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

[barks4eva]

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?

.

Whichever works best for you

More details if you have them please

It would be best left to the judge

[LENNY LEADS THE WAY]

FAIR DINKUM

[To the top]

Can I tell you that, when Westpac took over Bank of Melbourne and started sacking staff, those staff were offered "Flexible Termination Agreements' wherein they were offered increased redundancy benefits in exchange for "agreeing" that they had left the employ of Westpac by their own decision.

The rider in the Flexible Termination Agrement was that, if the employee ever stated other than that they left of their own decision, the premium in the redundancy benefit would be foregone, and refunded to the bank.

This is normal business practice.

Employees were confronted with the Agreement, then the front door.

There was no recourse to (any) successful legal challenge because the Agreement had been signed, and the covenants contained in the Agreement accordingly accepted by the Employee.

That said, nothing is ever certain before a Court of Law.

By making an offer to settle the matter (and those representing Thomas rejecting it), St Kilda has positioned itself such that if a lesser settlement is adjudicated Thomas is liable for legal costs.


It is my personal view that the tenure of any AFL Coach is demonstrably precarious, and Thomas was in no different position to the number of Coaches that preceded him - and Coaches who have succeeded him.

The very nature of employment in that industry (Coaching an AFL Football team) should predicate a level of care by the employee, because of established precedent.

Simply, Thomas signed the document.

Obviously Thomas is receiving legal advice, as has the Club.

It is noted that Thomas was once quoted in the media that, if St Kilda FC Ltd. could procure a more emminent and suitable coaching candidate (by whose judgement?), Thomas would gladly "walk" (but under what Terms and Conditions?) in the best interests of the Club (again by whose judgement?).

Interesting.

The decision will be reserved, and we will await the handing down of that decision with interest.

It is also of interest that the Board which dismissed Thomas is (as I understand it) not the Board which made the rejected offer of settlement - and the Board which has now proceeded the matter to the jurisdiction the matter is now before.

Mind you, St Kilda FC Ltd. is the defendant entity in this matter.

[bob__71]

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.

didnt have to read it but i agree

BE QUIET!!!!

[saintspremiers]

Makes sense To The Top.

At the end of the day, I think we all want St Kilda FC to win this case, as surely the club is bigger than any player, president or coach.

How you respond to that all you GT worshippers???

[asiu]

GT worshippers

nice opening gambit



butterrs boys need to move on

[mbogo]

The relative truth will be directly proportional to the relative merits and skills of the lawyers on either side - as it always is in legal cases.
Glad it is not elimination-final week!

[iwantmeseats]

Am I the only one that couldnt give a flying f*** AT ALL!!! B4E , especially, is completely f****** obsessed and excels in the case of making himself look like the biggest ******* that ever graced the earth.

GET OVER IT FOR GODS SAKE !!!!


The court will decide and that will be IT!

You all should be MUCH more concerned with getting to the dome and supporting the team friday night. Rememberr? Thats right, this club is about winning GAMES OF FRICKIN FOOTBALL FFS!!!

Admins are in place to handle this bulls***, and when that fails, the COURTS.


Fair dinkum ***** TOOLS!

[LENNY LEADS THE WAY]

Am I the only one that couldnt give a flying f*** AT ALL!!! B4E , especially, is completely f****** obsessed and excels in the case of making himself look like the biggest fucktard that ever graced the earth.

GET OVER IT FOR GODS SAKE !!!!


The court will decide and that will be IT!

You all should be MUCH more concerned with getting to the dome and supporting the team friday night. Rememberr? Thats right, this club is about winning GAMES OF FRICKIN FOOTBALL FFS!!!

Admins are in place to handle this bulls***, and when that fails, the COURTS.


Fair dinkum f****** TOOLS!

Now thats the way to bring up post number 1000

[ausfatcat]

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.

comeon barks let it out, been waiting for you report

[vacuous space]

Surely the judge can't properly deliberate until he's seen the ruck stats from the Geelong game. How could Thomas let Blake ruck when he had a genuine ruckman getting named in the best for the twos every week? If you ask me, the case should be thrown out and GT should be charged with contempt of ruck.

[jill]

Am happy to let the court decide- was a huge GT fan until Brooks played really well agst Bris yet we took no real rucks into final!
Can't believe this man (GT) negotiated players contracts/was a a leading business man yet got "conned" by the club! However am past caring , just want us as a cl;ub to move on!!!!
BUT HOPE WE WIN

[happy feet]

I don't know if GT is in the right or the club is in the wrong. As has been noted the court will decide.

However, I think that Rod Butterrs may have made a mistake by lending GT a substantial amount of money. It blurs the distinctions between employee, employer and chairman of the board. All in all in out the club in a potentially difficult situation.

I hope that all concerned come out of it ok as we should not wish any ill will towards these people.

[Eastern]

Surely the judge can't properly deliberate until he's seen the ruck stats from the Geelong game. How could Thomas let Blake ruck when he had a genuine ruckman getting named in the best for the twos every week? If you ask me, the case should be thrown out and GT should be charged with contempt of ruck.

I'm guessing that these were handed to the Judge (In the next courtroom) at the start of proceedings.

Further observation has revealed that barks4eva did NOT get locked up for contempt of court today, but this case has another 2 days to run !!

[Teflon]

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.

Mark you make far to much sense for this joint.

The usual flogs are out salivating that Grant was "conspired" against and had little if anything to do with his own demise...apparently it was all Rod Butters fault...fancy Rod Butters asking for repayment of a $1m loan also...the hide...

Now after hearing ONE side of the argument...its "amazing" to Dodg...."Incredible" to Jeffery and all a little to much for everyone else whose sick and tired of a man who had 5 yrs with a squad largely in its prime and didnt deliver FACT - and worse still IMHO failed to develop players or a game plan that could cope with the change in football (Ross Lyon is yet to do all this too - but hes 1.5 yrs in so we'll give him at least a chance for that). 5 yrs to for man who is clearly living above hi means, borrowing money he cant afford to pay back and now (even AFTER A NEW BOARD offered to settle the dispute) attempts to drag the club he "bleeds for" through a media circus once again for some cash and the hope of prolonging his use in the media. Sad, pathetic, egotistical moron. AT LEAST Butters hasnt resorted to becoming a media whore to make a buck - and why? cause he CAN at least point to being a succesful, self made business man. Something Grant "the parasite" Thomas can never claim.

There's certainly the usual "pulling" in this thread Mark.....but it aint triggers.....

[Teflon]

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.

You seriously cant be well.....

[Winmarvellous]

I'm not even gonna bother reading the first four pages of this thread. If St Kilda owe Thomas, it will come out in court. If not, f*ck him of for good. Simple. If the club is guilty in the court of, so be it.

[Scoop]

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?

.

Whichever works best for you .

Not that I wish to be pedantic, although some that know me may call me the king of pedantia....but being a civil case, I think you'll find that the correct terminology in this matter is:

Plaintiff = Thomas
Defendant = StKFC

[JeffDunne]

Mark you make far to much sense for this joint.

So why are you still here?

Nobody's begging you to stay. Quite the opposite in fact.

[rodgerfox]

Remember when Elliott called us a rabble and declared Brittain wouldn't come and coach a club like us?

Remember when Mark Williams nearly choked on his own vomit when asked about the rumour he was going to coach us?


The outcome of this court case is very, very important.

[rodgerfox]

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.

No one tires of the countless threads hijacked by the 'GT is a monster' posse more than me, but surely you guys must expect that in a thread titled "Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda" and where the OP has a link to an article specifically about the court case - that there is going to a free for all of 'let's kill GT' and 'let's kill Butterss'.

Even I can't begrudge the topic being done yet again in a thread like this. At least, we can pray, it will stay in this thread and serial hijackers like SrR, Teflon and Boppa can vent all they like without destroying other good threads.

[rodgerfox]

...fancy Rod Butters asking for repayment of a $1m loan also...the hide...

Followed by....

Now after hearing ONE side of the argument...

Well played Nuflon.

[Dan Warna]

my irish wife made chicken curry for dinner last night.

and it was fare well above the norm

a good dinner was had by all, but she said baby's poo this morning stank like anything.

[osama milne laden]

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

so it's a criminal case, is it?

i wonder if gt will get thrown in with carl down at barwon if he loses

[stinger]

the previous board were great employers.........................not.


"Unsaintly revelations in tussle over $100,000

Sarah-jane Collins | May 15, 2008

TWO days before St Kilda was to play the Demons in an elimination final in 2006, Saint's CEO Archie Fraser barged into a coach's meeting waving a piece of paper.

"I was a bit concerned about the timing of it and said 'Can't it wait, Archie'," former St Kilda coach Grant Thomas told a Melbourne court yesterday. "He said he had promised the board he would have it signed today."

The paper, which Thomas signed, essentially waived his rights to any claims for outstanding annual, sick and public holiday leave.

That weekend St Kilda lost. And the following Tuesday, September 12, Thomas was summoned to a meeting at St Kilda president Rod Butterss' home. When he arrived he was informed by Butterss, Fraser and Mark Kellett, then director of football, that his services were no longer needed.

Now Thomas is suing the club for $100,000 that he says he is owed in a hush-up severance payment and roughly $90,000, plus interest, in outstanding leave entitlements.

"(Butterss) said it was to ensure I conducted myself in the proper manner," Thomas said.

On the morning he was sacked, a hand-written agreement was reached between Thomas and the club. St Kilda paid him $270,000 — six months worth of his salary — in lieu of notice and offered another $100,000 payable on April 1, 2007, if Thomas complied with a deed yet to be drawn up that was basically a gag.

The parties fronted the media that afternoon. Thomas' coaching career with St Kilda was over, but the legal tussle was just beginning.

The alleged non-payment of the $100,000 as well as the continued refusal by the club to pay out leave because it says Thomas is not owed any has brought them to the Victorian County Court.

Matthew Stirling, for Thomas, said that when his client signed the document waiving his right to leave entitlements he had no idea that the club was planning to sack him if St Kilda lost the elimination final that weekend.

"The reason why they were pushing for Thomas to sign the document was they knew he wouldn't sign such a document after he was sacked," he told Judge Katherine Bourke.

The rift, Thomas' counsel said yesterday, began with a $15,000 fine, issued by the AFL in 2005 over comments Thomas had made about umpires. It flared again later that year when Thomas shifted from a personal coaching contract onto a commercial contract — under which St Kilda contracted out coaching of the team to Thomas' company, GDT Solutions.

Under the new agreement, Thomas lost his leave entitlements — because it was not a contract with a person — so, Mr Stirling said, he asked to have his leave entitlements from his past three contracts paid out to him.

But Butterss was "livid" at the suggestion and word got back to Thomas that the board was not happy. He said Thomas had been told by the club's chief financial officer, James Van Beek, that the board would not pay him a discretionary bonus of $25,000 that year if he continued pressing for the leave payment.

Leslie Glick, QC, for St Kilda, said Thomas had met Fraser for brunch following a board meeting in mid-June 2006. He said Fraser had told Thomas that he needed to repair his relationship with the media, board, AFL and umpires.

He said Fraser would tell the court he believed Thomas was claiming the leave payment because he was angry about the club's refusal to pay the AFL fine.

Mr Glick said St Kilda had tried to reach an agreement with Thomas over the terms of the $100,000 payment, but it was unsuccessful.

The hearing continues.