The case FOR the current board.

[JeffDunne]

I'm not interested in reasons why they should go, I think there's enough threads & posts on that topic.

Does anyone still support the incumbents and if so the reasons for doing so?

[Dan Warna]

1. renegotiating TD to save st kilda bleeding from the original contract foisted on us.
2. 1m profits
3. 2 prelims
4. no board leaks from 00 to 06
5. strong crowd
6. strong leadership in the face of AFL attacks
7. cleaning out rubbish and trouble makers
8. sticking fat during the milne/montagna incident
9. kicking out crapuano, lawrance monkhorst amongst others.

others can add more

the recent attempts to avoid an election have swung me from 55/45 in favour of the rebels to 'unless i see a reason not to vote for the challengers they got my vote'

[skeptic]

I don't really, I think I'll vote SFF but the only reason I can think for them to stay is that we haven't seen what they can do (footy department wise) without the debt which they've paid off.

that said, the negatives still outweigh the positives for mine

[evertonfc]

Just to iron out a few of those points Dan (so as to explain context and play a little bit of devils advocate). And I also realise you're probably not going to vote for them, so this isn't a personal swipe if I get a little 'huh?' on a few points below.

1. renegotiating TD to save st kilda bleeding from the original contract foisted on us.

True, but one feels this more came as a result of our playing fortunes rapidly ascending, and the AFL/TD thus realising our value. We had a strong bargaining position and they were happy to re-work the deal.

2. 1m profits

As an isolated figure, then yes, we have to say this is technically a good outcome on purely monetary terms.

3. 2 prelims

Zero premierships. And also, weren't they reached under a different coach with a different set of players?

And haven't our playing fortunes actually decreased in the past three years?

4. no board leaks from 00 to 06

At the status quo (the only thing you can judge them on), this one of the biggest things against them.

5. strong crowd

Could be stronger and needs to be stronger, but definitely better than what it was and the current admin can hang their hat on the improvements made so far.

6. strong leadership in the face of AFL attacks

7. cleaning out rubbish and trouble makers

On or off-field? On-field clear-outs seems to be GT driven, it must be remembered.

8. sticking fat during the milne/montagna incident

Acted swiftly, decisively, honestly. In a bizzarre way, the way RB and BW handled that incident seemed to mark our coming of age in the way we handled controversial matters. We would be straight up, purporseful and do everything with dignity and class.

In my mind, that was almost the pinnacle of RB's leadership, and it's a shame that similar strength appears to have become isolated and fractured in equal measure.

=========

I'm sure there are other points which could be added to the list...

What I would add is that this board has given the fans a licence to demand they best from the club like never before. We're not pleading for premierships, crowds or player efforts; we're demanding them. The club - mentatlity wise - is of a winning club. We like winning and we want to win more, and RB's board and fuelled and fed this imagination, which I believe can only be a good thing.

In a way, this has made a rod for the current board's back - we now have high expectations, and we feel it's our right to demand success. When we're not getting that success, we demand answers.

[To the top]

Before you can pay off debt, you have to generate NET revenue.

So the hard yards of turning St Kilda FC into a $1 Million a year NET PROFIT club so that the inherited, debilitating debt of $3.7 Million could be paid off have been run.

Further, the club has retained the playing list is has sought to retain and have, generally, been competative on the field.

Compare the sitation now with the situation in 2000.

Yes, there have been mistakes, including the appointment of Blight - but it is only with hindsight that this call can be made.

The situation with Thomas is referred to - but if Thomas had just walked away (as he always said he would if a better person could be found) and had not used the media to justify his perception of his record, and to comment on every aspect of St Kilda FC this situation would not have arisen.

How many other sacked coaches have conducted themselves as Thomas has in commenting on every aspect of their former employer?

Compare Connelly, Daniher, Sheedy and the rest.

Even if there is a change of administration at Essendon, and Sheedy is offered the coaching position, he will say no. And that is fact. And he is not carrying on in the media as if he still coaches Essendon.

The loan to Thomas? Commercial transaction between 2 parties. Should it have been divulged to the Board? Well, what purpose would it serve and what would the Board have done about it? Said "No, you cannot make a loan to Thomas"?

Do we now ask to peruse the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of Westaway - and peruse his private Company Financial Statements?

He would say "Get lost", and rightly so.

So the current Board have turned St Kilda FC around, both financially and in on-field performance.

They are positioned now such that money can be spent on "discretionary" items, because there is no more debt to service and repay.

With the Council, well that is about protecting the future revenue streams of St Kilda FC, and particularly poker machine revenue which, unfortunately, sporting clubs and others rely on. St Kilda FC has a model, and the Council are saying that the poker machines will not be accomodated at that site, because that is the politically acceptable position - but St Kilda FC look at the revenue steam.

The optimum position is that the Council put up the good political fight, but ultimately concede that they want the benefits of St Kilda FC operating from the site, and renege to allow a certain number of machines with a sunset clause on the term that number of machines can be accomodated for.

So, are St Kilda FC in a terminal position courtesy of the performance of this Board?

I happen to think they are in a far better position than they were when this Board came to the table.

And that is the measure.

It is also the reason why I run the acid over what the alternate group are presenting.

With hindsight, it is easy to be critical of a business plan which aims at generating $1 Million per annum NET proifits so that that NET profit can(principally) be applied to debt reduction, and the debt re-paid.

But, why wasn't this challenge on foot when the debt was actually being reduced and repaid? Why not a challenge then? Based on the fact that the debt redemption programme be stalled (if the financier agreed!) and the funds be applied elsewhere. Why now?

And injuries? Well, what about Ponting and Watson?

I note Burke said that Judd may not be attracted to St Kilda because it plays at Telstra Dome, on a cement base (being a car park roof) and has the injury history it has.

This at a time when Judd is impaired as he is - and has missed finals football (along with Kerr) resulting in West Coast being eliminated.

Interesting that!

So, what happens with the new Borad, if we still have injuries and we fail to win a premiership?

How many years do we give them before we turf them out too?

One year? Two years? I would not suggest any more because of their manifesto.

And what does that do for the reputation of St Kilda FC among its peers, and among the players it seeks to retain and attract?

I will be accused of being an apolgist for the current Board, because that is the immediate reaction of some.

But, 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 years ago, who would have said that St Kilda FC would not be replicatiing North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Carlton, Richmond and certain interstate sides in needing to go to the AFL for handouts to survive?

And we will NEVER compete off-field with the Collingwood's, the Essendon's and the Pratt financed Carlton.

We just do not have the benefactors.

[aussierules0k]

[To the top]

The competition is set by the likes of Collingwood, with hotel proprietorships and with poker machine income from those hotels.

South Sydney may chart a new direction.

Bu they have a couple of benefactors (and more), the likes of which St Kilda only prays for.

The investment market is always cyclical, no matter the asset, so the only protection in times of lesser performance is the amount of equity you have in the investment.

The less the equity, the more exposed you are to the external lenders - and they want what they want on their investment in your investment.

As they say, it is easy to get rich if you are rich.

And St Kilda FC is not rich, and never has been rich, having just paid off $3.7 Million of debt which financed what?

There is a whole history at St Kilda, and it just appears to me that the historical and bitter division between the old Social Club and the Football Club is still alive and well - all these years later.

It just seems to be ingrained culture.

[spert]

Apart from RB being a motor-mouth and having an ego bigger than John Howard, I see no real reason to chuck out the current mob..I feel the future is looking good and I have faith in RL.

[saintsRrising]

St Kilda because it plays at Telstra Dome, on a cement base (being a car park roof) and has the injury history it has.

.

If it was cement (which is a powder) it would collapse......as cement is the binder used to make concrete which is what the slab is made of.

However the concrete slab has nothing to do with the "hardness" of the surface.

The hardness is caused due the lack of sunlight and so the grass thatvh is not as thick and vigorous as it needs to be.

As one former ground manager said about managing the grass at the Dome....you manage its death....for as soon as the slabs of grass are lifted it they start to die.

The grass thins out and while it can still look green, the thatch is thin and players studded boots make direct contact with the soil.....hence why it is hard on players feet...rather than witha thick songet grass thach.


This is why the surface is hard ....not the slab underneath.


The Dome has now ordered some new special lights to help grow the grass....ie to provide enough light to grow a vigorous thatch of grass.

If successful...the Saints will be playing ona perfect surface in 2008.

[stinger]

1. renegotiating TD to save st kilda bleeding from the original contract foisted on us.
2. 1m profits
3. 2 prelims
4. no board leaks from 00 to 06
5. strong crowd
6. strong leadership in the face of AFL attacks
7. cleaning out rubbish and trouble makers
8. sticking fat during the milne/montagna incident
9. kicking out crapuano, lawrance monkhorst amongst others.

'

most of those were down to grant thomas.....

[To the top]

Better bring back Grant Thomas then.

He is obviously the only guy who can run the club.

Funny how no other club has approached him to become President and Coach of their clubs, so he can run them as successfully as he ran St Kilda.

So this is where the vitriol of the mob comes from, Butters and the Board sacked the golden haired one who was St Kilda FC.

[plugger66]

Better bring back Grant Thomas then.

He is obviously the only guy who can run the club.

Funny how no other club has approached him to become President and Coach of their clubs, so he can run them as successfully as he ran St Kilda.

So this is where the vitriol of the mob comes from, Butters and the Board sacked the golden haired one who was St Kilda FC.

Well to be fair to GT he made it quite on a number of occasions that he will not coach another side and why the hell would he be asked to be made president of another club.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

1. renegotiating TD to save st kilda bleeding from the original contract foisted on us.
2. 1m profits
3. 2 prelims
4. no board leaks from 00 to 06
5. strong crowd
6. strong leadership in the face of AFL attacks
7. cleaning out rubbish and trouble makers
8. sticking fat during the milne/montagna incident
9. kicking out crapuano, lawrance monkhorst amongst others.

'

most of those were down to grant thomas.....

yes and also the fact we had less staff was cause of thomas and also the fact we had the highest paid coaches was cause thomas
as a coach thomas would be the front for all the decicions but its really the men behind who make the calls

[bungiton]

Better bring back Grant Thomas then.

He is obviously the only guy who can run the club.

Funny how no other club has approached him to become President and Coach of their clubs, so he can run them as successfully as he ran St Kilda.

So this is where the vitriol of the mob comes from, Butters and the Board sacked the golden haired one who was St Kilda FC.

Well to be fair to GT he made it quite on a number of occasions that he will not coach another side and why the hell would he be asked to be made president of another club.

Well on the other hand if Thomas was the cause why hasn't his removal effected change?

I don't give a rats clacker about Thomas or Butters, this is about ST Kilda, the sad thing is neither of them can see that.

[satchmo]

So this is where the vitriol of the mob comes from

Well, mostly it comes from you !

[fugazi]

Very good post. I reckon in general people are very quick to focus on the negative,. There should be more than insincere grudging acknowledgement of RB and the current board....7 years RB gave to turning the club around....he took over when we were in dire straits and will leave the Club in a strong position. I cannot understand the level of vitriol toward RB even if he has stuffed up a few things...the vast majority of his input has been positive and beneficial and should be acknowledged properly....thats why I was so disgusted with the Westaway tickets opening gambit of mudslinging and character smearing.

From at least one supporter RB, thanks for your efforts and you will be remembered as someone who contributed a great deal to the Club.

[To the top]

On another thread there was the post "THEY did their job, now it is the turn for SOMEONE else to take the next step - a premiership".

The Butters administration has not delivered a premiership - however the most any administration can do is maintain focus and deliver stability.

And they can direct and change personnnel.

Which they have done.

Where was this opinion and vitriol BEFORE Thomas was sacked?

Was this site full of such comment between 2001 and 2006?

Or has it been a case of the Board (probably on a split vote) making a decision and certain turning on it as a result of that decision being made?

And, if the playing side was so neglected by the current Board, how have we kept the likes of Reiwoldt and Koschitzke (for starters - and who have we lost?) in the face of the offers they received from other clubs?

Offers which St Kilda could not match.

As I have tried to prosecute, in the face of some remarkable responses from a certain grouping of posters, where I suspect multiple names are being used by the one poster because you ask a question of one and the reply comes from another poster who, incidentally, has the exact same view of life, where is substance and where is rhetoric?

In all of these things you like to confirm that you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dan Warna]

Better bring back Grant Thomas then.

He is obviously the only guy who can run the club.

Funny how no other club has approached him to become President and Coach of their clubs, so he can run them as successfully as he ran St Kilda.

So this is where the vitriol of the mob comes from, Butters and the Board sacked the golden haired one who was St Kilda FC.

didn't B4E guarantee that GT was going to be a coach or assistant coach appointed to another club?

[Oh When the Saints]

I fully supporter the sacking of Grant Thomas, and was gladder than most to see the back of him.

Yet I sent my proxy off to Greg Westaway last week and fully support SFF.


How does that explain my anti-Butterss vitriol?

[JeffDunne]

And, if the playing side was so neglected by the current Board, how have we kept the likes of Reiwoldt and Koschitzke (for starters - and who have we lost?) in the face of the offers they received from other clubs?

"We"?

To answer your question, I'd say in large part because of how these players were mentored in rebuilding the culture of the team.

As I have tried to prosecute, in the face of some remarkable responses from a certain grouping of posters, where I suspect multiple names are being used by the one poster because you ask a question of one and the reply comes from another poster who, incidentally, has the exact same view of life, where is substance and where is rhetoric?

I presume that was directed at me? Pretty rich coming from you. Especially given you can't answer a direct question asked numerous time.

So now you think I'm stinger?

I think your education is failing you.

[Teflon]

Before you can pay off debt, you have to generate NET revenue.

So the hard yards of turning St Kilda FC into a $1 Million a year NET PROFIT club so that the inherited, debilitating debt of $3.7 Million could be paid off have been run.

Further, the club has retained the playing list is has sought to retain and have, generally, been competative on the field.

Compare the sitation now with the situation in 2000.

Yes, there have been mistakes, including the appointment of Blight - but it is only with hindsight that this call can be made.

The situation with Thomas is referred to - but if Thomas had just walked away (as he always said he would if a better person could be found) and had not used the media to justify his perception of his record, and to comment on every aspect of St Kilda FC this situation would not have arisen.

How many other sacked coaches have conducted themselves as Thomas has in commenting on every aspect of their former employer?

Compare Connelly, Daniher, Sheedy and the rest.
Even if there is a change of administration at Essendon, and Sheedy is offered the coaching position, he will say no. And that is fact. And he is not carrying on in the media as if he still coaches Essendon.

The loan to Thomas? Commercial transaction between 2 parties. Should it have been divulged to the Board? Well, what purpose would it serve and what would the Board have done about it? Said "No, you cannot make a loan to Thomas"?

Do we now ask to peruse the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of Westaway - and peruse his private Company Financial Statements?

He would say "Get lost", and rightly so.

So the current Board have turned St Kilda FC around, both financially and in on-field performance.

They are positioned now such that money can be spent on "discretionary" items, because there is no more debt to service and repay.

With the Council, well that is about protecting the future revenue streams of St Kilda FC, and particularly poker machine revenue which, unfortunately, sporting clubs and others rely on. St Kilda FC has a model, and the Council are saying that the poker machines will not be accomodated at that site, because that is the politically acceptable position - but St Kilda FC look at the revenue steam.

The optimum position is that the Council put up the good political fight, but ultimately concede that they want the benefits of St Kilda FC operating from the site, and renege to allow a certain number of machines with a sunset clause on the term that number of machines can be accomodated for.

So, are St Kilda FC in a terminal position courtesy of the performance of this Board?

I happen to think they are in a far better position than they were when this Board came to the table.

And that is the measure.

It is also the reason why I run the acid over what the alternate group are presenting.

With hindsight, it is easy to be critical of a business plan which aims at generating $1 Million per annum NET proifits so that that NET profit can(principally) be applied to debt reduction, and the debt re-paid.

But, why wasn't this challenge on foot when the debt was actually being reduced and repaid? Why not a challenge then? Based on the fact that the debt redemption programme be stalled (if the financier agreed!) and the funds be applied elsewhere. Why now?

And injuries? Well, what about Ponting and Watson?

I note Burke said that Judd may not be attracted to St Kilda because it plays at Telstra Dome, on a cement base (being a car park roof) and has the injury history it has.

This at a time when Judd is impaired as he is - and has missed finals football (along with Kerr) resulting in West Coast being eliminated.

Interesting that!

So, what happens with the new Borad, if we still have injuries and we fail to win a premiership?

How many years do we give them before we turf them out too?

One year? Two years? I would not suggest any more because of their manifesto.

And what does that do for the reputation of St Kilda FC among its peers, and among the players it seeks to retain and attract?

I will be accused of being an apolgist for the current Board, because that is the immediate reaction of some.

But, 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 years ago, who would have said that St Kilda FC would not be replicatiing North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Carlton, Richmond and certain interstate sides in needing to go to the AFL for handouts to survive?

And we will NEVER compete off-field with the Collingwood's, the Essendon's and the Pratt financed Carlton.

We just do not have the benefactors.

a TRULY great post and a must read. In fairness Thomas aint going away till he brings down Butters - its well known and shows you what a vindictive piece of dogs vomit this guy is - hell manipulate by any means AND IF hes in any way associated with SFF we are f@rked....cause in time hell want Westonhouses job......make no mistake.

NO agenda, logic and facts in your post TTP - prepare to be slaughtered.
But well done regardless.

Ultimately, we'll do what St Kilda does......go for the white knight saviour wholl tell us "everything will be rosy in the morning....."

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I'm not interested in reasons why they should go, I think there's enough threads & posts on that topic.

Does anyone still support the incumbents and if so the reasons for doing so?

Well, I don't really like Butterss, but if he'd promise to hire a media pro... anyway. IMO, the case for them is:

-7 Years in the job is 7 years more experience than the challengers bring to the table.
-Debt reduction isn't nearly as easy as folks here make it out to be. e.g. I'd like to spend more money on my life, Visa and Amex would like me to spend more money on my life, heck if I asked, Mastercard would probably like me to spend more money on my life. My disposable income is already dented by repayments though, and if I spend more money, those repayments will basically just be paying the interest rather than actually reducing my debt. Reducing debt isn't sexy, it takes discipline. Word is they spent more this year than ever before, and this was the year they finally came out of the red ink.
-Until recent tribulations, they've been happy to operate from behind the scenes predominantly.
-When they see they've gotten it wrong, they act. The Blight firing. Putting into effect a football dept rather than leaving it all in the hands of GT, which regardless of your opinion of GT, represents a long term risk for short term saving.
-Standing up to the council who appear to be playing politics over the poker machines.
-Taking advantage of a position of strength to re-work the TD deal.

I guess the main point I'd hold in their favour is that what I'm really going to be voting on is who I trust to spend St KFC's money now that it exists. A board that's done the hard yards for 7 years appears qualified in my eyes. Thus far SFF hasn't actually demonstrated to me that voting for them is any wiser than getting Amex to issue a card on my account in my girlfriends name and sending her to Evelyn Miles (a very expensive shoe store that someday I aspire to have enough moeny to LET her shop in...).

At this point I sincerely hope to see both a case from the board to retain them, and some info from SFF to earn my trust beyond having Burkie, one of my fav players when he was on the field, but I've really never thought of going to for financial advise. I honestly don't know who I'll vote for if it makes it as far as an actual vote.

[stinger]

Better bring back Grant Thomas then.

He is obviously the only guy who can run the club.

Funny how no other club has approached him to become President and Coach of their clubs, so he can run them as successfully as he ran St Kilda.

So this is where the vitriol of the mob comes from, Butters and the Board sacked the golden haired one who was St Kilda FC.

clutching at straws, mate...clutching at straws.....

[stinger]

As I have tried to prosecute, in the face of some remarkable responses from a certain grouping of posters, where I suspect multiple names are being used by the one poster because you ask a question of one and the reply comes from another poster who, incidentally, has the exact same view of life, where is substance and where is rhetoric?

would you like to be a little more specific..?????..name names, you wimp.....

[stinger]

And, if the playing side was so neglected by the current Board, how have we kept the likes of Reiwoldt and Koschitzke (for starters - and who have we lost?) in the face of the offers they received from other clubs?

"We"?

To answer your question, I'd say in large part because of how these players were mentored in rebuilding the culture of the team.

As I have tried to prosecute, in the face of some remarkable responses from a certain grouping of posters, where I suspect multiple names are being used by the one poster because you ask a question of one and the reply comes from another poster who, incidentally, has the exact same view of life, where is substance and where is rhetoric?

I presume that was directed at me? Pretty rich coming from you. Especially given you can't answer a direct question asked numerous time.

So now you think I'm stinger?

I think your education is failing you.

i'm not sure who the clown is doing a greater disservice to.....