Thomas to take Saints to court - The Age 30/1

[Snakeman66]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/t ... 35194.html


Thomas to take Saints to court
Stephen Rielly | January 30, 2008

LIKE sands through the hourglass, so are the days of Moorabbin.

The saga that the sacking of Grant Thomas has become for St Kilda is now destined for the courts, with the former coach declining a third offer to settle his claim against the club for more than $270,000.

A three-day civil trial is set to begin in the County Court on May 14.

It is believed that after being rebuffed twice late last year, the Saints put a third and final offer to Thomas on December 21 in the hope of consigning the episode to the past and sparing the new administration of president Greg Westaway, and the football club at large, any further distraction.

The offer, of a capped payment of $120,000 or $101,000 plus costs and interest, bettered the previous offer of $100,000 that was meant to resolve the first claim in Thomas' two-part writ, which was served on the club in the last days of the presidency of Rod Butterss, on September 5.

The renewed offer came with what is believed to have been a final offer ultimatum and a 14-day sunset clause that effectively meant the former coach had until January 4 to consider and accept the deal. It was not.

The rejection could mean that if Thomas wins the pending court case but is awarded less money than St Kilda has offered, he may be liable for the club's costs.

Thomas was sacked in September 2006 and left Moorabbin with six months' salary and the promise of a further $100,000 if he honoured a non-disparagement agreement that forbade him to comment on St Kilda board issues or directors.

Although specifics of the six-figure agreement were never committed to paper, as they were supposed to be within seven days of Thomas' dismissal, it was meant to be honoured by March of last year.

The sum was withheld after Butterss and members of his board accused Thomas of privately and publicly undermining the club.

The former coach is now seeking almost $105,000 in compensation on that front but is also seeking a further $168,000 for what the second part of his claim describes as annual leave and public holiday entitlements, although Thomas, who coached the club for just over five seasons, signed a statutory declaration before his departure that stated he had taken all the annual leave he was owed. Thomas has since claimed he was pressured to sign the declaration only days before being removed.

Butterss, who had settled a personal and long-standing legal matter involving the repayment of a loan to Thomas of more than $1 million in the middle of last year, stepped down last October to allow Westaway and his Footy First ticket to succeed his board.

The new administration, apparently keen to start its time with as few bothersome distractions as possible, then factored a settlement into its accounts and approached Thomas in early December with an offer that was rejected.

Representatives for the two parties subsequently met on December 19 without a resolution. The most recent offer was made two days later.

[StSteven]

Pathetic.....

[evertonfc]

What that proved is that that the club clearly knows he's owed money - you don't just offer up $100,000 out of thin air...

Let's hope the matter is resolved amicabally and soon.

[chook23]

What that proved is that that the club clearly knows he's owed money - you don't just offer up $100,000 out of thin air...

Let's hope the matter is resolved amicabally and soon.

the 100,00 g was in relation to an agreement with board re certain conditions.....

the sum was withheld because conditions were not met.......

he also SIGNED a stat dec re other.........

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

[kaos theory]

What this proves is a complete lack of process by the previous administration. RB had an arrangement with GT full of holes, which make these sorts of situations possible.

GT, who was paid way over the standard for his level of ability, is now cynically milking the situation. He had significant opportunity and benefit (through the draft & other quality players), but failed to effectively manage and build on the benefits.

GT is not really owed all this money, he is just taking advantage of sloppy processes & agreements. He knows, as does the current administration that its very difficult to build a defence on a base of poor processes, contracts & agreements.


GT a true saint man? pfft!

[chook23]

Agree KT

I mentioned conditions etc but as you say above......

GT using that to max

fully concur GT a true saint???

[evertonfc]

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

You don't just offer $100,000 for nothing.

Clearly, the club knows he's owed some money. There's just a difference over how much.

[chook23]

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

You don't just offer $100,000 for nothing.

Clearly, the club knows he's owed some money. There's just a difference over how much.

I think the current admin clearly understand that although (they consider
conditions breached and money not owedand stat dec signed) that legally the process and breaking of those conditions may not be duly recorded......

hence if challanged............hence the offer to avoid the mess(Court battle etc/nedia)

but GT .............

[plugger66]

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

You don't just offer $100,000 for nothing.

Clearly, the club knows he's owed some money. There's just a difference over how much.

I think the current admin clearly understand that although (they consider
conditions breached and money not owedand stat dec signed) that legally the process and breaking of those conditions may not be duly recorded......

hence if challanged............hence the offer to avoid the mess(Court battle etc/nedia)

but GT .............

Based on? Let the court decide who is right because I doubt one person on here knows even though we may have our opinions no one knows.

[chook23]

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

You don't just offer $100,000 for nothing.

Clearly, the club knows he's owed some money. There's just a difference over how much.

I think the current admin clearly understand that although (they consider
conditions breached and money not owedand stat dec signed) that legally the process and breaking of those conditions may not be duly recorded......

hence if challanged............hence the offer to avoid the mess(Court battle etc/nedia)

but GT .............

Based on? Let the court decide who is right because I doubt one person on here knows even though we may have our opinions no one knows.

my points were in relation to everton comments.....clearly... just questioning the clearly part (under what circumstances/why offer etc)

It does seem fact that a stat dec was signed by GT

I agree re you and I don't know all the facts... but have an opinion...

[bigred]

Screw him..

[TimeToShineFellas]

imo the man shouldn't be allowed through the doors at Moorabbin for a fair fair while.

Would a workplace anywhere else allow a former employee through the door if he was taking them to court?

I would think not!

[Saints43]

Why would someone wanting to be paid what they believe they are owed make them less a less loyal club person?

If another employee had found his paypacket to be a bit lighter than expected or felt that documents had been signed with a view to changing their employment circumstances wouldn't they have the right to fight for what they believed to be theirs?

If he didn't have a case I doubt that the club would offer any payment and that it would get to court as you wouldn't fight a case you couldn't win due to the expense.

[markp]

If he signed a stat. dec. regarding holiday pay, and the agreement regarding the $100k 'hush' money was only verbal then there is more to the tale if the board is willing to pay anything... he must have photo's!

It seems to me (from afar) he is being unreasonable, and the time for offers is over. Release the dogs of law.

[rodgerfox]

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

You don't just offer $100,000 for nothing.

Clearly, the club knows he's owed some money. There's just a difference over how much.

You certainly don't turn it down either and go to court instead - unless you're very, very confident you're entitled to it.

[killa_gram]

GT's a knob.

[rodgerfox]

GT's a knob.

He also has a double chin.

[killa_gram]

GT's a knob.

He also has a double chin.

Trying to make this my new "catchphrase". See the Wayne Carye thread.

[RBnW]

does not prove Club knows he is clearly owed.

You don't just offer $100,000 for nothing.

Clearly, the club knows he's owed some money. There's just a difference over how much.

Once again you are showing your complete lack of business experience.....you dont have a clue about this stuff.....sometimes you will pay to make it go away or not have more legal costs........even if you are right....

[saintsRrising]

If the above article is accurate the Club has not offered anything for the disputed leave etc (ie the $168,000)...but juts for the "hush" money plus a bit.

The FF team have probably decided to pay the "hush" money plus some....not because they know that it should be paid but rather because they are keen to settle the ship and move the Saints forward.



When is all said and done...the $100,000 is basically money for nothing...and so even even, and I say if, GT believes he was owed some money for various leave entitlements this should compensate....that is if you were a reasonable person.


What we have here is greed and just someone wanting to "milk" the system for all he can...

He leeched a loan off RB...and then "used" the legal system to pay back RB less than what he was owed.


This is not about "justice"...it is just the greed of someone trying to exploit loopholes and lack of detail.


Love the club.?...well loved the $500,000 per year he was overpaid at and no longer gets but lusts after...


Love of the club?...GT was held out to be the "expert and god" of player contracts etc. If this was so and he was so capable....why was his contract so sloppy? Why did he not pick up the flaws??? Was he not competent....or did he deliberately build in flaws.

If his original contract was not precise...why not???? Remember that GT was the one who said he was expert in this area. It makes one shudder now for the contracts drawn up by GT for the players under his watch.

If his own contract was poorly worded and he had "expert' Knowledge in this area surely he should bare some of the responsibility for it's shortcomings. Or is this just now the "expert" at working seeking to exploit known by him "shortcomings"?

[asiu]

You certainly don't turn it down either and go to court instead - unless you're very, very confident you're entitled to it.

after being initially pissed that it wasn't sorted ...the above quote is 'my thoughts' on the issue as well




it will all come out in the end ... interesting times ahead if it does hit the public arena

[st_Trav_ofWA]

GT you wont be forgoten ... unfortunatly


$100k to end the saga with GT and avoid our club name being draged through the mud of a court battle ..... bargin price even if the club is right

its fairly obvious this isnt about money to GT he wants this dragged through the courts one way or the other he reason for doing so has got me at a loss

[rodgerfox]

If his original contract was not precise...why not???? Remember that GT was the one who sad he was expert in this area. It makes one shudder now for the contracts drawn up by GT for the players under his watch.

If his own contract was poorly worded and he had "expert' Knowledge in this area surely he should bare some of the responsibility for it's shortcomings. Or is this just now the "expert" at working seeking to exploit known by him "shortcomings"?

Name one contract that Thomas drew up?

What a stupid, stupid post.

Even for you.

[JeffDunne]

He's not the first sacked coach to be in dispute with a club over money and he won't be the last.

I'm bored with the whole topic TBH

[SENsei]

Who the hell is Grant Thomas?