StKilda - boardroom update

[sauce_head]

Not a bad read to get one side of the arguement.

Hopefully not too many have voted on the initial dissapointment of missing the finals, but will make a considered, rational and educated decision once hearing ALL the arguements. No knee jerk reactions is all the club is after and, respectfully, deserves.

It is difficult to tease out the personal agendas of individuals (on both sides) - I see Breen, for instance, is behind Butterss - but the below seems to make a few good points, but most of you will know what side I am on by now.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/breen-backs-butterss-board/2007/09/25/1190486310920.html

Food for thought and rational consideration before teeing off and casting your vote:

extracted from: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22482931-12270,00.html

That leaves the unresolved problem at St Kilda where rebels are attempting to throw out the president Rod Butterss and his board. The coup is led by Greg Westaway, a man who smeared the Butterss board -- he says unintentionally -- by giving integrity to unsubstantiated claims of drug use in football. Sadly, he has not apologised for the damage he has done. Whatever he meant, the result was that he trashed the brand he says he loves.

Butterss yesterday invited two members of the rebel ticket -- former champion Nathan Burke and the just retired Andrew Thompson -- to join his board. The two former players have spoken about the need to improve funding of the football department. Already the board has set aside an extra $500,000 for football operations and Burke and Thompson appear to have the energy and experience to ensure it is wisely invested.

For so long the debate about St Kilda's future has been dominated by Westaway who has used a feeble media to great effect. He has run his case unchallenged.

Yesterday, Butterss sought to put some balance into the discussion. His board has opted to spill all positions -- including Butterss' -- on November 26 and considers illegal a meeting on October 23 planned by the rebel group as it contravenes the Corporations Act. At the November meeting Butterss has called for Burke and Thompson to be elected to the board unopposed.

The president's message yesterday was for St Kilda members to not "throw the baby out with the bath water". The present administration has rebuilt the club into a sound, profit-making business with no debt.

In a statement released yesterday, Butterss said: "Through astute management over a number of years, we have kept the prospects of bankruptcy, interstate relocation and merger at bay -- but in truth, they are only a season of financial mismanagement away.

"This board has the proven ability, expertise and experience to keep the club solvent and viable. Our credentials in this regard are impeccable.

"By elevating Nathan Burke and Andrew Thompson to the board, we believe we address the legitimate concerns of members and supporters. We believe this represents sensible, forward-looking change. The alternative is to lash out in anger and frustration at disappointing on-field results by gutting the entire board and everything it has achieved. We strongly urge members to avoid such a reckless approach."

This is a sensible position that responsible members should embrace. Address what they deem to be the weaknesses and retain what is the strength of the club. Burke and Thompson represent a reinvigorated football department, Butterss and his board represent financial security. For members to take any other position is to suggest that this coup is only about personalities and not substance.

Butterss has been president since 2001. He has been a successful leader, well regarded by the AFL for the manner in which he has secured a future for the club. But it is his duty to ensure the club moves on in a stable and well ordered method.

If that can be facilitated by Butterss engineering a succession plan, then it should seriously be considered. He has given much time and money to the club. A seamless handing over to a new president would see his job done.

Westaway claims he has gathered 7500 proxies. That seems an enthusiastic estimate if he maintains they are all responses from voting members. It is unconscionable that members would have already cast their votes without hearing from and examining thoroughly the detailed plans of both the board and the rebels.

Butterss has presented the club with a way to keep the excellent and improve the mediocre at the club without putting the future health of the club at risk.

It is the only right way forward.

 

[cartwright]

"That seems an enthusiastic estimate if he maintains they are all responses from voting members. It is unconscionable that members would have already cast their votes without hearing from and examining thoroughly the detailed plans of both the board and the rebels. "

I agree, I am astounded that apparently so many have voted before they even have heard a formal response from both boards....

 

[Fehring]

"That seems an enthusiastic estimate if he maintains they are all responses from voting members. It is unconscionable that members would have already cast their votes without hearing from and examining thoroughly the detailed plans of both the board and the rebels. "

I agree, I am astounded that apparently so many have voted before they even have heard a formal response from both boards....

That Footy First sticker WAS really good, though...

 

[cartwright]

ha no really I loved the cardboard flyer with their positions on a footy field, really liked Nathan Burke's fuzzy pic

 

[bubblegoose]

That Footy First sticker WAS really good, though...

Fehring, stop rubbing it in! See if I got a sticker in my pack, they could have had my vote, I'll just have to cherish the poster in the middle!

But seriously, I'm in the same boat as sainter_girl (your turn to paddle dear )

 

[cartwright]

no sticker ..
Surely the typos swayed you?

 

[NeilElvis]

It would be great to have heard from BOTH sides but as usual Butterss' board has treated the members with contempt & we have nothing, squat, jack, nada!

FF has kept members informed, they haven't leaked any confidential info (re Sponsors, etc) that some people mistake for not having a plan.

Butterss has done his usual media spin & used ANTI-ST.KILDA lackeys like Patrick Smith to push his barrow. The same people accusing members who have sent their proxies in of being ill informed & easily led are the same that are pasting Patrick Bloody Smith articles as a reason to stick with Butterss.

Smith is only right in one area, Butterss personality has embarrassed the club & I'm sick of hearing his rubbish corporate spin. "one year of financial mismanagement away from relocation, mergers, etc" give me a break Rod, are you being advised by Federal Liberal party tacticians???

How about Butterss supporters get Rod to give us his plan. I'm not talking about his well rehearsed media grab of 'we're committed to success', I want to hear Rod talk about;

What major sponsors he has lined up?;
How many new staff will be hired to properly service sponsors, members and generate new income?
Is the current football department set up 'best practice' as he promoted in Sept 06?
Was Sheldon the best football manager available?
Why did Butterss embarrass the club by attacking Thomas publicly?
Why have we have so many CEO's in recent times?
Why have there been continual stuff ups in getting the elite training facility off the ground?

There are so many dodgy queries over the Butterss board that I simply don't trust him to run our club anymore. Westaway has provided an alternative...the quality of the people on his ticket provide me with confidence that we aren't handing the club over to incompetents. Burkey & Thommo have footy department credibility despite how they have been vilified by some on this site.

So instead of bringing out the usual Butterss rhetoric, can some of you (Fehring, Sauce Head, Sainter Girl) answer some of my worries about Butterss??? Maybe you can sway me back from the dark side???

 

[Oh When the Saints]

I have no problem with the current board, which is what that article is all about.

I have a problem with Rod Butterss, and in particular his personal conduct and relationship with several people.

I would happily vote for the current board with a different President, or if Rod stepped aside in the next 6 months.

But it's not going to happen. Like the Libs at federal level, the leader is the problem.


The only alternative is to vote for SFF.

 

[alo_saints_fan]

All I see in the whole thing is Rod Butters trying to play catch up.

FF has put theselves out there gone and got personel who all endevour and strive for the same thing... to push the St.kilda Football Club forward, and maintain on and off-feild sucsess.

All this without cutting corners and putting in-sufficent funds into the football department. FF have pretty much gone and done everything that they can, and for me that is a good sign, they put the club first .

It is Westways election to win, and Butters' to lose. and at the moment, Butters may as well clear out his desk, Westway has 8000 proxy votes (last time i heard)( is their a running total somewhere on the net?). with 30k members aprox. Butters would have to win 15000 of the remaining 22000 votes to stay incharge. That's 68%, over 2/3rds of the undecided votes would have to go to Butters. IMO that is unlikely.

yours
Alo.

 

[cartwright]

NeilElvis (like the name by the way) ... I have the same concerns about RB too ... just having a stir.
but really, SFF haven't told us anything of substance apart from spending more money on stuff.
This is not a business plan.

both sides are failing to offer the StKFC members valid and useful information.

 

[ultimate hater]

So instead of bringing out the usual Butterss rhetoric, can some of you (Fehring, Sauce Head, Sainter Girl) answer some of my worries about Butterss??? Maybe you can sway me back from the dark side???

they just signed david mission as conditioning coach... gun he is.. absolute gun..

and the signing of RL is one of the best things they have done.. i believe he is the most perfect coach we could have obtained for the club, and look at the talent he is bringing with him.. the club is looking very good for the next couple of years, especially after resigning all our young guns, maguire including of course..

 

[ultimate hater]

All I see in the whole thing is Rod Butters trying to play catch up.

FF has put theselves out there gone and got personel who all endevour and strive for the same thing... to push the St.kilda Football Club forward, and maintain on and off-feild sucsess.

All this without cutting corners and putting in-sufficent funds into the football department. FF have pretty much gone and done everything that they can, and for me that is a good sign, they put the club first .

It is Westways election to win, and Butters' to lose. and at the moment, Butters may as well clear out his desk, Westway has 8000 proxy votes (last time i heard)( is their a running total somewhere on the net?). with 30k members aprox. Butters would have to win 15000 of the remaining 22000 votes to stay incharge. That's 68%, over 2/3rds of the undecided votes would have to go to Butters. IMO that is unlikely.

yours
Alo.

so your thinking 50/50 of the remaining votes?

My thoughts would be that all the people that have already voted are the stupid ones who just want a change but don't know why and believe everything they read on paper.. the educated ones who will wait for the EGM will hear what both sides have to say, and will go for the side with the best plan, which at this stage is the current board... FF have nadda and have no idea on how to run the club.. i personally think more than 68% will sway in favour of the current board, there is no way 50% will hear what FF have to say then vote for them... no chance..

 

[alo_saints_fan]

they just signed david mission as conditioning coach... gun he is.. absolute gun..

and the signing of RL is one of the best things they have done.. i believe he is the most perfect coach we could have obtained for the club, and look at the talent he is bringing with him.. the club is looking very good for the next couple of years, especially after resigning all our young guns, maguire including of course..

The resigning of all the players had very little to do with the current board, or it abilty to manage players. The reason is the playing group made some-what of a prommise to each other, under the realm of Grant Thomas, to stay together and try to win a flag together. And i see most, if not all, have kept their promise. Butters and his group can not lay claim to the fact he is the reason they are staying.

 

[alo_saints_fan]

so your thinking 50/50 of the remaining votes?

My thoughts would be that all the people that have already voted are the stupid ones who just want a change but don't know why and believe everything they read on paper.. the educated ones who will wait for the EGM will hear what both sides have to say, and will go for the side with the best plan, which at this stage is the current board... FF have nadda and have no idea on how to run the club.. i personally think more than 68% will sway in favour of the current board, there is no way 50% will hear what FF have to say then vote for them... no chance..

Maybe not 50%, but if Butters needs 68%, all Westway would need is 32%. This, is a more realistic figure, and getable may I add!

Either way, we will know in time. Watch this space.

 

[ultimate hater]

The resigning of all the players had very little to do with the current board, or it abilty to manage players. The reason is the playing group made some-what of a prommise to each other, under the realm of Grant Thomas, to stay together and try to win a flag together. And i see most, if not all, have kept their promise. Butters and his group can not lay claim to the fact he is the reason they are staying.

this "promise" is a promise taken very lightly.. its like promising to give 100% each week yet no-one ever does...

if it was such a heavy weighted promise, why do people like maguire hold out for so long to sign the contract? why wouldn't they sign during the year or asap?? I know money is a big thing, but most people want to stay at the one club all their life and the only reason they change is for more money/going home.. why wouldn't you stay at a club that pays well? and st kilda pay very well... this "promise" has nothing to do with it when it comes to negotiating contracts, i can give you a guarantee on that on...

if someone wanted to get traded back to their home state or something i bet you the club wouldnt say "oh but you made this promise saying you wouldn't leave" it sounds more like a marketing thing GT came up with.... afterall, he was the marketing manager down at the saints too you know..

 

[ultimate hater]

Maybe not 50%, but if Butters needs 68%, all Westway would need is 32%. This, is a more realistic figure, and getable may I add!

Either way, we will know in time. Watch this space.

exactly, it can very much so go either way.. it will be very interesting the EGM, finally hearing both parties out... personally, i can't wait for it!!

come on butterss!!

 

[Fehring]

It would be great to have heard from BOTH sides but as usual Butterss' board has treated the members with contempt & we have nothing, squat, jack, nada!
FF has kept members informed, they haven't leaked any confidential info (re Sponsors, etc) that some people mistake for not having a plan.
What major sponsors he has lined up?;
How many new staff will be hired to properly service sponsors, members and generate new income?
Is the current football department set up 'best practice' as he promoted in Sept 06?
Was Sheldon the best football manager available?
Why did Butterss embarrass the club by attacking Thomas publicly?
Why have we have so many CEO's in recent times?
Why have there been continual stuff ups in getting the elite training facility off the ground?

OK, first. FFS have not kept us informed. Printing nice matching ties is not keeping us informed. Sending out a 12 page document of complete twaddle is not keeping us informed. "We have lots of secret sponsors" is not keeping us informed. "lots of Saints legends back us but they're too scared to say who they are" is not keeping us informed. Having your backers keep silent may be understandable in Burma but this is Australia. So I am happy to conclude that all these secret people don't actually exist.

Now to your questions, which I have already answered elsewhere (this sure is a thankless task).

What major sponsors he has lined up? None, as far as I know. We've lost two who didn't renew. Not that unusual at the end of the season (note: they didn't break their contracts). I am confident they'll be replaced b/c sponsors always are, even at basket case clubs like the Kangas.
How many new staff will be hired to properly service sponsors, members and generate new income? Good question. I hope Butterss addresses this. I hope Fairy Floss answer it too, because they have not.
Is the current football department set up 'best practice' as he promoted in Sept 06? It is a massive improvement and, as far as I am aware, it is now best practice with a proper footy manager and the requisite number of assistant coaches etc. This was a major reason for Thomas' sacking (no matter what else you may read) - Thomas insisted on doing everything, including negotiating player contracts, which is patently absurd. He was massively opposed to the imposition of a footy manager.
Was Sheldon the best football manager available? Sheldon was the first St Kilda coach to bring professionalism to St Kilda. When he pitched for the coaching job, he made the kind of professional presentation that is common place now but was unheard of then. I certainly respect him greatly but I can't say that there wasn't someone else out there, of course.
Why did Butterss embarrass the club by attacking Thomas publicly? Thomas was massively undermining the Saints to any journalist who would listen. This was commonly known. Lyon was so angry that he threatened to go public, so Butterss did it instead.
Why have we have so many CEO's in recent times? Four under Butterss. I'm happy to admit that it's too many.
Why have there been continual stuff ups in getting the elite training facility off the ground? There is one sticking point - Kingston won't support the pokies at the new venue and without Kingston's support we will almost certainly lose them because of the State Government's new rigid tests. This will be the loss of a revenue stream, which Fairy Floss seems to care so much about.

So there's the answers, best as I know them. But there is a greater point here. Butterss actually runs the Saints, so we can examine his record (no debt, massive profits, great playing list) and he has said what he'll do about our problems: 1 appoint experts to investigate (DONE), 2 add 500k in spending (DONE) 3. appoint the best conditioning coach in the land (DONE).

Fairy Floss First have no record, and no plan. Just matching ties.

 

[sauce_head]

So instead of bringing out the usual Butterss rhetoric, can some of you (Fehring, Sauce Head, Sainter Girl) answer some of my worries about Butterss??? Maybe you can sway me back from the dark side???

Let me firstly say that I do not consider Patrick SMith anti StKilda. In fact if you are bored enough to go through some of my old posts (surely not!), you will find I consistently refer to him, in my opinion, as the best football journalist around. He has less reason to sensationalise to sell papers than the majority of journos out there.

That he puts his weight behind the current board, fills me with confidence. I have not picked up on him through convenience.

To a certain extent, RB does not have to state policy as the challenging members do. His legacy is there for all to see over the past years. It includes running a debt free club (not without debt as some people are claiming, but with a positive final year balance sheet), continual increase in medical room spending, and a demonstration to get the best in the business (triple premiership team conditioning coach, now Sydney's conditioning coach). FF have only stated that they will increase the football department's spending if it is financially viable! They have not even given a firm promise to do it. They could be voted in and not increase spending, and still not have lied in their campaign!

What major sponsors he has lined up?
You state that FF should not have to discole their major sponsor, why should the current board? FF's sponsor is probably Westaway increasing sponsorship - hardly a conflict I want to occur when he decides to leave or is turfed out in the future.

How many new staff will be hired to properly service sponsors, members and generate new income?
He has promised more spending, in line with the increasing spend profile of the last number oy years. Controlled spending! FF's idea for this is another committee - hardly a solution, just a think thank.

Is the current football department set up 'best practice' as he promoted in Sept 06?
I am unaware of this quote, so I can not comment. Perhaps somebody else could respond? However I would assume the process is according to established best practise, demonstrating value for money and open to independant audit.

Was Sheldon the best football manager available?
Will "yes" suffice?! What is your criteria? He is certainly well respected in the football community. Perhaps he does not appreciate being held to ransome by agents. That is simply following on from the recent trend of StKilda players taking less personal money and putting the team first.

Why did Butterss embarrass the club by attacking Thomas publicly?
Seized on by the media. And perhaps it was because Thomas was making behind the scenes moves at current (at the time) sponsors boardrooms to gain influence over the club? However his actions were not ideal - not that is has embarassed the club like claimed.

Why have we have so many CEO's in recent times?
Unsure, but we have had a stable coaching base and boardroom in general. What good or guarantee will FF provide here?

Why have there been continual stuff ups in getting the elite training facility off the ground?
The council have moved the goal post (so to speak) relating to pokies on the venue. Any reduction in these would reduce revenue. Anybody who has dealt with local authority planning applications knows the frustation here. The club has pushed for the redevlopment, gained government funding, only for the council to alter its position. An in depth analysis is the best way forward. FF are not the only party that will retain communication with the current council, but they are the only one that will guarantee we stay there...

(sorry for spelling - in a rush).

But PLEASE, vote once both parties have been heard. The 8,000 COULD be a tactic to force RB out without an election. Enforcing it is the only way to treat the club and members with respect.

Just listen to both sides and make an INFORMED decision.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Now the FFs are taking the board to court, to try to hurry up the meeting. Thoughts?

 

[HoldenMCaulfield]

Now the FFs are taking the board to court, to try to hurry up the meeting. Thoughts?

well - spending the hard earned profit on highly priced lawyers is unlikely to improve the quality of the football department...

 

[Oh When the Saints]

All St Kilda Footy First's actions are privately funded and will cost the club nothing. They are privately funding the EGM too.

On the other hand, if Butterss pushed ahead with a full spill, it will cost the club money.

In football club/voluntary voting elections, the standard turnout is 40% of eligible voters.

The highest voter participation at an AFL club is about 42% a few years ago.


Westaway already has 38% of eligible votes. There is no way another 38% of people are going to vote for Butterss - it would break all sorts of international voting records.

You just simply don't get over 70% of people voting ... too many don't care/moved house/overseas/too busy etc.

The debate is futile. RB is finished.

 

[ultimate hater]

All St Kilda Footy First's actions are privately funded and will cost the club nothing. They are privately funding the EGM too.

On the other hand, if Butterss pushed ahead with a full spill, it will cost the club money.

In football club/voluntary voting elections, the standard turnout is 40% of eligible voters.

The highest voter participation at an AFL club is about 42% a few years ago.


Westaway already has 38% of eligible votes. There is no way another 38% of people are going to vote for Butterss - it would break all sorts of international voting records.

You just simply don't get over 70% of people voting ... too many don't care/moved house/overseas/too busy etc.

The debate is futile. RB is finished.

So is it a new record the 38% of people that have voted have set? The record being that 38% of the members are muppets for voting even before the EGM and even hearing what FF has to offer, besides the "spending more money" (from the mysterious money tree FF has) issue..

Pretty amazing that only 40% of people normally vote so only 2% would have an IQ above 90?? No wonder the club is always in strife with twits being swayed by cut-outs and matching ties!! Maybe I'll gather a few people and run for president, all i need is a smoke machine, a couple of mirrors and a sh!te website with pixelated photos!!

 

[Oh When the Saints]

No the 40% figure is an aggregate for voting in all non-compulsory elections in the world.

Presidential elections, parliamentary elections, local government elections, club elections ... you name it, when people are not compelled to vote, the turnout is consistently around 40% ...


That is why it is impossible for Butterss to win - because he would have to break all sorts of records for voter participation in a non-compulsory election.

It's just not going to happen.

 

[ultimate hater]

No the 40% figure is an aggregate for voting in all non-compulsory elections in the world.

Presidential elections, parliamentary elections, local government elections, club elections ... you name it, when people are not compelled to vote, the turnout is consistently around 40% ...


That is why it is impossible for Butterss to win - because he would have to break all sorts of records for voter participation in a non-compulsory election.

It's just not going to happen.

Understood OWTS, but what I was getting at was.. how many elections have you seen where people have voted before even hearing what is on offer?? It's like voting for K-Rudd just for the fact his name (kevin) ryhmes with '07 and never looking at his policies... if only 40% ever vote, i find it very odd that 99% of that 40% aren't even wanting to hear out the EGM and are voting on baseless claims by FF.. or is it just me??

Its just weird that people wanting to vote (40%) have no idea what they are voting for.. kind of defeats the purpose you would thinkg of voluntary voting!

 

[The Punter]

So is it a new record the 38% of people that have voted have set? The record being that 38% of the members are muppets for voting even before the EGM and even hearing what FF has to offer, besides the "spending more money" (from the mysterious money tree FF has) issue..

Pretty amazing that only 40% of people normally vote so only 2% would have an IQ above 90?? No wonder the club is always in strife with twits being swayed by cut-outs and matching ties!! Maybe I'll gather a few people and run for president, all i need is a smoke machine, a couple of mirrors and a sh!te website with pixelated photos!!

Thanks for the namecalling, mate. Always really helpful and constructive.

I had made my mind up that Rod Butterss had to go before the season ended. His increasingly erratic behaviour on behalf of the St Kilda Football Club convinced me that his time was up. The desperate moves of the last seven days only help to assure me I have made the right decision.