Andrew Plympton on SEN

[Mr Magic]

Out of curiosity....where does RL's football department spend stand relative to the other AFL clubs?

Going on the prattle in this thread I assume it must be the largest in the AFL...but I would strongly doubt it.

Around midplace of the 16 Clubs last season, according to the list released by the AFL this week.

[saintsRrising]

Out of curiosity....where does RL's football department spend stand relative to the other AFL clubs?

Going on the prattle in this thread I assume it must be the largest in the AFL...but I would strongly doubt it.

Around midplace of the 16 Clubs last season, according to the list released by the AFL this week.

So based on the theories expoused by some...Lyon has no hope and his fate is pre-ordained .

Maybe someone should tap him on the shoulder and advise him that there is no way he can make top 2.


I heard on the radio the other day that that WC had more than 120 staff in it's football department. Is the flag theirs?



Or do we have a hope because a good coach can make the most of what he has got....

[plugger66]

Funny that you didnt comment on part of the post I did saying we were bottom couple in footy spending under GT but under RL we are much higher. .

I commented.

I have never denied that the Club was not amongst the highest spenders..

However this has nothing to do with my opinion that a better coach would have done a better job than the inexperienced yet highly paid Thomas.

* Salary cap was a fixed maximum..that GT fully spent on too few senior players and so we had to play short.

* GT overpaid himself...part of this money would have been better spent on other football department or conditioning staff

* GT alienated people including our VFL affilate with the result that our ability to develop younger players and rookies was impaired



So yes GT had X amount of money...he did not use it wisely....

Then add to that that GT was tatically poor...a poor developer of players....and the total result us an underperforming Head coach wannabbee "demi-god" control freak.


His supposed "strength" of player contracts was actually a disaster area with two long term contacts that backfired poorly...and as already discussed a maxed out salray cap where too much money was goven to too few so that we had to play short.


Which leaves GT beinga good match day motivator...on occasion...but not over 4 quarters except for the streak.


And lastly his choice of movies sucked too...for the end of the world movie was prophetic.

We must have been a good side if GT had that many faults. Delude yourself that he was so bad but what ever way you look at it most judges say injuries cost us a flag not GT. Patrick Smith even gave him coach of the year once and we know what he thinks of GT.

As for him paying himself. What rubbish. If that was the case everyone on the board should have immediately resigned because they have no credibility and do also think a president who didnt like the coach in the last 2 years of his job would just agree to any salary. You can write things as much as you want to but that doesnt make them fact but like most stories your fiction is a good read.

[plugger66]

Out of curiosity....where does RL's football department spend stand relative to the other AFL clubs?

Going on the prattle in this thread I assume it must be the largest in the AFL...but I would strongly doubt it.

Around midplace of the 16 Clubs last season, according to the list released by the AFL this week.

So based on the theories expoused by some...Lyon has no hope and his fate is pre-ordained .

Maybe someone should tap him on the shoulder and advise him that there is no way he can make top 2.


I heard on the radio the other day that that WC had more than 120 staff in it's football department. Is the flag theirs?



Or do we have a hope because a good coach can make the most of what he has got....

Your arguement is getting weaker by the letter typed. Never once did I say we paid the highest in the AFL footy department but we also are not second or third last like we were under GT and remember that figure includes the salary cap that apparently we maxed out.

[Loyal]

what a bunch of assholes!

[saintsRrising]

Your arguement is getting weaker by the letter typed. Never once did I say we paid the highest in the AFL footy department but

.

Can you point out where I said that you did?

[saintsRrising]

and do also think a president who didnt like the coach in the last 2 years of his job would just agree to any salary. You can write things as much as you want to but that doesnt make them fact but like most stories your fiction is a good read.

Now you are very amusing.

What has GT's last two years as coach got to do with his starting salary as a rookie coach??

GT would have negotiated his salary with RB before he started. Do you think he waited till he was at the club to talk salary?

No it would have been done prior to starting.

GT salary was revealed in the recent Court case. Way too high fora rookie coah IMO.

As to the previous Board...yes I agree they should hang their heads in shame for the way GT was hired and for the size of the package that they entered into. Completely inappropriate on both counts in my view.

[stinger]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

we had one or two mate...i can go back through the records if you like....what i meant was we didn't have the money to sign our full quota.......don't take my word for it...ask burkie...he will tell you the same thing.......

So you agree that we had money for rookies then...and that we did have rookies under GT.

If so we are in agreement.

No need to look..I am fully awre that we had rookies each year. Point is that they were not developed properly.

I have not said that we took on the maximum possible number of rookies.

Mind your $250,000 for SA could have paid for some more?

Priorities and what is seen as importnat?

GT also did not flich on money when it came to his own salary...which were psoted on this forum last year. Fora rookie coach with no track record as an assistant AFL coach he was paif above the odds IMO.

$100K less per year would have paid the salaries of another 2 -3 rookies per year perhaps??

Or one rookie and another physio......I guess it depends on what you see as important.

i am not going to run this much further.....we both have our own fixed beliefs...neither of us will change...all i said was that grant told me that there wasn't money available to add more(rookies) to the list....full stop......what he earned has f*** all to do with it......

[stinger]

Stinger and Plugger, time to grow up and move on boys!

Perhaps, Stinger, you should learn how to read because then, and only then, you may actually learn something.

.

again the point i stopped reading......


..offensive sad little person aren't you...and a f****** knowall to boot....know nothing more like it....

[stinger]

Funny that you didnt comment on part of the post I did saying we were bottom couple in footy spending under GT but under RL we are much higher. .

I commented.

I have never denied that the Club was not amongst the highest spenders..

However this has nothing to do with my opinion that a better coach would have done a better job than the inexperienced yet highly paid Thomas.

* Salary cap was a fixed maximum..that GT fully spent on too few senior players and so we had to play short.

* GT overpaid himself...part of this money would have been better spent on other football department or conditioning staff

* GT alienated people including our VFL affilate with the result that our ability to develop younger players and rookies was impaired



So yes GT had X amount of money...he did not use it wisely....

Then add to that that GT was tatically poor...a poor developer of players....and the total result us an underperforming Head coach wannabbee "demi-god" control freak.


His supposed "strength" of player contracts was actually a disaster area with two long term contacts that backfired poorly...and as already discussed a maxed out salray cap where too much money was goven to too few so that we had to play short.


Which leaves GT beinga good match day motivator...on occasion...but not over 4 quarters except for the streak.


And lastly his choice of movies sucked too...for the end of the world movie was prophetic.

We must have been a good side if GT had that many faults. Delude yourself that he was so bad but what ever way you look at it most judges say injuries cost us a flag not GT. Patrick Smith even gave him coach of the year once and we know what he thinks of GT.

As for him paying himself. What rubbish. If that was the case everyone on the board should have immediately resigned because they have no credibility and do also think a president who didnt like the coach in the last 2 years of his job would just agree to any salary. You can write things as much as you want to but that doesnt make them fact but like most stories your fiction is a good read.

i'm warming to you plugger......keep up the good fight......maybe if butters didn't spend so much on grog and getting pissed at his president's grog fests...grant could have had more money for footy.......no wonder he has mates on here...they were up to their necks in the freebies....

[No1_Saint]

If I remember correctly Plympton handed the job over to Rod. It was a smooth transition with Rod being mentored by him.

In regards to the membership I am pretty sure that we did not have 27,000 members in 1998, I think that is Plympton being generous with the truth.

As far as Rod being the most financially successful President is probably true of the latest ones. Remember back in the 60's the club was on fire with record crowds, finals appearances and that historical premiership.

Let's hope we can relive those days sometime this century.

[ozrulestrace]

Once again I'm sorry I asked the original question as this has turned into a bagfest against the GT/RB and sundry people and that was not my intent.

Mods, can we lock this thread as it is so far off my original question of did any one hear Andrew Plympton on SEN?

Only one person answered the question and that was about third person in.

[To the top]

Well Stinger, I frequented President's lunches (and dinners and other Club functions) whilst Travis was President, whilst Andrew was President and whilst Rod was President.

All conducted themselves in a most appropriate manner and all worked tirelessly in the interests of St Kilda FC.

And ALL who attended those functions contributed financially to St Kilda FC.

There was an issue with Travis at the end, but that was understandable in the circumstances.

You, Stinger, are nothing else but an insulting bore.

[saint08]

If I remember correctly Plympton handed the job over to Rod. It was a smooth transition with Rod being mentored by him.

.

I am a bit older than some on this site, and it is not what I recall so I googled some articles. Butters and thomas joined in 99, formed a group of directors from within the board including michael gudinski and demanded his resignation. Plympton backed a guy named Ian Scott to succeed him but Butters group won.

They did not talk for a long time but 2 years later they mended fences when butterss gave plymton life membership , and also years later appointed plympton to a paid chairman job at concept sports.

It would be nice to have everyone from the past unite behind the club.



"St Kilda directors Ian Scott and Rod Butterss have been asked to decide between themselves which of them should succeed long-serving president Andrew Plympton. The 13-person club board will vote on the new president if Scott, who is vice-president, and Butterss cannot agree on who should lead the Saints. Both Scott and Butterss, one of eight directors to join the club this year, told the board they wanted to become president. Plympton, who is up for re-election, will step aside if there is a smooth transition. “We have encouraged Ian and Rod to get together to discuss the position,â€

[stinger]

Well Stinger, I frequented President's lunches (and dinners and other Club functions) whilst Travis was President, whilst Andrew was President and whilst Rod was President.

All conducted themselves in a most appropriate manner and all worked tirelessly in the interests of St Kilda FC.

And ALL who attended those functions contributed financially to St Kilda FC.

There was an issue with Travis at the end, but that was understandable in the circumstances.

You, Stinger, are nothing else but an insulting bore.

...and what are you.... ..yawn......a rude sad little wanna be......bet the only time you got into a presidents dinner was to clean the tables......


bet you were there picking up the glasses when rod was slurring his words and falling over......if the truth be known....

[stinger]

If I remember correctly Plympton handed the job over to Rod. It was a smooth transition with Rod being mentored by him.

.

I am a bit older than some on this site, and it is not what I recall so I googled some articles. Butters and thomas joined in 99, formed a group of directors from within the board including michael gudinski and demanded his resignation. Plympton backed a guy named Ian Scott to succeed him but Butters group won.

They did not talk for a long time but 2 years later they mended fences when butterss gave plymton life membership , and also years later appointed plympton to a paid chairman job at concept sports.

I

correct.........some on here rewrite history then try and peddle it to the masses as the truth...thank god for posters like you.....

[evertonfc]

Is it true we snagged a deal with Phillip Morris because Plympton was so enamoured with their product? That bloke smoked for the World XI.

No in fact his Board lost a sponsorship worth 6 figures because he allowed the 'Quit campaign' to cover their 2 Peter Jackson billboards at Moorabbin with their own anti-smoking messages. For this they received a 'low 5 figure sum from Quit. A significant shortfall on what they were getting from Philip Morris.

One could argue the merit of their slogan but I might humbly suggest you don't accept their money and then 'screw them over'. These people have long memories and own many other 'acceptable' companies which could be approached for sponsorship.

But we went with a far more ethical company straight after Phillip Morris, didn't we?

Good to see our morals were in the right place

No matter how you try to spin it, we didn't 'drop' Philip Morris. They 'dropped us because of the unprofessional actions of our Board at the time.

Eh? I'm agreeing with you. My original point was tongue-in-cheek.

For the record, after ties were ended with PM, we signed Tooheys beer - an excellent product I might add - straight away.

[saintsRrising]

More from Plympton:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html
Many reasons for board's decision
By Trevor Grant
September 15, 2006

FORMER St Kilda president Andrew Plympton has strongly backed the sacking of coach Grant Thomas, saying he suspected "deeper issues" caused the board to act."I think there has to be something more to it," he said.

"There must be a range of deeper issues that has caused them to act with such urgency."

Plympton, who oversaw the departures of three coaches at St Kilda - Ken Sheldon, Stan Alves and Tim Watson - said while he understood the impact on Thomas, he had both support and sympathy for the board and its president, Rod Butterss.

"I have no doubt the board has a whole lot of reasons and justification for making the decision. I understand what they are going through," he said.

Plympton introduced Thomas and Butterss to the St Kilda board in 1999.

Within two years, Plympton was gone, Butterss was president and Thomas had transformed from the board's football director to coach, after the sacking of Malcolm Blight.

"I think Grant's departure indicates a fundamental breakdown of relationships. Although I'm not privy to inside information it's clear this hasn't been done on a whim," he said.

"Rod had to learn on the job, as did the new board, in 2000, and I think Rod and the board would be critical of their own performance at some levels back then. But over the last three or four years I see only a strong, consistent level of performance from them.

"In recent times, this board has not made frivolous, one-off, crazy decisions. It's obvious this decision has been very carefully considered."

The Saints' off-field leader from 1993 to 2000 said it was fair to say that the team had under-achieved in the past three seasons, reaching the preliminary final twice with a list ranked as one of the best in club history.

"The retort to that is that we've had this and that injury. I think it all becomes a bit too complicated. People say if they had have got this or that kick right in Adelaide two years ago they would have got to the Grand Final and won it," he said.

"That's a bit like me saying if (Peter) Everitt hadn't broken his collarbone in 1997 before the grand final, we would have won the premiership."

Having heard the strong defence of Thomas's record, which includes three successive finals series, Plympton recalled the outcry that accompanied the 1998 sacking of Alves, who had taken the club into the Grand Final in 1997 and made the finals in 1998.

"There were other factors that had to be considered. Why, with no injuries and on top of the ladder after Round 14 would we lose nine of our last 10 games?"

[stinger]

More from Plympton:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html
Many reasons for board's decision
By Trevor Grant
September 15, 2006

FORMER St Kilda president Andrew Plympton has strongly backed the sacking of coach Grant Thomas, saying he suspected "deeper issues" caused the board to act."I think there has to be something more to it," he said.

"There must be a range of deeper issues that has caused them to act with such urgency."

Plympton, who oversaw the departures of three coaches at St Kilda - Ken Sheldon, Stan Alves and Tim Watson - said while he understood the impact on Thomas, he had both support and sympathy for the board and its president, Rod Butterss.

"I have no doubt the board has a whole lot of reasons and justification for making the decision. I understand what they are going through," he said.

Plympton introduced Thomas and Butterss to the St Kilda board in 1999.

Within two years, Plympton was gone, Butterss was president and Thomas had transformed from the board's football director to coach, after the sacking of Malcolm Blight.

"I think Grant's departure indicates a fundamental breakdown of relationships. Although I'm not privy to inside information it's clear this hasn't been done on a whim," he said.

"Rod had to learn on the job, as did the new board, in 2000, and I think Rod and the board would be critical of their own performance at some levels back then. But over the last three or four years I see only a strong, consistent level of performance from them.

"In recent times, this board has not made frivolous, one-off, crazy decisions. It's obvious this decision has been very carefully considered."

The Saints' off-field leader from 1993 to 2000 said it was fair to say that the team had under-achieved in the past three seasons, reaching the preliminary final twice with a list ranked as one of the best in club history.

"The retort to that is that we've had this and that injury. I think it all becomes a bit too complicated. People say if they had have got this or that kick right in Adelaide two years ago they would have got to the Grand Final and won it," he said.

"That's a bit like me saying if (Peter) Everitt hadn't broken his collarbone in 1997 before the grand final, we would have won the premiership."

Having heard the strong defence of Thomas's record, which includes three successive finals series, Plympton recalled the outcry that accompanied the 1998 sacking of Alves, who had taken the club into the Grand Final in 1997 and made the finals in 1998.

"There were other factors that had to be considered. Why, with no injuries and on top of the ladder after Round 14 would we lose nine of our last 10 games?"

...not hard to work out.....


'"Concept Sports already has one former St Kilda president, Andrew Plympton, as its chairman, and his successor, Rod Butterss, as a major shareholder."

"Casey is a partner of Butterss in the Transition Group, a consultancy firm which re-structures businesses.
He formerly worked at Nylex, as did Saints football manager Ken Sheldon. Ray King, a St Kilda director, was chairman of Nylex. Casey and Sheldon began being paid by St Kilda soon after they finished at Nylex. The Transition Group recently became involved with Concept Sports, a public company run by Richmond Football Club president Gary March. Casey has been appointed a director of Concept Sports and another St Kilda director's wife is among the top 20 shareholders.
To add even more intrigue to the St Kilda links with Concept Sports, former St Kilda president Andrew Plympton has been appointed chairman of the company, and St Kilda's former chief operating officer James Van Beek left the club this year to work at Concept Sports."

[stinger]

More from Plympton:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html
Many reasons for board's decision
By Trevor Grant
September 15, 2006

FORMER St Kilda president Andrew Plympton has strongly backed the sacking of coach Grant Thomas, saying he suspected "deeper issues" caused the board to act."I think there has to be something more to it," he said.

"There must be a range of deeper issues that has caused them to act with such urgency."

Plympton, who oversaw the departures of three coaches at St Kilda - Ken Sheldon, Stan Alves and Tim Watson - said while he understood the impact on Thomas, he had both support and sympathy for the board and its president, Rod Butterss.

"I have no doubt the board has a whole lot of reasons and justification for making the decision. I understand what they are going through," he said.

Plympton introduced Thomas and Butterss to the St Kilda board in 1999.

Within two years, Plympton was gone, Butterss was president and Thomas had transformed from the board's football director to coach, after the sacking of Malcolm Blight.

"I think Grant's departure indicates a fundamental breakdown of relationships. Although I'm not privy to inside information it's clear this hasn't been done on a whim," he said.

"Rod had to learn on the job, as did the new board, in 2000, and I think Rod and the board would be critical of their own performance at some levels back then. But over the last three or four years I see only a strong, consistent level of performance from them.

"In recent times, this board has not made frivolous, one-off, crazy decisions. It's obvious this decision has been very carefully considered."

The Saints' off-field leader from 1993 to 2000 said it was fair to say that the team had under-achieved in the past three seasons, reaching the preliminary final twice with a list ranked as one of the best in club history.

"The retort to that is that we've had this and that injury. I think it all becomes a bit too complicated. People say if they had have got this or that kick right in Adelaide two years ago they would have got to the Grand Final and won it," he said.

"That's a bit like me saying if (Peter) Everitt hadn't broken his collarbone in 1997 before the grand final, we would have won the premiership."

Having heard the strong defence of Thomas's record, which includes three successive finals series, Plympton recalled the outcry that accompanied the 1998 sacking of Alves, who had taken the club into the Grand Final in 1997 and made the finals in 1998.

"There were other factors that had to be considered. Why, with no injuries and on top of the ladder after Round 14 would we lose nine of our last 10 games?"

[stinger]

"There were other factors that had to be considered. Why, with no injuries and on top of the ladder after Round 14 would we lose nine of our last 10 games?"





....i could tell you...but it's been done to death....


....all i'm really interested in is tomprrows game ...and going 7 up..........

[saintsRrising]

I heard Plympton interviewed on radio a while back..it was mainly on his involvement in sailing (and being a very keen yachstman myself with many years spent racing I was a keen listener......as I was when Rod was interviewed many times before and after the Beijng Olympics more recently where Andrew oversaw an amazing result by our sailing team...but that is another story)) .

But they also talked about his involvement with St Kilda..and one of the things he said he was then doing was mentoring Rod Butterrs in his role as President of St KFC.

[stinger]

I heard Plympton interviewed on radio a while back..it was mainly on his involvement in sailing (and being a very keen yachstman myself with many years spent racing I was a keen listener......as I was when Rod was interviewed many times before and after the Beijng Olympics more recently where Andrew oversaw an amzing result by our sailng team...but that is another story)) .

But they also talked about his involvement with St Kilda..and one of the things he said he was then doing was mentoring Rod Butterrs in his role as President of St KFC.

i think that's right.......not at first though...after the rift healed...prior to then.....thomas enlisted butterss with the aim of rescuing the club from its mediocrity. and winning a premiership.......they always intended to oust plympton and take over......