide if South Melbourne FC is liable to repay Wellington Investments for the loan it was given at the time the club was in administration after failing to be admitted to the A-League.

The club told the court "the majority of its income, more than $300,000 per annum, is paid to it by the State Sport Centres Trust pursuant to a memorandum of understanding ... involving the Victorian State Government".

It also told the court it is "receiving the sum of $950,000 from the State Government" to build a social club within its exclusive space at the redeveloped Lakeside Oval.

Sources familiar with the deal said it requires the Government to pay the club $300,000 for five years and then $200,000 for another 10 years after that, in addition to the $950,000 for the redeveloped social club.

Club chairman Nick Galatas declined to discuss the court case, but said the money was fair and reasonable compensation for giving up its exclusive rights to the old Bob Jane Stadium.

He rejected suggestions that the club's lease on Bob Jane Stadium had been for a peppercorn rent.

"It wasn't a commercial rent, but it wasn't a dollar a year," he said.

Mr Merlino said the court case was an internal dispute within the soccer club.

"I hope it gets resolved for all the players and members of the public," he said.

He said Labor government negotiations with the club had been difficult.

"I'm proud of the transformation of sport in the City of Melbourne during the last term of our government,"he said. 

"Melbourne now has two world-class sporting precincts, where most cities in the world would be lucky to have one."

A spokeswoman for incumbent Sports Minister Hugh Delahunty confirmed the existence of the deal but declined to comment, citing commercial-in-confidence.

South Melbourne Crisis 2012 - Another SMFC Media Release

The latest salvo fired in this saga - my brief thoughts at the end of the media release.

Media Release - South Melbourne FC Supporter Update

Friday, 16 November 2012 9:39 AM

Whilst the off season may appear to be to be a quiet time at our Club, the Board has been busy addressing the many, mostly exciting and positive, off field issues currently affecting the Club.

As most of you are aware, at the recent Information Evening held at the stadium, the Board informed our Members of our Club’s response to the NCR, its advanced and progressive junior program and the redevelopment of its social club together with the rest of the space it occupies exclusively at Lakeside Stadium.

The Board has also been finalising the Leases and other Agreements which the Club will enter into with the State Sport Centres Trust and Parks Victoria, respectively, as required by our Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with the Victorian State Government. The process involved in negotiating and completing these agreements is a long and laborious one but is progressing well and is almost completed. The Club has appointed independent external Solicitors to assist it with this process and to ensure that it achieves the best outcome. Whilst the Lease and related agreements in relation to the stadium are almost completed, the Club is also close to finalising arrangements for the newly constructed pavilion in Albert Park to be open for our use next season.

In light of the above positive developments, the Board was bemused and puzzled, to say the least, to read the two recent articles published in The News Weekly, which is the English language section of the Ta Nea Greek language newspaper. The breathless attempt by The News Weekly to conjure a story from thin air was surely not worthy of even the most desperate journalist. Then again no journalist put his name to their articles which whilst not surprising is hardly acceptable.

The newspaper itself characterised the “information” contained in the articles as emanating from “unnamed callers” and it essentially comprised of a series of allegations, questions and rumours. The articles are ill informed, badly written, defensive and simply embarrassing to read. The Club was even more surprised, therefore, to then find that radio station 3XY devoted most of its Sunday Sports Program last Sunday night to the “issues” raised by The News Weekly articles after not covering news from the Club at all over the last year. 

The Board is far too busy to even try to understand why that may be the case but we are sure that many of our supporters and members will have their own views.

Nevertheless, the Board is conscious that some of our supporters and members may have become concerned by this recent persistent and misleading media coverage, bordering on a campaign. For that reason, we thought it appropriate to update our supporters and reiterate the things I have said above in relation to the Club’s progress on off field matters.

Last, but not least on the positive news, is our most passionate subject and the reason for our existence; our football team. The Board continues to work constructively and progressively towards building a top class and successful football team. You will see evidence of this during the summer and hopefully, conclusive proof next season! Our forthcoming end of year social function, which will have a different feel and emphasis this year, will no doubt be a chance for all those who attend to have a great night whilst discussing the season just passed and our prospects next year.

Sadly, however, the Club is also involved in one less pleasant development. It is true that the Club has been sued and is presently defending an action brought against it by Wellington Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd in the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne. Wellington Investments, as many of you will know, is a Company with which Messrs. Tony Toumbourou and Chris Christopher, two great Club benefactors, were previously involved and which is now run by Mr. Toumbourou’s sons, Messrs. Peter and Jason Toumbourou. 

The claim by Wellington Investments relates to the sum of $120,000 which Messrs. Tony Toumbourou and Chris Christopher pledged in the middle of 2004 and which Wellington Investments subsequently paid to assist the Club to raise the sum of $450,000 required by the Deed of Company Arrangement (“DOCA”) which it entered into when it went into voluntary administration after the disbandment of the NSL in 2004. Most of the sum of $450,000 was contributed by many concerned supporters of the Club with the balance of $120,000, paid by Wellington Investments. With the eleventh hour contribution of Wellington Investments enabling the Club to reach the target of $450,000, the Club was able to emerge from administration and to enter into its new era.

Recently, Wellington Investments has demanded repayment of the whole of the sum it advanced to the Club comprising the amount of $120,000, plus interest, bringing its total claim against the Club to $200,000. It also seeks its costs. Wellington Investments has demanded immediate payment of the money and refused to accept the Club’s offer to pay it $150,000 in 5 quarterly instalments commencing earlier this year. This offer was made some months ago.

The Club is protecting its interest and those of its members and supporters in the County Court litigation. In preparing its case for Court, the current Board has formed the view that whilst the sum of $120,000 was certainly advanced by Wellington Investments for the benefit of the Club, which the Club has always acknowledged and been grateful for, the terms of the advance were such that the Club is not liable to pay Wellington Investments the sum it seeks. It is also important for our supporters and members to know that in the course of this Court proceeding which was commenced by Wellington Investments in order to establish that the Club owed it money, and before the Court has decided the case, Wellington Investments threatened to appoint a Receiver to the Club. It became necessary, therefore, for the Club to seek an injunction against the appointment of a Receiver to prevent the Club from disappearing as we know it and in all likelihood, losing all its entitlements under the MoU with the State Government. The Court granted the injunction after it was strenuously opposed by Wellington Investments.

The Club would prefer not to be involved in Court proceedings if it can avoid it and to that end, it has proposed and will continue to propose what it considers a fair resolution of the claim by Wellington Investments and to consider any reasonable settlement proposal put to it. Everyone should bear in mind, however, that the reference in The News Weekly to “and a number of business men”, is in fact, a reference to Mr. Peter Toumbourou. Further, the reference to “loans of almost half a million dollars” is entirely false as even Mr. Toumbourou alleges only a loan of $120,000. The Club will continue to keep its members and supporters informed of the progress of this Court action which is presently due to be heard in December 2012.

Finally, our Board and the Club understands that not everybody will always agree with every decision nor with every direction it adopts. People are entitled to voice their opinions and criticism and the Club welcomes constructive criticism and accepts that opinions of all sorts, constructive or otherwise, will be freely expressed. Our Club will object, however, to articles purporting to report news, being comprised of nothing more than the opinion of an unnamed few, causing unnecessary concern amongst some of our supporters. 

The Club’s volunteer Board and overworked General Manager are busy enough with their many responsibilities without being at the beck and call of whichever media organisation sees fit to publish or air unsubstantiated and misleading information. The Board has in the past and will continue in future to make its various members available to engage in constructive discussion in relation to our Club and the same in general, including answering relevant questions and dealing with constructive criticism. 

There is much more positive and constructive news to come, so stay tuned … to us.

Nick Galatas

Chairman

It's about time the club put out a more definitive statement. Would it have nullified a lot of the 'debate' had it been put out earlier? That's hard to say, and my guess would be 'probably not'. But it may have helped at least steer the debate towards a more factual direction.

Certainly, it's great to see a no nonsense naming of the disputed loan figure and the attempts to resolve the issue. Not that this means that South is guaranteed a court victory, but get it out in the open about where this situation came from and where it's going and why.

It's also good to see some more elaboration on the process of doing the final sign off regarding the Lakeside lease, though to be fair, this was also covered in the Neos Kosmos English Weekly article.

Joe Friday agrees, all that's needed are the facts.

One thing I must take umbrage with, is that they should have avoided getting personal with those they're disagreeing with. These sections come across as unprofessional and petty, even to those who would likely agree with those sentiments. Leave that stuff to the blogs and forums.

And while it's understandable that they would want to pump their own tyres, feeling proud and excited about the coming season and the corner we've been told we've turned, a 'just the facts ma'am' approach would have been more suitable.

More on Ta Nea's South Melbourne 2012 Crisis

Following last week's article on the Wellington Investments loan debt, Ta Nea has followed it up with another piece on what they're calling an 'exclusive exposé on the South Melbourne Football Club'.

Now I'd put up a scan of this latest article as was done for the previous effort, but I couldn't come up with an image capture that I felt was of adequate quality. In other words, it was too pixelated and grainy and stuff.

This time the article starts off with a justification being made as to why they're reporting on this issue, with a heady dose of emotion thrown in. I'm not too fond of the emotional blackmail attempt, because as a news service they have every right to report on South Melbourne or any other issue they want to.

As with last week, they list a series of issues or questions they believe the club needs to answer, this week using a numbering system as opposed to the infamous letter based method which saw 'point c' fail to show up (or point γ for γαμώτο as recently tweeted by Athas Zafiris).

The first point covers much the same ground as the first point covered in last week's article - namely, the status of the Lakeside lease, and why the final papers haven't been signed yet. Which is odd because South president Leo Athanasakis addressed that issue in the Neos Kosmos article, which only came into being because of Ta Nea's original article.

What's strange is that later on in in this week's Ta Nea article, there is reference made to the aforementioned Neos Kosmos article, but more on that later.

I'm not sure if this is deliberate misinformation or just poor wording, but they also write that South relinquished Lakeside Stadium, when in fact South relinquished the remaining six or so years of its exclusive lease - lest there be any confusion on the matter, South never owned Lakeside or any portion of it.

The second question is an intriguing one - 'are there any disgruntled suppliers of the club?'. I would have loved to seen some elaboration on this question from Ta Nea, but alas, the question just dangles there, only partially formed.

Their third point asks why SMFC does not contribute financially to the South Melbourne Women's FC. If I had to answer that, I'd probably say it's because the two clubs are separate entities, who are still (reportedly, anyway, though progress has been so slow as to make you wonder), trying to reach agreement as to how to move forward, hopefully under the same umbrella. I was under the assumption that this was fairly widely known. I wonder if SMWFC were asked to comment on this article?

Question four is more or less a repeat of last week's point 'd', asking where the $30,000 a month received from the government is going. Mismanagement is certainly being implied here, but nothing specific is detailed, and I really wish there had been. This kind of vague writing does no service to the issues, nor to Ta Nea. What's worse, if the implied mismanagement allegations are not true, will they be corrected in a prominent manner?

Question five actually tackles the issue of the juniors revamp in a relatively half decent manner. The price hike is quite significant, and it means that there will be talented players for whom South Melbourne will not be an option. One wonders though, again, how much research Ta Nea conducted on this matter? Did they attend the club's info night? Did they read my report of that info night?

Which brings us back to the Neos Kosmos article and the issue of the club's lease. One detail not brought up by either Neos Kosmos, or Ta Nea in its two articles, is the apparently imminent beginning of South's social club redevelopment, which will be entirely funded (at least according to the board) by a government grant of about $900,000. If the lease was on such thin ice, wouldn't it be worth reporting on that matter also? Or is it only access to the Lakeside Stadium playing field that is in doubt?

Now, I'm all for the protection of journalistic sources, and especially of corporate or government whistle-blowers, who need the protection of anonymity. But when Ta Nea identifies the positions that their sources have held at South, the anonymity of these sources is pointless, and only hurts the credibility of their reporting. Also problematic is that once again, there is a lack of a byline on the article.

I'm also interested in Ta Nea's sudden interest in the decline in South's membership numbers and attendance at AGMs. Again, if they had done even the most basic research, they would find two very obvious reasons for this. In terms of South's AGM numbers, since attendance is open only to social club members and life members, and not to season ticket holders, naturally there will a lower turnout for these things.

Is it the right approach? I'm not so sure. I think season ticket holders should be allowed to attend, though they should be barred from voting on matters relating to South Melbourne Hellas Soccer Club, which is the umbrella group which runs everything else. Melbourne Knights reportedly allow all of its members or season ticket holders to attend their AGM. But our arrangement is not unusual. Melbourne based AFL clubs use much the same system as we do.

In terms of membership numbers, blaming this board (or any board, for that matter) for that is ludicrous. I'd ask them to name just one sporting team in Australia, that's fallen permanently from the top tier, who have retained a significant amount of their top tier supporter base. Their assertions early on in the article, about the community supporting the club through the glory days of the 1970s, 90s etc, somehow fail to mention the lack of support the community has given to the club since the club returned to the VPL

When someone claims to be conducting an exposé, I want something substantial, something that will genuinely uncover gross incompetence or corruption. These articles have done neither. Frankly, half-arsed reporting like Ta Nea's recent articles belongs on blogs, not in the 'legitimate press'.

Ta Nea, Toumbourou and the administration legacy - UPDATED

Some people may not be aware that when the club went into administration back in 2004, one of the ways we avoided going under was due to a loan by Messrs Christopher and Toumbourou.

The nature of that loan has been subject to some conjecture over the years. While we're not going to speculate on the exact details - because at this blog, we don't know what they are - the general perception (rightly or wrongly) among those who know of this loan have seen it as a non-interest loan, to be payed back when the club got back on its feet.

Seeing as the club has seldom if ever made a profit in its 53 year existence, even in the good old days, the debt has hung over the club like a sword of Damocles. This loan debt has been mentioned at every AGM I've been to since 2006. I'm not able to recall the exact figure of the debt, but an amount of $120,000 gets thrown around a bit.

Despite being donated by two individuals, the debt was consolidated under the company name Wellington Investments. It now appears that one of the parties who made the loan, the son of Mr Toumbourou, has asked for the debt to be repaid.

It is my understanding that there are disagreements about the nature of the loan between the club and Mr Toumbourou's son, and that thus far, mediation has failed to resolve the issue. Mediation attempts are apparently still being made, but failing that, the two parties may be heading to court in December.

All of this has not been helped by the following article published in Ta Nea last Wednesday:

Now I have no qualms with any media outlet reporting on this issue, but this is such a terrible article on so many levels.

• Who wrote the article (the byline is not visible on this version)?
• What's with the poor expression found in the article (though goodness knows how many times we've been guilty of that)?
• Which VPL clubs operate on a budget of $150,000 to $200,000?
• The predictably uninformed understanding of the club's deal with the government, especially when it comes to the $300,000 annual renumeration figure.
• The vague allegations of the club being 'in strife'. What does that mean exactly?
• Why not name the two 'disappointed businessmen'? If their motive for the imminent return of their money has been the poor management of the club, why have they not made their concerns public at an AGM?
• Whether one agrees with it or not, the issue with the $3,500 charge for juniors has been well covered, so I'm not sure what rumours they are referring to.
• Where is point 'c'?

There are also bound to be insinuations made from our supporters about the fact that this was published in a Greek Media Group publication, which also owns and operates Greek community radio station 3XY Radio Hellas. Owned by Melbourne Victory shareholder Harry Stamoulis, people will see this as another part of the conspiracy against South Melbourne.

It does not matter whether it is a personal or institutional crusade against the club, but when added to previous behaviour from that organisation - reputedly being blackballed from 3XY Radio Hellas' sports program, the lack of coverage of Melbourne Heart in Ta Nea, Stamoulis affiliations with disgruntled former supporters/sponsors etc - it does not paint a pretty picture.

The club responded to the article with this media release, the entirety of which follows:

South Melbourne FC wishes to inform its members, supporters and sponsors that the article titled, “Sth Melbourne F.C. Appearing in court in November”, which appeared in The News Weekly section of the Ta Nea newspaper contains numerous inaccurate statements.

Preparations to enter into the agreements for the Club’s long-term use and occupation of Lakeside Stadium following the Memorandum of Understanding the Club entered into with the State Government are progressing as scheduled.

The Club is in a sound financial position and will publish its financial accounts prior to the end of the year in accordance with its long-standing practice.

Whilst the Club has been sued by Wellington Investments, the company previously operated by club benefactors Messrs Tony Toumbourou and Chris Christopher and run by Mr Toumbourou’s sons, the Club does not wish to comment on the detail of the case. It wishes to note only that the claim relates to a time when the club was placed into administration following the disbandment of the National Soccer League. The Club is protecting its rights and those of its members in the course of the litigation. On a more serious note, the Club is unfortunately forced to investigate its legal options in respect of this error – riddled and misleading article in order to protect its well - earned good reputation within the community.

More positively, mention is also made in the article of the Club’s junior program of which the Club is very proud. All places in its Youth Development Program have been filled for next season and the Club looks forward to the development of its future stars.

For all media enquiries, please contact Nick Galatas on admin@smfc.com.au

It's a confident response, and from what I can gather, the club seems more confident of winning this battle (should it go to court) than our previous court date with the FFV from 2010 (which of course predictably won the battle, though not the war). Me, I'm never confident when it comes to court cases, especially with the sort of hubris our club is prone to suffering from.

It'll also be interesting to see how Ta Nea's rival Neos Kosmos deals with the story. There may have been something in their English language supplement last Saturday, but it's not online yet, so we can't gauge their angle. Whatever happens though, we at South of the Border will try and keep up to date with this issue, possible court dates and speculative potentially libelous innuendo included.

UPDATE - NEOS KOSMOS JOINS THE FRAY
It appears that Neos Kosmos have decided to get in on the act. Here is their article on the matter.

A prominent Melbourne businessman is taking South Melbourne FC to court over a loan secured in 2004. It is alleged the terms of the loan included time limits and a debenture charge over the assets of the club, and they have since been breached.

The money, he claims, is in excess of two-hundred thousand dollars. Although negotiations for repayment had started several years ago, they have since soured and there is current legal action afoot. The club has been a flag bearer for Hellenism in Melbourne and Australia in general and now finds itself on the brink of receivership, should the court action prove successful. 

Further, it is understood that the club entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Government of Victoria in 2009 where the club received payments in excess of $25,000 per month. This MOU facilitated the creation of a lease, ensuring the long term tenure at Lakeside Oval. To this date, it is understood, that this lease has not been executed by all sides. 

All of which the club categorically denies. Leo Athanasakis, the club's president, assures that the club is in no economic strife. "The Club is in a sound financial position and will publish its financial accounts prior to the end of the year in accordance with its long standing practice," he said. 

"The club has no debt other than this liability now to him. The club owes nothing to players, owes nothing to other creditors." In fact, he says, the club will be "declaring a profit of close to $150,000". The president explains the delay is normal, with most sporting clubs waiting six months for the government's approval. 

"The Lease has now been signed six months ago and it's currently within parliament as the process dictates with other leases that involve crown land. It happens with bowling clubs, tennis clubs or any other club that signs a lease with the government, they go through the same process and they all take about six months before they come back. 

"So it has been signed by South Melbourne and the government and they go through parliamentary process, red tape in other words," he says. 

The club will also be seeking legal advice over what he calls "riddled and misleading" article published in Ta Nea. The article only uses unnamed callers to back up its claims the club is in financial turmoil and blames the club of unfairly raising the cost of subscription for juniors to $3,500. The subscription, the president says, is not for juniors, but is a highly intensive training regiment for 14-21 year-olds. 

The program has already sold out, offers 5 days training a week and has full time staff outside of the normal teams.

Like the Ta Nea article, there is no byline. Also like the Ta Nea article, it does not name the businessmen involved who are seeking to take South Melbourne to court. It is also concerning or intriguing depending on your point of view, to see such wildly different numbers being talked about in terms of the loan. Ta Nea says $120,000; Neos Kosmos says in excess of $200,000.

At least the article goes to the trouble of further investigating some of the claims made in the Ta Nea article. It elaborates on the juniors situation, and goes into some detail about the Memorandum of Understanding with the government on our lease arrangement.

Lastly, for now, I'm interested to see the claim made by Athanasakis that this is the last remaining debt that the club has on its books. If true, that'd be a pretty good turnaround in such a relatively short space of time.