GT wants $60000 in holiday pay

[TimeToShineFellas]

Sorry, I should finish this story....

My understanding is they knew each other when both were at St Kilda but were not close. They again met in the mid to late nineties through business associates and became close in or around late '98 early '99.

They were married in 200 when RB divorced Ms Blight and had a happy honeymoon and couple of years marriage. It all fell apart late 2004 early 2005 and the joining ended in divorce in 2006.

The divorce is finalised but the final settlement still to be reached.

So are the days of our lives!

*dabs teary eyes with tissue*

*sniff* that's a beautiful heart-warming yet tragic story...........

Thanks very much for sharing that!!!!

[Dan Warna]

oh mr burns what have you done!

[golden hawk]

saw him at the hawks game heading in before the gates opened

[Leo.J]

When we talk about the "the club" owing GT money, realistically we are talking about the board aren't we? The club funds the money owed, but the board has made all the decisions regarding this issue.

The board with RB as president fired Blight and hired Thomas. The board which as we've heard since apparently did this in a pretty unprofessional way ie. GT was getting the job regardless of who applied. Now RB oversaw this decision, he rubber stamped it as president. As he did with the million $ Blight payout. As he would have signed GT's contract, he also over saw the GT sacking, he rubber stamped these decisions on behalf of the board. I assume thats how things work.

So what I'm getting at is, that the board represent the St.Kilda FC, they are not the St.Kilda FC IMO. So atm the moment we have 2 sides here. On one side GT, and on the other a group of men, 'the board'. And currently it is the boards word against GT as to the particulars of the contract. No one else has seen it have they?

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to believe who you want, but realistically it's one word against the other.

I find it funny how people can be so sure of whose owed what and whose right when we have so few facts.

I think you'll find that the reason Blight received a payout was becuase he had a 2 year contract with teh Club and was terminated early. Rb and the Board could have just as easily paid Blight from Club Funds, but RB and another chose to pay Blight his entitlement from their own pockets and 'save' the Club from doing so.

In the case of GT, it would appear that he did not have a 'payout' figure owing to him and so the Club did not have a liablilty owing to him.

If the reports we are hearing are accurate it would appear that a 'separate deal' was done between the Club and GT whereby the Club would pay him some money if he met certain conditions. GT feels he has met those conditions and it is obvious the Club does not. Hence the current legal action.

To suggest that RB should pay because he is 'ultimately responsible' is a little far-fetched. Should RB collect a portion of all the sponsorship money the Club has earned whilst he has been President because 'ultimately he is responsible'?

Where did I say that?

[Leo.J]

When we talk about the "the club" owing GT money, realistically we are talking about the board aren't we? The club funds the money owed, but the board has made all the decisions regarding this issue.

The board with RB as president fired Blight and hired Thomas. The board which as we've heard since apparently did this in a pretty unprofessional way ie. GT was getting the job regardless of who applied. Now RB oversaw this decision, he rubber stamped it as president. As he did with the million $ Blight payout. As he would have signed GT's contract, he also over saw the GT sacking, he rubber stamped these decisions on behalf of the board. I assume thats how things work.

So what I'm getting at is, that the board represent the St.Kilda FC, they are not the St.Kilda FC IMO. So atm the moment we have 2 sides here. On one side GT, and on the other a group of men, 'the board'. And currently it is the boards word against GT as to the particulars of the contract. No one else has seen it have they?

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to believe who you want, but realistically it's one word against the other.

I find it funny how people can be so sure of whose owed what and whose right when we have so few facts.

I think you'll find that the reason Blight received a payout was becuase he had a 2 year contract with teh Club and was terminated early. Rb and the Board could have just as easily paid Blight from Club Funds, but RB and another chose to pay Blight his entitlement from their own pockets and 'save' the Club from doing so.

In the case of GT, it would appear that he did not have a 'payout' figure owing to him and so the Club did not have a liablilty owing to him.

If the reports we are hearing are accurate it would appear that a 'separate deal' was done between the Club and GT whereby the Club would pay him some money if he met certain conditions. GT feels he has met those conditions and it is obvious the Club does not. Hence the current legal action.

To suggest that RB should pay because he is 'ultimately responsible' is a little far-fetched. Should RB collect a portion of all the sponsorship money the Club has earned whilst he has been President because 'ultimately he is responsible'?

Where did I say that?

What I was getting at is that people are making out like its GT vs The Club, but its not its GT Vs the Board. The club ultimately funds the boards decisions.

[Mr Magic]

When we talk about the "the club" owing GT money, realistically we are talking about the board aren't we? The club funds the money owed, but the board has made all the decisions regarding this issue.

The board with RB as president fired Blight and hired Thomas. The board which as we've heard since apparently did this in a pretty unprofessional way ie. GT was getting the job regardless of who applied. Now RB oversaw this decision, he rubber stamped it as president. As he did with the million $ Blight payout. As he would have signed GT's contract, he also over saw the GT sacking, he rubber stamped these decisions on behalf of the board. I assume thats how things work.

So what I'm getting at is, that the board represent the St.Kilda FC, they are not the St.Kilda FC IMO. So atm the moment we have 2 sides here. On one side GT, and on the other a group of men, 'the board'. And currently it is the boards word against GT as to the particulars of the contract. No one else has seen it have they?

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to believe who you want, but realistically it's one word against the other.

I find it funny how people can be so sure of whose owed what and whose right when we have so few facts.

I think you'll find that the reason Blight received a payout was becuase he had a 2 year contract with teh Club and was terminated early. Rb and the Board could have just as easily paid Blight from Club Funds, but RB and another chose to pay Blight his entitlement from their own pockets and 'save' the Club from doing so.

In the case of GT, it would appear that he did not have a 'payout' figure owing to him and so the Club did not have a liablilty owing to him.

If the reports we are hearing are accurate it would appear that a 'separate deal' was done between the Club and GT whereby the Club would pay him some money if he met certain conditions. GT feels he has met those conditions and it is obvious the Club does not. Hence the current legal action.

To suggest that RB should pay because he is 'ultimately responsible' is a little far-fetched. Should RB collect a portion of all the sponsorship money the Club has earned whilst he has been President because 'ultimately he is responsible'?

Where did I say that?

My apologies Leo.J
I quoted the wrong post. It was actually Everton who suggested that RB should pay personally and my response should have been to his post.

[saintly]

hope its not true but if it is, then agree totally with Barks comments

same here!

i must say i am getting sick and tired of Grant Thomas

[Mr Magic]

What should the Club/Board do if the $60k is not owed as apparently alleged by GT.
How should they handle it?

They should make it known that the claim was without merit, and if possible put the torch on the 'mole' who started the whispers. This should include people like Caro. And, if the 'mole' turned out to be RB - now wouldn't that be a peach?

And if that is exactly what they did and had nothing to do with the 'leaking' of the story? To date we have no facts as to who leaked it. Only supposition from a couple of posters here (JD and Mischa?) and based on that supposition we are again condemning RB/Board for something they may or may not have had anything to do with.

RB and his Board aren't perfect and should be held accountable for what they stuff up, but it absolutely amazes me the way they are villified for things none of us know they have actually done?

BTW the same comments can be aimed at those villifying GT on here, again mainly on supposition.

[JeffDunne]

MM, I think you left a few off your list.

Anyhow, I agree with what you are saying. People shouldn't be hung on supposition and innuendo. The reasons I want RB gone are all issues that are on the record.

[satchmo]

RB and his Board aren't perfect and should be held accountable for what they stuff up, but it absolutely amazes me the way they are villified for things none of us know they have actually done?
BTW the same comments can be aimed at those villifying GT on here, again mainly on supposition.

Agree with that. Can't acuse someone of leaking a story, or making a claim, based on caro's advice.

If there is a claim it is either just, and should be paid, or unjust and shouldn't be paid. I don't think they'll need the internet to solve this one !

[Teflon]

Can someone please post GT's quotes about this?

While you're at it, can someone please also explain to me how he was responsible for this being in the press?


Anyone?

your pushing it up hill now Jeff and looking very desperate......a lot like Grant actually........the curtain has been drawn back and theres Grant.....a very sad, greedy,power hungry ego maniac little FAT man making big statements to keep his name in the media.....all the while balancing comment with just enough to keep the club in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons...

Time to go fat man.

and Grant...

[Richter]

What a load of old codswallop this is.

At worst if this story is true, I work out that it amounts to 6 weeks of pay total - in around 5 years of work - i.e. just over one week of holiday a year not taken. If he hasn't been paid it then he should be paid out. If he isn't entitled to it he won't be.

If a manual labourer worked for 5 years for a company at 50k a year and didn't take 6 weeks of his agreed holiday then would anyone object to him being paid off 6k for it?

So what it comes down to is whether or not you believe that the 2nd most successful coach in St Kilda's history deserved to be paid the sum of 500k a year. Whilst under his tenure St Kilda was probably in the top 3 best performing Melbourne clubs, was his pay in the top 3 for coaches? Who knows, but I doubt it.

[Teflon]

What a load of old codswallop this is.

At worst if this story is true, I work out that it amounts to 6 weeks of pay total - in around 5 years of work - i.e. just over one week of holiday a year not taken. If he hasn't been paid it then he should be paid out. If he isn't entitled to it he won't be.

If a manual labourer worked for 5 years for a company at 50k a year and didn't take 6 weeks of his agreed holiday then would anyone object to him being paid off 6k for it?

So what it comes down to is whether or not you believe that the 2nd most successful coach in St Kilda's history deserved to be paid the sum of 500k a year. Whilst under his tenure St Kilda was probably in the top 3 best performing Melbourne clubs, was his pay in the top 3 for coaches? Who knows, but I doubt it.

Id reckon the top paid coaches would include Williams, Matthews, Sheedy,Pagan, Malthouse, Roos and Co.

They achieved in AFL what equates to top performance ...Premierships -and ALL have umpteenth years experience - Grant did a good job for his time at galvanising a club after the Blight fiasco BUT lets remember:

1. He admits he was gifted the job
2. He had no experience that would equate to an "apprenticeship" at senior AFL level
3. He was paid handsomely instantly - reported as much as Pagan at Kangas
4. He had more power than ANY rookie coach Ive heard of
5. He was gifted some super draft talent (thanks Tim) just coming along at the right time......and Carlton gettin caught with their hands down their pants.............and we just happened to be standing next in line.......

Yeah if hes entitlted to it pay him - no one would say dont pay him the 60k............if hes not I hope the club hunt the pr!ck down every burrough till hes finally eradicated from being the continuous source of embarrassment that hes fast becoming....

My greatest fear with a character like Grant Thomas is - and Ive had this view for a long time - it was ALWAYS about him and for that reason....he will not be gone untill any current hold he has over the club is also gone.

Sadly I am starting to believe that means Rod Butters - whose done a great job depsite the SS Board expert committee views and repeated attacks - may be a causalty in order to rid the club of Thomas once and for all.................and NO to Fox.

[stinger]

Can I ask, if this report is true, how on earth does Caro know about it?

She seems to 'know' an awful lot about supposedly confidential discussions.

She's either a liar or someone's in her ear. I think we can presume it's not GT talking to her.

\
at least someone on here has a brain.......why would posters accept as gospel anything that ugly tart had to say...ffs....

[The Craw]

.......why would posters accept as gospel anything that ugly tart had to say...ffs....

You are being very unfair to all the ugly tarts out there stinger.

[mbogo]

Is this cr*p about a non-disclosure agreement over the first 12 months after GT left?
Has he actually "disclosed" anything - err like the appointment process? Maybe he should just STFU and hope that he is remembered in history as the coach that re-built the club, rather than someone who tried to white-ant the club!

[Joffa Burns]

What a load of old codswallop this is.

At worst if this story is true, I work out that it amounts to 6 weeks of pay total - in around 5 years of work - i.e. just over one week of holiday a year not taken. If he hasn't been paid it then he should be paid out. If he isn't entitled to it he won't be.

If a manual labourer worked for 5 years for a company at 50k a year and didn't take 6 weeks of his agreed holiday then would anyone object to him being paid off 6k for it?

So what it comes down to is whether or not you believe that the 2nd most successful coach in St Kilda's history deserved to be paid the sum of 500k a year. Whilst under his tenure St Kilda was probably in the top 3 best performing Melbourne clubs, was his pay in the top 3 for coaches? Who knows, but I doubt it.

The thing I find perplexing is that settlement/ entitlements etc were not met/finalised at the time of GT’s departure and (like the many other sagas) are being played out in the media.

Surely he had a contract in place and the StKFC would have/ should have met all the entitlements of that contract on its termination.

Very unprofessional by the StKFC IMO.
GT – to me is a snake in the grass!

I can’t understand the relevance of whether or not GT deserved the remuneration he recieved.

[Richter]

The thing I find perplexing is that settlement/ entitlements etc were not met/finalised at the time of GT’s departure and (like the many other sagas) are being played out in the media.

Surely he had a contract in place and the StKFC would have/ should have met all the entitlements of that contract on its termination.

Very unprofessional by the StKFC IMO.
GT – to me is a snake in the grass!

I can’t understand the relevance of whether or not GT deserved the remuneration he recieved.

It seems that another "quasi-contract" was put in place to the effect that if GT kept his mouth shut in the media on St Kilda matters for a year after his exit then he would be paid a further sum of money.

Working out well that one isn't it.......

[WinnersOnly]

I used to rant about what GT had done for the club in his time at the helm, however he has done the equivalence in damage to the reputation of the club and himself since he has left. To be frank he has carried on like a complete co~k head since he was sacked!

[Richter]

Whereas I used to rail at the fact the I didn't believe GT was the right man for the job any more after 2006 and in retrospect actually 2005, but now don't think he has done much wrong since leaving.

I don't think that the club (probably more precisely the board) have dealt with the aftermath of his departure very well - after initially getting it pretty much right IMO. However, I do still support the RB ticket as president/board as I believe that in other, far more important facets, i.e. keeping the club profitable, they've done an excellent job.

[saintly]

I ranted at the end of 2005 and at the end of 2006 just after final.

i was in the midst of writing a letter to the Board stating a number of point re lack of development of players , rookies, injury management etc,

2 weeks later i didn't send it off as he got sacked.

[saintsRrising]

Surely he had a contract in place and the StKFC would have/ should have met all the entitlements of that contract on its termination.

Very unprofessional by the StKFC IMO.
GT – to me is a snake in the grass!

.

What makes you think that they did not pay him out with respect to entitlements etc????

if the accountant genuinely forget lo log inGT;s 4 weeks a year and factor that into his termination deal then fair enough.

More likely now GT is trying to argue that that week every year when he lay around the pool thinking about what the Saints would do next year that he should retrospectively claim it was work.....which it may have been...but Reality Check....people on $500,000 a year don't clock on or off like someone on $50,000 a year.

They just factor it in as to why they are getting the big $$$ anyway.

Shall we pay spider when he comes back wanting to be paid hliday pay for end of sesaon trip time???

[Joffa Burns]

Surely he had a contract in place and the StKFC would have/ should have met all the entitlements of that contract on its termination.

Very unprofessional by the StKFC IMO.
GT – to me is a snake in the grass!

.

What makes you think that they did not pay him out with respect to entitlements etc????

I don’t think that for a moment, I don't have an opinion either way as I have absolutely no facts or information to make as assessment.

By writing would have/ should have paid the entitlements, I was suggesting they would have or should have paid everything that was owed - not intimating holiday pay was an entitlement.

Sorry if it did not come across more clearly.

[barks4eva]

This morning on SEN asked by Maher would you vote for Rudd after the strip club admission...

Grant Thomas said "Im a little Johnny man", "weve never had it so good in the last 10 years" "why would we want to go back to the dark old days"....

Ya never had it so good hey, yeah it shows, so much for the walnut diet, ya grub

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, a pair of lying rodents the both of them

When in history has an AFL coach been paid out his contract and then tried it on for a $60,000 holiday pay claim, aside from the rest, against a club he apprently bleeds for

I mean FAIR DINKUM

and who is Grant Thomas to take the high moral ground on Butterss in the first place about his personal life, Thomas is a slimy snake in the grass, a svengali snakeoil salesman and a little right wing Howard voting cockroach

[Spinner]

This morning on SEN asked by Maher would you vote for Rudd after the strip club admission...

Grant Thomas said "Im a little Johnny man", "weve never had it so good in the last 10 years" "why would we want to go back to the dark old days"....

Ya never had it so good hey, yeah it shows, so much for the walnut diet, ya grub

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, a pair of lying rodents the both of them

When in history has an AFL coach been paid out his contract and then tried it on for a $60,000 holiday pay claim, aside from the rest, against a club he apprently bleeds for

I mean FAIR DINKUM

and who is Grant Thomas to take the high moral ground on Butterss in the first place about his personal life, Thomas is a slimy snake in the grass, a svengali snakeoil salesman and a little right wing Howard voting cockroach

Testify! *waves hands in the air*