on the couch

[fingers]

Sorry Barks - I am not sure what you are asking me specifically?

You questioned Ross Lyon's integrity!


FOR STARTERS

*Keeping in mind the frosty relationship between board and coach

*A board who at the first contract signing with Lyon chose to insert GET OUT CLAUSES that the initial contract signed by the previous board did not contain

*An offer in April from coach obviously seeking long term security to board 2.6 million for four years GET OUT CLAUSE removed is refused

*Pelchen then appointed not long after and given authority over Lyon

*Six months after initial offer from Lyon board offer two year extension WITH CONDITIONS = GET OUT CLAUSES

*When the board see the prospect of Lyon leaving they then up the offer to the four years without conditions he initially sought six months earlier

OK SO NOW WE GET TO THE POINT YOU RAISED ABOUT LYON'S INTEGRITY

Lyon sends a text message the next day at 2.30 pm indicating that he accepts the new offer of four years unconditional

Then somewhere between 2.30 and 5.00pm Fremantle make a HUGE counter offer that is simply too good to refuse

More coin, more years, more authority, more trust

and Lyon then uses the GET OUT CLAUSE that THIS board insisted on that states either party can end the agreement at ANYTIME!

ANYTIME means ANYTIME

Yes he initially agreed to accept the offer it would seem

but when a better offer came he used the GET OUT CLAUSE that THIS board had insisted on and inserted to begin with


WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Would you stay or accept a new more lucrative offer given similar circumstances?

And legally you have every right to break the agreement because your employer had previously insisted on a condition whereby the agreement can be ended at anytime!

Answered above.

[bozza1980]

All the peripherial blathering about the club not signing him before or after April, or Roos maybe knowing half the story, or you knowing nothing is just froth and bubble.

This.

Ross Lyon agreed to terms with the St Kilda Football Club full stop. This agreement was reached despite us not offering him a contract in April, despite Chris Pelchen's appointment, despite Paul Roos' untenable situation.

This is all misdirection and it has been done extremely well by Lyon.

At the end of the day he is 100% right, he excersised a clause in his contract and legally he had every right to do so.

But our board is at fault, and the word of a man, who agrees to coach one club one afternoon and is presented as the coach of another the next, is to be treated as gospel?

[fingers]

All the peripherial blathering about the club not signing him before or after April, or Roos maybe knowing half the story, or you knowing nothing is just froth and bubble.

This.

Ross Lyon agreed to terms with the St Kilda Football Club full stop. This agreement was reached despite us not offering him a contract in April, despite Chris Pelchen's appointment, despite Paul Roos' untenable situation.

This is all misdirection and it has been done extremely well by Lyon.

At the end of the day he is 100% right, he excersised a clause in his contract and legally he had every right to do so.

But our board is at fault, and the word of a man, who agrees to coach one club one afternoon and is presented as the coach of another the next, is to be treated as gospel?

This. Only better than I could say it

[samoht]

I'm of the school (of thought) ,, that If someone wants to abandon the ship and is clearly not a team player .. you should give them a push too, to help them on their way.

Off you go Mr RL - farewell and here let me help you on your way ! (metaphorically speaking).

[GrumpyOne]

There you go Mr Lyon..... hope the door doesnt...... oh well, never mind. A bit of Deep Heat on that spot will help.

[markp]

Yes it got messy, and he seemingly behaved poorly (though he was likely p!ssed off at the club)... but a text of 'yes' is not the same as a handshake even, certainly not legally or morally binding.

And as I've said, it should never have got to that point as he should've been given the deal he sought 6 months earlier... if we didn't want to risk causing a rift or being gazumped at the last.

So people really think he is the devil because he texted 'yes' and was then somehow compelled to accept a much more lucrative offer... that this absolves the club from blame, and that it didn't stuff up at all by letting things become so dragged out and fractured?

Ok.

[barks4eva]

Yes it got messy, and he seemingly behaved poorly (though he was likely p!ssed off at the club)... but a text of 'yes' is not the same as a handshake even, certainly not legally or morally binding.

And as I've said, it should never have got to that point as he should've been given the deal he sought 6 months earlier... if we didn't want to risk causing a rift or being gazumped at the last.

So people really think he is the devil because he texted 'yes' and was then somehow compelled to accept a much more lucrative offer... that this absolves the club from blame, and that it didn't stuff up at all by letting things become so dragged out and fractured?

Ok.

THIS!

[samoht]

We were stupid enough to have a yes = no clause in his contract.

[desertsaint]

he's gone.
had nothing left to give.
got close. bad luck.
not quite good enough, hopefully our new coach will do better.
pity he didn't F*** off last year so we could've got scott, who did to geelong what lyon should've done years ago - tweaked the gameplan slightly, injected some youth, but didn't start from scratch when he had the makings of a premiership team.

[joffaboy]

Yes it got messy, and he seemingly behaved poorly (though he was likely p!ssed off at the club)... but a text of 'yes' is not the same as a handshake even, certainly not legally or morally binding.

Think you will find that legally under contract law offer and acceptance can be legally binding. But who would want him after he showed he patently didn't want to be there?

And as I've said, it should never have got to that point as he should've been given the deal he sought 6 months earlier... if we didn't want to risk causing a rift or being gazumped at the last.

Maybe. Still doesn't detract from the fact that the guy lacks integrity, obviously had a dutch auction behind everyones back, including his representation, decieved everyone with his acceptance of the offer and then went for the ca$h. Which he is pe


Legally he did what he could do. However to me it shows a lack of integrity to knife Harvey, and decieve the board and his representation with his acceptance of the offer.

So people really think he is the devil because he texted 'yes' and was then somehow compelled to accept a much more lucrative offer... that this absolves the club from blame, and that it didn't stuff up at all by letting things become so dragged out and fractured?

Ok.

No

[markp]

This text was to his manager?

Yes, not a good look at all... but a text to a manager is not comparable to even a handshake with the other party, let alone a signature.

All of this is irrelevant, he'll have to wear the messy handling of the final days, but he did not break the law... we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process. He is not the devil, we are not without serious shortcomings in this (if we truly wanted to keep him).

[SaintPav]

.. we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process.

How would you know that unless you know every intricate detail of what happened? You and barks4ever are just speculating about what transpired pure and simple.

[3rd generation saint]

Gee, wouldn't it have been interesting if we had won the first final and he agreed to our deal the following week before the second week of the finals.
But, truth be told, let's just say if we had signed him to a 4 year deal unconditional and next year things start going south, which they are going eventually going to do.
You can bet your huse that the same people who are blaming the board for losing him, would be blaming the board for signing to a 4 year unconditional contract when we could have got a new coach to inject some new life into the playing group.

[Mr Magic]

This text was to his manager?

Yes, not a good look at all... but a text to a manager is not comparable to even a handshake with the other party, let alone a signature.

All of this is irrelevant, he'll have to wear the messy handling of the final days, but he did not break the law... we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process. He is not the devil, we are not without serious shortcomings in this (if we truly wanted to keep him).

Yes, but this thread is about Roos making a 'statement' on a tv show saying that Lyon's position was untenable, and IMO, that is complete and utter bs.

Is he saying that despite the position being 'untenabale', Lyon was prepared to accept a 4 year deal with St Kilda?

Because that is exactly what he was preparing to do (if he didn't actually already do it by text message).
And if so, how could the position be 'untenable'?

I've not bothered looking up exact translations for the word, but I would think that the connotation is that the position was impossible' for him to accept.
That clearly doesn't seem to be the case here.
Therefore the use of the term 'untenable' would seem to be 100% inaccurate.

And, aain IMO, what we are seeing here is the rewriting of history by Lyon adn his mates to try adn paint his 'actions' in this as something 'better' than what they appear to be to most people on the outside.

AFAIk, Lyon never walked away from the Club stating he couldn't work with anybody there.
In fact, he apparently accepted a new 4 year contract, negotiated by his management acting under his instructions.
Surely if he had an 'untenable' position with either the Club or individuals he would not be able to even negotiate let alone come to an agreement with them?
Just because some 'mates' are trotting out this line, doesn't actually make it true and correct.
If it is, then Lyon is a 'true saint'. Imagine being in an 'untenable' position and still being able to commit yourself for the next 4 years to those making it 'impossible' for you?


Nothing more than 'red herrings' here.
And many seem to be taking the bait, hook line and sinker.

Not everybody is a 'nice' guy.
Not everybody is a 'quality' person.
Some people have different priorities, loyalties, morals, ethics.
Sometimes s*** still happens despite good intentions from all involved.

And btw, I'll miss hm as our coach.
I much prefer winning ugly than losing pretty.
Under him we became a tough, uncompromising team to play against.
And we won many more games than we lost.

But an opportunity has arisen for a new coach to step in and exceed what Ross has done for us.

[joffaboy]

This text was to his manager?

Yes, not a good look at all... but a text to a manager is not comparable to even a handshake with the other party, let alone a signature.

from the article by Russell Holmseby, it was stated that Nettlefold was at a cafe with Kelly when the text was received. Regardless of whom received it, it was offer and acceptance.

Under contract law if you can prove offer and acceptance by whichever means you have a case.

But as i said that is trifling and irrelevant. It is a FACT that he accepted the offer and then reneged.

It wasn't against the law, but it shows Lyon is not a man of his word and doesn't have personal integrity in my, and many other peoples opinion.

All of this is irrelevant, he'll have to wear the messy handling of the final days, but he did not break the law... we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process. He is not the devil, we are not without serious shortcomings in this (if we truly wanted to keep him).

Nobody said he was the devil, nobody said the Admin were squeaky clean. Only the hysterical want to be so black and white about a subject.

Maybe if I post in Capslock and HUGE font and bold, over and over and over, my opinion will become a delusional fact in my mind.

[markp]

.. we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process.

How would you know that unless you know every intricate detail of what happened? You and barks4ever are just speculating about what transpired pure and simple.

We know he made the offer in April?

Between then and now we lost him.

It got messy in the end, I said 'likely' because who really knows... but to me all events and reports indicate a falling out and a 'f**k you' attitude in end... from both parties really, as they didn't seem too upset he was going.

But yep, we're all speculating aren't we?... that's 90% of what goes on here, and I think I'm looking for a theory to suit the facts, while others are trying to make the facts suit their theory. I don't love or hate anyone involved in or because of this, I hope freo choke on the deal, have a board spill and have to pay Lyon out.... but I'm not going to pretend this is not likely by fair measure a f**k up on our behalf, and IMO a costly one.

[saintbrat]

There you go Mr Lyon..... hope the door doesnt...... oh well, never mind. A bit of Deep Heat on that spot will help.

did you see the vison of how much deep heat was being rubbed into Jolly last week- no wodner he couldn't walk afterwards.

[markp]

This text was to his manager?

Yes, not a good look at all... but a text to a manager is not comparable to even a handshake with the other party, let alone a signature.

from the article by Russell Holmseby, it was stated that Nettlefold was at a cafe with Kelly when the text was received. Regardless of whom received it, it was offer and acceptance.

Under contract law if you can prove offer and acceptance by whichever means you have a case.

But as i said that is trifling and irrelevant. It is a FACT that he accepted the offer and then reneged.

It wasn't against the law, but it shows Lyon is not a man of his word and doesn't have personal integrity in my, and many other peoples opinion.

All of this is irrelevant, he'll have to wear the messy handling of the final days, but he did not break the law... we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process. He is not the devil, we are not without serious shortcomings in this (if we truly wanted to keep him).

Nobody said he was the devil, nobody said the Admin were squeaky clean. Only the hysterical want to be so black and white about a subject.

Maybe if I post in Capslock and HUGE font and bold, over and over and over, my opinion will become a delusional fact in my mind.

Ok, so we're going from 'someone said' to it's a FACT?

If it's a fact and in any way a legally binding one, we should sue.

And as far as integrity goes everyone is entitled to their views, I think it indicates he possibly had reason to feel justified in flipping the bird... and I'd like to hear what you think about the integrity of Mick Malthouse, and how you'd respond if he became our coach?!

[markp]

This text was to his manager?

Yes, not a good look at all... but a text to a manager is not comparable to even a handshake with the other party, let alone a signature.

All of this is irrelevant, he'll have to wear the messy handling of the final days, but he did not break the law... we missed our chance 6 months ago, and we likely fractured the relationship in the process. He is not the devil, we are not without serious shortcomings in this (if we truly wanted to keep him).

Yes, but this thread is about Roos making a 'statement' on a tv show saying that Lyon's position was untenable, and IMO, that is complete and utter bs.

Is he saying that despite the position being 'untenabale', Lyon was prepared to accept a 4 year deal with St Kilda?

Because that is exactly what he was preparing to do (if he didn't actually already do it by text message).
And if so, how could the position be 'untenable'?

I've not bothered looking up exact translations for the word, but I would think that the connotation is that the position was impossible' for him to accept.
That clearly doesn't seem to be the case here.
Therefore the use of the term 'untenable' would seem to be 100% inaccurate.

And, aain IMO, what we are seeing here is the rewriting of history by Lyon adn his mates to try adn paint his 'actions' in this as something 'better' than what they appear to be to most people on the outside.

AFAIk, Lyon never walked away from the Club stating he couldn't work with anybody there.
In fact, he apparently accepted a new 4 year contract, negotiated by his management acting under his instructions.
Surely if he had an 'untenable' position with either the Club or individuals he would not be able to even negotiate let alone come to an agreement with them?
Just because some 'mates' are trotting out this line, doesn't actually make it true and correct.
If it is, then Lyon is a 'true saint'. Imagine being in an 'untenable' position and still being able to commit yourself for the next 4 years to those making it 'impossible' for you?


Nothing more than 'red herrings' here.
And many seem to be taking the bait, hook line and sinker.

Not everybody is a 'nice' guy.
Not everybody is a 'quality' person.
Some people have different priorities, loyalties, morals, ethics.
Sometimes s*** still happens despite good intentions from all involved.

And btw, I'll miss hm as our coach.
I much prefer winning ugly than losing pretty.
Under him we became a tough, uncompromising team to play against.
And we won many more games than we lost.

But an opportunity has arisen for a new coach to step in and exceed what Ross has done for us.

Dunno MM, didn't see the interview.

Roos may be speaking crap, although he strikes me as a fairly straight shooter... and it may be what he saw as untenable, RL saw as just slightly less so?

I know a few people with toxic bosses and work relationships, who would probably dance a jig if their boss was hit by lightening!... and yet they don't just walk out either... everyone has to eat.

[MCG-Unit]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

Yep off course these $ figures are media speculation - often reported on forums as fact. Similar to Ball's final year salary - the figure people keep coming up with gets posted as fact - When his final year would have been heavily back-ended.

[saintbrat]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

Yep off course these $ figures are media speculation - often reported on forums as fact. Similar to Ball's final year salary - the figure people keep coming up with gets posted as fact - When his final year would have been heavily back-ended.

Ball's Pies contract was defintely front ended- much reported and even that he is /was supposedly happy to play for base wage next year... to help their TPP.

[Mr Magic]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

Yep off course these $ figures are media speculation - often reported on forums as fact. Similar to Ball's final year salary - the figure people keep coming up with gets posted as fact - When his final year would have been heavily back-ended.

Of course his final year salary of 600+k was the result of a backended deal. Nobosy ever denied that afaik?

But it also brings into perspective the Saints offer of 1 million over 3 years.
Not as many ahve portrayed it as a huge 'slap' to Ball to force him to drop his salary by nearly 50%, but a trueer reflection of what his capabilities were seen as by the Club at that point in time.

I still maintain that just like Lyon, Ball left becasue of a far superior deal from a rival Club. (and no, I don't believe he's playing for basic pay next season as has been reported)
And just like Lyon it wasn't 'cobbled together' in 72 hours but negotiated well beforehand.

But it's only my opinion.

[MCG-Unit]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

Yep off course these $ figures are media speculation - often reported on forums as fact. Similar to Ball's final year salary - the figure people keep coming up with gets posted as fact - When his final year would have been heavily back-ended.

Ball's Pies contract was defintely front ended- much reported and even that he is /was supposedly happy to play for base wage next year... to help their TPP.

Shivers, talking about his final year at the Saints - not years 1 & 2 at Coll..........

Edit: Don't know about base payments, but I'll bet it will be less than years 1 & 2

[plugger66]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

Yep off course these $ figures are media speculation - often reported on forums as fact. Similar to Ball's final year salary - the figure people keep coming up with gets posted as fact - When his final year would have been heavily back-ended.

Of course his final year salary of 600+k was the result of a backended deal. Nobosy ever denied that afaik?

But it also brings into perspective the Saints offer of 1 million over 3 years.
Not as many ahve portrayed it as a huge 'slap' to Ball to force him to drop his salary by nearly 50%, but a trueer reflection of what his capabilities were seen as by the Club at that point in time.

I still maintain that just like Lyon, Ball left becasue of a far superior deal from a rival Club. (and no, I don't believe he's playing for basic pay next season as has been reported)
And just like Lyon it wasn't 'cobbled together' in 72 hours but negotiated well beforehand.

But it's only my opinion.

He left for mainly one reason and that was because he thought his time was up at the saints. Lets face it when you hardly play in the second half of a GF when you had a good first half then the writing is on the wall. The money would not have hurt but the difference in money was no where near the main reason for leaving.

And I think you will find RL was going to stay at the club for sure until about 4 days before he left so 72 hours seems about right to me.

[MCG-Unit]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

Yep off course these $ figures are media speculation - often reported on forums as fact. Similar to Ball's final year salary - the figure people keep coming up with gets posted as fact - When his final year would have been heavily back-ended.

Of course his final year salary of 600+k was the result of a backended deal. Nobody ever denied that afaik?

But it also brings into perspective the Saints offer of 1 million over 3 years.
Not as many have portrayed it as a huge 'slap' to Ball to force him to drop his salary by nearly 50%, but a truer reflection of what his capabilities were seen as by the Club at that point in time.

I still maintain that just like Lyon, Ball left becasue of a far superior deal from a rival Club. (and no, I don't believe he's playing for basic pay next season as has been reported)
And just like Lyon it wasn't 'cobbled together' in 72 hours but negotiated well beforehand.

But it's only my opinion.

Agree with your 2nd paragraph. Still there are posters on here who time and time again post that $ figure as Ball's regular annual salary - and use that to say that he was majorly overpaid.

I won't guess as to how long the Ball deal was being negotiated, I don't know.
Regarding year 3 of his contract, I'm not sure what he will play for - but I bet it's less than years 1 & 2.

I will never believe his defection was only about money - I maintain it was also about opportunity/game time and being a regular part of the senior 22. Just my opinion....