Board Challenge Soon

[Fehring]

One thing is for sure, these are questions that probably need to be asked, so some good should come of it if it does not destabalise us.

Are you serious. "if it does not destabilise us" ? How could it possibly not destabilise us? First, there's the election process where they just bag each other for six weeks. Then, if Westaway take over (rather than coming onto the board, spending a year or two learning and then taking over, as Butterss did) their learning curve is going to be so steep that we might just find ourselves watching our profits turn into losses while the upheaval ruins yet another season.

The more I think about this thing, the more I want to stay with Butterss. Just based on the reports I've been reading on the HS and Real footy websites, it seems that expenditure HAS been rather low, WHILE we were in debt. BUT as we've got back into the black after DECADES of being in the red, that's started to change. Butterss has started spending more, bit by bit, most recently with the answer to our prayers - a top notch fitness dept, probably one of the most qualified in the league, and certainly one of the best in Victoria. Butterss' biggest crime seems to have been being careful and financially conservative... which is a welcome change for a St Kilda President!

Hear Hear. And, might I add, we have a president who spends less time on non-St Kilda ventures than most other presidents, and certainly less time than Westaway will be spending on his Gregory's Transport job.

 

[Fehring]

The same profit could have been achieved by increasing income rather than cutting expenditure. Having a higher income makes the future safer.
If income remains low and the fat has been cut, there's nowhere to turn if expenditure has to rise.
Making a profit is great - how it was made may not have been so great.

Yeah, I'm sure Emirates really wanted to sponsor the Saints instead of Collingwood, but they just didn't like Butterss.

 

[cartwright]

RB press conf this morning, requesting AFL 'assistance'

"Butters said that if an AFL-led evaluation of the rebel bid showed it was better-placed to lead the club, he and his board members would step aside."

Not a bad move to keep it impartial & above personalities (hopefully).

Wonder if the AFL will assist (or say up to clubs to sort their stuff out).

At the end of the day, I want a board who will deliver on financial success allowing the club to improve on the field.

 

[Falchoon]

Hear Hear. And, might I add, we have a president who spends less time on non-St Kilda ventures than most other presidents, and certainly less time than Westaway will be spending on his Gregory's Transport job.

bollocks, how much time do think Westaway spends with Gregory's.

 

[brilliant_bally]

now i just read the statement writen by rod butthead and he seems to think he is god's gift to the saints my ass.. he is just like thomas he is argoant and all he cares about is profit and he **** shyt all into footy department and thats why the rebel group has started this whole challenge. also ross lyon said when he first got the job they needed to but alot more into there footy department. if rod put so much koney into a footy department how come we had only 25 players to pick a team adn three emergency's agains hawthorn the first time with three debutants. he doesn't covince me one bit btw go burkey u legend

 

[brilliant_bally]

i think this could be the best thing ever to happen to our fine club we can get rid of the last set of GT mates they're all egotistical pricks and we don't need them at our club plus they claim in a statement today they put plenty of money in our footy department if that was the cause why would ross lyon ask for for funds for the department and also why would thomo join the rebel group if he thought the club was runnng well he had only left two weeks ago nothing would have changed and bourkey ur a legend

 

[Qsaint]

now i just read the statement writen by rod butthead and he seems to think he is god's gift to the saints my ass.. he is just like thomas he is argoant and all he cares about is profit and he **** shyt all into footy department and thats why the rebel group has started this whole challenge. also ross lyon said when he first got the job they needed to but alot more into there footy department. if rod put so much koney into a footy department how come we had only 25 players to pick a team adn three emergency's agains hawthorn the first time with three debutants. he doesn't covince me one bit btw go burkey u legend

Isn't their 4 people from the AIS there now. I am the first one to say fitness/recovery/planning and training has been bad. But 1/2 way through this year at Lyons request they started doing something

 

[Modra93]

STKILDA BOARD STATEMENT - Herald Sun

the saints board want to know...

WHERE the additional spend on football will occur?

HOW much extra will be spent?

THE rationale behind the spend

THE specific role of the Football Sub Committee and its proposed interaction with the Football
department (which boasts 10 premierships)

WHERE the increased revenue is coming from (including what sponsors have been identified)

WHAT revenue increases are expected? What cash support will be brought via the rebel group?)

WHAT is the basis for the increased spend on Membership and what is the expected benefit?

WHAT is the intended future for key personnel in the business and what is the basis for this
early assessment?

MOST importantly, how will these increases be funded? Will the rebel group put the Club back into debt to fund these initiatives?

from the rebel group

 

[St DAC]

Reasonable questions. I'd be interested in the answers ...

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

G'day everyone. This is my first post here. I am the most passionate Saints man you could find, I bleed red, white and black. However I'd like to put up a few points for consideration if I may.

First off, I believe Rod Butterss is always going to cop his share of flak even when it's not deserved because of his style. Ray Charles can see he doesn't fit your usual AFL president stereotype and thus people always criticise something that is different. That's not to say he hasn't brought the flak on himself, I totally agree that his handling of the Grant Thomas issue was poor.

My next point is that how come when the Saints came from the bottom of the table in 2001, to a kick away from a Grand Final in 2004, Rod and his board never got any credit for that? All of a sudden we've fallen short of our expectations and it's on Rod's head? A tad unfair.

Let's also keep in mind that unlike the Roos, Demons and Dogs we are able to play all 11 of our home games in Melbourne because we have our finances in a strong position to do so. I'm sure we'd all agree that selling a home game to Brisbane as Melbourne does is not the way to operate.

I received my "footy first" information in the mail today. I thought it quite funny that there were a few punctuation errors and pretty ordinary formatting all across it and I read with great interest about all of the grand plans this group has, but failed to see any information about the specific steps that will be undertaken to achieve this success. This group says it's all about premierships and I agree as a supporter that's what I want. The question I raise is how do we judge if this group is successful? What if we were to finish runner up next year and post a loss of around $400,000. We've improved on field, gone backwards financially and still don't have that premiership? Is that successful? How long do we give this group to achieve the ultimate goal?

I am also surprised by Andrew Thompson's involvement in this group. I loved Thommo as a player, but he has probably been one of the players who has enjoyed sustained success as a Saint. As far as I can tell he first played in 1997 and retired this year. I tally he played in 5 finals campaigns, 97, 98, 2004, 2005, 2006. I have a hard time understanding that he thinks we're that far off the pace with our current situation. Particularly as I think we're mostly in agreeance that our 2004 outfit was better than our 1997 outfit which played off in a Grand Final.

My final point is that bigger is not always better. I think we'd agree that our recruiting has been sensational over the last few years and yet we haven't had to spend the big bucks. Sam Gilbert's 2007 season was a real highlight for me and indicates we are still finding a great talent. All the players out of contract have re-signed and Sam Fisher even took the step of extending his current contract. The players are in for the long haul and believe they are on the right path. I believe this decision should be made on what is going best help them, not out with the old and in with the new.

I just feel it's very easy to take shots at a board that has yet to achieve a premiership, given that the club has racked up a solo cup in its tenure. I am all for debate and having the club's best interests at heart, but let's not can Rod Butterss and his board just because we want to see if the grass is greener on the other side.

Let me know your thoughts Sainters!!!!!!

 

[ChrisFooty]

Welcome Look2Me4Guidance! Didn't someone just a few days ago posted a whole thread about your arrival to this forum? It got deleted, but welcome. You make some very good points. I dislike RB though, the way he handled GT sacking. The footy first team do have an extensive business background, but they need to give more information on exactly how, they are going to improve the football department and income streams. What Modra posted are those burning questions.

 

[Brown n Gold]

It was me that welcomed look2me4guidance! and look what he delivers straight off the bat...

For what its worth... I liked GT and I think the sacking of GT is what is behind the upheaval of the current board. All of the Footy Dept spending etc etc is just smoke and mirrors

 

[Modra93]

I would be really interested to see the footy firsts replys to those questions posed by the current board, very interested to see them. when can we expect to see them do you think?

 

[sauce_head]

I would be really interested to see the footy firsts replys to those questions posed by the current board, very interested to see them. when can we expect to see them do you think?

Surely Footy First can post to big footy? Surely they are monitoring it anyway (as are RB's boys).

 

[Modra93]

sorry saucehead? i meant when can we expect to see these answers expressed by footy first in the public eye... the current board have put there questions in the public, footy first must now answer them in the public eye

 

[sauce_head]

Yeah no worries i understand what you meant!

I am just wondering out loud if either camp would bother posting on this site, that is all.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Every single one of Butterss' questions is fair enough. More than that, he should never have had to ask them - they should have been made patently obvious by Footy First in the first place. These people are doing a fluffy, "time for any old change" campaign.

And let's think about this whole spending on footy thing a bit more. Forget the resurfacing of Moorabbin, for a tick. The person who seems to have been making footy spending decisions generally in the past has been the coach - GT decided on those (very worthwhile) trips to England, China, South Africa, and RB was totally supportive of that. When we got back into the black (which was only this last February, according to Ray King) after being $3.5 mill in debt seven years ago, RB was happy to accept Ross the coach's request to hire an AIS trained fitness group. Here's my point: maybe footy spending was not considered RB's job before - it was GT's in his Super-Coach-Manager style. RB made the reasonable decision that the best person to decide on footy spending were the footy people, namely the coach.

That has two consequences. One, you can't blame RB for not spending money on footy spending, because it was probably GT's job, not his. He signed the cheques for GT when he asked for stuff, but left the decisions to him. Secondly, if that is the case, it was THOMAS who was responsible for not fixing the injuries by getting in better fitness staff... not doing so would be a pretty shoddy thing thing to miss, and may well be a contributing factor in getting him fired, don'cha'think?

 

[sainter]

RB press conf this morning, requesting AFL 'assistance'

"Butters said that if an AFL-led evaluation of the rebel bid showed it was better-placed to lead the club, he and his board members would step aside."

Not a bad move to keep it impartial & above personalities (hopefully).

Wonder if the AFL will assist (or say up to clubs to sort their stuff out).

At the end of the day, I want a board who will deliver on financial success allowing the club to improve on the field.

That's what I have a problem with.

It's common knowledge that Butterss and our board have an excellent working relationship with Demetriou and he's already come out in support of our board so it's no surprise that Rod is looking for AFL involvement. Personally I think Westaway is right. It's for the members to decide.

 

[Fred]

The Board seem happy to defend the amount spent on the football department but I haven't seen a word on the low revenue base.

 

[The Punter]

Butterss wants to take the power away from the members by putting it in the hands of the AFL. Politically a good idea if Footy First agreed, but they aren't stupid and didn't agree.

Over the next couple of months, Butterss will see the writing on the wall and stand aside.

 

[Qsaint]

That has two consequences. One, you can't blame RB for not spending money on footy spending, because it was probably GT's job, not his. He signed the cheques for GT when he asked for stuff, but left the decisions to him. Secondly, if that is the case, it was THOMAS who was responsible for not fixing the injuries by getting in better fitness staff... not doing so would be a pretty shoddy thing thing to miss, and may well be a contributing factor in getting him fired, don'cha'think?

The Board should be strategic IE these are the goals for the fitness dept, roughly how its organised etc etc, and then measure performance. Its the Manager's job to implement the plan.

It shouldn't have been left to GT with RB signing a cheque, thats not how a good board operates

 

[Fehring]

That's what I have a problem with.

It's common knowledge that Butterss and our board have an excellent working relationship with Demetriou and he's already come out in support of our board so it's no surprise that Rod is looking for AFL involvement. Personally I think Westaway is right. It's for the members to decide.

Nice sentiment, but we all know we'll just get two months of bullshit and bluster. The point has been made several times that Westaway et al need to answer Butterss' questions. Whether they submit them to the AFL or not is irrelevant. We all need to see them.

This rebel bid has been labelled "well organised" by some. It seems well organised in an invasion of Iraq kind of way - nice plan to take control, but what the hell are you going to do when you get there?

By the way, has everyone received the Footy First stuff? I haven't got my pack yet.

 

[St DAC]

Yep, got mine. IMO leaves a lot left unsaid.

 

[ultimate hater]

personally, i think it was GT's fault for not delivering (on the field).. I for one didn't agree with his "ruckmen are useless" moto and a few others.. and I didn't like the way how he tried to make it like a 1 parent family in the football department, he seemed to have too much control of what went on and as a result he has been push out.. right decision..

on the other hand, burke last night said this wasn't an attack against "just" rod buttress but the whole board.. interesting to see that one boardmember has deflected and that they are not challenging the position of another.. seems like that kind of contradicts his statement..

the questions posted by Modra93 are almost perfect.. I believe the new ticket won't be able to answer them, i believe they will give the "kevin 07" type spin to deflect from the "hard questions"... I believe they think the members should soley vote because it would be easier to convince the majority of members who wouldn't have a total grasp on the situation and will take advantage of the RB disliking as a result of the GT affairs this year.. hence why RB and co have smartly tried to take them out of the picture..

personally i just don't think this new ticket is the real deal and that they don't fully understand what they are even doing themselves or how they are going to do it.. as for thompson, i think he just wants more power at the saints and couldnt give the club away and saw an opportunity to get a spot on the new board!! unbelievable on his behalf IMO!!!

I think this could be a good "wake up call" for the current board, but they should stay as they have run the place so so well for a number of years now.. the new ticket would start everything from scratch again..

 

[Modra93]

i agree ultimate hater, your spot in imo.