Patrick Smith has just convinced me....

[redwhite&blackblood]

Patrick Smith and Greg Denim must both be mates with RB they are unwaiving in their support for him it makes me sick. They should be impartial reporters and not take sides just report the facts. Smith F**kin compared Nathan Burke to Joffa from the Collingwood cheer squad???? They have no idea what so ever. Any saints members who rang and backed footy first were shouted down by these penuts.

Denham has no original thoughts he is Phatprycks lapdog and will help push all of his agendas. If Denham was to contradict Smith's view you would find him looking in the Classifieds for a new job. Who actually reads the Australian i know no one who would admit to it?

[HardSaint]

I remember the morning after RB's paranoid, self involved, megalomaniac (symptoms anyone??) outburst about GT working behind the scenes to destabilise the club, curious as to Patrick's take on it. GTs dismissal gave him (PS) vindication after having done enormous bout faces and backflips to begrudgingly admit that GT was doing a good job and was a good coach after all, having so viciously defamed, prejudged and dismissed GT in the early days. Good ole Patrick was like the cat that got the cream and quickly reverted back yo his "i knew he was never any good" position from the start, and has stuck by RB ever since because of his perceived vindication.
OK, all agreed, RBs outburst mid season was bizarre, unprofessional, disruptive, disappointing (to say the least) and he were we all thinking "RB you a truly insane!!!"
Not Patrick, oh no. Without any facts or inside sources, he went on to justify the outburst, based on what he "supposed" GT was up to, manipulating, playing victim etc etc etc. He had nothing to go by other than a personal grudge against GT. I was so pissed off I called SEN and waited 45 minutes b4 I hung up. Amazing that somebody should go out of their way to justify what was a mystifying bit of public theatre drawing attention to a very self absorbed personality...

[dalboy]

There was a strong feeling at the time of RB's comments on GT undermining the football club that Ross Lyon was getting pissed with GT and that RB was therefore sticking up for our present coach and making it public because nothing else had worked.....if this is true then i would want my President to do exactly what RB did.

[Dis Believer]

i wouldn't pyss on smith if he was on fire.

I would - even if he wasn't on fire - but then I am a nice bloke!!

[Buckets]

The fact that alot of Journos are on RB's side seems to be a factor in people being turned of the Board because for years these same gutter rats have been trying to bring the club down and now they dont want them to leave. Go figure.

[Behind Play]

After listening to Smith yesterday, I vow I will boycott SEN when he is on. As for the Australian no one reads it anyway.

He really is an embarrassment to his profession. The contradictions stand out like a dogs hind leg.

[stinger]

I remember the morning after RB's paranoid, self involved, megalomaniac (symptoms anyone??) outburst about GT working behind the scenes to destabilise the club, curious as to Patrick's take on it. GTs dismissal gave him (PS) vindication after having done enormous bout faces and backflips to begrudgingly admit that GT was doing a good job and was a good coach after all, having so viciously defamed, prejudged and dismissed GT in the early days. Good ole Patrick was like the cat that got the cream and quickly reverted back yo his "i knew he was never any good" position from the start, and has stuck by RB ever since because of his perceived vindication.
OK, all agreed, RBs outburst mid season was bizarre, unprofessional, disruptive, disappointing (to say the least) and he were we all thinking "RB you a truly insane!!!"
Not Patrick, oh no. Without any facts or inside sources, he went on to justify the outburst, based on what he "supposed" GT was up to, manipulating, playing victim etc etc etc. He had nothing to go by other than a personal grudge against GT. I was so pissed off I called SEN and waited 45 minutes b4 I hung up. Amazing that somebody should go out of their way to justify what was a mystifying bit of public theatre drawing attention to a very self absorbed personality...

you should post more often....

[Snakeman66]

The fact that alot of Journos are on RB's side seems to be a factor in people being turned of the Board because for years these same gutter rats have been trying to bring the club down and now they dont want them to leave. Go figure.

If RB stays, he will continue to give them ammo on the RB v GT feud.

If RB goes, RB is out of the limelight and no more stories of RB(StK Pres) v GT(Ex-coach, Ex best mate).

[Dan Warna]

RB never got over the fact GT supported his ex wife over him.

sadly that rage at GT has coloured everything he did subsequently including dividing the board, dividing the fan base, and apparantly dividing the players.

[joffaboy]

I just read todays article by Smith.

I now know I need therapy. He wrote what I have been saying all day.

Now I know I am wrong.

Go FFS.

I apologise to everyone on this site.

Fair Dinkum, Smith is just positioning himself so he can target Westaway and the Saints board for the next five years.

The guy is an out and out c**t.

F*** Off Smith.

You have just got a convert FFS and Westaway.

[Oh When the Saints]

Enjoy ...

THE first casualty in the battle for power at St Kilda must be the man who leads the rebel group. Greg Westaway must resign immediately or the Footy First push has no integrity.
Just two days after announcing his leadership of the rebel group, Westaway is now a liability. Presumably buoyed by his barely scrutinised campaign launch, Westaway must be held to account for his disappointing comments made about the St Kilda board led by Rod Butterss.

How is he a liability? He made some poorly-worded comments in the media.

On that basis, Rod Butterss is the biggest liability I have seen in my life. His media performance, highlighted by his bizzarre comments about GT earlier in the year, have disgraced the club.

Barely scrutinised campaign launch? Stop whinging Pat, it's your own fault if it's barely scrutinised. It's the media's job to put stuff under the spotlight.

Westaway is now shrinking from his verbal assault on the club. But we suspect he is being disingenuous, and so are all the other rebel members who seek to justify his remarks.

"verbal assault". Geez Pat, don't make it sound as if he has gone out to destroy the spirit of the club and wreck the place.

Emotive language? No way ... :rolleyes:

On the night of the launch of the Footy First group, Westaway told the Herald-Sun: "A board of a football club has to lead by example and we will be adhering to that - that there will be no illicit or illegal drugs taken by any board member. Our members will also sign a policy that they not be intoxicated at board meetings, or club functions or in front of players."

Fair enough. It's the policy of every company board that I know of ... except the current St Kilda one.

Funny that.

Don't mind a bit of professionalism ... find me a publicly listed company who doesn't have exactly the same policy.

Westaway said it was based on nothing more than "innuendo and talk, and that's all it is, innuendo". Unfortunately, the public saw it as a direct slap at St Kilda board members, inferring they use illicit drugs and appear boozed at board meetings.

No Pat, he didn't say that "it was based on ...".

He said that there had been "rumour and innuendo" and that it "was nothing more than rumour and innuendo".

Mis-interpretation Pat. But hey, when it suits your argument, go right ahead ...

Butterss was furious and immediately asked his solicitor to examine whether Westaway had defamed him or the board. Westaway compounded matters when he said people offended by his remarks were thin-skinned. The comments drove talkback radio.

Know what Butterss solicitor said to him? Line up and have a crack?

I have no idea ... it's a legal matter.

Hypothetically speaking, what if Westaway's allegations had a basis in truth? A truth that was (hypothetically of course) an open secret in the football world?

Westaway has since clarified and corrected his comments, saying they were just a reflection on the football community and the issue of drugs in sport. However, to think they could have been construed any other way than a slight on the board is either naive or stupid. We must take him at his word that the comments were not a personal attack, but great damage has been done.

Fair enough ... his comments were poorly timed.

A slight on the board? What, by setting a higher standard than the board? Of course that's a slight.

It's like your editor demanding that you write something insightful Pat.

Higher standards are useful ... you'd double your readership to 2 (Kevin Bartlett and my dog).

"We must take him on his word, BUT ..."

Not something you're fond of, eh Pat? Taking someone at their word? Can't wait for everyone to lie so you can pretend to infer something?

He has no alternative but to apologise in full and personally to the St Kilda board, then step away permanently from the Footy First group. If he doesn't, the rest of his rebel group will be stained by the smear.

"No alternative ... to step away".

Why Pat? Because he made some miscalculated statements in the media?

Not nearly as worse as the miscalculated statements your hero Rod made earlier in the year, which badly damaged the playing group and coaching staff, and the morale of the staff at the club.

Would-be board members Nathan Burke and John Gdanski have attempted to water down the impact of Westaway's remarks but have failed. Gdanski also offered the fact that as all the rebel board wore the same ties and suits, this was an indelible sign that the board was united. Does this mean Butterss could have bought the loyalty of Gdanski and the other breakaway board member, Ross Levin, with a couple of matching ties? This is not the behaviour of an alternative board but a group of boys lining up for a school photograph. The ties that bind.

"water down the impact". Where Pat? Where is the evidence of that? Any quotes? Or merely your own mistaken perception.

Perhaps Burke and Gdanski were merely re-stating exactly what Westaway's policy was.

Suits and ties as a sign of loyalty.

Please Pat, stick to the issue. The proposed board is concerned about really unimportant stuff like football department spending, revenue and sponsorship. You know, the little stuff.

But you are quite happy to focus on the suits and ties Pat.

Kinda reflects the quality of your journalism ... schoolboy standard.

On the drugs and alcohol slur, this is what Westaway would have you believe happened. He hand-picked his board of six, selecting those of impeccable character, business and football acumen. A fine group, he says. Yet ultimately Westaway thought so little of them he had to sit his would-be board down and say: "By the way, I don't want any of you pissed as newts at board meetings or ripped to shreds on amphetamines when discussing budgets." Does Westaway treats everybody as idiots?

Settle down Pat, don't get too emotional. Worried that your only contact at St Kilda (Rod) might be on the way out?

BTW Pat, find me evidence that Westaway expressed himself in those terms? Or do you just put words in his mouth to suit your own agenda?

Same policy as every public company Pat, and one that Westaway re-iterated at the end of a board meeting.

Butterss and his board, who have delivered financial security and appealing competitiveness on the field, made the right and proper response to Footy First's launch. Individually they are suing for defamation and collectively they asked Westaway's group to provide hard evidence that they can deliver on their platitudes.

"Financial security". What, off the lowest revenue base in the AFL? By spending the least of any club on the football department? By the lowest spending on injury management and recovery of any club in the AFL?

All well and good if million dollar profits are your objective, but there is such thing as balance.

We are a football club and we want to win a premiership.

"appealing competitiveness".

WTF does that mean Pat? That they sometimes turn up to play? That they slipped from 3rd in 2005 to 8th in 2006 and 9th in 2007? That on-field the players are going backwards through lack of resources?

If Footy First's strategies for St Kilda's future were passed by the AFL - which deals with club budgets on a daily basis - then Butterss and his board would walk away and the transition would be smooth and the club saved an extraordinary general meeting and as much as $100,000.

That's great from Rod. Yeah, let's completely cut the members out of the process. Don't give the passionate and loyal Saints fans a say, but let Butterss' best mate (Demetriou) have the final say.

Great work Pat. Real supporter of democracy aren't you? Really understand the desire of the average Saints fan?

When Westaway contacted the AFL, chief executive Andrew Demetriou encouraged him to submit his plan. The Footy First chief opted not to. If only Westaway had shut his mouth as quickly as he closed his books. In truth, Footy First wants the fruits of other men's labour.

More mindless accusations? This is getting boring Pat. You are losing readers fast.

From the Herald Sun:

"They said, 'If you put it up to the AFL and they tick off on it and we think it's better than ours, then we'll step down'," Westaway said.
"Well, give us a break. That's a bit of joke isn't it?
"I've spoken to (AFL chief executive) Andrew Demetriou and said, 'Would you take away the right of the members of St Kilda to call the shots themselves and vote'?
"He said, 'No, I certainly wouldn't do that'."

Westaway didn't close his books ... according to the Club constitution, he can't see the books for another 18 days, so he can't submit a detailed financial plan until then.

"fruits of other men's labour". No Pat ... he taking those fruits and putting where they belong. In the football department to win a premiership. Not on the bottom line.

So this will be an election in the dusk.

Logically Pat. After all, the EGM is at night.

Any more insightful comments?

Butterss' record is there to see. Debt retired, successive million-dollar profits, two preliminary finals, meticulous review of fitness and medical protocols, extra spending on football resources.

"debt retired" - great ... although most successful and growing businesses have debt Pat. Or did you miss that part of Commerce 101?

"Successive million-dollar profits" - nice to have a healthy bottom line, but those hamstrings keep snapping, the membership is falling, the club keeps losing its best staff (Friend, Waldron, Watts et. al.), our recruiting budget is the lowest and .....

Eh, Pat, here's a story for you. Without the extra TV money this year, the Saints would have made a 200k loss.

Really rosy :rolleyes:

"two Preliminary finals" - exactly. No premiership. Let's be content with two Prelims that happened 3 years ago ... and let's watch those clubs which spend money on their football departments win a flag.

"meticulous view of medical protocols" - yes Pat. After having the worst-soft tissue record in the AFL for four years running. How about doing something sooner Rod??

Against nothing but a man clumsy with his words, an undefined business plan and the fanciful claim that a couple of former footballers guarantee profitability. Run that last bit by Carlton.

"clumsy with his words". Sorry Pat, is that Rod you're talking about?

"unrefined business plan". He can't see the books for 18 days Pat, or are you too lazy to read the club's Constitution? Or perhaps consider that the Footy First ticket has only been around for 4 days ... give them time Pat. The same amount of time you've given Rod.

"former footballers guarantee profitability".

No Pat. Greg Westaway, Chairman of Gregorys Transport Pty Ltd, Dana Nelso, Managing Director of North Delware Ltd ($165m business) and Chris Brandt, CFO of Transurban and former managing partner of Deloittes Asia Pacific .....

They are the people to guarantee financial success.

BTW Pat ... have you asked Nathan Burke how successful he is in business at the moment? I suggest you do. You might be in for a suprise.

Have you also asked Andrew Thompson what his three years with ABN Amro have been like? Or is that business experience neglected too?

Not to mention one of those former players is presumably still being paid by the board he seeks to oust. An intolerable conflict. Andrew Thompson has shown poor judgment.

Or maybe he reflects the attitudes of the playing group towards the board, and bleeds red, white and black after 220 games for the club and a B&F.

If Footy First is to have any credibility, any chance of taking power at St Kilda, then it must tell us that, as of today, Westaway went thataway.

Nice little rhyme there Pat.

About as cute as the rest of the article.