Footy First Complaints.

[To the top]

I am one of those who believe the previous BOARD got it pretty much right in that the priority was to secure the club's future existance by eliminating the cancerous debt it had - and then move on to spending NET revenue on a sustainable football model.

Rome was not built in a day. You put the foundations in place first, then you build on the solidity of those foundations.

The agenda became messy when (correctly, and I view a couple of seasons too late) Thomas was removed - and the recriminations of Thomas.

I say that because the CLUB is bigger than any individual - and the BOARD sacked Thomas after he declined BOARD directives in regards the composition and direction of the Football Department.

People became involved in the personality politics agenda, and took their eyes off the long term agenda - including where the Club had come from as a basket case financially.

The jury is still well and truly out on the current Board in my view.

And the times we are running into, with discretionary spending under pressure, including perceived pressure because of media reporting (those under pressure in our society, including both individuals and Corporations are those who have contributed to the build up of our Net Foreign Debt to over $600 BILLION over recent years, driving asset prices up and resulting in the woes of Collingwood Football Club as but one perfect example) the jury remains well and truly out, because IF St Kilda FC had debt at this time in the economic cycle it would be under threat in regards its very survival - short of AFL "bail outs" and "White Knight" (Pratt) "bail outs" which are a feature at some other clubs.

Would Fox again be there to "influence" creditors, including the principal creditor which was ANZ Banking Group at that time?

The Creditors agreed to accept a few cents in the $1-, and that "survived" at least the St Kilda FC, which then ran up further debt including because of the Linton Street politics of the time.

We are past those times of Social Club versus Football Club - and who engineered that to the benefit of the longer term financial viabilty of St Kilda FC?

Previous Boards (plural) have contributed to the model St Kilda FC have now - and I really do not think that this Board has, to date, added to that model which has been constructed and the fruits of which we see today.

No doubt the personality attack dogs will be out in force!

[sainteronline]

I've got gonads pal. (They just haven't dropped yet) Let me know when you're attending.

So you're in a wheelchair? If so, then I respect that(why?). [/color]However, it's still a silly argument to use.

I still don't see why I should pay for your taxi fares. You wanna make the move, then be prepared to take responsibility. No excuses. I'm sure the club would fund, with my approval, your fares.(you said put up or shut up ,if i dont like the board,i was merely pontin out the stupidity of that statement,would love to run for the board,unfortunately circumstances dont permit)
As far as punching the info in... go back and read your posts about Ben Cousins.

and i stll didnt get thru to you coz your heads to far in the sand

[GrumpyOne]

I don't see any of them jumping up to pay for my taxi fares

And why would I even consider that?

This is St Kilda.

This is my religion.

I have faith.

Accept it or leave.

[sainteronline]

I don't see any of them jumping up to pay for my taxi fares

And why would I even consider that?

This is St Kilda.

This is my religion.

I have faith. (Faith is one thing, blind faith is another)

Accept it or leave.

why should I leave because I have no faith in the board

if that goes for everyone then nobody would be left here over the years

also you seem to be missing the point

Westaway resigned (was it because he didn't feel he was doing a good enough job or was it because nobody else had faith in him neither)

[GrumpyOne]

I don't see any of them jumping up to pay for my taxi fares

And why would I even consider that?

This is St Kilda.

This is my religion.

I have faith. (Faith is one thing, blind faith is another)

Accept it or leave.

why should I leave because I have no faith in the board

if that goes for everyone then nobody would be left here over the years

Stop typing in my posts in colour numbnuts.

The current board was elected by the majority of votes at the AGM.

So you don't like what they are doing.... well, you'll just have to suffer in your jocks until the next AGM.

Then you and your whinging cohorts can vote against them.

Then if you have the numbers, you can have a go.

Until then.... STFU.

[sainteronline]

Until then.... STFU. (Why because I disagree with you, if we follow that line right through you will be the only person here)

[GrumpyOne]

Until then.... STFU. (Why because I disagree with you, if we follow that line right through you will be the only person here)

Again you are typing in colour in my posts...... are you really that determined to p1ss me off?

You have a membership I hope, (but I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't).

That membership entitles you to a vote at the AGM.

Nothing stopping you canvassing the membership to mount a challenge to the board.

So put up or shut up.

And as for being the only one left..... if you are an indication of what Saints supporters are like...... we are better off folding than continuing to toss boards out on an annual basis.

[WayneJudson42]

I've got gonads pal. (They just haven't dropped yet) Let me know when you're attending.

So you're in a wheelchair? If so, then I respect that(why?). [/color]However, it's still a silly argument to use.

I still don't see why I should pay for your taxi fares. You wanna make the move, then be prepared to take responsibility. No excuses. I'm sure the club would fund, with my approval, your fares.(you said put up or shut up ,if i dont like the board,i was merely pontin out the stupidity of that statement,would love to run for the board,unfortunately circumstances dont permit)
As far as punching the info in... go back and read your posts about Ben Cousins.

and i stll didnt get thru to you coz your heads to far in the sand

So are you in a wheelchair or not? I'd respect that because I've seen first hand the challenges that people in wheelchairs have to overcome in life.

If not then you're a very sad person for using a wheelchair analogy.

so which one is it?

BTW, you don't have a monopoly on human suffering... still you don't see me use mine in an open forum to make a hero of myself.

[WayneJudson42]

I've got gonads pal. (They just haven't dropped yet) Let me know when you're attending.

So you're in a wheelchair? If so, then I respect that(why?). [/color]However, it's still a silly argument to use.

I still don't see why I should pay for your taxi fares. You wanna make the move, then be prepared to take responsibility. No excuses. I'm sure the club would fund, with my approval, your fares.(you said put up or shut up ,if i dont like the board,i was merely pontin out the stupidity of that statement,would love to run for the board,unfortunately circumstances dont permit)
As far as punching the info in... go back and read your posts about Ben Cousins.

and i stll didnt get thru to you coz your heads to far in the sand

Better to have it in the sand than stuck up your backside like you do.

[sainteronline]

Until then.... STFU. (Why because I disagree with you, if we follow that line right through you will be the only person here)

Again you are typing in colour in my posts...... are you really that determined to p1ss me off? (no, just getting my point across to each of your points individually)
You have a membership I hope, (but I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't). (Yes I do)

That membership entitles you to a vote at the AGM. (Yes it does)

Nothing stopping you canvassing the membership to mount a challenge to the board.

So put up or shut up. (Again with the put up or shut up, stupid argument as I am not in a position to run for the board, I am however in a position to vote for anybody who decides to run against this board and that I think would be a better option)
And as for being the only one left..... if you are an indication of what Saints supporters are like...... we are better off folding than continuing to toss boards out on an annual basis.

so now you just want to give up and fold

all over a couple of disagreements

great supporter you are

[sainteronline]

Better to have it in the sand than stuck up your backside like you do.

why would you like to stick your head up my backside
besides no way would I stick my head up my backside, in there all I would see all day would be an exact replica of you
you are a kinky one aren't you

PS even Westaway didn't have any faith in himself to do the job properly

pps

So you're in a wheelchair? If so, then I respect that(why?).

please explain

and once again I reiterate

Westaway resigned,

why (imho) because couldnt do the job properly, even he himself has realised that

[GrumpyOne]

so now you just want to give up and fold

all over a couple of disagreements

great supporter you are

So..... not only are you continuing with this inane "type on colour in the midst of someone else's post" bullcrap..... you are also drawing ridiculous conclusions based on a single line in my post.

I was sure I would be able to put my point over to an intelligent person, but I have obviously misjudged you.

Basically my old sunshine, if I was member #30,000 of STKFC, and the other 29,999 were like you, we'd have no future anyway, and would be better off folding.

You are the one with the disagreements, not me. I am happy for this board to keep running the club until the next AGM, and beyond that if the majority of members see fit. If the majority of members don't see fit, I am happy for the new board to run the club till the following AGM.

You see, I am a SUPPORTER.... not a whinging whining malcontented rock thrower like you.

If you don't like the current situation.... do something positive about it. Running around an internet forum saying that the sky is falling achieves nothing.

[sainteronline]

so now you just want to give up and fold

all over a couple of disagreements

great supporter you are

So..... not only are you continuing with this inane "type on colour in the midst of someone else's post" bullcrap..... you are also drawing ridiculous conclusions based on a single line in my post.

I was sure I would be able to put my point over to an intelligent person, but I have obviously misjudged you.

Basically my old sunshine, if I was member #30,000 of STKFC, and the other 29,999 were like you, we'd have no future anyway, and would be better off folding.

You are the one with the disagreements, not me. I am happy for this board to keep running the club until the next AGM, and beyond that if the majority of members see fit. If the majority of members don't see fit, I am happy for the new board to run the club till the following AGM.

You see, I am a SUPPORTER.... not a whinging whining malcontented rock thrower like you. (And with supporters like you, is it any wonder we have one flag in 100 years)

If you don't like the current situation.... do something positive about it. Running around an internet forum saying that the sky is falling achieves nothing.

I never said the sky was falling

I said that the board was inept and should be replaced

it would seem that Westaway agrees with me

[Solar]

Helping the club financially is a by-product of your lifestyle decision, and your preference for discounted entry to home games.

So you want to stop your membership because....

1) the linton street proposal fell down (strange, it was the last board that killed off any chance... but the council didn't want us there and it was not financially prudant to continue without the pokies income that was to come from moving to the south road position....) (something very strange going on there to, what was it over four or five poky machines)

A stream of income was needed to finance a loan. This was based on a certain amount of pokie machine income being generated from the new south road social club. The club was also going to take on a very large loan with no promise that they would be able to sell the lot for the value they paid down the track. It was a very risky proposal with the council anti against the whole thing. Don't remember the council members planting a couple of trees in the "parkland" (the moorabin carpark!) to try and generate negative press. Anyway it's to simplistic to suggest it was over 6 pokie machines but that income underpinned a very risky development

2) It was not in the clubs interest to come out with their in house list investigation..... I am comfortable with that. Do you want explanation on all football department or recruitment decisons? (I want more than "confidential information" on matters that have a direct bearing on us having a better chance at a flag, you just stick your head in the sand and let them tell you that it's all okay)

Did you get a run down on why brad howard was given a 2 year contract only to be delisted and picked up in the rookie draft. What about giving us a full run down on who they wanted in the draft or what riewoldt gets in his contracts. They made a list review and decided BC was not what we needed. I'm fine with people disagreeing but the club has no reason to explain any more as it would give away where they see their list at the time (remember this is before the draft also, this information could effect who we picked in the draft).

3) The level 2 membership issue effected a small amount of members. Not sure how it effected you? (No you're not are you and as you have said it's not all about me, there are other members to consider as well)
And I have given a decient counter arguement. Yes it was badly handled but if thats the worst that can be thrown at the board at present :S


I am still confused on what exactly the board has done wrong.

- They didn't change the draw? Remind me any club that has ever got the AFL to change the draw? You work with what you are given.....

- seaford might take a couple of months longer to get full approval. Remind me how long it took to get the linton street development anywhere.....

- The ben cousins choice (see above)

- asking level 2 members to fork out 125 more for their premium tickets (with 500 waiting for the chance to buy these seats....)

- not being out there in the media (what? I want westaway (keep up or keep it out, he has already fallen on his sword) to come out when the club needs a comment from the board, not just to slag an ex employee like our last pres used to do. What do you think sold more memberships for the hawks? The flag or Kennett?)

- Not posting a huge profit. Would like to see the books first before calling for their heads. As people have already said very well, making profits can hurt long term.[/quote] (and not making profits can hurt long term a lot more)

Don't waste your breath, Solar... Simplistic arguments from simplistic people.

You are 100% correct when it comes to disclosure... It's none of our farking business. (Actually I think it is)

People really need to get a dictionary and identify the difference between being a "member" as opposed to being a "shareholder".[/quote]

you seem to be missing the point Westaway has resigned

He's resigned? all we have is a rumour that suggests he might step down. First you need to ASSUME this is correct, secondly as I have already said there are numorous reasons for him to step down. I have not heard one thing about any of the board members rumbling or any challenges. Poor arguement IMO

nobody seems to be saying why

is it because the rest of the board have no faith in him?

But you go right along with your little blind following[/quote]

[GrumpyOne]

I never said the sky was falling

I said that the board was inept and should be replaced

it would seem that Westaway agrees with me

OMG!!!!

Look up "Figure of Speech" on the net. I think you could learn something.

Show me the quote that evidences that Westaway agrees with you.

Pure fiction on your behalf.

[sainteronline]

I never said the sky was falling

I said that the board was inept and should be replaced

it would seem that Westaway agrees with me

OMG!!!!

Look up "Figure of Speech" on the net. I think you could learn something.

Show me the quote that evidences that Westaway agrees with you.

Pure fiction on your behalf.

no I have evidence

would it help if I said trust me

how about if I said "confidential information"

would you believe me then

[Solar]

I am one of those who believe the previous BOARD got it pretty much right in that the priority was to secure the club's future existance by eliminating the cancerous debt it had - and then move on to spending NET revenue on a sustainable football model.

Rome was not built in a day. You put the foundations in place first, then you build on the solidity of those foundations.

The agenda became messy when (correctly, and I view a couple of seasons too late) Thomas was removed - and the recriminations of Thomas.

I say that because the CLUB is bigger than any individual - and the BOARD sacked Thomas after he declined BOARD directives in regards the composition and direction of the Football Department.

People became involved in the personality politics agenda, and took their eyes off the long term agenda - including where the Club had come from as a basket case financially.

The jury is still well and truly out on the current Board in my view.

And the times we are running into, with discretionary spending under pressure, including perceived pressure because of media reporting (those under pressure in our society, including both individuals and Corporations are those who have contributed to the build up of our Net Foreign Debt to over $600 BILLION over recent years, driving asset prices up and resulting in the woes of Collingwood Football Club as but one perfect example) the jury remains well and truly out, because IF St Kilda FC had debt at this time in the economic cycle it would be under threat in regards its very survival - short of AFL "bail outs" and "White Knight" (Pratt) "bail outs" which are a feature at some other clubs.

Would Fox again be there to "influence" creditors, including the principal creditor which was ANZ Banking Group at that time?

The Creditors agreed to accept a few cents in the $1-, and that "survived" at least the St Kilda FC, which then ran up further debt including because of the Linton Street politics of the time.

We are past those times of Social Club versus Football Club - and who engineered that to the benefit of the longer term financial viabilty of St Kilda FC?

Previous Boards (plural) have contributed to the model St Kilda FC have now - and I really do not think that this Board has, to date, added to that model which has been constructed and the fruits of which we see today.

No doubt the personality attack dogs will be out in force!

As usual TTT you cut through the crap....

I agree that this is the big question mark over the board. Can they improve the generated income (especially non football related income) to help keep the books in the black. IMO this was the positive of the seaford development, that the club is not taking on a large loan. But it relies on the development not going over budget so we sit and wait.

[sainteronline]

Helping the club financially is a by-product of your lifestyle decision, and your preference for discounted entry to home games.

So you want to stop your membership because....

1) the linton street proposal fell down (strange, it was the last board that killed off any chance... but the council didn't want us there and it was not financially prudant to continue without the pokies income that was to come from moving to the south road position....) (something very strange going on there to, what was it over four or five poky machines) ( the disputed amounts of poky machines would not have made a great deal of difference to the revenue)

A stream of income was needed to finance a loan. This was based on a certain amount of pokie machine income being generated from the new south road social club. The club was also going to take on a very large loan with no promise that they would be able to sell the lot for the value they paid down the track. It was a very risky proposal with the council anti against the whole thing. Don't remember the council members planting a couple of trees in the "parkland" (the moorabin carpark!) to try and generate negative press. Anyway it's to simplistic to suggest it was over 6 pokie machines but that income underpinned a very risky development (don't know enough about it, but it still sounds sus to me)

2) It was not in the clubs interest to come out with their in house list investigation..... I am comfortable with that. Do you want explanation on all football department or recruitment decisons? (I want more than "confidential information" on matters that have a direct bearing on us having a better chance at a flag, you just stick your head in the sand and let them tell you that it's all okay) (maybe you're comfortable with it but I'm not)

Did you get a run down on why brad howard was given a 2 year contract only to be delisted and picked up in the rookie draft. What about giving us a full run down on who they wanted in the draft or what riewoldt gets in his contracts. They made a list review and decided BC was not what we needed. I'm fine with people disagreeing but the club has no reason to explain any more as it would give away where they see their list at the time (remember this is before the draft also, this information could effect who we picked in the draft).
(not saying I need to know everything that goes on the club, just the things that directly influence a tilt at a flag for next year, I don't think Howerd would have made as much of an impact on our team as cousins would and I still think there "confidential information" was nothing more than being scared of dimwit)
3) The level 2 membership issue effected a small amount of members. Not sure how it effected you? (No you're not are you and as you have said it's not all about me, there are other members to consider as well)
And I have given a decient counter arguement. Yes it was badly handled but if thats the worst that can be thrown at the board at present :S (see other reasons as well, they're starting to add up)


I am still confused on what exactly the board has done wrong.

- They didn't change the draw? Remind me any club that has ever got the AFL to change the draw? You work with what you are given.....

- seaford might take a couple of months longer to get full approval. Remind me how long it took to get the linton street development anywhere.....

- The ben cousins choice (see above)

- asking level 2 members to fork out 125 more for their premium tickets (with 500 waiting for the chance to buy these seats....)

- not being out there in the media (what? I want westaway (keep up or keep it out, he has already fallen on his sword) to come out when the club needs a comment from the board, not just to slag an ex employee like our last pres used to do. What do you think sold more memberships for the hawks? The flag or Kennett?)

- Not posting a huge profit. Would like to see the books first before calling for their heads. As people have already said very well, making profits can hurt long term.

(and not making profits can hurt long term a lot more)

Don't waste your breath, Solar... Simplistic arguments from simplistic people.

You are 100% correct when it comes to disclosure... It's none of our farking business. (Actually I think it is)

People really need to get a dictionary and identify the difference between being a "member" as opposed to being a "shareholder".[/quote]

you seem to be missing the point Westaway has resigned

He's resigned? all we have is a rumour that suggests he might step down. First you need to ASSUME this is correct, secondly as I have already said there are numorous reasons for him to step down. I have not heard one thing about any of the board members rumbling or any challenges. Poor arguement IMO (so what you're saying is basically you don't know either, I think it's because he couldn't handle the job mho)

nobody seems to be saying why

is it because the rest of the board have no faith in him?

But you go right along with your little blind following[/quote][/quote]

can't read anything in green

[Solar]

sainteroline

when did westaway step down?

[GrumpyOne]

I never said the sky was falling

I said that the board was inept and should be replaced

it would seem that Westaway agrees with me

OMG!!!!

Look up "Figure of Speech" on the net. I think you could learn something.

Show me the quote that evidences that Westaway agrees with you.

Pure fiction on your behalf.

no I have evidence

would it help if I said trust me

how about if I said "confidential information"

would you believe me then

What I would believe is that it is time for you to change hands as the existing one must have blisters on it by now.

[sainteronline]

sainteroline

when did westaway step down?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/car ... tml?page=3

yes it is only a rumour

but a fairly strong one I gather

[sainteronline]

What I would believe is that it is time for you to change hands as the existing one must have blisters on it by now.

another one that is infatuated by my sex life

I'd say you must have two penises

you surely couldn't get that silly playing with just one

[GrumpyOne]

sainteroline

when did westaway step down?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/car ... tml?page=3

yes it is only a rumour

but a fairly strong one I gather

That the best you can do for "evidence" and "confidential information"?

Pfft.

[Solar]

sainteroline

when did westaway step down?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/car ... tml?page=3

yes it is only a rumour

but a fairly strong one I gather

it's a gossip section

Stop saying it as fact....

[sainteronline]

sainteroline

when did westaway step down?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/car ... tml?page=3

yes it is only a rumour

but a fairly strong one I gather

it's a gossip section

Stop saying it as fact....

I have other sources

but guess what "confidential information"

I have had a private eye on it for a while now

and he is being closely followed by Christine Nixon