..much worse, hes you in reverse world..

"Bizzarro Synbad" -v- "Bizzarro Fatprick"

...while his article over simplistically uses emotion to supposedly strengthen his position, at the root of his argument is a very good point.

If the Carlton board - it has already drooled its appreciation of Pratt and begged him to stay on - is allowed to retain Pratt, then the commission is guilty of lowering its own standards and saying to Australians that principles are important but very much in direct proportion to a person's wealth and influence.

I understand where you are coming from camel, but I would argue that he doesn't really have a point: His point is that Pratt has brought the game into disrepute.

It is hard to quantify what bringing the game into disrepute involves.

Oh yeah, I agree. Definitely.

I've been trying for ages to see his side of the argument as at first I just didn't think it mattered.

The point for me, is not whether he has damaged the game, or the AFL. The point is have his actions hurt the club. On the surface the answer is a resounding NO! And that is why I will be forever thankful for his role in our recent surge off field, which will hopefully lead to a similar upward spiral on the field.

In financial terms the club is clearly thriving under Pratt's guidance. But the more I think about the cartel the more the question mark in the back of my mind continues to linger.

Richard Pratt has done a lot to help people outside Carlton with his charity work. Smith tries to make him out as some evil profit at all costs monster. If that were indeed the case, Pratt would never dabble so seriously in philanthropy, no matter how Smith would like to argue he earned the money to do so.

Richard Pratt has more for Carlton since his arrival than I could have ever hoped for this time 12 months ago. His contribution to our club cannot be questioned.

But, the cartel is not a good look. It's all about perception and that is where Smith does score a bit of a home run IMO. Thankfully, Pratt has a lot more home runs on the board already.

Pleasingly though, Pratt, regardless of the reasons, has copped it on the chin and is doing his best to move forward.

He appears to have more integrity and moral fibre in his body than Patrick Smith could ever hope. Smith sits on the sidelines and takes pot shots and whoever passes by. Pratt puts himself out there and actually makes an effort at making a difference with his life.

I might have a small question mark over him, but I simply cannot question his worth to our club.

Oh yeah, I agree. Definitely.

I've been trying for ages to see his side of the argument as at first I just didn't think it mattered.

The point for me, is not whether he has damaged the game, or the AFL. The point is have his actions hurt the club. On the surface the answer is a resounding NO! And that is why I will be forever thankful for his role in our recent surge off field, which will hopefully lead to a similar upward spiral on the field.

In financial terms the club is clearly thriving under Pratt's guidance. But the more I think about the cartel the more the question mark in the back of my mind continues to linger.

Richard Pratt has done a lot to help people outside Carlton with his charity work. Smith tries to make him out as some evil profit at all costs monster. If that were indeed the case, Pratt would never dabble so seriously in philanthropy, no matter how Smith would like to argue he earned the money to do so.

Richard Pratt has more for Carlton since his arrival than I could have ever hoped for this time 12 months ago. His contribution to our club cannot be questioned.

But, the cartel is not a good look. It's all about perception and that is where Smith does score a bit of a home run IMO. Thankfully, Pratt has a lot more home runs on the board already.

Pleasingly though, Pratt, regardless of the reasons, has copped it on the chin and is doing his best to move forward.

He appears to have more integrity and moral fibre in his body than Patrick Smith could ever hope. Smith sits on the sidelines and takes pot shots and whoever passes by. Pratt puts himself out there and actually makes an effort at making a difference with his life.

I might have a small question mark over him, but I simply cannot question his worth to our club.

Note to Fatprick.


The Genie is out of the bottle my friend.

- Carlton - No Debt

- Carlton - 3 Number 1 Draft Picks on their books.

- Carlton - Best Player of the past 20 years on their books.

- Carlton - Best CEO of the past 10 years on their books.


You can carry on all you like and their is not a damn thing you can do about it.

If Pratt walks off into the sunset - he has won and you will still be a miserable fat, failed chucker.

SO GAGF!!!!

If there was a game on this weekend would anyone still be talking about this?

Can i ask a question for those who are more knowledgeable and experienced on this issue that what i am (which means 95% of ya's)?

Are people blowing this up (pratt price fixing) purely because Pratt is the president of Carlton? Do they really know what he's done? Or is it a case of 'he's done something wrong so i'll bag him cause he's sucsessfull?'

Price fixing to me is really just a shrug of the shoulders..........we, the public, are getting ripped off every day.

Banks
Petrol stations.
Insurance
Taxes for shit that just is so stupid that it should be criminal.

Surely people cannot HONESTLY believe that Pratt is the only one that's done it?

The AFL need only look in their own backyard for evidence of price fixing.

Do we (and i'm talking the Australian Public) instantly dismiss all the good that Pratt has done becaause of his bad?
Does the fact that he has given THOUSANDS of aussies a stable job for a couple of decades not count for anything?
Do we now not care about the MILLIONS of dollars he has donanted to charity NOT TO MENTION HIS OWN PERSONAL TIME?

I reckon VISY's Recycling Division is one of the most important organisations Australia has at the moment.

So (and please forgive my ignorance on this issue - i wagged most of my school days) does this mean that all Pratt has done is rip me off a couple of extra cents for everytime i buy a product that has a box? To be honest i couldn't give a stuff. Take it as a tip.

I wanna know why I still have to pay tax/gst on fuel tax.
Or why i have to wait 7 days for a cheque to clear WHEN IT'S FROM THE flower RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA??????
Or.........more important that all of the above...........WHY I CANT AFFORD TO EAT AT THE SO CALLED 'PEOPLE STADIUM'?

Again, sorry for my lack-of-knowledge on this issue....maybe somebody can help me understand.

Now it's NZ's turn to sue Pratt
Matt O'Sullivan
November 23, 2007

DISGRACED billionaire Richard Pratt's woes have deepened after the New Zealand competition regulator accused his packaging company, Visy, of taking part in price-fixing in the cardboard box market across the Tasman.

In a case which is almost identical to that successfully pursued by the Australian competition regulator against Visy and its owner here, the New Zealand Commerce Commission yesterday filed a lawsuit in the High Court in Auckland against Visy and its New Zealand subsidiary, as well as three former or present Visy executives and an ex-Amcor executive. The executives face fines of up to $NZ500,000 ($430,000) each while Visy and its subsidiary face penalties of up to $NZ10 million per offence.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission gained the rights earlier this year to share more information with its regulatory counterparts overseas after changes to the Trade Practices Act.

The latest action comes just three weeks after the Federal Court imposed a record fine of $36 million on Mr Pratt and Visy, over an illegal cartel the company used to fix the price of cardboard boxes with packaging group Amcor.

Visy's former chief executive, Harry Debney, was also fined $1.5 million and another former executive, Rod Carroll, was fined $500,000. The cartel also claimed the jobs of Amcor's former chief executive, Russell Jones, and another former colleague, James Hodgson.

The Commerce Commission's allegations mirror those recently heard in the Federal Court in Melbourne. They centre on customer sharing, price fixing and bid-rigging in the supply of cardboard boxes in New Zealand between 2000 and 2004 - the same period during which the Amcor-Visy cartel took place in Australia's $2 billion cardboard box market.

The NZ regulator said some of the allegations brought against Visy and the executives were similar to those the ACCC successfully pursued against the company on this side of the Tasman.

Just as it was in the Australian lawsuit, Amcor has again been granted immunity from legal action in New Zealand after giving information about the alleged cartel to the Commerce Commission in December 2004. The packaging company reached a similar deal with the ACCC.

The Commerce Commission's chairwoman, Paula Rebstock, said businesses could expect the regulator to pursue "very strong action" against cartels because there were among the most serious forms of anti-competitive behaviour.

Visy said in a statement that the allegations were the same made in Australia and "to the extent there are specific allegations regarding New Zealand customers we intend to examine the evidence concerning those allegations". The company declined to comment further.

New Zealand's largest prosecution of a cartel occurred last year when fines totalling $NZ5 million were imposed on four companies, including Australian firm Osmose, for their part in a cartel in the timber preservation industry.