Butters and his ego

[bigred]

For a small time I am going to become a B4Eva and copy and paste the same message.

I want to know from people like Spert and TTT why they think it is appropriate that:

"The Saints' $214,000 recruiting budget last year was the least of any club - little more than a quarter of the total spent by Collingwood to ensure the Pies snared the best kids from Australia, and even abroad."

what...????...you asking for a sensible answer to a reasonable question from spert and ttt.........?????....hope you are not holding your breath.....

yeah expect it to start with
One time...... at band camp....
Or this bloke i know from Norwood....
Or I was having lunch with all the world leaders yesterday....
Or me and the pope were fishing once and.....

you've got his number haven't you......????

Thats correct just more denigration of anybody who doesn't follow the party line.

Frawley
Breen
Cowboy

anybody supporter who actually asks questions of the all singing all dancing all SPENDING FFS and their merry crew.

Keep it up, when the argument dissolves into denigration and vilification of anybody with an alternate view you know the opposition has nothing to counter the claims, no reasoned debate, no rational objective analysis, just vitriol and hatred.

Is this what we have in store for our club?

Is this the promised land offered by Westaway and his ticket?

A divided club, with hate filled board acyloytes supporters shouting down any dissenting voices.

next we will be hearing that we aren't real supporters because we dont slavishly follow the new messiah to the promised land.

Can i still be a member of the Saints even though I dont fall at Westaways feet?

Am I still worthy or will the neo-stormtroopers with thie rigid orthodox totalitarian views disbarr me as not being "patriotic enough"

Really echo's of Brave New World and 1984 in the current mob mentality climate.

Very worrying for the future of the club.

Agreed.

[Shaggy]

Agree with what?

Agree that it is appropriate for our club and future that:

"The Saints' $214,000 recruiting budget last year was the least of any club - little more than a quarter of the total spent by Collingwood to ensure the Pies snared the best kids from Australia, and even abroad."

The one thing we should all agree is that our recruitment expenditure in 2006 was pathetic.

But I am worried about this year and that is why I want the current Board out.

[barks4eva]

And for you specifically:

Why do you blame GT for recruiting when the Board gave him the lowest budget in the AFL? We were not worst in the AFL for our recruitment so we did better then our budget. That is all you can ask of an employee. Don't you agree?

Let me make it real simple for you

St.Kilda had a youth policy

Thomas has a $1,000,000 million dollar debt

St.kilda look on the verge of and building to a premiership in 2003

Thomas negotiates a new contract

Thomas tries to incorporate a $500,000 bonus on top of the $500,000 he's already on, if he delivers a premiership

The board reject this, but agree to a $500,000 bonus for two premierships and seeing as though Thomas is initiating performance based aspects worthy of financial renumeration into his own contract > the board insert a clause of it's own, that Thomas can have his contract terminated at any time with no payout obligation

Thomas moves away from youth policy and decides to top up

Rendell made the decision with Thomas's approval to recruit Brooks who we gave up pick 6 and pick 31 for as if pick 6 wasn't enough already

Rendell also made the call on Ackland and Guerra while the decison to draft McGough was 100% Grant Thomas's

FWIW Raph Clarke was 100% made by Thomas also, not saying this was a bad one just letting you know

These, leaving R.Clarke aside were a shift in policy

Instead of keeping these picks to be used by Beveridge in the national draft, they were traded away or used on recycled players

8 selections including three first round, three second round and two third round selections were used on recycled players in five years under Thomas

This was an incredible blunder by the Thomas controlled football department and moving away from the youth policy has cost us much needed depth right here, right now

note we did not get anything in return for Guerra, Ackland and McGough, zero, nada, zip, naught, diddly squat, donughts, SFA

Does anyone here know for a FACT that the board were unwilling to spend the money on recruiting?

The FACT is that the Thomas controlled football department and the board were not communicating with each other

The FACT is that after the 2005 season, the board gave money to EVERY request from the Grant Thomas controlled football department, whatever Thomas wanted the board agreed to, basically giving Thomas one last roll of the dice, to do things HIS WAY

$250,000 was spent on the playing surface at Moorabbin, another $100,000 on gym facilities etc...

It would be fair to assume that the Grant Thomas controlled football department made no request for any extra recruiting monies and so were not forthcoming

Afterall Thomas seemed to undervalue rookies, did precious little to actually develop the list himself and rode on the back of the 2000,2001 and 2002 drafts believing that top ups were all that were needed to cover himself in glory


If the football department in control of recruiting are not making extra requests for extra funding and are not coomunicating with the board then you have a situation where this needs to change

The board acted on this in 2006 and made sure that this situation would not continue

So who was actually to blame for this recruiting budget > the board who the football department were not talking with or the football department who were not communicating with the board?

The board tried to involve themselves in the running of the football department but Thomas rejected any outside ideas and wanted full control himself

I repeat after 2005 season the board gave Thomas everything he asked for, obviously as we spent $214,000 in 2006 on recruiting this wasn't high on Thomas's list of priorities


CRYSTAL?




P.S The topup was probably seen along with negotiating $500,000 bonuses as a quick way of paying off the $100,000 debt

[Dan Warna]

grant thomas stole my lunch one day too

I hear he also shagged princess diana and worships beelzibub and never pays retail at clive peeters.

NEVER PAYS RETAIL

(see big letters makes it seem more true)

[joffaboy]

Oh snap B4E.

shaggy, you still there?

lol - barks is obsessed with GT and his dealings but the answer he gave you shoots your repetitive question to pieces.

You may need to find another singular question to ask now mate.

[rodgerfox]

Oh snap B4E.

shaggy, you still there?

lol - barks is obsessed with GT and his dealings but the answer he gave you shoots your repetitive question to pieces.

You may need to find another singular question to ask now mate.

If it was all true it may have shot the question to pieces.

But alas, he's fabricated most of it.

[Shaggy]

Good to see you are back B4Eva with your GT obsession.

I have no problem with GT or RL getting a $500,000 bonus for winning a premiership. Blight got a $1 million bonus for being a good negotiator. A premiership is more real.

GT worked with the lowest budget in the comp ... without him we would not have made a $1 million profit per year.

RL is not GT and is far more expensive ... he requires a much higher cost support base.

You really shouldn't belittle a bloke able to take a team to the top quarter with a bottom quarter budget. Not many can do that in any industry ... RL refuses to play the game ... and so the Board is going.

[Apu]

Thomas has a $1,000,000 million dollar debt

A total debt of 1 Billion thats greater than the GDP of some small countries.

But seriously......
I'm just wondering where you got the details of who made the decisions on those trades. Do you have some inside knowledge or are they just guesses?

[Dan Warna]

Thomas has a $1,000,000 million dollar debt

A total debt of 1 Billion thats greater than the GDP of some small countries.

But seriously......
I'm just wondering where you got the details of who made the decisions on those trades. Do you have some inside knowledge or are they just guesses?

a million million is a trillion or about the GDP of australia or the defence/security budget of the USA.

I demand 10 aircraft carriers and 1 million strong army if that kind of money is being splashed around.

I look forward to burning carltlon with our orbital laser satellites!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Shaggy]

Oh snap B4E.

shaggy, you still there?

lol - barks is obsessed with GT and his dealings but the answer he gave you shoots your repetitive question to pieces.

You may need to find another singular question to ask now mate.

To be fair I haven't read all of B4Eva's response ... I tend to turn off.

But for an accountant to think it is normal to operate in a top quartile with a bottom quartile expenditure for a sustainable period is unusual.
B4Eva doesn't understand the ramifications but you should.

[barks4eva]

But seriously......
I'm just wondering where you got the details of who made the decisions on those trades. Do you have some inside knowledge or are they just guesses?

They are not guesses!

[barks4eva]

To be fair I haven't read all of B4Eva's response ... I tend to turn off.

.

then don't engage me in debate, if you're not even going to allow yourself to be educated

[Apu]

a million million is a trillion or about the GDP of australia or the defence/security budget of the USA.

I demand 10 aircraft carriers and 1 million strong army if that kind of money is being splashed around.

I look forward to burning carltlon with our orbital laser satellites!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ha, you are absolutely right it is a Trillion. The only way GT could recoup that debt would be to create his own orbital "LASER" and hold the world to ransom for a "Million Million dollars" a-la Dr Evil in Austin Powers 2

[rodgerfox]

To be fair I haven't read all of B4Eva's response ... I tend to turn off.

.

then don't engage me in debate, if you're not even going to allow yourself to be educated

Hey B4Eva,

I don't think GT should have been sacked.

What do you think?

[Apu]

But seriously......
I'm just wondering where you got the details of who made the decisions on those trades. Do you have some inside knowledge or are they just guesses?

They are not guesses!

So the question then follows....... How do you know this?

[barks4eva]

Hey B4Eva,

I was stoned and piissed off my nut.

I don't think GT should have been sacked.

What do you think?

You should be drug tested

[vacuous space]

Thomas moves away from youth policy and decides to top up

Rendell made the decision with Thomas's approval to recruit Brooks who we gave up pick 6 and pick 31 for as if pick 6 wasn't enough already

Rendell also made the call on Ackland and Guerra while the decison to draft McGough was 100% Grant Thomas's

FWIW Raph Clarke was 100% made by Thomas also, not saying this was a bad one just letting you know

These, leaving R.Clarke aside were a shift in policy

Do we really need to go through this again? There was no shift in policy. In 2001 we recruited Black and Knobel. In 2002 we traded for Brooks and Penny. In 2003 we recruited Sam Fisher and traded for Gram and Guerra. In 2004 we traded for Fiora and drafted Ackland and McGough. In 2005 we drafted Rix and traded for Watts. Note the consistent pattern of drafting and trading for players who were almost all under the age of 23.

[Shaggy]

To be fair I haven't read all of B4Eva's response ... I tend to turn off.

.

then don't engage me in debate, if you're not even going to allow yourself to be educated

Lol.

I am pleased you are back.

I actually like to learn and read much more than I post. But I have got sick of your repetitiveness. Maybe this new cycle you will be new B4Eva and I will give you a go.

But there is nothing to debate on this topic. You are having a go at GT who worked with the lowest budget in the AFL (including his salary). Expectations that he should have produced a premiership in the circumstances are ridiculous.

To win a premiership you need to spend with risk ... not cut and create fall guys when it doesn't work.

[Shaggy]

The board tried to involve themselves in the running of the football department but Thomas rejected any outside ideas and wanted full control himself

I repeat after 2005 season the board gave Thomas everything he asked for, obviously as we spent $214,000 in 2006 on recruiting this wasn't high on Thomas's list of priorities

Ok I have read it now.

But it is naive.

Employees only ask for what is relatively within budget.

Nothing changed between 2006 and 2007 so it is not about GT. RL went public in 2007 and a couple of times mentioned the fact that he was working with a bottom quartile budget. GT never did that. I respect RL more for going public to try change the Board mindset.

It is RL's/was GT's responsibility to work with what they are given. It is the Boards responsibility to give what can be afforded.

From what I can gather the only major change the Board really wanted to insist on GT was the appointment of Kenny as GM. FFS I would knock it back to because it is obviously driven more as a Board control appointment than for actual operation improvement. As it turns out it seriously works against RB because RL appears to have rejected him as well.

[Saints43]

That was not GT’s nor Beveridge’s fault .... that was the Board.

Pathetic.

JB complained to my brother and me in about 2001 that St Kilda spent less than 1% of revenue on talent identification.

If he bothered to tell me I assume he told someone on the board.

[meher baba]

Thomas moves away from youth policy and decides to top up

Rendell made the decision with Thomas's approval to recruit Brooks who we gave up pick 6 and pick 31 for as if pick 6 wasn't enough already

Rendell also made the call on Ackland and Guerra while the decison to draft McGough was 100% Grant Thomas's

FWIW Raph Clarke was 100% made by Thomas also, not saying this was a bad one just letting you know

These, leaving R.Clarke aside were a shift in policy

Do we really need to go through this again? There was no shift in policy. In 2001 we recruited Black and Knobel. In 2002 we traded for Brooks and Penny. In 2003 we recruited Sam Fisher and traded for Gram and Guerra. In 2004 we traded for Fiora and drafted Ackland and McGough. In 2005 we drafted Rix and traded for Watts. Note the consistent pattern of drafting and trading for players who were almost all under the age of 23.

You can put this sort of information as much as you like, but it doesn't convince any of the "GT mismanaged our list brigade".

Face it, they are much happier with the wonderful new regime which traded away draft picks for a slow, unskilled, rejected midfielder from the Bulldogs and an ex-ruckman with dodgy knees and an even more dodgy past, as well as pickng up another ruckman who is close to pension age, but is best mates with Robert Walls and all the other journos because - guess what - his partner is a journo. At the same time, we sacked all the existing rookies, plus a couple of other relatively young players and also went on to sack two young, and basically untried players at the end of this season.

You can't beat that for a youth policy, can you!!

[karnaby]

<edit - & with that I understand that I might have cut a little bit of context, but you get that >

Does anyone here know for a FACT that the board were unwilling to spend the money on recruiting?
**I am prepared to accept the $214k for this last year, I think that is SFA

The FACT is that the Thomas controlled football department and the board were not communicating with each other
**This is a blight on the board at least as much as it is on Thomas

The FACT is that after the 2005 season, the board gave money to EVERY request from the Grant Thomas controlled football department, whatever Thomas wanted the board agreed to, basically giving Thomas one last roll of the dice, to do things HIS WAY
**presumably (although there were comments along the line of 'it didn't matter what we'd done last year he would have got the flick anyway'

$250,000 was spent on the playing surface at Moorabbin, another $100,000 on gym facilities etc...
**belatedly

It would be fair to assume that the Grant Thomas controlled football department made no request for any extra recruiting monies and so were not forthcoming
**probably, BUT what where were their actions to stem the flood of injuries?

Afterall Thomas seemed to undervalue rookies, did precious little to actually develop the list himself and rode on the back of the 2000,2001 and 2002 drafts believing that top ups were all that were needed to cover himself in glory
**yes. I believe that there was not enough development of players on the bottom of the list. As to trades, in hindsight it is fairly obvious that in totality, that course of action was not as successful as we all would have liked, however in reviewing each of the trades I can accept the rationale for every one although I do seriously question the wisdom of getting McGough.

If the football department in control of recruiting are not making extra requests for extra funding and are not coomunicating with the board then you have a situation where this needs to change
**yes, & that board has to also accept responsibility above & beyond sacking Thomas.

The board acted on this in 2006 and made sure that this situation would not continue
**well they did act, BUT the recruiting budget is only $214k & injuries did decimate the team AGAIN this year before they acted in appointing Ross Smith etc.

So who was actually to blame for this recruiting budget > the board who the football department were not talking with or the football department who were not communicating with the board?
**both, but ultimately it is the boards' responsibility.

The board tried to involve themselves in the running of the football department but Thomas rejected any outside ideas and wanted full control himself
**their mistake (& of all the reasons that I'm contemplating voting for SFF that is the single greatest one.)

I repeat after 2005 season the board gave Thomas everything he asked for, obviously as we spent $214,000 in 2006 on recruiting this wasn't high on Thomas's list of priorities
**they 'apparently' gave him everything he asked for but they are ultimately responsible for what occurred during his tenure.

<snip>
<edit for grammar>

[joffaboy]

Oh snap B4E.

shaggy, you still there?

lol - barks is obsessed with GT and his dealings but the answer he gave you shoots your repetitive question to pieces.

You may need to find another singular question to ask now mate.

If it was all true it may have shot the question to pieces.

But alas, he's fabricated most of it.

prove that none of it is true RogerFox by verfying your sources.

Oh thats right we just have to take you on word value.......

You have been called out and shown up by several posters on this point and every time you skulk away.

You word is worth nothing.

[Dan Warna]

Oh snap B4E.

shaggy, you still there?

lol - barks is obsessed with GT and his dealings but the answer he gave you shoots your repetitive question to pieces.

You may need to find another singular question to ask now mate.

If it was all true it may have shot the question to pieces.

But alas, he's fabricated most of it.

prove that none of it is true RogerFox by verfying your sources.

Oh thats right we just have to take you on word value.......

You have been called out and shown up by several posters on this point and every time you skulk away.

You word is worth nothing.

you could ask B4E to prove some of his claims...

[joffaboy]

you could ask B4E to prove some of his claims...

I know B4E personally and he doesn't hide like a coward behind an internet persona. Everyone who wants to can find Andrew, and BTW I have questioned Andrew on some of his allegations and he provided answers.

So personally I have received some verification to some of B4E's allegations. I have and will never receive the same form the anonomous and highly suspect RogerFox.

However they are Andrews allegations and it is up to him if he wants to reveal his sources.

hope that helps your query Dan.