One member's view of the Footy First manifesto

[Fehring]

Ours is the worst revenue of all clubs in the AFL. If spending is raised without regard to income we could soon be in significant debt again. (Some debt is inevitable and normal, bur sucessive negative balances could spell disaster).

We need to "grow" the club through increasing revenue.

On and On, nice to finally see your comments. I have to take you to task on this point though (feeling like a broken record). Three Melbourne clubs only have bigger revenues than us if you count the AFL's "basket case" handouts, which of course is ridiculous. Four Melbourne clubs massively boost their coffers by playing games interstate. Like Hawthorn, we too could be sponsored by Tasmania and play three games a year in the apple isle. Thanks to Butterss, we have been saved from this fate.

We survive on the revenues we generate ourselves (which are growing) and we play every home game in Victoria. That puts us in a significantly better position than four of our eight fellow Melbourne teams.

 

[NeXus_Helen]

Like Hawthorn, we too could be sponsored by Tasmania and play three games a year in the apple isle. Thanks to Butterss, we have been saved from this fate.

IMHO, the above is one of the most stupid decisions our club has ever made, and our loss is Hawthorn's gain. We have alianated thousands of Tassie supporters. We had a once in a lifetime opportunity to grow our club and we blew it.

In 3 years time Hawthorn will have over 10,000 members in Tassie, and in years to come this will have flow on effect to their Victorian membership base.

Abandoning Tassie was the most short sighted decision our board has made and proved to me that they were/are incompetent. Kennet is a very smart man and he has turned Hawthorn into one of the most financially powerfull footy clubs in Australia.

 

[Persevering Saint]

NH, you sure you want that "H" in "IMHO"?

Tassie was okayish from the point of view of members, but we lost heaps of games there, and if you win more games, then you get more members. If we hadn't been playing flipping Freo and Port all the time there, sheesh!

As for TD, yes it's hard, but we have a terrific record there.

Now, to more constructive things. StKildonian, I really appreciated your post here - really well thought through. However, it identifies the problems, without really showing that FF are the solutions. I like Burkey and Thommo, and I don't doubt their good intentions, but do I think they're competent footy managers? I don't know, and that's the point. Better the devil you know, even when you're the Saints.

 

[Kildonan]

My concern is that the rumours I have been hearing are that people are frequently unhappy at work at the club. That personality clashes and other problems have been a symptom. This does not necessarily apply to the squad, but it can affect the squad. I've been told that the easiest cure to these problems would be to remove the cause.
I want a club where the workers are happy - happy workers are more productive and stay longer and the environment is better for new staff coming in.

I don't know whether these rumours are based in fact. If they are, then a compromise which keeps Butterss in situ will probably perpetuate the problem.

Maybe it is worth the risk - it seems to be inevitable anyway.

 

[Kildonan]

StKildonan, I respect your opinion, but you are the same person who has consistently slated Sydney for winning the premiership playing ugly. You have said you would prefer us to play free flowing football, even if it costs us games.

I wonder about your consistency of wanting the ultimate, but I appreciate your desire for it, we all do.

My desire for free flowing, entertaining football has not waned.
I doubt a board spill will have much effect on our style of play.

Ross Lyon is learning on the job. This is good and it is to be expected - no-one arrives with all the answers. He has shown that he can utilize our strengths (our attacking flair) nicely. The style has not yet reached the heights that GT had us at, but RL has a more "accountable" approach - which is what the finalists have all been playing - so it would appear to be the right approach.

With this year under his belt, Ross Lyon has now forged some tight relationships with his players. They are now ready to step up together and perform at a higher level together. This was my major misgiving with the sacking of GT - that a new coach would take some time to forge a relationship with his players - and we would have lost a year in the process. The window of opportunity stuff being spouted has no basis in reality.

As it turned out, the same thing that had been prevented GT from being a premiership coach, also prevented RL from having a wonder first season.

Injuries - again.

Whose fault are these?

There is some suggestion that they are a direct result of the board's stinginess.

 

[ultimate hater]

My desire for free flowing, entertaining football has not waned.
I doubt a board spill will have much effect on our style of play.

Ross Lyon is learning on the job. This is good and it is to be expected - no-one arrives with all the answers. He has shown that he can utilize our strengths (our attacking flair) nicely. The style has not yet reached the heights that GT had us at, but RL has a more "accountable" approach - which is what the finalists have all been playing - so it would appear to be the right approach.

With this year under his belt, Ross Lyon has now forged some tight relationships with his players. They are now ready to step up together and perform at a higher level together. This was my major misgiving with the sacking of GT - that a new coach would take some time to forge a relationship with his players - and we would have lost a year in the process. The window of opportunity stuff being spouted has no basis in reality.

As it turned out, the same thing that had been prevented GT from being a premiership coach, also prevented RL from having a wonder first season.

Injuries - again.

Whose fault are these?

There is some suggestion that they are a direct result of the board's stinginess.

Your drawing a long bow to say injuries are the fault of the board, in any shape or form... a very very very long bow..

maybe the bulldogs should sack their board? and maybe westcost now too..

 

[ChrisFooty]

Your drawing a long bow to say injuries are the fault of the board, in any shape or form... a very very very long bow..

maybe the bulldogs should sack their board? and maybe westcost now too..

Spending less money on the football department, less than any other club, including north melbourne, i could very easily blame the board.

Maybe if we spend the amount of money on our medical team like every other club does, we won't have such high injury rates. These high injury rates have been with us since 2001 basically.

 

[ultimate hater]

Spending less money on the football department, less than any other club, including north melbourne, i could very easily blame the board.

Maybe if we spend the amount of money on our medical team like every other club does, we won't have such high injury rates. These high injury rates have been with us since 2001 basically.

Its much of a muchness really.. you could spend millions on the medical department and have one doc per player and half the injuries that happened would still have happened..

did we resurface moorabbin (i've played there a couple of times in the past 2 years and its an absolute awesome ground..) and hire a whole new medical and fitness/conditioning staff at one stage?

 

[sauce_head]

It is very hard to say. Let's just base votes for all board positions on policy, not identification of issues.

I will fully back the eventual board (to give them a chance), renew my membership, scream and shout and the match and on big footy and throw my one eyed support behind the whole club, like we all probably will.

I just want an informed vote, not one based on emotion or hersay.

 

[Kildonan]

I agree.

To vote SFF because Butterss sacked GT without regard for policy would be stupid or at least reactionary.

When Butterss took over from Plympton - he and most of the board were novices. They did not undergo the sort of scrutiny that we now put his prospective replacements under. For us to be demanding the scrutiny and / or qualification of the replacements that we have been, shows just how much more professional we are becoming. This is a good thing.

There comes a point where as an employer you make your best choice for someone to fill the position and then you just have to trust your judgement. Similarly when voting in politicians you might do all the research and finally decide who has the better policies. But while one side might have the better policies on paper, they may not have the personnel to implement them effectively. You have to make an informed decision based on the policies and the personnel. Some things you will have to take on faith. Some things you have to decide - like can the personalities involved be trusted to have selected the right personnel to implement their policies.

One thing that bothers me is the divisive nature of this election. Supporters are polarised - many fighting to get their opinions heard, others are trying to shout them down. All these people are passionate Saints fans who now find themselves at the throats of other passionate Saints fans.

I ask you all to repect each other's opinions. Even Nexus Helen's

At least recognise that the passion expressed in these posts / threads are all for the right reasons: to make the Saints a powerhouse club and to achieve the ultimate - especially for the boys out there putting their bodies on the line.

 

[Fehring]

I agree.
When Butterss took over from Plympton - he and most of the board were novices. They did not undergo the sort of scrutiny that we now put his prospective replacements under. For us to be demanding the scrutiny and / or qualification of the replacements that we have been, shows just how much more professional we are becoming. This is a good thing.

Butterss had a full season inside the club as a board member before he became Prez.