Possibly so, but at this stage that is merely conjecture with literally no hard evidence to back it up, now if the Adver had actually done a proper job there possibly would be evidence to reach a conclusion one way or the other upon, but there isn't, such practices are depressingly common in the construction industry (happen to me enough times in my professional life).
As for Angus being stitched up, reading what he said he merely commented upon whether the liquidation affected the club, at the moment is there any evidence that what he was told and subsequently said was incorrect?
I agree with your sentiment on the Adver, they are basically doing little more than me or you could do, in fact, less at times. Your general themes of nothing to see here unless proven otherwise I think I do not agree with though. There is clearly a thread here that can be pulled, and it may take weeks to fully unravel or be long enough to print something, but the thread almost certainly seems to be unravelling on it's own.
Individual events that have occurred, on there own, do not create any reason to worry about STFC. However, it's the fact that they are not pre-warned or even cleared up with truth initially. That seeming need to keep things swept under a carpet and the fact that it's more than one thing, would suggest more to find.
In this individual situation:
Clem did not come out ahead of the news
Rob Angus was sent out with some half hearted, don't admit to anything effort to clean it up
Clem eventually had to own up to 80% of the issue to stop further digging
Turns out that wasn't entirely true either
Now, on a pure business level, there is nothing illegal with liquidating a company. There are some moral concerns about doing do so while owing people money, especially if you have other means to repay - like a profitable business, or assets.
the question here would be, at what point did Clem hand this business (which looks like one of his original ones I believe) to some other poor shmuck to take the fall and provide distance from the creditors? I know of heresay that suggests not that long, in world history terms.
Next - does that mean he may still be pursued for the debts? No idea, maybe, not aware of the rules in Aussie law and also how far that would even be able to go, like across borders?
Anyway, the point is none of that, not really. It's that it is one of many and growing, and none of the issues have been resolved to a point where no questions can be asked still. Every single one has been a drip feed of truth, mostly blended with blatant porkies. On the witness stand, you'd have been discredited by now.
Come on Adver, let someone do their job.
