My chat with Greg Westaway today

[aussierules0k]

[bungiton]

Send your questions to n1ck

[stinger]

This was deleted once, and just show the lengths the Westaway lackeys will go to attack me.

Its a free world alright, except on Saintsational where you will be howled down for not toeing the party line and get attacked by the messiah complex Westaway lackeys.

saintspremiers - you have attacked Andrew Demetriou and the AFL, why dont you run for CEO of the AFL

Same idiotic logic as your crap post.

Has Joffaboy been possessed by B4E?

Or has B4E abducted him and broken in to his account?

I haven't seen such incessant repetition (messiah related in this case) since our last B4E tirade.

BTW where is B4E?

trying to rustle up a grannie ticket for some bimbo from sleepy hollow.....

[Teflon]

I believe simply because so many are disenchanted by what has happened over the past 12-18 months.

People are voting for the challengers because they trust them more than the incumbents. No doubt AT & NB help in winning that trust, but I doubt that would be enough if people were happy with the performance of the incumbents. Actually, I'm sure it wouldn't. People usually don't vote for change for the sake of change. They need to become disillusioned first. When they do any half credible alternative will suffice. Just ask Jeff Kennett and Steve 'who' Bracks.

It concerns me a bit to be honest. This is being run as a political campaign, small target, engage the supporter group leaders (factions), and let the disenchantment with Butterss do the rest.

Now, I know many people have done some reasearch and have their beefs, like yourself JD.

However, a board for St. KFC is a business move, not a political one. While I'm not convinced that cost slash debt reduction was the best way forward, now that we're out of the hole, I'm wary that we might be about to jump right back into it. I haven't seen any real business process put to the challengers, I've actually seen people advocating AGAINST a 5 year business plan. I feel we're not doing our due diligence.

Frankly, outlining potential but unrevealed sponsors, talking about spending more, talking about training facilities, those are the first slides on a powerpoint show... heck, even claiming to have 5000 proxies already is a sales move, it says "this is great, jump on board". Next, I'd like to have a view of where they want the business of St. KFC to be in 5 years (debt/balance/credit), I'd like to know what level of employer they expect to be in 5 years, I'd like to know who they see filling key posts in 5 years, and what new posts or changing posts they envisage.

THEN, I'd like to see an outline of how they'd like to get there. Investments, diversifications, resources, org chart. Year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4. I want to be able to benchmark them.

THEN, I'd like to see the current admin go through the same process.
As a business team, the RB crew has fulfilled their mandate and gotten us out of debt. They've made many mistakes along the way too. I'd like to be able to make an informed decision before I cast a vote, and not be barracking for anyone.

For mine, I hope this doesn't get done via proxy votes, as given that I'm not affiliated with any of the groups, and given the climate of public opinion, I doubt I'll get anything concrete to make my mind up on until the EGM.

Given the sentiment on this site however, which I do think is pretty indicative of the majority, I don't expect that to happen.

Superb post BAM - you have nailed it in 1.

Our brilliant business/board members on SS (of which we have 3000...) are ABSOLUTELY being sucked into making a BUSINESS decision based on politics - NOT due diligence OR BUSINESS.

This is very very similar to the Howard/Rudd saga - "old man Howrds had his time, hasnt fixed enough...." meanwhile.....Rudd (plays the small target...says and releases little....)...looks fresh...promises the world......and lets Howards time in the job do the rest.

I dont care who wins from a personality perspective - I leave the hatred/vitriol to Jeff and those who are now on this forum clearly running the SFF campaign. Whats is frightening is......history has shown us many times before how the "mob" can be whipped into frenzy......and not all ways with the best outcome.

The BEST Board are required to run the ST KFC - you dont make that decision on the back of glossy brochures or by feeling empowered because Greg Westaway knows your telephone number.....you make that decision based on some facts and right now the FACTS are we know the financial AND football performance of this club under the current Board (so assess that) ...we know NOTHING of any detail from SFF......so what choice is there truly to make?

I suspect its been made sadly.

[rodgerfox]

....you make that decision based on some facts and right now the FACTS are we know the financial AND football performance of this club under the current Board

And it's not very good.

Which is why a challenge is taking place.

[St Igmata]

Assuming there is a spill of the board, will the club be left with half of its optimum resources as the other half sulks?
Bitterness can be a very negative and destructive energy.

[JeffDunne]

You know what is really sad is that if Rod was prepared to put the club's interests before his own we would have had a transition based purely on business decisions. It's actually quite funny that the pro-Rod lemmings are the people bemoaning that this has turned in a political battle because he is the one that has forced it.

When a large proportion of the shareholders want you gone, some would say the majority, and you don't, what other choice is there?

It is also funny that the main criticism of the challengers is that they haven't put out a financial plan to fund the proposed increases in expenditure when they defend the incumbents that haven't given us anything (that is other than trying to limit member's rights). Their track record on raising revenue to fund their supposed increases in spending isn't too flash, especially when you consider memberships have peaked and are now going backwards, our sponsorship position is looking sicker than ever and this year's profit is less than the increase we received from the increase in AFL distributions. What's the plan guys other than more of the same?

[joffaboy]

....you make that decision based on some facts and right now the FACTS are we know the financial AND football performance of this club under the current Board

And it's not very good.

Which is why a challenge is taking place.

Please explain?

Do you mean the finances aren't very good because they are the best they have ever been in the clubs history, or the targetting of specific expenditure and revenue growth?

Because you see RogerFox even your group the FFS have conceeded that the Butters board has done a good job with the finances.

Also the independant auditors have given consistant unqualified reports on the accounts if you care to read the annual reports.

So you are wrong, deadset wrong to say the finances are not very good.

Football performance is another issue and your hero Grant Thomas was in charge for five years and didn't win us a cracker, but that the boards fault as well isn't it?

[joffaboy]

You know what is really sad is that if Rod was prepared to put the club's interests before his own we would have had a transition based purely on business decisions. It's actually quite funny that the pro-Rod lemmings are the people bemoaning that this has turned in a political battle because he is the one that has forced it.

When a large proportion of the shareholders want you gone, some would say the majority, and you don't, what other choice is there?

It is also funny that the main criticism of the challengers is that they haven't put out a financial plan to fund the proposed increases in expenditure when they defend the incumbents that haven't given us anything (that is other than trying to limit member's rights). Their track record on raising revenue to fund their supposed increases in spending isn't too flash, especially when you consider memberships have peaked and are now going backwards, our sponsorship position is looking sicker than ever and this year's profit is less than the increase we received from the increase in AFL distributions. What's the plan guys other than more of the same?

Yup good post JeffDunne so why dont both put their plans to an independant body like the AFL and let them judge them? Oh thats right the AFL is bias toward RB aren't they and RB want to deny the members their rights.

BY how exactly JD? How can he do that constitutionally? He said that if the FFS was better for the Saints re finances he would walk away - aka a transition to the Westaway ticket. How is that denying us our rights?

And if it is how is it any different to the Westaway ticket saying yesterday that the reason for the proxies was to pressure RB and his board to hand over power without an EGM.

Isn't that exactly the same? Why dont you critisise the FFS for this tactic? (which BTW is perfectly legimate and would save the club $100k so I actually agree with it).

See JD I dont understand where you are coming from. Sure We all know you want RB gone, like many (including me) but you seem to want to defend Westaway and the FFs at every opportunity. Do you just want RB gone that much that it doesn't matter that the only viable alternative is not being held up to scrunity?

Also I have read from you on numerous posts that you dislike being labelled, and fair enough, many of your opinions are not rigid, but wht label anyone who are asking legitimate questions of the new regime to be (and lets face it Westaway and his ticket look like being shoo-ins) as pro-Butters lemmings?

I find this pretty unfair. Yeah i know, I have been carrying on about jackbooted, messiah complexs etc, but most seem to understand that I am not being serious (apart from one exception who PM'ed me twice , you know how you are ) and what I say just tends to keep the thread bubbling along.

Anyway it will be all done and dusted soon - the sooner the better.

[rodgerfox]

....you make that decision based on some facts and right now the FACTS are we know the financial AND football performance of this club under the current Board

And it's not very good.

Which is why a challenge is taking place.

Because you see RogerFox even your group the FFS have conceeded that the Butters board has done a good job with the finances.

My group? Are you telling lies? Or just letting your emotions get the better of you again?

Also the independant auditors have given consistant unqualified reports on the accounts if you care to read the annual reports.

So you are wrong, deadset wrong to say the finances are not very good.

If the club's reason for existence is to make $1m profits, then we're in great shape.

If it is to win premierships, then we're not.

We're losing sponsors, losing members, have no home, have lost very good people consistently, have awful facilities and a split board.

Our football performance has been sacrificed for the glory of $1m profits - for the glory of the board and the president.

Football performance is another issue and your hero Grant Thomas was in charge for five years and didn't win us a cracker, but that the boards fault as well isn't it?

Football performance is the issue. Full stop.

Actually you raise a good point - who did hire Grant Thomas? And re-hire him twice? A coach who was in charge for 5 years and ran the football dept. into the ground? Under who's watch did this happen?

That's almost reason enough to challenge the Board.

[rodgerfox]

Yup good post JeffDunne so why dont both put their plans to an independant body like the AFL and let them judge them?

The AFL don't care if we win a flag. The want to see profit.

In their eyes, we could be sending out the cast of 'The Biggest Loser' each week with an awesome light show at Telstra Dome - as long we don't damage the 'image' of the game and as long as we keep bringing in cash.

I couldn't give a shiit what the AFL think. Their priorities for the St.Kilda FC are very different to mine, and most other Saints fans.

Sadly, I think Rod Butterss' priorities are more in line with that of the AFL, than that of most members.

Therein lies the problem.

[JeffDunne]

TBH jb, I don't want either to put out a financial plan. I am criticising those that call for it from the challengers and not the incumbents. In fact the incumbents have the privileges of office and could have actually got some results on the board, like signing new sponsors and have launched a membership campaign for example. That they are not lobbying members in the present environment speaks volumes especially when they aren't kicking goals. I suspect Rod will bob up today at the Harvey presser like he did to announce recent signings. If that's his idea of kicking goals then they are struggling.

And where have I defended the challengers beyond their integrity or qualifications? I don't think I have.

As for the issue of allowing the AFL to decide, I couldn't think of a less independent body outside of the club. Who's to say that what's best for St Kilda is best for the AFL? I certainly don't.

My point all along, well before this challenge was mounted, is that if Rod didn't stand aside we would have the situation we have now. Had Rod smelt the coffee and announced he was standing aside at season's end, we could have head-hunted people best suited to lead the club going forward and had a run of the mill election for board members at the AGM.

[meher baba]

A lot of the debate on this thread (and others) is missing the point IMO.

If the SFF team wins - as appears likely - it will be because there is a groundswell of support from the ordinary members.

If, like me, they have been St Kilda supporters for a long time, they have become totally used to failure: interspersed by the occasional flash of unexpected hope such as 1991-92 and 1997.

For me, and I think many others, RB and GT together looked like they had taken us to a whole new level in 2004-05: major premiership contenders and the best team in Victoria (with Geelong a close, but clear second). With the likes of the Nicks, Lenny, Ball, Goose, Kosi, Joey, Chips on the books it looked as if we might stay near the top for a long time.

But we stumbled in 2006 and have fallen further this year. To long-term members like me it all looks like we are heading back into 1992-5 and 1998-2001 all over again (or, even worse, 1974-1990 or perhaps towards a merger or an interstate transfer).

Many longstanding members look at our current Board and see

1 A President who appointed a close personal friend who owed him $1 million as coach in a bodgy process in which there were probably more conflicts of interest than there are grains of sand on the beach.

2 The said coach, against all expectations, does a good job and then falls out with the President over non-football matters and is then sacked: supposedly for poor perfomance, even though the club had made the finals for three seasons in a row.

3 The apparent strong role played in the sacking of the coach by a new CEO with an entirely non-AFL background and allegedly a highly abrasive personality. The same CEO then goes on to undermine the President of the Board, as well as publicly and privately blasting the local council whose approval we need to upgrade our training and social club facilities.

4 Another spree of conflicts of interests in which we gain a new football manager (a sacked former coach and possibly a failed employee of an organisation manged by a board member), a whole lot of recruitment and other consultants (all owned by, or with close ties to board members) and a new coach who seems to have been chosen by a coterie of ex-Carlton people who are also tied in closely to the Board. The new coach brings another carload of ex-Carlton people to help him.

5 A boring and seemingly much less effective style of play imposed on the team during 2007 which is modelled on the Sydney Swans and which results in our scoring the lowest number of points of any club over 22 rounds as well as failling to beat teams such as the Pies, Hawks and Dogs who we have dominated in recent seasons.

6 Recent revelations that our expenditure on football matters apart from player salaries has been equally as paltry as our point scoring in 2007: a fact that might go a signficant way towards explaining our problems with injuries in recent seasons.

7 Problems attracting sponsors, which only appear to be getting worse over time.

8 Divisions within the existing Board, with two longstanding members supporting the SFF team.

And I could go on, but I won't.

For those posters who keep going on and on about the SFF's failure to provide details of what they intend to do, isn't perhaps enough to think that they intend to avoid doing all of this!!

I am sure that many members who support SFF are simply happy to support any halfway credible alternative in the hope that they will steer us away from the problems I have outlined above.[/b]

[rodgerfox]

A lot of the debate on this thread (and others) is missing the point IMO.

If the SFF team wins - as appears likely - it will be because there is a groundswell of support from the ordinary members.

If, like me, they have been St Kilda supporters for a long time, they have become totally used to failure: interspersed by the occasional flash of unexpected hope such as 1991-92 and 1997.

For me, and I think many others, RB and GT together looked like they had taken us to a whole new level in 2004-05: major premiership contenders and the best team in Victoria (with Geelong a close, but clear second). With the likes of the Nicks, Lenny, Ball, Goose, Kosi, Joey, Chips on the books it looked as if we might stay near the top for a long time.

But we stumbled in 2006 and have fallen further this year. To long-term members like me it all looks like we are heading back into 1992-5 and 1998-2001 all over again (or, even worse, 1974-1990 or perhaps towards a merger or an interstate transfer).

Many longstanding members look at our current Board and see

1 A President who appointed a close personal friend who owed him $1 million as coach in a bodgy process in which there were probably more conflicts of interest than there are grains of sand on the beach.

2 The said coach, against all expectations, does a good job and then falls out with the President over non-football matters and is then sacked: supposedly for poor perfomance, even though the club had made the finals for three seasons in a row.

3 The apparent strong role played in the sacking of the coach by a new CEO with an entirely non-AFL background and allegedly a highly abrasive personality. The same CEO then goes on to undermine the President of the Board, as well as publicly and privately blasting the local council whose approval we need to upgrade our training and social club facilities.

4 Another spree of conflicts of interests in which we gain a new football manager (a sacked former coach and possibly a failed employee of an organisation manged by a board member), a whole lot of recruitment and other consultants (all owned by, or with close ties to board members) and a new coach who seems to have been chosen by a coterie of ex-Carlton people who are also tied in closely to the Board. The new coach brings another carload of ex-Carlton people to help him.

5 A boring and seemingly much less effective style of play imposed on the team during 2007 which is modelled on the Sydney Swans and which results in our scoring the lowest number of points of any club over 22 rounds as well as failling to beat teams such as the Pies, Hawks and Dogs who we have dominated in recent seasons.

6 Recent revelations that our expenditure on football matters apart from player salaries has been equally as paltry as our point scoring in 2007: a fact that might go a signficant way towards explaining our problems with injuries in recent seasons.

7 Problems attracting sponsors, which only appear to be getting worse over time.

8 Divisions within the existing Board, with two longstanding members supporting the SFF team.

And I could go on, but I won't.

For those posters who keep going on and on about the SFF's failure to provide details of what they intend to do, isn't perhaps enough to think that they intend to avoid doing all of this!!

I am sure that many members who support SFF are simply happy to support any halfway credible alternative in the hope that they will steer us away from the problems I have outlined above.[/b]

Bingo.

As I've said before - some say it's a risk to bring in a new board with no public financial plan.

Some would say that it's a much higher risk to continue the way we're going, due to the reasons posted above.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

A lot of the debate on this thread (and others) is missing the point IMO.

I'm not sure that there is or should be a sole point to the debate. That many people are coming from different angles is a good thing.

If your evaluation is that anything has to be better than Butterss (and I don't use quotes because for all the subjective bases of opinions you state and interperet, I don't want to put words in your mouth just because I infer something), then you'll vote SFF.

In fact, if my inference is correct, then the campaign SFF are running is perfect for you (which is not me calling you a lemming or anything else negative, just saying you're in the target audience, and it's not surprising that you're persuaded, fair?): small target, let the other guys bad rap do the work.

I think any of the points you raise would engender a 5 page thread with no conclusions and a lot of slinging by itself... as do many of the criticisms of the current board, or (clearly) criticisms of the challenging ticket.

In my opinion, while I don't have the view that the current board has been good I do have the view that they've been servicable enough that they've earned 2007, the first time I've been unhappy with them, and the new ticket has at this point earned nothing. AFAIC, that is the point. It doesn't even bother me that others don't share my criteria, it does concern me that we're going to see someone swept into office that frankly, on our vote (and hence our responsibility) without really knowing very much about the job they'll do, or being able to set my expectations.

[meher baba]

BAM! (shhh)

I greatly respect what you have posted on this forum in recent months and once again I appreciate what you have written here.

However, you do seem to have missed the point that I was trying to make and, re-reading my post, I suspect that is my fault.

I'll attempt to clarify what I'm saying. I am far from clear that Westaway and co have a mortage on any fabulous solutions to our problems that are unknown to, or which have not been attempted by, the existing regime. The club does not have the sort of income stream or even the public profile of a Collingwood or a WCE, and there is no strategy imaginable that would turn this around in anything less than a decade.


If the point of the current challenge is to bring a superior vision of the future to the club, then I - like you, Joffaboy and others - am a bit of a sceptic (especially when I seem to see the current CEO standing behind the scenes with his dagger - already bloody from his assault on GT in September 2006 - now firmly lodged in the back of RB).

But that's not the point. The point is that RB and the current board have, at least in my opinion (and, I suspect in the minds of thousands of what I would call the more "traditional" sort of football supporter), lost the right to run the club. Butterss - both before and after his alliance with GT - has always been a polarising force at the club and more broadly in the AFL world. He has never adopted a conservative approach to running the club.

This was all fine when we were making PFs and so forth, but - after a whole lot of even more disruptive changes since September 2006 and an ugly slanging match with GT in public - the club's on-field performance has gone backwards, the style of play has become less attractive, and some major sponsors have walked away. And there is a strong sense of conflicts of interest and all sorts of subterranean problems at the club which creates a general impression of "things being crook in Tallarook".

And, in any organisation, when problems start to mount up like this, those in power (in this case the members) tend to look to make sweeping changes.

So I'm not so much saying that the push to get rid of RB is desirable, but that it is more or less inevitable.

[bungiton]

A little background about the whole let the members decide, Butterss was not elected as president of the board, it was a bit of backroom dealing that saw him succeed from Plympton.

It is about time the members got a say about the direction the club is to head in toward the future.

Amazingly at most elections at St Kilda I am led to believe, most times there are only 700 votes tops, the fact that there are already 5000 proxies collected by SFF shows there is a lot of people getting up that usually never bother.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

So I'm not so much saying that the push to get rid of RB is desirable, but that it is more or less inevitable.

Well, as far as the above goes, I'm in 100% agreement. In fact, while I'm sitting on the fence for most of the posts I'm making at the moment, I'm looking for an excuse to vote against the guy. Frankly, and probably ironically, on the grounds of personality.

I just have this great feeling of dissapointment that in taking the club forward from a place of zero debt and a great playing list, we have a great opportunity to get a 10 year board that can solidify what RB & co did right, give us the things he didn't/couldn't, and ensure not only that we never end up where the Kangaroos and Melbourne are, but that we build towards where the big 3 Melbourne teams are. As much as we supporters would like to think of ourselves as "should be" in that bracket, it's easy to slip back, and will become easier as Richmond inevitably emerges from their struggles as Hawthorn are doing.

I really hope Westaway and co. deliver, but I think we may have missed an opportunity.

[Saints43]

Personally, I would find rolling over in front of the information provided to be an ultimate disservice.

I am almost gagging to get rid of Rodders (sponsorship, football department & public embarrassment) but I look at that proxy form and envelope and cannot - with the information provided - stick it in a letterbox.

(And also appreciate that RB has done a good job until recently for our club.)

[saint66au]

Just got off the phone from chat with Greg Westaway.

Was very interested in hearing about the Moorabbin Wing. Knew we existed from hearing us and seeing the signs on Match day, but wanted to know a bit of the history of how it became to be formed.

Seemed very genuine and did emphasise that the players facilities are of the utmost importance to the new Board if they are elected.

[St. Luke]

I'm impressed with the Westaway group and what they are offering to bring to the Saints.

Like perhaps GT, Butterss has now also become an anachronism. Time for some fresh faces and fresh ideas. I'm backing them.

[Otiman]

I am almost gagging to get rid of Rodders (sponsorship, football department & public embarrassment) but I look at that proxy form and envelope and cannot - with the information provided - stick it in a letterbox.

(And also appreciate that RB has done a good job until recently for our club.)

I'm in full agreement with this sentiment. I daresay there are plenty in this boat, waiting for something concrete from either side to secure the vote, or leave it til close to the EGM.

[aussierules0k]

[Dis Believer]

Is it just me or do SFF seem to have done more in 2 weeks to canvas the membership than the incumbents have done in about 7 years?

Asking a genuine question here because I am not involved with any official supporter groups and as such am likely to be unaware of any communication that the club undertakes other than emails or mailouts to members.

[Mr Magic]

Is it just me or do SFF seem to have done more in 2 weeks to canvas the membership than the incumbents have done in about 7 years?

Yes, and exactly what you would expect of a challenger.

The only way they can be successful is to win over the voters (members) so they have to be effective in selling their vision.

Elected Boards, especially those that have been in power for a resaonably long period of time tend to become complacent to their constituents (members) and concentrate on continuing to run the Club the way they feel has been successful.