Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda

[saintsRrising]

to justify a completely incompetent administration. I don't care what they did prior to '06, in '06 & '07 they were embarrassing.

You are spinning now.
1/ they were obviously not completely incompetent

2/ I have not posted that they were perfect...and indeed have at times dscussed some of their failings.

I certainly posted before the old Board resigned that they should go and let FF come in.


For example on RB I have posted that it was scandalous that he "gave" GT the job after faciltating a sham of a selection process, which GT and RB have both fressed up since.

I am not 100% for RB...nor am I 100% what GT did either.

Both did well early...and both deserved to go...and both stayed too long.

[rodgerfox]

Rodger,
Surely not even you fail to understand that the 'reports from a Court of Law' are purely and simply the opening statement/remarks of GT's Barrister and are proof of absolutely nothing.
I am sure that when teh Club's Barrister gets to have his turn we will have statements from him that contradict what this gentleman has asserted. Will you be quoting them as 'reports from a Court of Law' in your positive post about the Club's defense against GT's claim?

And why would you you assume I'll be writing positive posts about the club's defense?

I haven't written anything positive about Thomas' claims, so why the suggestion I should write something positive about the club's defense?

[Mr Magic]

Rodger,
Surely not even you fail to understand that the 'reports from a Court of Law' are purely and simply the opening statement/remarks of GT's Barrister and are proof of absolutely nothing.
I am sure that when teh Club's Barrister gets to have his turn we will have statements from him that contradict what this gentleman has asserted. Will you be quoting them as 'reports from a Court of Law' in your positive post about the Club's defense against GT's claim?

Of course.

That's why I said they were 'reports from a Court of Law'.

I didn't state them as facts like others - such as SrR does.

Well some of your posts give the impression that you are stating those 'comments' as facts and then using them to bolster your own arguments.
e.g. the post the ends with 'does anybody still believe the reasons we were given for the sacking?' - I apologise if I haven't recalled the quote exactly, I don't know how to insert the quote from another post into this post.

[rodgerfox]

e.g. the post the ends with 'does anybody still believe the reasons we were given for the sacking?' - I apologise if I haven't recalled the quote exactly, I don't know how to insert the quote from another post into this post.

Well does anyone still believe the reasons?

I'd like to know those that still do, then ask them again after this case is heard.

[Mr Magic]

e.g. the post the ends with 'does anybody still believe the reasons we were given for the sacking?' - I apologise if I haven't recalled the quote exactly, I don't know how to insert the quote from another post into this post.

Well does anyone still believe the reasons?

I'd like to know those that still do, then ask them again after this case is heard.

I do atr this stage - I've got no reason to disbelieve them yet.
Please feel free to ask away at the end.
\

[rodgerfox]

I do atr this stage - I've got no reason to disbelieve them yet.
Please feel free to ask away at the end.

Which reasons though?

The 'gen y' one?

The 'take the next step' one?

[saintsRrising]

Where did I call you a liar?

Rodge..the below is what you said

Are you lying again?

Which is the way you try and "dance' around name calling and forum rules.

If you ask someone...are you a NAME (insert your preference from Liar to F******) ?....... it is essentially the same as calling then a NAME.

[Mr Magic]

Well does anyone still believe the reasons?

I'd like to know those that still do, then ask them again after this case is heard.

I do atr this stage - I've got no reason to disbelieve them yet.
Please feel free to ask away at the end.
\

Which reasons though?

The one that they 'felt he had run his course and we needed a new coach in charge'.

[rodgerfox]

Where did I call you a liar?

Rodge..the below is what you said

Are you lying again?

Which is the way you try and "dance' around name calling and forum rules.

If you ask someone...are you a NAME (insert your preference from Liar to F******) ?....... it is essentially the same as calling then a NAME.

I'm not trying to dance around anything.

You once again, posted something as fact, that isn't fact. It wasn't true.

I was giving you the benefit that you perhaps simply were confused. Which is why I asked you if you were lying.

You post so much that is wrong, that I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

If I thought you were lying, I'd tell you. I tell people they're liars when they lie. Ask Teflon, he's a a known liar that I have no hesitation in saying.

If that's against forum rules, then stiff shiit. If you keep lying, I'll tell you too.


You might think name calling is a bad thing. I think lying is a bad thing.

[saintsRrising]

Some may have forgotten...but 2 Board Members that were party to the decision to sack GT are still on the Board.

RB is not acting in this case.



The FF Board representing the Club are.

This case is not GTvs RB.

This Case is GT vs The Current Board.

It is the FF Board that are disputing the moneys that GT is seeking. They obviously do not believe that GT should get all the money that he is claiming , otherwise they would have settled for the full amount.


Which way will the court go??? Who knows.

But obviouslky the current Board believes that it should not pay the full amount.

[saintsRrising]

You once again, posted something as fact, that isn't fact. It wasn't true.

Please post EXACTLY what was not true Rodge?

You might think name calling is a bad thing. I think lying is a bad thing.

So do I Rodge which is why take offence at your regularly labelling of me as a liar....when you also offer no proof.

[barks4eva]

Mr Stirling is the barrister acting for GT is he not?... Might be an idea to wait till both sides are presented, or even till a decision is handed down before we pull the trigger.

The early report is just that, a preliminary report relating to the motion's put forward by Grant Thomas's legal counsel, but let not that little point, get in the way of the flaggetating flogs on here.



Things most certainly got very interesting later in the day, when the prosecution got in amongst it, very, very interesting indeed.

[supersaints]

If Gt accepted the "Hush money" then thats exactly what he should do - "Hush"

[JeffDunne]

If Gt accepted the "Hush money" then thats exactly what he should do - "Hush"

What's he been saying?

[Mr Magic]

[quote="barks4eva"][quote="markp"]

Things most certainly got very interesting later in the day, when the prosecution got in amongst it, very, very interesting indeed.[/quote]
I think you mean teh Defense Barrister Barks, as I believe that GT is the prosecuting side in this argument and the Club is teh defending side?

More details if you have them please.

[asiu]

Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.

i'm just glad the coach was getting all the support he needed leading into a finals campaign



go archie

[Mr Magic]

Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.

i'm just glad the coach was getting all the support he needed leading into a finals campaign



go archie

a bit premature gazrat (little g!)
So far it is only 'alleged' to have happened - it's not a fact yet.

[JeffDunne]

I'm sure the document was dated MM.

[Ghost Like]

If Gt accepted the "Hush money" then thats exactly what he should do - "Hush"

What's he been saying?

It's the 'vibe'.

[The Fireman]

Would have been nice if all of this had been settled a little more quietly..anyway I have a solution to the problem, we do a whip around which could be co ordinated by a member..for example B4E...pay him out..we move on.

[Ghost Like]

I still find it amazing that people still continue to focus just on GT.

Could the management of the club have acted any less professionally?

Thank christ most St Kilda members aren't as deluded as some of the people I'm sure we'll see in this thread.

GT may have been incompetent, he may have been greedy, but FFS can we at least for once lay some responsibility at the feet of the people that allowed this situation to develop?

Exactly JD and those people will be the key players in this case. I'm looking forward to hearing some of the 'evidence' or opinions that should come from GT, RB and representatives from the club.

We need this case aired to move on, that's supporters and the club. Let this be the end of a truly polarising era of the St Kilda and the beginning of hopefully a new successful era that is transparent. Which I believe was the key problem with the previous regime. It seemed there were too many agendas but certainly a great soap opera script.

[joffaboy]

What I find amazing is how the same crew with the same agenda that was peddled all last year until Butterss fell on his sword have drawn their conclusions on half a court case

Some complain about the previous administration.

Well it is Thomas who is trying to take another 250k of members money for the club he bleeds red white and black for not the previous administration.

At least wait until all the arguments are heard before going off half cocked

Fair Dinkum Thomas was paid over 2 million dollars to not even get us to a Grand Final.

An abject failure in anyones books, but still wants more money

Lets see what the court decides.

I am so glad this clown is gone from the club. I am so glad Butterss is also gone. Too bad some of their supporters dont follow them out the door.

[Dis Believer]

BORING

here we go again with the same old faces going round and round in ever decreasing circles arguing semantics over what one or the other did or didn't say or imply over what party did or sadi what to whom and when.

GET OVER IT. When are you people going to realise that the legal outcome will be whatever it will be.

All parties have already lied. All parties will lie again in court. The outcome will be the courts best possible judgement based on points of law and the subjective evidence of two combative parties.

It won't mean one is right or wrong, it will simply be an outcome under the law, and won't necessarily even serve justice as the truth lies somewhere in between.

Honestly, are some of you EVER going to move on !!! FFS.

[joffaboy]

BORING

here we go again with the same old faces going round and round in ever decreasing circles arguing semantics over what one or the other did or didn't say or imply over what party did or sadi what to whom and when.

GET OVER IT. When are you people going to realise that the legal outcome will be whatever it will be.

All parties have already lied. All parties will lie again in court. The outcome will be the courts best possible judgement based on points of law and the subjective evidence of two combative parties.

It won't mean one is right or wrong, it will simply be an outcome under the law, and won't necessarily even serve justice as the truth lies somewhere in between.

Honestly, are some of you EVER going to move on !!! FFS.

Well said TB.

Some really cant let go.

[stinger]

As much as I hate GT....I dont think he would go to this length if he wasn't technically in the right by law. Ive got a feeling that the club is in the wrong this time


Other than that;
$525,000 per year.....what a f****** joke.

Tend to agree. If true, paints the club in a very poor light on the way it treats it's employees.

the lawyer is right...statutory entitlements cannot be signed away.........