Time for Butterss to slip away

plugger66 · Post: # 455640Post **plugger66** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 9:54pm

The policy of drug testing is for players why should anyone else be drug tested.

dalboy · Post: # 455643Post **dalboy** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 9:57pm

I agree that all board members should be drug free. Just think Westaway slandering the Football club and current board was completely unprofessional and showed a complete lack of tact. He has actually damaged the StKilda Football Club brand with these comments imo.

Bernard Shakey · Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:05pm

Why should players be subjected to testing for drugs other than thoserequired by ASADA?

If the AFL wants it's own illicit drug testing, it should be for all AFL and club personnel.

How did Westaway slander the club?
All he said was that his board would be drug free.

To say that he damaged the club's brand is ridiculous as the rumours have been out there for ages.

plugger66 · Post: # 455651Post **plugger66** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:11pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:Why should players be subjected to testing for drugs other than thoserequired by ASADA?

If the AFL wants it's own illicit drug testing, it should be for all AFL and club personnel.

How did Westaway slander the club?
All he said was that his board would be drug free.

To say that he damaged the club's brand is ridiculous as the rumours have been out there for ages.

It was brought in by the players and the AFL because of the drugs in sport and they wanted to do the right thing, its not about drugs in management.

Bernard Shakey · Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:16pm

It is now.

linz · Post: # 455658Post **linz** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:22pm

If the aims & objectives are to win a flag (at all costs) then I will vote for the incumbents. I believe Linfox is behind this latest challenge (he doesn't like Rod and the challengers are well organized). If however, Thomas is related in anyway to the challenge. (I'm on Butter's side)

Lindsay is a determined Businessman. If Qantas buy him out I would love him to have a renewed interest in football (in his spare time )

But not if Thomas is back.

Bernard Shakey · Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:26pm

Sounds like a lot of guessing linz.

aussierules0k · Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:29pm

linz · Post: # 455668Post **linz** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 10:32pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:Sounds like a lot of guessing linz.

less than u would think.

Joffa Burns · Thu 13 Sep 2007 11:14pm

plugger66 wrote:The policy of drug testing is for players why should anyone else be drug tested.

If the Westaway group have adhered to a no illicit drug policy they should have the conviction of their promise and freely submit to routine testing (at their own expense) with the results available to the members.

As they intimate their is an alcohol policy they should have a limit that is regulated say .05 which they should ahere and be tested.

Don't talk the talk if you don't want to walk it.

Teflon · Post: # 455707Post **Teflon** » Thu 13 Sep 2007 11:20pm

linz wrote:If the aims & objectives are to win a flag (at all costs) then I will vote for the incumbents. I believe Linfox is behind this latest challenge (he doesn't like Rod and the challengers are well organized). If however, Thomas is related in anyway to the challenge. (I'm on Butter's side)

Lindsay is a determined Businessman. If Qantas buy him out I would love him to have a renewed interest in football (in his spare time ) But not if Thomas is back.

Good post.

I too have no doubts Fox is involved in this up to his armpits - and this Westonhouse could well be his puppet.......just another transport mate huh?. I also reckon Grants gone quiet for good reason - been told to shut up.......but make sure he gets that $200k claim in against the club last week...(1 week before this launch) for good measure...................I guee theyve had a lot of time to plan...

strange.........

Bernard Shakey · Thu 13 Sep 2007 11:54pm

Wooooo big Fox conspiracy.

I think not.

Lindsey's modus operandi is to walk in, take no prisoners and march on to Berlin.

aussierules0k · Fri 14 Sep 2007 12:29am

The Fireman · Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:36am

well, I've had a sleep on it and I am now leaning towards our incumbent Pres, I don't think I like the way Westaway has gone about it.
Using ex Players, and popular ones at that, as pawns in his quest for club domination, the drugs BS and although he had the opportunity to tell me how he was going to keep the club financially afloat, he didn't, except to say that he had some financial savvy people on board...
Looking back I really think Buttres has done a great job and doesn't deserve the crap he is copping atm and I think deserves to stay on a bit longer. Our star players are re signing so they obviously have some faith in the running of the club ,the same faith I have.

JeffDunne · Post: # 455890Post **JeffDunne** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:42am

I don't think players could give two hoots TBH.

Do people change jobs because of board room battles? Unless your job involves dealing with them directly why would you care?

The Fireman · Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:43am

joffaboy wrote:
The Fireman wrote:This is the first time that I am undecided on how to vote, it's not a nice feeling. Please...someone advise me.
Kevin07.

Hope that helps

That's not what I was undecided about

The Fireman · Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:46am

JeffDunne wrote:I don't think players could give two hoots TBH.

Do people change jobs because of board room battles? Unless your job involves dealing with them directly why would you care?

But the players always seem to be brought up when there is these types of discussion, you maybe right but then you maybe wrong ( thanks Billy Joel )
Maybe some players do care about the stability of the company they work for, just ask some Ford workers.

JeffDunne · Post: # 455897Post **JeffDunne** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:50am

I'm sure they were more concerned about the instability 12 months ago when their boss was sacked.

That's not to suggest they were happy or unhappy with the decision, but the uncertainity when they didn't know who the replacement would be I'm sure would have concerned them more than Rod potentially getting the arse.

The Fireman · Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:55am

JeffDunne wrote:I'm sure they were more concerned about the instability 12 months ago when their boss was sacked.

That's not to suggest they were happy or unhappy with the decision, but the uncertainity when they didn't know who the replacement would be I'm sure would have concerned them more than Rod potentially getting the arse.

Good point, so hopefully the players won't be mentioned in future debate.

chook23 · Post: # 455902Post **chook23** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:55am

aussierules0k wrote:I believe NB when he said they were discussing alcohol and someone said - and no drugs too... they all agreed. There was never any mention of anyone on the present board taking them. With drugs in the media that's a fair call. Who's to say they weren't thinking about AT! They just made a pact THEY wouldn't take them. Now if someone wants to get upset by that, then I say why. Did AT jump up and say - why... I don't take drugs? No, he didn't have to.

That may have been the case AOK

BUT it was in his radio interview (after above) that he implied/linked the board to the rumour and innuendo.

Brewer · Post: # 455927Post **Brewer** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:29am

This Fox talk sounds to me like anti-SKFF propaganda.

It is entirely possible that Fox approves of the new ticket, but to suggest he is involved is a big call and I'd like to see some evidence. Burkey flat-out denied it last night, and if there was any collusion between Fox and Westaway surely that would raise questions about both of these guys businesses.

Can anybody, anywhere, point to ANY evidence that Fox is either:

1. involved in this ticket
2. close enough to Westaway to indulge in secretive behaviour with him?

I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next man, but until I see some supporting evidence, I'm sorry but I have to consider these Fox theorists to be delusional or deceptive.

Mr Magic · Post: # 455929Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:34am

Brewer wrote:This Fox talk sounds to me like strawman sockpuppetry

It is entirely possible that Fox approves of the new ticket, but to suggest he is involved is a big call and I'd like to see some evidence. Burkey flat-out denied it last night, and if there was any collusion between Fox and Westaway surely that would raise questions about both of these guys businesses.

Can anybody, anywhere, point to ANY evidence that Fox is either:

1. involved in this ticket
2. close enough to Westaway to indulge in secretive behaviour with him?

I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next man, but until I see some evidence, I'm sorry but I have to consider these Fox theorists to be quacks of the highest order.

Whilst I have some questions about SFF, and the fact that they are not telling us much other than 'motherhood statements', I absolutely believe NB is implicitly honest. If he says that he has no knowledge that Fox is involved then I believe him.

If it transpires that Fox is somehow lurking around in the background of SFF then I think it will be more to do with a secret deal betweeen Westaway and him.

Joffa Burns · Fri 14 Sep 2007 11:40am

JeffDunne wrote:I don't think players could give two hoots TBH.

Do people change jobs because of board room battles? Unless your job involves dealing with them directly why would you care?

Agree !

How many players would have dealings with or know the Board members on a regular basis?

Very few IMO unless there is some type of mentoring relationship.

Players wouldn't give a hairy rats ringer IMO.