Frawley

Q5 · Post: # 461659Post Q5 » Sat 22 Sep 2007 4:19pm

BT just said on MMM that his 'man' at St Kilda implied Frawley had been approached by RB to be on the board... Trying to shut the gate once the horse has bolted, if you ask me! Personally I've been a little disappointed in Danny's attitude towards all this 'kerfuffle'. Has been out of the game too long I think, and is perhaps still 'mired' in the earlier culture of the Saints that we are trying to distance ourselves from.

Certainly having DF there won't change my thoughts!

battye · Post: # 461662Post **battye** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 4:29pm

Too little too late one would think.

Not that it would have changed a whole lot anyway...

Otiman · Post: # 461664Post **Otiman** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 4:32pm

As a footy player I have huge respect for Spud. However, the way he has handled himself since retirement in the media and coaching circles leaves a lot to be desired.

evertonfc · Post: # 461675Post **evertonfc** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 4:59pm

Otiman wrote:As a footy player I have huge respect for Spud. However, the way he has handled himself since retirement in the media and coaching circles leaves a lot to be desired.

Absolutely spot on.

Doesn't seem like a terribly shrewed bloke, to be honest.

SuperSaint · Post: # 461680Post **SuperSaint** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 5:19pm

evertonfc wrote:
Otiman wrote:As a footy player I have huge respect for Spud. However, the way he has handled himself since retirement in the media and coaching circles leaves a lot to be desired.
Absolutely spot on.

Doesn't seem like a terribly shrewed bloke, to be honest.

But he timed the sale and subsequent capital gain on his Brighton Home to perfection, so there is some shrewdness there.

Ghost Like · Post: # 461683Post **Ghost Like** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 5:24pm

He didn't sell it to a bloke named Thomas by any chance who said he would pay a bit more once an old mate lent him some cash?

Eastern · Post: # 461685Post **Eastern** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 5:26pm

Spud said that there were "sort of" approaches for him to join the Butterss board, which he declined. He said that he wasn't interested in getting into football politics. Said he was a footy person, not a board person.

I can't see anything wrong with what he had to say !!

To the top · Post: # 461686Post **To the top** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 5:28pm

Well, Frawley will have opinions on each of you also.

This thread evidences exactly why St Kilda FC have the history they have.

And they will always be the laughing stock of the AFL, as they were in the VFL.

How many years? How many premierships?

Rabble!

evertonfc · Post: # 461688Post **evertonfc** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 5:32pm

SuperSaint wrote:
evertonfc wrote:
Otiman wrote:As a footy player I have huge respect for Spud. However, the way he has handled himself since retirement in the media and coaching circles leaves a lot to be desired.
Absolutely spot on.

Doesn't seem like a terribly shrewed bloke, to be honest.
But he timed the sale and subsequent capital gain on his Brighton Home to perfection, so there is some shrewdness there.

Look, he's been an AFL senior coach, so he's clearly not dumb, but I'd like to think he has more value to us in a spiritual sense rather than an intellectual one.

JeffDunne · Post: # 461690Post **JeffDunne** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 5:40pm

Showing your true 'colours' again TTT?

Shaggy · Post: # 461694Post **Shaggy** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 6:19pm

Is Spud still employed by Linfox?

I find this very funny.

If Teffers wants to ensure Fox is not behind the Board he might have to vote for SFF

.

To the top · Post: # 461716Post **To the top** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 7:20pm

Can't face the facts, JD?

Yes, I would like to follow a club here in Melbourne which consistently makes the finals and therefore is consistently in the race to win a premiership.

Unfortunately, those I hooked up with in my early days followed St Kilda.

But, we have had some wonderful times, and some wonderful memories.

And, for many years, that was in the inner sanctum.

But, you could also see what was wrong.

And you could see that the money was not there, particularly when you got the recipricol invitations to the likes of Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon.

And, when St Kilda does achieve financial stability and its reputation in the footy world improves from joke status, what does it do?

Guys like you bay for blood because premierships are not being won.

Well, I can tell you that clubs which win premierships have stability - all the way down from the top to the boot studder.

And they all have a single focus.

Look at the record, realise why St Kilda has the record it has, and learn.

Within clubs you do have personality issues, because most come with ego, but the clubs who are always positioned to succeed work their way through those issues- as Port Adelaide did with Allan Scott and Mark Williams.

I dislike Port Adelaide with a passion, they are the traditional enemy, but the one thing you do is not throw the baby out with the bathwater - and you look at their success and you ask why.

They manage a dispute between their financier (who is central to their being) and their coach (who is one of the master coaches of the league).

When St Kilda sack a coach who does not hold a candle to the Williams/ Malthouses and the like, St Kilda splits wide open and the Board is lambasted.

Whilst those like you represent St Kilda's supporter base, it has no hope.

JeffDunne · Post: # 461735Post **JeffDunne** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 8:03pm

Face what facts TTT?

That you're not even a St Kilda supporter?

Q5 · Post: # 461736Post Q5 » Sat 22 Sep 2007 8:04pm

Hasn't Scotts withdrawn their sponsorship of Port at season's end for exactly that reason - the Alan Scott/Choco saga???...

TTT, one could argue that we 'implode' at the first sign of trouble, however, stability starts at the top. If the Board is 'fractious', which it appears to be, that goes from the top of the club to the bottom. On field performance aside, look at how much more 'secure' the Blues seem as a club since 'Mr Raheen' took over... And no, I'm not looking for a white knight, they don't exist. It takes work to operate as a cohesive unit, but, like a tree, you need to prune the dead wood every now and again to enable the tree to flourish.

JeffDunne · Post: # 461738Post **JeffDunne** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 8:08pm

The reason Port are a successful club is because they don't allow individuals to put themselves before the club.

Port would never allow someone like Rod Butterss to represent them let alone be president.

kaos theory · Sat 22 Sep 2007 8:32pm

BT just said on MMM that his 'man' at St Kilda implied Frawley had been approached by RB to be on the board... Trying to shut the gate once the horse has bolted, if you ask me! Personally I've been a little disappointed in Danny's attitude towards all this 'kerfuffle'. Has been out of the game too long I think, and is perhaps still 'mired' in the earlier culture of the Saints that we are trying to distance ourselves from.

Current Board = desperate 'copy cats' tactics......

No vision & limited talent......time RB did the right thing by the club....

Q5 · Post: # 461754Post Q5 » Sat 22 Sep 2007 8:39pm

Correct JD. That is one of the things that upsets me the most - both on field and off, we are a 'group' of individuals. I know Joffa has a 'Messiah' complex, and in some respects, he is right. I want us to be a TEAM

And, when St Kilda does achieve financial stability and its reputation in the footy world improves from joke status, what does it do? ...

TTT, we are still a laughing stock - the AFL DO NOT take us seriously, and neither does the media. I would rather us be invisible - go about our business as a unit, and all of a sudden, one day, do something that makes others sit up and take notice - a lÃ Port Adelaide. They have pretty much 'flown under the radar' for most of the season, and next week will be playing in the GF...

spert · Post: # 461786Post **spert** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 9:56pm

I think our supporters/members have been passionate, but lethargic for decades. We have to start demanding of the club, success and stability and demanding strongly. The years of watching members be satisfied with a good peformance in losing, sticks in my mind -that mindset has gone towards instabilty and lack of success. Unfortunately here we go again. Thomas and Butters seemed to have the right approach as leaders up until their wheels fell off personally. Thomas was a good motivator in a business sense, but when problems arose, didn't have the football coaching skills to fix it and still approached the football side of things as a business and the important parts of a team suffered -fitness, recruiting, player development for example. There is no doubt that if the new board got in, they will eventually start to fall apart after a couple of years as there are too many big egos sitting around the table. It is up to the members and supporters to make it plainly clear from now on, that we want success and won't accept runner-up status.

stinger · Post: # 461787Post **stinger** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 9:59pm

Eastern wrote:Spud said that there were "sort of" approaches for him to join the Butterss board, which he declined. He said that he wasn't interested in getting into football politics. Said he was a footy person, not a board person.

I can't see anything wrong with what he had to say !!

i heard him speak on fox a week or so again...on league teams...said he was a coal face person...a doer.....i can understand that.....

stinger · Post: # 461788Post **stinger** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 10:00pm

To the top wrote:Well, Frawley will have opinions on each of you also.

This thread evidences exactly why St Kilda FC have the history they have.

And they will always be the laughing stock of the AFL, as they were in the VFL.

How many years? How many premierships?

Rabble!

you a st kilda supporter...you don't sound like one....just another troll....eh????

stinger · Post: # 461789Post **stinger** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 10:02pm

deleted...

stinger · Post: # 461790Post **stinger** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 10:03pm

To the top wrote:
Whilst those like you represent St Kilda's supporter base, it has no hope.

that's just downright insulting and should get you banned from this forum...imhfo.......

saintsRrising · Sat 22 Sep 2007 10:17pm

To the top wrote:Can't face the facts, JD?

Unfortunately, those I hooked up with in my early days followed St Kilda.

.

I would have thought that should be fortunately..

I am proud to be a Saints man.....I might hunger for that elusive Cup......and for the Saints to do things better.......

BUT I regard being a Saints fan as a blessing....

stinger · Post: # 461799Post **stinger** » Sat 22 Sep 2007 10:20pm

saintsRrising wrote:
To the top wrote:Can't face the facts, JD?

Unfortunately, those I hooked up with in my early days followed St Kilda.

.
I would have thought that should be fortunately..

I am proud to be a Saints man.....I might hunger for that elusive Cup......and for the Saints to do things better.......

BUT I regard being a Saints fan as blessing....

so do i.......the guy's an imposter...or a reluctant footy fan in general....

saintsRrising · Sat 22 Sep 2007 10:31pm

On Spud..

Why is it a crime to be invited to be on a Board????