Macedonian Church Dispute in Australia

[Daj edna luta]

So you are against the actions of Petar?

Yes, and i think the synod is to blame for not replacing him. I am actually concerned that Petar is more influential in the synod then dedo Stefan himself when it comes to certain issues like our church dispute.

[Daj edna luta]

Are you suggesting that a director or directors from MOCA have done this?

Yes, that's exactly what i'm suggesting. Some of them even boasted that they made a $180,000 profit from the sale. They would not disclose the purchase price however.

[Daj edna luta]

Obviously the decision to do this would not be taken lightly.
If the community agrees to it, I see no problem.

In this case the community was not even asked for their opinion. I don't think even the members knew as it was not mentioned at a General Meeting.

[makedonche]

Yes, that's exactly what i'm suggesting. Some of them even boasted that they made a $180,000 profit from the sale. They would not disclose the purchase price however.

Daj edna luta
If you send me a private message with the addresses of the properties I will tell you what they were transferred at and sold for later!

[Soldier of Macedon]

Yes, and i think the synod is to blame for not replacing him. I am actually concerned that Petar is more influential in the synod then dedo Stefan himself when it comes to certain issues like our church dispute.

When it comes to Australia and even some parts of Macedonia, that is a valid concern. Stefan has been weak, he hasn't done enough to assert himself as archbishop. What is the point of being in the most superior position of the church hierarchy if he refuses to intervene when a bishop treats his own diocese like a fiefdom?

Yes, that's exactly what i'm suggesting. Some of them even boasted that they made a $180,000 profit from the sale. They would not disclose the purchase price however.

This thread is quite transparent, as you will notice if you read it from the beginning. Therefore, I see no reason why can't provide the names of these people if what you say is indeed fact. Can you do that?

[Daj edna luta]

This thread is quite transparent, as you will notice if you read it from the beginning. Therefore, I see no reason why can't provide the names of these people if what you say is indeed fact. Can you do that?

I don't think it's a good idea to mention any names at the moment, the sale of the units is common knowledge among community activists in Sydney. I believe the profit from the sale has been recorded in the financial statements.

While the thread seems to be transparent i don't think the same can be said about MOCA. That's another reason i don't want to mention any names. I'll just say that last year alone 2 directors D.D. and A.S. were expelled from the board by the other directors and at least one other director M.R. resigned.

[Vangelovski]

Daj edna luta,

Are you claiming that some of the directors personally made a profit from the sale of the units or the Church association made a profit from the sale of the units?

If you are going to make the claim that some of the directors personally made a profit, then you will have to post their names, along with your real name, otherwise we are not interested in BS stories and I will advise the readers of this forum to ignore your unsubstantiated claims in addition to deleting them.

[Risto the Great]

While the thread seems to be transparent i don't think the same can be said about MOCA.

Why not?
The thread is certainly transparent and the least you can do is identify yourself and state your affiliations or allegiances.

[George S.]

how can indivivdual directors sell out the units & keep the profits this is hearsay.The disposing of assets is not normal i'm sure Igor would have something to say.
Unless it's more substantiated how can one make wild speculations.I though given the current climate there would be a freeze on sales of properties as the parties are involved in extensive ligation & costs.This is bs made for communities to look bad & is from a dissident in the church matters probably pro peter..

[Daj edna luta]

Daj edna luta,

Are you claiming that some of the directors personally made a profit from the sale of the units or the Church association made a profit from the sale of the units?

I'm not claiming that any directors made personal profit, it's MOCA as an association that made the profit. The point i was trying to make is that the directors have powers to sell church property without any approval from the members or the community.


It would be interesting to know at what price whey they purchased and at what price and how where they sold. Also, who were the buyers? Where they all macedonian? I've been told that one of MOCA's priests purchased 2 of the units. Did he maybe get them below market value?

[Daj edna luta]

Why not?

I can give you several reasons why MOCA (previously MOCS) is not transparent. Here's one, if that's not enough i'll give you a few more.

A transparent organisation is one that holds Annual General Meetings each and every year.

MOCA on the other hand holds General Meetings every second year. I have had an opportunity to read their constitution, they have even inserted a clause that they believe allows them to act this way. They had something like " The company shall hold Bi-Annual General Meetings every second year...."

What a joke, someone needs to tell them that you can't simply put a silly clause like that in your constitution and override the Corporations Act. It's illegal!

[Risto the Great]

I've been told that one of MOCA's priests purchased 2 of the units. Did he maybe get them below market value?

I would say that a member could get that answered immediately by asking the committee. A member could also ask to review the minutes of meetings where resolutions were held pertaining to the matter. Don't you know this? Why make it sound so cloak & dagger unless your intentions here are less than genuine.

[Risto the Great]

I can give you several reasons why MOCA (previously MOCS) is not transparent. Here's one, if that's not enough i'll give you a few more.

No, it isn't enough. I would like them all please.

[Vangelovski]

I'm not claiming that any directors made personal profit, it's MOCA as an association that made the profit. The point i was trying to make is that the directors have powers to sell church property without any approval from the members or the community.


It would be interesting to know at what price whey they purchased and at what price and how where they sold. Also, who were the buyers? Where they all macedonian? I've been told that one of MOCA's priests purchased 2 of the units. Did he maybe get them below market value?

This is frivilous and irrelevant. There is nothing wrong, Biblically or under Australian law, with MOCA selling assets that belongs to it or making a profit on the sale of its assets.

Further, you claim that it made a profit, but then go on to admit that you don't even know how much they were originally purchased for or sold for. Now you are trying to claim that the priest may have bought them for below market value, if indeed he even purchased them. You are begining to look like a disengenious troll.

[Vangelovski]

I can give you several reasons why MOCA (previously MOCS) is not transparent. Here's one, if that's not enough i'll give you a few more.

A transparent organisation is one that holds Annual General Meetings each and every year.

MOCA on the other hand holds General Meetings every second year. I have had an opportunity to read their constitution, they have even inserted a clause that they believe allows them to act this way. They had something like " The company shall hold Bi-Annual General Meetings every second year...."

What a joke, someone needs to tell them that you can't simply put a silly clause like that in your constitution and override the Corporations Act. It's illegal!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding a General Meeting every two years. The Annual General Meeting provision applies to public companies (for profit), which MOCA is not. Your attempt to discredit MOCA is ridiculous and nothing you have provided is illegal or immoral outside of your own mind.