The New Daily to avoid political bias: Weaven

How ridiculous. All administrative and marketing expenses in an industry super fund are derived from client funds in the form of fees. Members are paying for this. There will be an agenda - this is not for love.

This story that Weaven editing the new daily is to give up being a Labor party supporter is just nonsense. This will be nothing other than an industry super fund rag and be entirely about how wonderful they are and how crap the private sector and advice sector is.

Well it's going to be very interesting with everyone having a MySuper option and the Coaltion Government looking to decouple the awards from super.

Weaven and the boys will not be doing anyone a service but themselves

Is there no end to the inventiveness of Garry and Bruce by devising a new income stream product for themselves at the expense of members of Industry Funds which are "run purely for the benefit of members", and not directors etc who are commonly Unionists, past or present, or past Labor politicians, plus the NSW Liberal Peter Collins.

What ordinary Joe and Jill could get finance (at no cost) to start such up and, if it fails, lose their house to the bank who really financed them. After all, if Garry and Bruce fail, they lose nothing; the loss belongs to members of Industry Funds.

Could Joe and Jill afford to wait four years for profitability (quote Garry ex SMH)? No, they have to meet interest payments, salaries, running expenses, hardware, software, and the repayment of capital etc.

What a wonderful world Garry has devised..." for the benefit of members"!

Could "shy away from political discussion" simply be weasel words????? He did not say "NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION"!

So if Garry Weaven as a Director of The New Daily Pty Ltd, and with a mountain of experience in industry super funds does not know whether the $3m that has been provided to bankroll The New Daily is an investment or designated a marketing expense, then who does know?

Would it not be prudent and expected as a Director of an organisation to fully understand how the contributors of $3m to your organisation would be treating their capital and not just "suspect" on what basis it is being provided?

If it were provided or supplied as an investment then it would be acceptable to assume the contributors of the funds would be expecting a return on invested capital.
If it were provided and classified as marketing expenditure, then one can only assume that there would have to be some "marketing" involved, especially if the funds were claiming the cost of this marketing as a fund expense at 15%?

So, if the capital provided has been deemed a marketing expense and Garry Weaven has inferred that The New Daily's stance will not be skewed, but will be neutral in it's approach and not promote or market a union, political or industry fund position, then what is the value proposition to the members of these super funds and how does this usage of members monies truly benefit and enhance their retirement savings?