Just as a matter of interest Macca, could you tell us a little of the general split of opinions amongst SICAG members? At the social gatherings I assume people would share "war stories" and compare who was told what, when. Do the majority of SICAG members still think Manny had their best interests at heart, or do the majority now blame him at least partially for their losses? Or is there an unspoken rule that to openly question the "model" would be inappropriate, at least in the presence of group heirarchy?
I think it is unrealistic to expect the "group" as a whole to share one point of view, as there will be those who will never be prepared to hear any criticism of Manny and Julie, but I'm wondering if those with contrary views feel free to voice them?
If so, and all members are aware that they don't all necessarily agree, I don't see a problem with an "every man in it for themselves" approach. Nothing to stop any member so inclined going after Manny (and ex-staff) outside of SICAG - or perhaps even forming an off-shoot once they're done with the banks. Transparancy is the key - and is what was missing with Storm all along. If there is transparency about the different motives at work within SICAG, then nobody is being "used" to further someone else's agenda and all is well
My
Hi DocK,
Unfortunately with the exception of 1 SICAG meeting (the information session - wasn't social) held in Cairns I have not been able to attend a social function personally. So I cannot give first hand experience. Through my own networks I have heard about almost all of them though. As I said I have a wide number of family and friends involved all around Queensland. Take what I say here now as what it is - hearsay.
What I have heard about these social gatherings does seem to be close to what you have described...
People do tell their own war stories and voice opinions. People openly express their opinions and do so in front of the committee members (when they are present - obviously the committee members tend to attend gatherings in SE Qld mostly) and former Storm staff (including advisors). I have not heard of any big nasty arguments between people with different points of view. Nor have I heard of people being asked not to speak out against EC/JC or SF.
The committee members are very open and respond as quickly as possible to emails and phone calls and are happy to speak to people in person if it is possible.
I don't know the proportions (although Big Max indicated 90% to 10%) but from what I hear they are changing to more people are starting to think that perhaps things weren't as they had been led to believe.
As these social gatherings have been happening for quite a few months now I suspect that while they are still opportunities to voice concerns and share stories I think they are also now starting to become more personal "catch-ups" between friends where things other than SF and SICAG are discussed.
I agree with your point about expecting every member of the group to hold to one position. I think with a membership of 1500 it would be nearly impossible.
I also agree on the point of transparency. In my case, I am happy to support SICAG committee as from where I sit they have been extremely transparent. When I call or email to ask questions they answer them. They do not shirk hard questions. They have from time to time elected not to give direct answers to some of my questions at that point in time (for strategic reasons) but they have always answered them in the fullness of time. What's more the committee members I am in contact also provide the evidence to back their answers.
Cheers
Maccka
