Attack ON Burkie's Integrity

[The Peanut]

. . . And tell me Nathan, when you refer to the loss of sponsors, are you aware of any particular reasons for those losses, because there must be reasons, and what are the connections any incoming Board members have which will deliver major and significant sponsors to the St Kilda FC, and address the falling revenue you have identified? Because St Kilda FC need people on the board who have such connections and can deliver those connections to St Kilda FC and its revenue stream.

And tell me Nathan, how much can you improve the revenue base of St Kilda FC by to accommodate your laudable extra spending on the football department and, in the absence of this improvement in revenues, would you go back into debt to accommodate such spending? And who will lend to St Kilda FC and on what basis?

I will attempt to answer this one in part as Greg Westaway (GW) discussed this at the meeting today. He made it clear that Burkie and Thomo will have roles related to footy and the other board members have been strategically selected for the other matters, which includes sponsorship.

The short staffing at the club is a key cause of most sponsorship issues - although the larger sponsors come and go for various reasons - often because the original idea is for branding reasons principally - a little like why Telstra has withdrawn from the ‘Dome’ and the ‘Stadium’ - its had its life and its not necessary to continue spending.

GW believes that you need to spent to grow but the spending must be done wisely and he believes that you must have the appropriate staff in place and they must be paid appropriately to get the best results. Marketing Executives need to be the best available and paid on salary and good commissions to get the best outcome. He believes that the staffing situation at the club is skinny and the staff are overworked and that is one key factor that has caused some leaving, sponsors not being effectively serviced and new business being skinny.

He is a sponsor and knows many of the mid range sponsors and he elaborated a bit but its best not mentioned on a public forum regarding specifics. Its not just the big boys moving on – the mid range sponsors are too – in fact one is suing the club for not actually providing the service that was paid for. GW believes that all sponsors need to be serviced and offered value for money.

Vodafone said that they were having trouble with St Kilda negotiations this year but they are probably also moving away from branding now and Carlton can offer them contra-deal business as well as exposure.

[Dan Warna]

hutchy really is a sad case.

nice to see chanel loser has picked him after channel 7 dumped him as the piece of gutter shyte he is.

[Riewoldting]

Hutchison really is pathetic ... wanking on about comments "inferring a drug/alcohol problem".

Memo dick head: innuendo is IMPLIED IN comments and INFERRED FROM comments.

This farking monkey can't even speak the language, yet Channel Nine pays him to be a reporter

Peanut did Westaway say anything today about Burke being the choice for TFS appearance? I can understand the reasons behind it (Burke is a club legend, a known name and face to St Kilda people and football fans alike) but IMO it was a poor decision. Westaway really needed to front up and take the drugs questions, even if the answer was "in light of Butterss's comments, no further comment to make on that issue".

Also, what the hell was with Butterss suggesting that the new ticket run its business plan by the AFL? Journalists should push him pretty hard to explain that one.

Butterss was true to his name tonight: greasy, yellow and unhealthy over time.

[evertonfc]

I've defended Hutchy in the past over certain matters, more from a media perspective than anything else, but tonight he was disgraceful.

Eugh, that was sickening stuff when a personal bias gets in the way.

Terrible viewing, but Nathan Burke, you were outstanding, and you're an absolute credit to this club and your ticket.

[aussierules0k]

[The Peanut]

Peanut did Westaway say anything today about Burke being the choice for TFS appearance? time.

No it wasn't mentioned - I have the feeling that with both Burkie's and Thomo's media experience, they will get all the media work that is relevent to footy. i.e. tv footy programs etc - just speculating but it would take some pressure off Ross Lyon and the board.

Burkie really wants to move the club forward, believes he has the skills to do his role and stated quite clearly that the challenge is a messy business but sometimes you have just got to get your hands dirty to get the job done.

. . . Hutch was just trying to make trouble I reckon 'aussierules0k'

[Brewer]

Can some one explain what all the hoo haa was about NB helping Melbourne choose it's coach? Doesn't seem to bother me. But hutch went after it like a duck to water.

Hutchy was trying to imply that Burkey was shady and underhanded.

To be honest, I thought it was a fair point to raise, and I don't think Burkey answered it especially well.

Forget Hutchy's motivations for asking the question for a moment, it is a little strange that somebody apparently aligned with one club would be involved with the coach selection process of a rival club. Theoretically, he could use this position to 1. interfere with Melbourne's coach selection process to weaken their position, or 2. use any 'inside' information regarding Melbourne's processes, future directions or priorities to St Kilda's benefit.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I have to call it as I see it and it was an interesting point to raise. Burkey's only response to the question was that he was 'honourable enough' for it not to be a conflict - a bit of a weak argument IMHO, if you didn't have an innate unwavering trust of Burkey you'd be less than convinced.

[To the top]

To those responding, I have no association with the club except that I am a member and I attend games with a few mates - and they were the reason I started to attend St Kilda games..

I have attended games since the later 1980's.

Prior to that my knowledge of St Kilda was restricted to a practice game against them in, I think, 1970.

And the circumstances St Kilda endured in the early 1980's, at or around the time I re-located to Melbourne because of my employment - in Corporate banking.

So I speak to my experience, with sporting clubs (when you are/were employed as a Corporate banker and you play sport, guess what also happens? You find yourself co-opted onto commitees and Boards) and in the world of Corporate banking - and I am now well retired from that vocation! But I am requested to attend some consultancy work from time to time.

So I would ask you to read and understand what I say.

I am not one who does not offer opinion - and these days I do not have to play the political game in offering those opinions.

You get what I think.

And I am saying that the alternate ticket is not acceptable at this juncture because it has not articulated and demonstrated the basis for change.

Read the questions I put.

And they go for both sides, because there is a contest on.

To drift away from the "guts" of the issue, I have said that my concern is the (implied or otherwise) impact Thomas has had and is having on the footy club and its members.

Thomas has gone the way ALL coaches go - he has been sacked, and he was sacked 2 years too late.

He should have been sacked after we lost to Port Adelaide in the PF, because his model could not finish the job.

Sometimes you have to bring in the "finisher" at the right time.

St Kilda FC did not. They moved 2 years too late.

Thomas had taken St Kilda FC to where he was going to take them, and he suited the times until then including because of the dire financial circumstances of St Kilda FC with a "dead weight" debt of $3.7 MILLION hanging around its neck and dragging it (once again) down.

IF I was on the Board at that time, after that loss to Port Adelaide by less than a kick, I would have terminated Thomas's contract, thanked him for lifting the club to that position, said that the emphasis was now on on-field success for which the club was now positioned and that we required a different mind set and a different coaching panel.

I would have maximised, not sat there contented with failure (being not winning the flag).

That is my business model.

When you get to a point, you always look at how the next step is to be achieved. And you act accordingly.

[joffaboy]

Good luck TTP, its like a Nuremburg Rally in this place.

The cheers squad is out, and any alternate or querying post will be howled down with dirision.

Westaway has got his baying dogs attempting to curtail any query on the saviour he is pertaining to be.

Please dont ask hard questions about - "How" this mob is going to raise or increase revenue streams.

All we have got is spend, spend, spend, and mudslinging.

Butters and is old boys directors are spivs, but this Westaway sounds like he is going to be just as bad, but also plunging the club into debt.

Very very scary, but apparently the Westaway cheer squad is doing it all on faith.

[GrumpyOne]

If Hutchy was in my backyard, I'd use him to shovel up the dog turds. Can't tell the difference between him and the usual shovel I use.

[Brewer]

When you get to a point, you always look at how the next step is to be achieved. And you act accordingly.

Interesting you should say that TTT.

So you would sack the coach that gets us to a prelim, yet retain the board that fails to get us into the 8?

How very interesting.

You are right that questions need to be asked of the new ticket. But they seem to be the best alternative at the moment. I'm not convinced Butterss mob is the right choice to 'achieve the next step' and so, even by your logic, they need to go.

Are you aware of any other tickets we should look at?

[Dan Warna]

Good luck TTP, its like a Nuremburg Rally in this place.

The cheers squad is out, and any alternate or querying post will be howled down with dirision.

Westaway has got his baying dogs attempting to curtail any query on the saviour he is pertaining to be.

Please dont ask hard questions about - "How" this mob is going to raise or increase revenue streams.

All we have got is spend, spend, spend, and mudslinging.

Butters and is old boys directors are spivs, but this Westaway sounds like he is going to be just as bad, but also plunging the club into debt.

Very very scary, but apparently the Westaway cheer squad is doing it all on faith.

the online community is different to the general population.

one only needs to go to the footy to see opinions seen as concrete here are completely different in the stands.

with regard to hutchy, we are questioning his integrity and his bias, not the right of fans to question the challengers.

As I've discussed, I would like more information, but hutch and caro attacking the integrity of thomson and burke is pyss poor effort.

Ask them about what they intend to do etc, but the other stuff is weak.

I've also been critical of the challengers 'phrasing' of their 'pledge'.

[meher baba]

To drift away from the "guts" of the issue, I have said that my concern is the (implied or otherwise) impact Thomas has had and is having on the footy club and its members.

Thomas has gone the way ALL coaches go - he has been sacked, and he was sacked 2 years too late.

He should have been sacked after we lost to Port Adelaide in the PF, because his model could not finish the job.

Sometimes you have to bring in the "finisher" at the right time.

St Kilda FC did not. They moved 2 years too late.

Thomas had taken St Kilda FC to where he was going to take them, and he suited the times until then including because of the dire financial circumstances of St Kilda FC with a "dead weight" debt of $3.7 MILLION hanging around its neck and dragging it (once again) down.

IF I was on the Board at that time, after that loss to Port Adelaide by less than a kick, I would have terminated Thomas's contract, thanked him for lifting the club to that position, said that the emphasis was now on on-field success for which the club was now positioned and that we required a different mind set and a different coaching panel.

I would have maximised, not sat there contented with failure (being not winning the flag).

That is my business model.

When you get to a point, you always look at how the next step is to be achieved. And you act accordingly.

Well, thank goodness you aren't Rod Butterss or the President of any other club, because any board of any football club you chair would be sacking the coach almost every season, by the sound of it.

I think the revolving door approach to CEOs in the corporate world has been pretty disastrous. It's almost got to the point now where the CEO simply has symbolic value: boards bring in someone from central casting who "looks" (from their cv or even their personal appearance) like he or she embodies "where we want the company to go".

In the business world, profits go up and down quite often for reasons that have nothing to do with the ability or otherwise of boards, CEOs or anyone else associated with a company. Football clubs don't work like that. The most successful coaches are the ones who have built a long-term relationship with their teams: quite frequently as players and then as assistant coaches.

The best on-field tactics are those worked out over several seasons between the coaching staff and the playing group. The idea of an external "genius" coming in and instantly taking the whole thing to a new level is just as silly in football as it usually turns out to be in business.

History has shown that clubs usually only undertake a clean out of coaching staff when they are falling to the bottom of the table, because they know it takes several years for the relationship between coaches and players to build to the point where the team will deliver regularly at the highest level.

You can't simply sit there and go "Coach A" took us to the Grand Final and we lost by a goal, so we'll bring in Coach B - who has a 3% better overall rating on our personality and capability tests - and we'll win next year by 2 goals.

[jk23]

And Sam Newman made me sick..... attacking Burkie verbally and then teasing him with the alchohol what an idiot..

[stinger]

hutchy is friends with butters

creeps like him don't have any real friends...i seriously doubt that someone like burke would give that creep the time of day...

...on the other hand rod probably needs friends like that piece of scum.....

[To the top]

To the guy posting and looking like JC re-incarnated.

It is all about performance.

Responsibility for performance is with the Board.

There is a truism that Company's are perpetual, individuals are transient.

So, the needs of the Company always take precedence over the individual, because individuals come and they go.

If you read what I have written, I have said that Thomas was a fit for the model which was St Kilda FC prior to the Thomas appointment.

The culture needed changing, and a "St Kilda" person was requiredto drive that change which was Board instigated. Someone who intimately knew the history and culture of St Kilda FC, but could also identify and cause change.

Thomas suited those times, and the Board made a correct decision.

The change required could not be delivered by "outsiders" such as Watson and Blight. They did not know enough of the history, of the culture or of the politics that is St Kilda FC.

But, having got the model which was St Kilda FC to a certain point, Thomas was also not the person to complete the job, because he made his own history - and changed the culture and changed the politics.

He was only ever there to change the culture - from within.

The Board charge people with certain responsibilities - and look for outcomes to be achieved.

Even though those outcomes are achieved, the incumbent is not guaranteed an existance because the next step must be taken.

And if that means the incumbent is replaced then that is the decision.

And it is made by the Board.


At the end of the day it is that Board who are answerable to the shareholders, not the Marketing Manager or the Corporate Counsel or the Personnel Manager.

Such is the way of the world.

[kaos theory]

From the peanut, who is a good source:

GW believes that you need to spent to grow but the spending must be done wisely and he believes that you must have the appropriate staff in place and they must be paid appropriately to get the best results. Marketing Executives need to be the best available and paid on salary and good commissions to get the best outcome. He believes that the staffing situation at the club is skinny and the staff are overworked and that is one key factor that has caused some leaving, sponsors not being effectively serviced and new business being skinny.

He is a sponsor and knows many of the mid range sponsors and he elaborated a bit but its best not mentioned on a public forum regarding specifics. Its not just the big boys moving on – the mid range sponsors are too – in fact one is suing the club for not actually providing the service that was paid for. GW believes that all sponsors need to be serviced and offered value for money.

This is VERY disturbing...... This is not the activities of a focused, visionary and effective board.... I don't know how people can vote for RB, given how things are barely holding together administratively...not to mention the dis-unity in the ranks

[bungiton]

Good luck TTP, its like a Nuremburg Rally in this place.

The cheers squad is out, and any alternate or querying post will be howled down with dirision.

Westaway has got his baying dogs attempting to curtail any query on the saviour he is pertaining to be.

Please dont ask hard questions about - "How" this mob is going to raise or increase revenue streams.

All we have got is spend, spend, spend, and mudslinging.

Butters and is old boys directors are spivs, but this Westaway sounds like he is going to be just as bad, but also plunging the club into debt.

Very very scary, but apparently the Westaway cheer squad is doing it all on faith.

joffaboy, the very platform that Westaway and his "SPIVS" are running on is to increase spending, this is correct. But on the other side of the coin they are also intent on raising revenue, obvioulsy raising revenue allows you to spend more, with the added bonus of still being able to save. Giving members more for their money is an ideal way of raising revenue, when you percieve you get more for your dollar you are happier to part with it, lets face it, the current board lost three to four thousand members this year, how often do threads on here bemoan the fact that club X members get, such whilst we get diddly?

I really admire your passion for the club, I love the Saints, for years have supported them from outside Victoria, as a matter of a fact had never even been to Victoria when I started to support them, eight years, this boards had, make it seven this year was wasted on crap outside of footy.

I deserve better, you deserve better, every fan does, Butters has never outlined a future plan for St kilda other than him being president, he and his board have mismanaged so many vitally important aspects of this clubs future it is beyond belief.

You ask how can Westaway be better than Butters, my reposte is how can he be anywhere near as bad?

[meher baba]

To Mr The Top

From the guy who looks like Jesus Christ reincarnated (it's actually the Indian "Great Avatar" Meher Baba, but WTF).

I can sort of understand where you are coming from, but how can you be so sure that all that was wrong with Watson and Blight was that they were "outsiders"? Alves was an outsider too, but he did go some way towards effecting a culture change.

Watson was a step backwards, but he was chosen by a Board which was also looking for the coaching "genius" who would step in from outside and take the club to a flag. (Of course, unlike the current board, they had the excuse that Alves had lost the confidence of a number of the senior players: not simply the CEO and the Board itself.)

I would have had no problems at the end of 2004, or the end of 2005 or the end of 2006 if GT had been moved aside and replaced by a Leigh Mathews, a Mark Williams or a John Worsfold or even perhaps the much-maligned Dennis Pagan. These guys have proven that they have what it takes to get a club to the next level.

Instead, we got an assistant from the Swans. We are told he was perhaps the main mastermind behind their success, but we have no way of knowing whether or not this was in fact the case. He was chosen over Longmire, the most visible of the Swans' assistance, largely on the recommendation of Robert Walls and on his superior performance in some aptitude tests and simulation exercises.

It was a process that was very Now in terms of the prevailing corporate culture in most parts of the western world. Will it turn out well? Maybe, maybe not. You appear to think that it was a decision that proved that the Board was not content with "failure" (not winning the flag). But how can we tell if Lyon is taking us closer to success or closer to failure? What if we make the PF next year and miss out on the GF again? Should Lyon then be sacked and should we start all over again?

Should the Lions sack Mathews? Should the Eagles sack Worsfold if they lose tonight?

I think there needs to be a better benchmark for judging success or failure of a coach than simply whether or not the club wins the flag. You acknowledge GT's success in building a new culture at the club. I would argue that this is a much more important achievement than whether or not we win a flag in the short-term. I would also argue that it might have been advisable to keep GT on for a few more seasons and entrench that new culture at the club rather than risk the sort of turmoil and catastrophe that we experienced in the years immediately after the sacking of Alves.

The turmoil and catastrophe now appear to have returned to the club big time. The Board's decision to sack GT has undoubtedly played a major part in that.

Imagine if GT had still been there, and we had finished at more or less the same spot on the table (which is highly likely IMO, although it is also not impossible that we would have won a few more games). I reckon there would be some talk in the media that it was time to move GT on, and far more acceptance of such a decision if it had been made. There would almost certainly have been no talk of a challenge to the board, and absolutely none of this public nonsense between GT and RB.

If you subscribe to the drivel put about on this forum by some fools that the club was in a terminal decline under GT which Ross Lyon has now arrested by the skin of his teeth, I guess you might think that the turmoil has all been worth it.

The rest of us just think back to the end of the 2000 season, the end of the 1998 season, the end of the 1993 season.............

And we think that another season of GT as coach might have had many drawbacks, but it surely wouldn't have put the club in the precarious position that it is currently in.

[GrumpyOne]

I think the Boards decision to sack GT was right.

I think Butterss decision to lend GT a Mill and not declare it at the time of GT's appointment was wrong.

I think Butterss attack on GT mid-season was churlish and ill-advised if advised at all.

I think the links with the heirarchy of the Saints and Butterss' businesses is detrimental to the club.

I think the continueing angst between Butterss and GT is harming the club.

I think the financial management of the club so far under Butterss has been excellent, but not condusive to winning premierships in todays football world.

I think the departure of sponsors, CEOs, and CFOs over the last few years indicates that things are not good at Moorabbin.

I believe that the appointment of a former failed coach as Football Manager was not based entirely on his abilities for that position.

I think Butterss and the current Board should stand aside and allow us members full say as to who we want to run the club, irregardless of whose ticket they are on.

[To the top]

Thomas was actually gone mid-way thru 2004 in terms of what else he could bring to the club.

He had run his race.

The second half of 2004 saw a fade out as our human resource deteriorated.

In the last of the 10 victories, sitting near the interchange area at Docklands (where we sit), versus Carlton and when we kicked 30 goals, it was obvious that certain players, key to our success until then, had run their race - they were physically gone including for specific ailments.

Maguire, a favourite because of the way he goes about his footy, was done with a groin problem - and finally came off looking distressed. Attempted to run the boundary toward the end of the game and struggled.

I commented then that the second half of the season was going to be an absolute slog, and it was not withstanding that we COULD have made a Grand Final and pinched a premiership.

It was in the second half of 2004 that I commented that Thomas was not the man to coach this group now.

We needed a football man, not a corporate man.

Because the corporate man had another agenda - promotion and, by extension, self-promotion. The ego of the coach transcended all else.

We wanted and needed the blood and guts of footy, a footy person - and managing our list to maximise on the opportunities that list should have afforded us.

We did not maximise.

We ran them into the ground.

And the gaping hole of depth in our list was exposed - way back then.

Finally, the Board caught up, put the acid on Thomas including by actually directing him, gave him more time and nothing changed.

With the acid on, Thomas became recalcitrant in his dealings with the Board. That was obvious to anyone watching at the time, and is now most obvious to all and sundry.

Then the Board sacked him and instituted what we have in place now.

Matthews, Sheedy, Pagan and the like were all contracted - so we got Roos' right hand man.

Nothing wrong with that.

Lyon is a footy man - and he will develop the list.

And, with a bit of luck,we may draft some who can play footy at AFL level- but only time will tell.

That is why I say the list will not change to any great number - although I am of the view a couple of "icon" names among our "smalls" have run their race at AFL level.

Because it is all about improvement.

And when you are standing still you are vunerable.

The Butters Board, for all that is said, recognised, belatedly in my view, that things were stagnating - and they got a footy guy in.

[rodgerfox]

We needed a football man, not a corporate man.

Ground already covered but, Thomas did play footy.

And coached footy.

And spent alot of time in footy clubs.

And on footy boards.

And in coaches boxes.


I think he was far more 'footy' than 'corporate'. Whether he was any good at the 'footy' part of it is up for debate, but to say he was a 'corporate' guy ahead of a 'footy' guy I think is inaccurate.

This misconception hounded him from day one.

[joffaboy]

joffaboy, the very platform that Westaway and his "SPIVS" are running on is to increase spending, this is correct. But on the other side of the coin they are also intent on raising revenue, obvioulsy raising revenue allows you to spend more, with the added bonus of still being able to save. Giving members more for their money is an ideal way of raising revenue, when you percieve you get more for your dollar you are happier to part with it, lets face it, the current board lost three to four thousand members this year, how often do threads on here bemoan the fact that club X members get, such whilst we get diddly?

I really admire your passion for the club, I love the Saints, for years have supported them from outside Victoria, as a matter of a fact had never even been to Victoria when I started to support them, eight years, this boards had, make it seven this year was wasted on crap outside of footy.

I deserve better, you deserve better, every fan does, Butters has never outlined a future plan for St kilda other than him being president, he and his board have mismanaged so many vitally important aspects of this clubs future it is beyond belief.

You ask how can Westaway be better than Butters, my reposte is how can he be anywhere near as bad?

Bungiton - I dont know any of the members of the FFS so i dont know if they are spivs. I am using that term about Butters and his cronies from what I know.

You say the FFs is going to raise revenue.

All I am asking is HOW HOW HOW???

They wont release any type of plan. They refuse to have any plan analysed, they send out a glossy brochure and expect us to proxy them in on the feeble and hopeless motherhood statements contained therein.

This is my biggest beef. I would like to see the back of Butters, but I wont vote for just anyone, especially if their information is so thin on the ground.

You ask if Westaway could be worse than Butters, well his first public utterance has provoked threats of legal action. I mean what a great way to start, by mudslinging and gutter innuendo.

Then he hides behind the great Nathan Burkes integrity and personality, and doesn't have the courage to front the media in person.

Add to that the two disloyal directors who have "defected" to the FFS. Once a traitor always a traitor. How long will it be before they are fracturing the board once again?

Mabye never, mabye the FFS do have a comprehensive plan, mabye Westaway will have the courage to face the media himself and not hide behind a St.Kilda champion. Mabye he will actually turn out to be a good President if he ever gets his foot out of his mouth.

Or mabye, they are planless, leaderless, with disloyal egotists waiting to destabilise the boaed at the first opportunity and send the club plummetting back to days of $4 mill debt and Save our Saints.

You willing to take that risk on a wing and a prayer? Fair enough.

I will be happy if none of the above comes to pass, but I wont be holding my breath. So far the FFs have seemed to me to be very sneaky and not willing to give the members any real information.

Hope I am deadset wrong. If I am not I certainly wont be saying I told you so. If I am wrong I will be very relieved.

[JeffDunne]

jb, you are being childish.

Just over three days from the launch of this challenge and Westaway has been interviewed numerous times and has met with key supporter groups.

Just because he didn't appear on the Footy Show he's hiding?

Seriously.

[To the top]

Rogerfox, look at the responsibilies he assumed.

And the response to any side "flooding" - because this tactic always saw us thumped.

Compare the game at Docklands against Adelaide in 2006 with the same game at the same venue in 2007.

Look up the media reports from that game in 2006 and compare.