breen backs butterss board

[bigcarl]

BARRY Breen, one of St Kilda's legendary figures, has described the challenge to the board of president Rod Butterss as a needless "Machiavellian manoeuvre" that is certain to perpetuate the image of the club as volatile and unstable.

Breen said he was opposed to the hostile takeover proposed by the challengers and warned St Kilda members to be wary of their commitment to greater spending.

Breen, who famously kicked the winning behind in the 1966 grand final but later, as a former player in 1984, agreed to forgo more than $50,000 of match payments to help the club avoid slipping into bankruptcy, felt strongly enough about the looming election to write a private letter of support to Butterss last week.

Yesterday, though, he bought into the election by going public with misgivings about what he described as a casual attitude from Footy First about the financial realities of the AFL and the sad history of upheaval it was repeating.

"I've followed St Kilda since I was five years of age and I don't need to be told that its history is littered with coups and takeovers and arguments, which has never been conducive to building a strong football club. The last thing we need when things are stable is another coup or election battle," Breen said.

He said he found it curious for the Footy First ticket, given St Kilda's precarious history, to dismiss the work it took the Butterss board to erase $3.5 million of accumulated debt and, in recent years, produce million-dollar profits.

"Without the commitment to debt reduction, there was a real chance that St Kilda would not exist today in its present form," he said.

As Breen was lending his support, Butterss tried to negate the popularity of Nathan Burke and Andrew Thompson by favouring their candidacies, recommending they be elected unopposed once a spill of the board occurred. When this will take place was in dispute last night, with Footy First arguing that under the club's constitution, an extraordinary general meeting can be held on October 23 and Butterss claiming that by law, it cannot be held for 60 days, or until November 26.

Burke dismissed the idea last night as a tactic designed to confuse the voters. "It doesn't sit well with me, favours," he said. "We started out as a team and I want to see it through as a team."

■St Kilda is counting on the power of advertising in an attempt to find a new major sponsor. The Saints have placed a full-page advertisement in the news section of today's edition of The Age. The ad, which will run again on Saturday and also in The Australian Financial Review, offers potential sponsors an opportunity "to be associated with the AFL's most dynamic and exciting brand".

St Kilda chief executive Archie Fraser said last night the club wanted to be seen as innovative in taking its sales pitch to a wider market. "We think we're innovative with what we do," he said.

With ROHAN CONNOLLY

[spert]

Pretty much what I think too Breeny

[meher baba]

St Kilda is counting on the power of advertising in an attempt to find a new major sponsor. The Saints have placed a full-page advertisement in the news section of today's edition of The Age. The ad, which will run again on Saturday and also in The Australian Financial Review, offers potential sponsors an opportunity "to be associated with the AFL's most dynamic and exciting brand".

St Kilda chief executive Archie Fraser said last night the club wanted to be seen as innovative in taking its sales pitch to a wider market. "We think we're innovative with what we do," he said.

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

[bungiton]

St Kilda is counting on the power of advertising in an attempt to find a new major sponsor. The Saints have placed a full-page advertisement in the news section of today's edition of The Age. The ad, which will run again on Saturday and also in The Australian Financial Review, offers potential sponsors an opportunity "to be associated with the AFL's most dynamic and exciting brand".

St Kilda chief executive Archie Fraser said last night the club wanted to be seen as innovative in taking its sales pitch to a wider market. "We think we're innovative with what we do," he said.

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

What, the SFF have been belittled because they say they have sponsors lined up but only if they get in, the current board should be praised because they have none, have no idea but to advertise and see if something comes up, another spectacular reason why there should be a rapid out with the old and in with the new.

[kaos theory]

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

Yes, true MB....
'Cold calling' is the last resort activity you employ when you have run out of contacts, networks & relationships to bring in business. General advertising like this is another sign of running out of networks, relationships & reputation, but perhaps worse than just cold calling and more ineffective & costly...

I can just see the CEO of a major corp reading this and saying, 'yeh, lets invest in the saints'

[jill]

Breen a beloved ex-champ, but what's his connection with Saints NOW?! Thought he was living in Sydney & had links with Swans.
Deplore the waste of money advertising & don't forget it has been our inablity to RETAIN sponsers that's been a major problem.
Bring on the EGM and clear the scene once and for all so we can get on with planning & preparation for 2008!!

[joffaboy]

Thats right everyone get stuck into Barry Breen because he is not following the party line.

As for the attempting to find business partners. It has nothing to do with either board. If a partner wants to come onboard the board or its makeup wont matter. If a partner wants to find an excuse not to come on board they will.

Saints have two presentations with major companies this week and if they come on board it wont make a difference who is the board.

Please try and keep a tad of perspective instead of simply jumping to conclusions

[SteveStevens66]

There are a number of promises I'd like to see SKFF make and attempt to keep but in light of this thread and the ad the current board has placed in the paper, I would ask that SKFF NEVER, EVER use this language to describe the St.Kilda Football Club or its team: " the AFL's most dynamic and exciting brand".

This is extremely revealing and goes precisely to the heart of how Butterss sees us. To him, we are merely a product, something to sell, something to make a profit on. If that is all there is, I may as well just go off to New World and barrack for whatever products sit on the shelves.

WE ARE NOT A BRAND!!! WE ARE A FOOTBALL CLUB AND A PROUD ONE!!!

I understand that football clubs have to be run like businesses but FOOTBALL itself is not a business. It is a game, a game to be won.

It is the bleeding of corporate culture and terminology onto the football field--not to mention the AFL and what goes on off the field--that has brought about the state of the game today--a state that anyone who recalls a different era must see as flawed.

As far as I am concerned, Butterss et. al. can go and sell toothpaste or office supplies or anything else they like. RB, feel free to let the door hit you (hard) on the way out.

So to SKFF, we expect you to make a profit, keep us solvent and be businesslike. Just do NOT refer to us as a brand.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

St Kilda is counting on the power of advertising in an attempt to find a new major sponsor. The Saints have placed a full-page advertisement in the news section of today's edition of The Age. The ad, which will run again on Saturday and also in The Australian Financial Review, offers potential sponsors an opportunity "to be associated with the AFL's most dynamic and exciting brand".

St Kilda chief executive Archie Fraser said last night the club wanted to be seen as innovative in taking its sales pitch to a wider market. "We think we're innovative with what we do," he said.

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

What, the SFF have been belittled because they say they have sponsors lined up but only if they get in, the current board should be praised because they have none, have no idea but to advertise and see if something comes up, another spectacular reason why there should be a rapid out with the old and in with the new.

According to the SFF web site, they've got 3 sponsors worth a total of $1M lined up. My questions remains, out of my ignorance, how much of an impact is that $1M, what are we looking to replace in Vodafone and Bill Express, and how relevant are the two major sponsors decision to move on really, other than timing... I've yet to be convinced the sponsorship issue is more than spin from either side.

Personally, I don't think this ad is a bad idea, I would expect a single sponsor raised out of it will pay for the expense, and anything else is gravy, regardless of the current power struggle, since I doubt this would have happened without the SFF challenge, this is the first upside I've seen.

[bigred]

Agreed JB.

And why is it that placing an add in a newspaper in an attempt to generate new sponsorship a waste of money?

What happens if it brings a Million dollar sponsor on board? Is it still a waste of money?

Better than sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing about it.

Unreal how no matter what the current administration do, it is seen as being stupid, misguided and somewhat underhanded.

Get some perspective ffs. At least they are being proactive about the situation, regardless of the crap that is going on at the moment.'

[meher baba]

I thought I'd seen anything on here, but can't believe that some posters are defending the decision to advertise for sponsors.

Face facts: you have a board struggling for its life. Your challengers are highly critical of you for having failed to attract sponsors to the club. They claim that they can do much better.

So what do you do? You do something that informs the whole world that you clearly don't have any potential sponsors in the pipeline and that you have no better idea about how to get some than simply to (metaphorically speaking) march up and down St Kilda Rd in sandwich boards which say "Down on our luck. Please sponsor our team and save RB's bacon."

Sponsors like to associate themselves with winners or else organisations that look like they are going to become winners. Why would any potential sponsor want even to enter into talks with the current regime at the Saints until they know who is going to be running the place in 2008?

It's simply a case of a regime throwing $$$ around left, right and centre to try to survive. We see it in politics all the time. I just hope that the current Board hasn't given away the crown jewels (eg, in trade week) before the new mob take over.

[saintsRrising]

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

Err cough cough...that is they are actually paying for it????

The Age is a St Kilda sponsor...and I have observed that since they cam on board that the amount of St Kilda advertisng went up significantly.

I think that you will find that as part of the sponosrship deal that the Saints either get the ads free....or at a much reduced rate.

[saintsRrising]

It's simply a case of a regime throwing $$$ around left, right and centre to try to survive. .

Do you know that the Saints are actually paying for the ad?

How do you know that it is not a contra deal as part of the sponosorship???

Sponsors often include contra deals as part of the arrangement.




I personally deal with many media sponsors and I can assure you that they ALL always bring up supplying contra media as part of the deal.

[meher baba]

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

Err cough cough...that is they are actually paying for it????

The Age is a St Kilda sponsor...and I have observed that since they cam on board that the amount of St Kilda advertisng went up significantly.

I think that you will find that as part of the sponosrship deal that the Saints either get the ads free....or at a much reduced rate.

Good point. Well then, the club is really likely to get its money's worth from these ads.

I still think my point of it looking like a sign of desperation remains valid.

[joffaboy]

It's simply a case of a regime throwing $$$ around left, right and centre to try to survive. We see it in politics all the time. I just hope that the current Board hasn't given away the crown jewels (eg, in trade week) before the new mob take over.

That is just emotive bias rubbish mb .

The Saints have two major presentations this week to large potential sponsors. If these sponsors come on board it means they dont care about the board makeup.

AF was on radio today saying the Saints are the second mostwatch team in the comp on TV behind Collingwood. A sponsor will look at this objectively and not with the emotive bias eye you have

The only problem i see is that if the Saints land a major sponsor or two, it may impact on the Wasteway supposed sponsorships. But would that matter if the Saints already have sponsorships?

No matter what the club does, people like you and the other usual subjective posters will damn them.

Fair Dinkum, some of you need to get some perspective instead of ranting and railing about everything that doesn't fit you agenda

[Dan Warna]

whoever is running the club and coaching I hope after the fight we all come back on for 2007

[bungiton]

Thats right everyone get stuck into Barry Breen because he is not following the party line.

As for the attempting to find business partners. It has nothing to do with either board. If a partner wants to come onboard the board or its makeup wont matter. If a partner wants to find an excuse not to come on board they will.

Saints have two presentations with major companies this week and if they come on board it wont make a difference who is the board.

Please try and keep a tad of perspective instead of simply jumping to conclusions

you seem to always attack people for the very things, you seem to enjoy doing yourself. I don't see anyone really attacking Barry Breen, one poster perhaps questioned how relevant he is to the current situation at the Saints. seems tho, you can insinuate that Nathan Burke is a mindless puppet, doing interviews at Westaways bidding in an effort to keep him from having to front.

The fact that we have one ticket with sponsors already to sign up against a party that has little vision, no plans, no integrity and no support, going to the paper to advertise for anyone who might want to be part of an exciting brand.

If the SFF ticket did the advertising you'd be the first one all over them like a rash, also you have labelled everyone on the ticket or anyone that supports them as mindless, jackbooted, nazis (very pathetic in my opinion) who dump on anyone elses view.

The most abuse, name calling, vitriol or insults have come in just about every post you have made on this point. It amazes me you want everything to be level as long as we agree with you. Yours is the only view that is important after all.

[Stjohn]

That part of the Age Sponsorship was a contra deal, with free ads etc
I'm not sure how to take the ad, though. Is it a Good lateral thinking
move, seeking a wider audience or is it a sign of desperate times, I just don't know......

[GrumpyOne]

What is Barry Breen's credentials to make that judgement, besides the obvious one in kicking the most famous point of all time?

What is his business experience? What is his knowledge of the current AFL environment? How close is he connected to the current board or the challengers?

Without credentials, the opinion of an ex-player in this matter is as relevant as any of ours on this forum.

[The Peanut]

What an extraordinarily pointless waste of money. Really, the EGM can't come too soon.

Err cough cough...that is they are actually paying for it????

The Age is a St Kilda sponsor...and I have observed that since they cam on board that the amount of St Kilda advertisng went up significantly.

I think that you will find that as part of the sponosrship deal that the Saints either get the ads free....or at a much reduced rate.

You could be right sRr but it is my understanding that 'The Age' watch their sponsorship dollars very closely and I quote someone that may know a lttle more than me ". . . they want more than the chicken and the beef at the footy. . ."

[meher baba]

Fair Dinkum, some of you need to get some perspective instead of ranting and railing about everything that doesn't fit you agenda

JB, I have noted your constant attacks on posters on here who you think have an agenda, but believe me I'm not really one of them.

I have absolutely no idea whether or not the Westaway team will be better for the club: there are many signs that they are as much the product of some infighting within the existing board and between the CEO and the board which has resulted in one side calling for outside help in order to overcome the other.

I would far rather have seen a totally new team come forward.

But it really doesn't matter what i or anyone else thinks about it now. I have been around enough organisations to see that RB's hold on the club has been disintegrating for over 12 months and that the club has no chance of going forward while he remains there. And it would seem that a large number of members feel the same.

If he somehow manages to hold on to power, it would be a very bad result for the club.

As for the two potential sponsors: if these guys end up signing on the dotted line before the EGM or whatever process settles the current board dispute, I will be astonished.

[joffaboy]

The fact that we have one ticket with sponsors already to sign up against a party that has little vision, no plans, no integrity and no support, going to the paper to advertise for anyone who might want to be part of an exciting brand.

Who are these sponsors? Ther Saints are presenting to two major companies this week. If they come on board it means they dont care who is on board, they care about exposure of their product by the second most watched team on TV.

It isn't about the board it is about business.

The most abuse, name calling, vitriol or insults have come in just about every post you have made on this point. It amazes me you want everything to be level as long as we agree with you. Yours is the only view that is important after all.

My view is my view thats all. However because it doesn't tow the party line, i have been personally abused, and even threateed on the open forum and PM by bias mods who dont like the fact that I have critisised FFS.

Get some perspective about this and dont try and jump on everything the club does. The new board wont be up and about for at least two monts Do you expect the club to stop operating for that time? Do you expect the club not to persue new sponsors?

Fair Dinkum, it has nothing to do with the board or who ever that will be (and it seems like it will be Westaway and his ticket)

Cant you see that if we get a major sponsor, they will know there is a challenge on and it makes no difference to them who the board is????

It is not about them or us, it is about the good of the club, or does that not matter anymore?

[joffaboy]

Without credentials, the opinion of an ex-player in this matter is as relevant as any of ours on this forum.

Does that go for Thomson and Burke as well?

Breen has been in the AFL for years as GM of Sydney and other roles. he has more knowledge than both Thomson and Burke combined, but again he is attacked.

Is nobody off limits to the pro Westaway baying mob?

I suppose if Doc came out in support of the current board he would be attacked as well.

Danny Frawley has been attacked, now Breen, who next? All for what? Not towing the mobs party line?

have you people no shame to attack club greats because their opinion (some like Breen, from experience, of running a football club) differs from yours.

Yup great unity guys. Strength through Loyalty.

Makes a mockery of that motto, and is symptomatic of the mob mentality on here nowdays.

[bigred]

I'm really glad your not involved in the marketing department Meha....

We would all be sitting on our hands just waiting for a sponsor to come to us.

I find your above posts absolutely laughable.

[joffaboy]

I'm really glad your not involved in the marketing department Meha....

We would all be sitting on our hands just waiting for a sponsor to come to us.

I find your above posts absolutely laughable.

Not laughable, just typical of this place nowdays.

They all have the messiah fevour