New Answers fromFootyFirst/Board Challenge Updates

Eastern · Post: # 455152Post **Eastern** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:47pm

Q re revenue v spend. Said $1 of revenue should cost about 50c otherwise you go broke !!

Brewer · Post: # 455153Post **Brewer** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:47pm

On spending:

Increased spend this yr by $1.4m, all profits go to paying off debt and investing in football

Spend similar amount in recruitment as Geelong

Second lowest soft tissue injuries this year

JeffDunne · Post: # 455156Post **JeffDunne** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:48pm

He's admitted his answer in the press conference that he hadn't spoken to the AFL about his proposal was a lie. He HAS spoken to them already.

Independent my arse.

Also admitted (as per Eastern's post) that Archie's comment about leaving Moorabbin was lie. Admitted the board knew it (or was that a lie) - so why then do a backflip two days later if it was designed to pressure the council? Good luck with those negotiations with the council going forward.

Eastern · Post: # 455157Post **Eastern** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:49pm

Q re Baker Tribunal. KB asked if lawyers on the Board were consulted. RB said Lawyers on the Board had not contacted him !!

JeffDunne · Post: # 455159Post **JeffDunne** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:49pm

Brewer wrote:Second lowest soft tissue injuries this year

Second lowest since the break.

saintsRrising · Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:50pm

Brewer wrote:
Second lowest soft tissue injuries this year

Ed. ...this comment refers to the second half of the year.

was quoted as evidence that the program put in place by Ross Smitth were starting be effectove after hada horrofic run with soft tissues.

chook23 · Post: # 455164Post **chook23** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:52pm

Eastern wrote:Q re Baker Tribunal. KB asked if lawyers on the Board were consulted. RB said Lawyers on the Board had not contacted him !!

just to clarify ---if the process (standard practice) at employee level not doing their job.......it would be reasonable to presume that the legal heads may have itervened........

Eastern · Post: # 455165Post **Eastern** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:53pm

Q re NB & AT. Would the board co-opt former players on the board. Said not for the sake of a few votes. Also said that sub-committees don't work !!

Brewer · Post: # 455166Post **Brewer** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:54pm

JeffDunne wrote:
Brewer wrote:Second lowest soft tissue injuries this year
Second lowest since the break.

Noted.

RB claimed we are in a very strong position for premiership next year - 'the only thing that would harm that is 2 months of disruption'...

Sounds a lot like blackmail to me...

Eastern · Post: # 455167Post **Eastern** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:54pm

Interview OVER !!

Eastern · Post: # 455168Post **Eastern** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:56pm

chook23 wrote:
Eastern wrote:Q re Baker Tribunal. KB asked if lawyers on the Board were consulted. RB said Lawyers on the Board had not contacted him !!
just to clarify ---if the process (standard practice) at employee level not doing their job.......it would be reasonable to presume that the legal heads may have itervened........

I would have thought the same. This might be an example of Communication Breakdown at Board Level that goes deeper and further back than any of us know of !!

JeffDunne · Post: # 455169Post **JeffDunne** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:56pm

Sub-committees don't work?

Is he serious?

Hasn't he in the last 12 months formed a sub-committee to appoint a coach & one to review our injury management?

Fair dinkum.

redwhite&blackblood · Thu 13 Sep 2007 12:58pm

chook23 wrote:
Eastern wrote:Q re Baker Tribunal. KB asked if lawyers on the Board were consulted. RB said Lawyers on the Board had not contacted him !!
just to clarify ---if the process (standard practice) at employee level not doing their job.......it would be reasonable to presume that the legal heads may have itervened........

This a fair point and they should have put their hand up. But would it not have been in the clubs interest to have utilized these men as a course of procedure when dealing with the Tribunal for all cases through out the year?

peter lockwood · Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:00pm

As regards to sponsers have we got any left and has Vodafone definately gone.If so has RB said anything about getting a new one or in that case the rival ticket?

Eastern · Post: # 455173Post **Eastern** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:02pm

peter lockwood wrote:As regards to sponsers have we got any left and has Vidaphone definately gone.If so has RB said anything about getting a new one or in that case the rival ticket?

He danced around that Q during the Media Conference by stating that if the challenge goes ahead it will destablize the club for 2 months !!

saintsRrising · Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:06pm

JeffDunne wrote:Sub-committees don't work?

Is he serious?

Hasn't he in the last 12 months formed a sub-committee to appoint a coach & one to review our injury management?

Fair dinkum.

He did not say that sub-committees do not work.

What he said was that in these days of expanded Football Departments was that there was no need for a football subcommitte....and indeed that sucha group could conflict with the Football Department.

The recent experience that the Hawks had with daunstall and Breton meddling in the football department is evidence of that.

JeffDunne · Post: # 455177Post **JeffDunne** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:08pm

He did however manage to insult the management of Vodafone like he did earlier in the year with Bill Express.

No indication of resolution with the council - just more insults for them too.

TBH, the only group he hasn't taken a swipe at is the AFL.

chook23 · Post: # 455178Post **chook23** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:08pm

JeffDunne wrote:Sub-committees don't work?

Is he serious?

Hasn't he in the last 12 months formed a sub-committee to appoint a coach & one to review our injury management?

Fair dinkum.

the point being made a little different to your example.....

Football dept. with people appointed ..............board

football dept. with people appointed................sub-comm...........board

saying that a sub.comm btween board and Foot.Dept. does not work

saintsRrising · Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:09pm

peter lockwood wrote:As regards to sponsers have we got any left and has Vidaphone definately gone.If so has RB said anything about getting a new one or in that case the rival ticket?

Pratt has bought the Vodafone sponosrship for the Blues by offering to sign up his 2500 empoyees.

Maybe Westaby has 2500 phones to buy the Vodafone sponosrship contact back with???.

I don't think "paying" sponosrs to be sponosrs is a viable one.....unless you have some vary genrous Biullionares on tap.

Brewer · Post: # 455180Post **Brewer** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:10pm

Westaway on SEN now

Brewer · Post: # 455181Post **Brewer** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:11pm

Will not meet with Butterss

May meet with AFL

Brewer · Post: # 455182Post **Brewer** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:11pm

Will not meet with Butterss

May meet with AFL

saintsRrising · Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:11pm

JeffDunne wrote:

No indication of resolution with the council - just more insults for them too.

.

Lucky ah...that Gdanaski the main guy on the current Board for SIX years charged with expiditing the deal....is on the FF ticket.

Brewer · Post: # 455184Post **Brewer** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:12pm

'Supremely confident' of winning

Group will rule by consensus

JeffDunne · Post: # 455185Post **JeffDunne** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 1:12pm

saintsRrising wrote:He did not say that sub-committees do not work.

What he said was that in these days of expanded Football Departments was that there was no need for a football subcommitte....and indeed that sucha group could conflict with the Football Department.

The recent experience that the Hawks had with daunstall and Breton meddling in the football department is evidence of that.

So what is Ross . . . sorry Rossy Smith heading then if it's not football related?

You don't think their findings might call into question training techniques?

The situation at Hawthorn is irrelevant and failed because of the people involved and how it was set up. Dermie was in the rooms undermining the coach, not to mention Parkin's involvement.

Typical nonsense by Rod.