Views: 19

Protecting TI From Takeover

I came across this interesting exchange that occurred between Judy and I, and George Farley and I which happened at the end of December 2018. It is included here for a few reasons;

  1. At that time, I was calling the board-ish idea “grey hairs” and saying it “is no more than an idea“. Little did I know I was about to be over-thrown because of that idea.
  2. I outline my fears about the Centre being “easy to take over”. Little did I know that it would be taken over so soon and so easily by people I know.
  3. And finally, it is educational to see the former? CD talking about selling when that was never mentioned; it doesn’t have to be sold to be taken over. What this shows me is that it is dangerous to rely on the opinions of people who do not themselves exercise due caution when assessing threats and dangers.
  4. The current 2019 situation is a live demonstration of why TI needs better checks and balances to avoid obvious risks.

Go here for more developed thinking on the Board Concept.

George has said in the past we should sell TI. Read our rules. TI can’t be sold and the profits given to members but in the event of no further business the asset has to be given to an FPMT entity.
Talk to Justin and Dave Andrews – the lawyers.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 4:22 pm, <peter.guiliano@> wrote:
I sent this to George before we met at TI

—– Original message —–
From: peter.guiliano@
To: George Farley <george.farley@>
Subject: financials
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 09:09:11 +1100

George, that sounds great to me on all fronts.

The bunch of grey hairs is no more than an idea: no bones and no meat on this turkey. Obviously many problems with why, how and when it would act and so on.

These are the kinds of fears I have and therefore the kind of role I would like this group to play somehow.

The property is worth about $10m and I think an attractive target for outside interests. Given its legal structure, I think it is easy to take over. Dave Andrews disagrees saying FPMT global has some controlling role that allows it to counter any takeover. I think that is unrealistic given that those who have already gained control of the Association have at least a 10 mil warchest and would have followed the Association rules to the degree that would be favoured by a local court. How much time would pass before FPMT even knows about the takeover?

FPMT global would then have to find and fly out someone competent to hire lawyers here. That person would likely have no one even meet them at the airport, no base to work from and no capital. Why I say that is because my view of TI is that no one wants to engage in conflict or even argue simple a case back and forth, even low profile discussion. Dialogue is not a TI trait.

The takeove scenario is easy but I won’t bore you with that. Other issues also concern me: embezzlement, incompetence and crises may leave the centre suddenly with no Director or essential office holders. Where does emergency support come from and who is it who will ask for that help?

So I was not asking you to be on a committee but just being an asset for that loose group of exCDs etc. Without having some kind of name or entity before the crisis, I think it would be much more difficult to gather that same group together in time to address the crisis. And who would do the gathering?