I'm very disappointed that I haven't heard anything from the incumbents other that bitching about Westaway's stupid 'drugs' comment & that they are apparently exploring options to defer the EGM. I'm still prepared to consider both sides but if the current mob don't put up very soon I reckon it will be too late to stem the flow to SFF.
For info, I'm going to hear what Westaway has to say to the Western Saints tomorrow & I'll be very interested to find out how he reckons they'll increase the size of the 'financial pie' available to the club. Personally I'd also like to know about off-field personnel matters, but I really doubt how much he might be willing to say about that.
On a side issue I went hunting in the bowels of this bloddy computer to see if I'd ever kept articles quoting Butterss early presidential comments that he'd only stay in the job for 5 years (which is my recollection) [& I think the current boards' lack of action in re-invigorating itself is a real issue]. Anyway I found the following:
(from Realfooty, ie - The Age)
Butterss admits: We haven't delivered
February 25 2003
It's put-up or shut-up time at St Kilda, and Saints president Rod Butterss pulls no punches in his appraisal of the club to Stephen Rielly.
When Rod Butterss succeeded Andrew Plympton as president of St Kilda in August 2000, he inherited a debt-free football club that, although in the last days of an ill-fated partnership with coach Tim Watson, had been a finalist two years earlier.
This, at least, was the popular view of Butterss' inheritance.
The president, who was reappointed by the St Kilda board last week for a further three years, has a different interpretation of affairs. It is one he believes partly explains why,
under his guidance, the club has won only nine matches in two seasons and is now burdened by $2.5 million of debt.
Much of the blame for the decline he has overseen is his own, Butterss agrees, and he will not question the Plympton legacy.
"How would I assess our performance? I would give ourselves a five out of 10," Butterss said. "On a range of fronts, I underestimated the complexities and demands of football. We've made mistakes."
Not least the decision to appoint Malcolm Blight as Watson's successor on a contract worth $1 million a season, an error that was manifest within months. Blight was sacked 15 rounds into the 2001 season and the new administration appeared stunned - firstly into a state of paralysis and, later, introspective caution.
"We were so passionate and enthusiastic about introducing change and seeing things happen that we enticed Malcolm out of retirement a year or two before he was ready and we both got burnt," Butterss concedes. "I don't look back on it often, but when I do, I think that we both erred."
As Butterss sees things, his inexperience, and that of his board in 2000, served to undermine the tremendous energy and the flow of ideas introduced to the boardroom at the time, which amounted to a belief that radical change was required.
"It took some time to understand that unlike in the traditional small business world, where changes of fortune and direction can be made in a matter of months through a range of initiatives, football doesn't allow quick turnarounds," he said.
"You live with your decisions in this game for a very long time."
It is the way of all leaders to impose themselves, but Butterss and Brian Waldron, the chief executive he appointed in 2001, were almost zealous in their determination to make fundamental changes.
Their view was shaped, overwhelmingly, by one fact - the undeniable failure of the club to regularly contend. St Kilda's rock'n'roll habits of self-destruction and excess were to be tempered rather than disowned, for to scythe them completely would be to dishonour much of the club's unique appeal, but failure and a chronic shortage of funds were no longer acceptable.
"The new regime came to power and we took the view that the St Kilda formula of the past was, in essence, flawed. One premiership in 130-odd years was a testament to the fact that it was simply not working and had rarely ever worked," Butterss said.
"Notwithstanding the many grand contributions from people such as Andrew Plympton or Robert Harvey or Nathan Burke or any number of others, the model in place at St Kilda was not delivering even the opportunity of a premiership every 10 years.
"So the only option, as we saw, it was to strip the club back to its very basics and rebuild. Now stripping anything back that far can threaten its very existence but we felt there was no alternative."
The club has not quite been imperilled over the past two seasons as others - namely the Western Bulldogs and Kangaroos - have, but nor has there been much gain for a lot of pain.
"The truth is we haven't yet delivered a damn thing," Butterss concedes.
The story of his presidency thus far is not, however, entirely one of naivety, well-intentioned haste and on-the-job learning. The decision to relocate from Waverley Park to Telstra Dome - one Butterss says was impossible not to make, given the inflated financial estimates provided to clubs by the AFL when it was spruiking the venue - coupled with two dreadful seasons while coach Grant Thomas rebuilds the list have amounted to an "unfortunate combination".
This year, the club should, at "the very least", break even, says Butterss. If, by the end of his new term, the club is not financially stable and deriving funds from non-football related activities, supported by at least 25,000 members and entrenched in the top eight, Butterss says he ought to step down.
He thinks the fans would demand that, anyhow.
"The average fan really does know his football and while I'm heartened by the support we seem to be receiving and the widespread sense of optimism about our direction, I know some still have misgivings and others are holding their judgement and those people won't do that forever," he said. "Nor should they keep the faith if we don't start to offer them reasons to believe."
......................................................................................................
I've bolded a couple of points in the early part of the article, I seem to recall that a certain part of our debts has been related to writing down/off the value of property 'assets' at Moorabbin, however I am unsure how the debt went for zero to $2.5m to $3.7m. Is there someone on here who remembers exactly what happened? & who might be able to explain it to those of us who are financially illiterate nuffies
