Dear Sir,

I write to you representing the Worst Sydney Razzlehacks. Can you please provide contact information for Jimmy the Snitch as we have a business proposition for him.

Hopefully,

W.S. Razzlehack

#90061 what an absolutely rediculous statement.
And I'm with #90058, to question Bruce Carter's integrity is a very, very big call.

*ridiculous

i don't question the process i think the right person bought the team. Lewis & Peregine bids would have been good, MVP less attractive but Mal Hemmerling has the knowledge, the passion, the business acumen to make this a long term winner.

Were i get most upset is the ability for Groves to hold concerts at the stadium. Are the sixers programs going to be subject to concert tours?

Are the courts going to be available for sixers trainings etc for state champs etc or will Disney be raining on our parade?

I'm all for the upgrade of the stadium, that will happen. New sound system etc and realise the money has to be recouped somewhere but just how does Mr Foley and Mr Rann justify that a private owner can operate the facility as a concert venue.

Tell me in PLAIN ENGLISH Mr Foley just what difference there is in Groves organising a concert and not BASA of 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994

Perhaps (at it might be a big perhaps) if concerts had been allowed. the financial nightmare of the past decade might not have happened.

All i can say is Mr Foley speaks with a forked tongue.

Tony Blair, I am not a Labor supporter at all, but I think that it was a previous Liberal Government who made the deal to disallow concerts at the Dome.

you are all suckers.

It is the oppostions job to oppose whatever the MP's do.

There is no such thing as a win-win situation in politics, its either

Taken too long - or - been rushed
Not enough info - or - spent too much on fact finding
An underqualified person - or - someone who's out-dated.

I think how little the opposition has been harping on about it means it was a job well done. If there had really been a stuff-up/conflict etc it would've been massively debated, not what we are seeing now.

The issue is that if some bidders where given more favourable terms than all other bidders where allowed to buy under.

That is a big problem in an open and equal tender situation.

If there was collusion, I am sure the ACCC will be interested to know. It is illegal.

If there is no collusion, and, if (as appears to be the case) the best bid won, what the hell does it matter?

If you don't know one way or another, don't speculate, because to suggest (wrongly) that someone has done an illegal act is potentially libellous.

To slander the good name of someone like Bruce Carter (one of the preeminent insolvency experts in SA) is not only unfair, but not very smart.

So go speak with the ACCC if you are aggrevied, otherwise shut up.

Maybe instead they should speak with ASIC. I don't think ACCC will be interested

I'm not upset with Carter et al but with the about face the govt has done on holding concerts or using the dome for anything other than basketball.

Just bleating our woes that what could have been. All politicans play politics (who would have thought it!) and regardless of who what when or why it was stopped, life would/could have been vastly different if the venue was utlise in the way it was invisaged and budgeted for.

The about face also meant the loss of $250,000 paid by the govt to BASA every year which was the trade off for the Dome not holding other events.

For the fans does it really matter who 'won'.

The fact is that someone (who has been around the game for a long time) is the new owner. Someone who surely knows alot about what needs to be done to make/keep the team successful and for them hopefully profitable.

Sit back and think if all the offers were the same $$ value who would you choose?

MVP - Well known basketball on the local scene Bell and a somewhat unkown backer.

Peregine - Obviously good business knowledge, passionate about basketball

Lewis - Family history with the club

Hemmerling & Grooves - NBL Chairmen, member of the board probably been around the NBL in a high capacity alot longer than any of the others.

To me on paper the best credientials are the new owners - does that mean they also offered the most money - I don't know probably - does that mean they are the best, who knows I'm sure the other parties would all have had their own ways of operating and their own vision. Fact is that Hemmering is the new owner, grooves owns the dome and they had the best credientials and probably the most money on offer!

Why is there so much bickering about it all? It is not that uncommon for interested parties to remain anonymous throughout the process.

Personally I'm looking forward to what Hemmerling can do with the 36ers and what kind of input/effect Grooves will have.

(#90144)who really cares - as NBL chairman I'm sure he has been to a few.

Also with all of his business committments it might not allow him time to go. Also you might be surprised to find that it could be lots.

The main thing is that Mal is passionate about basketball, passionate enough to be still involved in the game 40 years after he started. You don't have to attend games to be passionate, you don't have to attend games to be eligible to buy the team.

I agree DJ best alway round with Vince Marino a good fit for the women's team owner.

What does it matter how many games he has been to in the last 5 years - Personally I've been to probably a quarter of the home games in the last 5 years - does that make me ineligible to put an offer down, or just not fit to be the owner?

Let's move on people.

Lockstock - ACCC is concerned with fair tendering issues, collusion and breaches of Trade Practices. You are however also correct, as ASIC deals in breaches of duty by directors, receivers and managers etc.