Archive for November 2014

Divvy Parking at City Tatts?

City Tatts never ceases to provide a laugh.

There is a story in the Sydney Morning Herald today about Divvy Parking. For those of you who have never heard of them, they are a new company that connects owners of vacant car spaces with car drivers wanting to rent them.

Now we come to the comedy bit.

To support their view that finding parking will only get harder they quote from a report about parking in the CBD.

And who wrote this report, you ask?

Two firms well known to City Tatts members – Colliers International and Parking & Traffic Consultants!

Based on previous efforts, these two would have to be the worst pair to do a report on anything.

Colliers organised the Expressions of Interest campaign last year to find someone to construct apartments on the City Tatts site. They managed to find only two developers who were interested – at a time when most other prime sites were getting interest from ten or twenty developers. David Jones got over a hundred enquiries – without even asking. And the final Colliers comedy touch – the one they selected, Mirvac, is no longer interested.

Parking & Traffic Consultants prepared the traffic impact report for Mirvac. They tried to convince the Council that a car park entrance, across the footpath, leading to a 7 level car park, accessed by a car lift, would not cause any detrimental impact! The council took one look at it and decided it would cause chaos. Which is obvious when you look at where they wanted to put it – on a narrow street, about 20 metres from the junction with Market Street, where the traffic can only turn left. Actually this report had very little to do with traffic. It was really a Mirvac ploy to help sell the apartments by suggesting they would have parking.

Wonder if Colliers had Divvy Parking lined up for the City Tatts car spaces?


Save City Tatts Committee

Brisbane Broncos – Sister Club for City Tatts?

There was a fascinating story by Roy Masters in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday about the Brisbane Broncos.

It is fascinating because it is about a loan by the Broncos to an employee that is almost identical to the “loan” by City Tattersalls Club to Tony Guilfoyle. You could change the name of the club in the article to City Tatts and the story would be an almost perfect fit.

Just compare the Brisbane Broncos loan to Andrew Gee with the City Tatts “loan” to Tony Guilfoyle:

Broncos – “These payments occurred without appropriate supporting documentation, without first obtaining member approval and without board approval“.

City Tatts – Tony Guilfoyle took $200,000 from City Tatts without supporting documentation, without first obtaining member approval and without board approval.

Broncos – “The Club subsequently notified ASIC that there may, in the circumstances, be a reasonable basis to suspect that these transactions breached the Corporations Act. ASIC has since notified the Club that they will not be taking any further action”.

City Tatts – Members of City Tatts reported the Tony Guilfoyle “loan” to the Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing. OLGR notified the Club that they will not be taking any further action.

Roy Masters then asks a few key questions about the Broncos loan:

  1. Where did the money go?
  2. Why is ASIC not interested?
  3. Why are any of the BLC board who presided over the mess still in their positions?

You could ask similar questions about City Tatts:

  1. What did Guilfoyle do with the $200,000?
  2. Why is OLGR not interested?
  3. Why are any of the City Tatts committee who presided over the unlawful “loan” and it’s cover-up still in their positions?

Masters goes on to make a few pertinent points about the club, the employee and the auditor:

“Surely BLC and Gee are in a precarious position under the Corporations Act and with ASIC. The Corporations Act requires an auditor to report to ASIC (within 28 days) where it has reasonable grounds to suspect a significant contravention of the Corporations Act. Note 19 in the annual report suggests the BLC auditor informed ASIC. The real question is how it was characterised or explained to ASIC. This is relevant because the auditor with the obligation to report to ASIC (Pitcher Partners) is the same auditor that, during previous audits, has missed the (unapproved) funds flowing out to Gee in prior years”.

Everyone who knows about the Tony Guilfoyle “loan” says much the same:

Surely City Tatts and Guilfoyle are in a precarious position under the City Tattersall’s Club Act and with OLGR. The City Tattersall’s Club Act prohibits any loans to employees. The City Tatts committee responded to OLGR after members made a complaint. The real question is how the “loan” was characterised or explained by the committee. This is relevant because the auditor at that time was the same auditor (Cameron Roan of KPMG) that, during previous audits, has missed the (unapproved) funds flowing out to Guilfoyle in prior years.

There are a few differences between the Brisbane Broncos and City Tatts – all of which show that Guilfoyle and City Tatts committee are far more dishonest.

  • Tony Guilfoyle never repaid his “loan”- it’s still outstanding in the accounts at 31 December 2013.
  • The City Tatts committee never reported the unapproved “loan” to anyone. They even refused to put a note in the annual report about it – something suggested by the auditor.

And one final point.

The man leading the cover-up at City Tatts is Patrick Campion. Why?


Save City Tatts Committee







How much has City Tatts given to Mark Lonngren?

Following on from last week’s blog about Mark Lonngren, members might want to know how much he is taking from City Tatts.

Here is what the Club has paid him in just the past four years:

2010          $117,000

2011          $126,000

2012          $120,000

2013          $114,000


That is almost half a million in four years with absolutely nothing to show for it, at least nothing for members. While he was being paid these amounts the majority of staff, who actually do something, were on minimum wage.

Lonngren is just one example of money for nothing. If you count up all the consultants, all the office employees doing little or nothing (like the Promotions department), or paid obscene salaries (like Tony Guilfoyle and Jan Ellks) there is easily $2 million wasted every year, just on these payments.

This is why City Tatts is dying. A thriving club, with every possible advantage, is bleeding on every side and reduced to depending on overdraft financing.


Save City Tatts Committee


Did you know Mark Lonngren was designing apartments for Mirvac?

One of the many insane features of the failed Tony Guilfoyle property plan for City Tatts was the role of Mark Lonngren.

Lonngren, who is allegedly the maintenance manager at City Tatts, spent most of the last 6 months designing apartments for Mirvac.

There was always doubt about whether Lonngren was doing any maintenance at the Club but this year even he stopped pretending and claimed to be working full-time on interior designs for the Mirvac apartments.

Let’s be clear about this:

  • Mirvac were never going to use these designs. They have managed to design and build 10,000 apartments before they ever heard of City Tatts so it is unlikely that they were waiting on a bluffer like Lonngren to tell them how to do it.
  • No other developer would use his designs either, they would always do their own.

So these Lonngren designs were not for use by any serious developer. Their real purpose was as part of the dishonest propaganda campaign to convince members to approve the Mirvac deal, by showing how nice the apartments would be when they were finished. Although how this would benefit members is a mystery, because Mirvac were going to sell the apartments and keep all the profits.

This leads on to a related plan to deceive members. Obviously the Mark Lonngren designs are useless and of no value to anyone. So the cost of preparing them is money down the drain, another expense to be written off. But Patrick Campion will claim they are worth something so that he can carry the cost in the accounts as an asset. This also applies to the other expenses of this development. Apart from the overall propaganda push to put a brave face on Mirvac walking away, there is a specific need to claim that the millions spent on the Mirvac property plan have some value, to avoid writing them off as an expense.

The expenses of this crackpot plan are substantial and have really put a strain on the Club’s financial position, which is much worse than members have been told.

It is only a matter of time before Guilfoyle and Campion go cap in hand to ANZ bank to increase the overdraft.


Save City Tatts Committee


Balmain Leagues Club on the market – for $70 million!

Well what to do know, the Balmain Leagues Club site is fon sale.

The developer couldn’t get planning permission for it so now he is selling it – for $70 million!

He bought it for $23 million in 2009.

Well, this is what can happen when you hand your club’s site to a developer.

It does shed light on the value of the City Tatts site. If a site in Balmain is worth $70 million, how much is a large site on Pitt Street worth? And Mirvac were getting it for $20 million.

But remember, there is absolutely no need for a property development at City Tatts, and no one who cared about the Club would suggest one. The only people calling for a property development at City Tatts are those who will profit from it. They include one or two senior employees, one or two on the committee, a few real estate agents and a long line of consultants. There is absolutely no benefit to members.


Save City Tatts Committee