Murray, Murray, Murray,
Just because Media Mike has appointed him doesn't mean he won't take an active interest as an owner.
Plenty of people own busnesses and don't take a day to day active role in their running. Just because you own the Sixers doesn't mean that you need to count the pens and pencils in the stationery cupboard!

If you were offered a highly paid government job, wouldn't you take it?

So when will he take an active interest as an owner?
Yet to see it and now that he is on holidays as the league is about to be revamped now would be a good time to be taking interest in a state icon that you supposedly own.

Mal won't be the owner as he has no money - never has.

anon, can you tell me what successful business' he has been involved with?

This thread is hilarious.

My first thought,
Is he now an ABC childcare employee!!!!

No Money Mal - How do you know how much money he does or doesnt have? Are you his accountant?

Why is it any different to Nick Bianco? He has another job but still basically owns Adelaide United. Oh thats right any chance people get they bag the Adelaide 36ers, Lightning and anything to do with basketball.

Bianco doesn't have a job , he owns a business. Can anyone tell me what business' Mal owns or runs. I am just curious as everyone says he is a great businessman but i dont know of any business' he owns or has been successful with.

Don't insult nick bianco but putting no money mal in the same category. Bianco is a proven successful business owner. Name me a business Mal owns - he doesn't, not a successful one anyway. How do I know - I know the family well. You'd be surprised what they own.

NVS, I think the people running basketball pretty much bring the bagging upon themselves... don't you ?

Yeah well it would be pretty hard to be a CEO of a bad Olympics, can you name one?

Wasn't he the CEO of the Adelaide F1 GP. Did a great job there....until it was stolen out from under our noses.Yeah, tell me how the government stuffed that one up; fact is as CEO he should have made damn sure that it was stitched up and if it wasn't...he should of shouted long and hard about it.

I'm hoping that he is not in charge of the 6ers next year because I am sick of seeing his fat ass sitting on the game night bench.

Munich would probably be thought of as a bad one.

Buy the Sixers they said, you'll be loved they said, you'll be treated like Adelaide royalty they said...

Munich? Yeah I will give you that one; however out of the last 5-6 I reckon they are all pretty much success stories.

I'm not saying you can have a chump running the show; however the Olympics do seem to be a recipe for success.

He seems to be very good at getting jobs but then is crap with them and gets sacked.

Look at the Council position, they couldn't wait to give him the arse.

how many of you posters are the same people.
My guess is:

Murray Magpie
No money mal
nose it all
231850

Nose it all - i think you will find he had left the GP a year or two before it was stolen by Victoria.

Number 44 - i think there may be some bigger issues within the council (look how long the CEO after mal lasted, and the one before him).

Are nose it all and no money mal the same person?

BTW i know people who worked for him at the council who say that he is one of the best bosses they have had.

They're not the same people. Going by the IP addresses, people are sticking with the one identity (whether alias or anonymous).

Remember that anonymous or not, you are easily tracked down should someone wish to pursue you legally. Be prepared to back up your comments in court if need be.

i just realised it is school holidays again...hence the influx of new un-informed posters.

Hey nosy, you're not making a whole lotta sense with your line about the Olympics... Atlanta was generally bagged as being pretty poor as well... but more importantly, to argue that most Olympics are successful, therefore Olympics are easy to run is just retarded.

In any case, if earlier rumours reported on this site are true, there is good reason for Mal to take on a different job as he is about sell the Sixers to Seamus anyway!

Number 44 - Mal didn't get fired or quit he decided not to reapply for the council position. This happened at the same time he purchased the sixers

Beantown, he is a good organizer, no probs.

But do you reckon there would not have been a huge amount of people with vested interests looking over his shoulder ensuring that the 2000 Olympics was a huge success?

He comes with a great CV; however from what I witnessed at the Dome last year...not a whole lot has changed, except for a lick of paint and his fat ass on the bench each game.

I would guess that the corporate dollar at the Dome has either decreased or increased by a bee's dick to what it was before he took the helm. This is one area that he should excel in. With his "impressive" CV I would have thought a number of corporates would be paying for the chance to be a sponsor if it included a meet and greet with Mal every now and then.

P.S. I don't think he can sue me for saying he has a fat ass if its true!

Actually, I think I read something once about truth not being a defense against defamation in Australia - maybe a lawyer can let us know?

P.S. Pasadena 67, are you surprised that different posters have the same point of view?

Oh well!

Nose are you saying that Mal has just been warming the seat for Seamus?

No. But who ever buys the 6ers needs to look after the running of the business and leave the bench warming to the players.

Isaac, you are correct with the law situation. Defamation as a civil law means the claimant must show that they have suffered some form of ACTUAL loss or damages as a result of the printed word, be it mental stress, financial loss etc. A "reckless disregard to the truth" is covered under these laws. The classic example is where someone say had a criminal conviction as a youth. After 10 years of no subsequent convictions, these offenses become "spent convictions" and X does not need to reveal these misdemeaners.
Now, let's say that person (X) has moved on in their life and let's say that Person Y has a vendetta against X and reveals that X had a conviction for offending as an 18 yo. As a consequence of those revelations, X is sacked from their job, booted off this that and the other, and has their membership of the Adelaide Club revoked.
Even though what Y revealled was true, they did so recklessly knowing there would be consequences and in doing so caused ACTUAL damages to X. Consequently, X may sue Y for ACTUAL loss.