New Answers fromFootyFirst/Board Challenge Updates

[JeffDunne]

JoffaBurns and JeffDunne certainly dont seem to enamored with him personally.

I said he was a prick.

Doesn't mean he wouldn't be a worthwhile addition to the board.

I'm prepared to see what he's prepared to bring.

[JeffDunne]

Can I ask, why are people so scared of change?

[SENsei]

I wonder if Nathan Burke will cop the same scathing attacks on him here as Butters suffered for talking about the potential Board challenge on Saturday?

Silly attacks if you ask me....fair enough that RB committed to stop talking about GT..and good too...



But to expect a guy who is CURRENTLY still the President of the Saints to not to talk to the media about issues to do with the Saints is rubbish......not to mention completely irrelevant from an undertaking to not talk about GT in the media.

SEN played a grab in which Roddy said the best way was 'not through the media'. He's the only one I hear.

Nathan Burke said nothing other than to confirm there is a group of unhappy people.

I don't know Greg Westaway from a bar of pope on a rope, but I do know that Roddy has run his race. Corporate speak and a lack of substance will only get you so far.

[joffaboy]

Can I ask, why are people so scared of change?

Yeah good question.

What is the alternative? I would love to see if they have something that is actually going to be beneficial for the STKFC.

Or is it change for change sake?

[rodgerfox]

Doesn't matter. Please stay OT.

This is about the faceless agitators skulking around in the background attempting to destabilise the club.

You've said that most of my points are irrelevant and/or not on topic, but then gone back to ...

"This is about the faceless agitators skulking around in the background attempting to destabilise the club."

My points were pointing out that, or asking the question, as to this is destabilising the club at all?

Based on the points I raised which you rejected as 'off topic', I don't think this exercise is a destabilising one at all. I think you've been sucked in my the media. Like many others will too.

As for Butterss and Plympton handling it beautifully, two things -

Butterss at the time made it clear that it was up to Plympton as to whether it was handled beautifully or not.
It's always up to the outgoing leader as to whether or not it's smooth.

And secondly, my point wasn't whether or not they handled it well, my point was that the media make every ripple at Board level into a drama. And people get sucked in.

Why is this a drama?


As for the faceless people skulking around - who raised the challenge? Caroline Wilson. Damien Barrett. Patrick Smith.

Who has commented on it? Rod Butterss.

Wouldn't you prefer that these people get organised first, then lay it all on the table?

This is about what's best the club. There's every chance they don't have a full ticket yet. Ther's every chance they don't have every t corssed and i dotted, and want to do things properly.

They may well be very disappointed and angry with the current admin for the same reasons I raised in another thread, and want action. They just may not know what the action is just yet.

Butterss is trying to flush them out. But unless they are ready, why should anyone be flushed out?

This isn't politics, it's about what's best for the club.

You've been sucked in by the press.

[asiu]

pope on a rope

thats not very catholic of ya

[joffaboy]

I don't know Greg Westaway from a bar of pope on a rope, but I do know that Roddy has run his race. Corporate speak and a lack of substance will only get you so far.

I think you are correct with RB.

I just dont like this agitation and undermining by stealth by a bunch of faceless people who haven't the courage to state their case to the members.

Treating us like musherooms doesn't cut it with me.

[JeffDunne]

jb, why should people work to Rod's agenda?

This is not about Rod, it's about having people prepared to put a plan in place that will take us forward whether that involves him or not.

He's the one creating headlines and questioning the club's viability.

[Stephen Theodore]

Excuse the ignorance, but has anyone from this "rival" ticket actually come forward and admitted there will be a challenge to the current board ? We dont here too much about this sort of thing up here.

[stinger]

Doesn't matter. Please stay OT.

This is about the faceless agitators skulking around in the background attempting to destabilise the club.

You've said that most of my points are irrelevant and/or not on topic, but then gone back to ...

"This is about the faceless agitators skulking around in the background attempting to destabilise the club."

My points were pointing out that, or asking the question, as to this is destabilising the club at all?

Based on the points I raised which you rejected as 'off topic', I don't think this exercise is a destabilising one at all. I think you've been sucked in my the media. Like many others will too.

As for Butterss and Plympton handling it beautifully, two things -

Butterss at the time made it clear that it was up to Plympton as to whether it was handled beautifully or not.
It's always up to the outgoing leader as to whether or not it's smooth.

And secondly, my point wasn't whether or not they handled it well, my point was that the media make every ripple at Board level into a drama. And people get sucked in.

Why is this a drama?


As for the faceless people skulking around - who raised the challenge? Caroline Wilson. Damien Barrett. Patrick Smith.

Who has commented on it? Rod Butterss.

Wouldn't you prefer that these people get organised first, then lay it all on the table?

This is about what's best the club. There's every chance they don't have a full ticket yet. Ther's every chance they don't have every t corssed and i dotted, and want to do things properly.

They may well be very disappointed and angry with the current admin for the same reasons I raised in another thread, and want action. They just may not know what the action is just yet.

Butterss is trying to flush them out. But unless they are ready, why should anyone be flushed out?

This isn't politics, it's about what's best for the club.

You've been sucked in by the press.

good post with valid arguments and comments......of course our roddy is trying to out them....and is getting his knickers in a real knot.......everyone should calm the f*** down......

[SENsei]

All the media attention is certainly pointing that way Stephen.

[SENsei]

I don't know Greg Westaway from a bar of pope on a rope, but I do know that Roddy has run his race. Corporate speak and a lack of substance will only get you so far.

I think you are correct with RB.

I just dont like this agitation and undermining by stealth by a bunch of faceless people who haven't the courage to state their case to the members.

Treating us like musherooms doesn't cut it with me.

Not sure on that 'stealth' comments. ausfatcat made a good point on the other thread. Roddy on the front foot trying to destabilise them is the most likely source of the media attention. IMO.

All will be revealed in the fullness of time, most likely.

[aussierules0k]

[joffaboy]

You've said that most of my points are irrelevant and/or not on topic, but then gone back to ...

"This is about the faceless agitators skulking around in the background attempting to destabilise the club."

My points were pointing out that, or asking the question, as to this is destabilising the club at all?

Based on the points I raised which you rejected as 'off topic', I don't think this exercise is a destabilising one at all. I think you've been sucked in my the media. Like many others will too.

Doesn't matter what you think or not RF. Not the point.

Who are the faceless agitators who wont come clean?

As for Butterss and Plympton handling it beautifully, two things -

Butterss at the time made it clear that it was up to Plympton as to whether it was handled beautifully or not.
It's always up to the outgoing leader as to whether or not it's smooth.

And secondly, my point wasn't whether or not they handled it well, my point was that the media make every ripple at Board level into a drama. And people get sucked in.

Again you go off on tangents. You asked a simple question - Why is every challeng e distablising? Or words to that effect. I gave you an answer, I dont need an explanation.

As for the faceless people skulking around - who raised the challenge? Caroline Wilson. Damien Barrett. Patrick Smith.

Are they on the ticket? Who was their sources?

Who has commented on it? Rod Butterss.

In the absence of any actual person or group at least the incumbant had the courage and courtesy to address the members.

When will the faceless group of agitators give the same courtesy to the voting members? Today, this week, next month? WHEN?

Wouldn't you prefer that these people get organised first, then lay it all on the table?

Dont care. Not my fight. As A member I want to know who is whiteanting and agitating behind the scences.

So far we have had a wary and nervous Nathan Burke with some blithe comment on "concerns". And he wont even commit to a challenge.

This is about what's best the club. There's every chance they don't have a full ticket yet. Ther's every chance they don't have every t corssed and i dotted, and want to do things properly.

lol - best for the club. It is about ego and power. Who are you kidding. Both "tickets" have egos the size of the Taj Mahal. Nobody wants to be president of a footy club without a huge ego.

Anyway as a nobody how would you know what the state of the ticket is?

They may well be very disappointed and angry with the current admin for the same reasons I raised in another thread, and want action. They just may not know what the action is just yet.

Again irrelevant supposition. However I find it very amusing that your opinion is that they want change, but dont know, what or why

Butterss is trying to flush them out. But unless they are ready, why should anyone be flushed out?

Mabye he wants whats best for the club - oops sorry thats your line isn't it.

At least he has the courtesy to address the members and not skulk around in the backround whiteanting the club like the faceless "new ticket" is doing.

Jesus, I had more respect for Bedwell. At least he put his name to his concerns.

This isn't politics, it's about what's best for the club.

lol- Yup it is whats best for the club. And what is that RF. You jst told me the faceless few cant get a full ticket together and they dont know what the change is for.

To have a confused bunch of faceless people with no idea of a direction is what is best for the club?

Nice defence of the ethereal "concerned few " though Roger.

You've been sucked in by the press.

Oh nice ending Roger, but totally irrelevant. I certainly haven't been sucked in by the statements coming from the alternative ticket because, so far - there hasn't been any

[saintsRrising]

Can I ask, why are people so scared of change?

Change is good and should be embraced....that is long as it is change for the better.

The trick of course is to have positive change.

[JeffDunne]

I thought Rod's strategy was pretty obvious last week.

The names we know are out there because Rod's putting them out there.

Simple and the usual tactics when a self interested president is under pressure :

- out any challengers before they are ready & get them on the back foot
- try and link viability to your incumbency
- rush as many 'good news' stories as possible and make sure you're the one delivering the news
- question the integrity and motivation of potential challengers
- talk up the cost of a challenge
- delay the AGM as long as possible


The true cost of Rod hanging onto his position and his dream of a seat on the AFL commission will be the deals he does in an attempt to solidify his position.

[joffaboy]

The true cost of Rod hanging onto his position and his dream of a seat on the AFL commission will be the deals he does in an attempt to solidify his position.

Now JD, that is an interesting point. Hadn't really thought of that but it would make sense.

[rodgerfox]

I thought Rod's strategy was pretty obvious last week.

The names we know are out there because Rod's putting them out there.

Simple and the usual tactics when a self interested president is under pressure :

- out any challengers before they are ready & get them on the back foot
- try and link viability to your incumbency
- rush as many 'good news' stories as possible and make sure you're the one delivering the news
- question the integrity and motivation of potential challengers
- talk up the cost of a challenge
- delay the AGM as long as possible


The true cost of Rod hanging onto his position and his dream of a seat on the AFL commission will be the deals he does in an attempt to solidify his position.

You left out one point -

- rely on people getting sucked in by the press.

[maverick]

I thought Rod's strategy was pretty obvious last week.

The names we know are out there because Rod's putting them out there.

Simple and the usual tactics when a self interested president is under pressure :

- out any challengers before they are ready & get them on the back foot
- try and link viability to your incumbency
- rush as many 'good news' stories as possible and make sure you're the one delivering the news
- question the integrity and motivation of potential challengers
- talk up the cost of a challenge
- delay the AGM as long as possible


The true cost of Rod hanging onto his position and his dream of a seat on the AFL commission will be the deals he does in an attempt to solidify his position.

Light goes on, of course the AFL Commission.
All adds up now, no fighting the AFL, getting rid of GT...
I personally didn't like Butterss comment in today's HS regarding the everyone agreeing that the Lyon change was a good one. I fully support RL NOW, but I certainly didn't support a change when he presided over it.
To watch second rate sides like the Hawks, North, Port & the crows in spots where we should be is simply gut wrenching. For me we gave the season away in September last year, and I hold Butterss accountable.

[Eastern]

Can I ask, why are people so scared of change?

It's Human Nature to fear change

The same can be said for fear of the unknown. Both fall into this topic !!

[To the top]

This appears to hang on the "Why did we get rid of Thomas" argument.

One question though.

Didn't Burke tender his resignation as an Assistant Coach during the time of Thomas?

So, where does he stand with Thomas?

Thomas was sacked as coach by the Board, and for very valid reasons.

And, given the amount of unilateral control of the footy club (and its players) that he sought, his departure was always going to be messy.

And it has been.

If Thomas wants to coach, and control as he did, then he should look at a SANFL Club because most of those clubs do not have the resource to put professional support around the playing staff. Even then, most of them have a person responsible for the management side of playing football - and then they have a coach.

Look at the support which has been put around Lyon - and the quality of that support, notwithstanding that improvement is required in some areas such as player conditioning where recources are not only personnel related but facility related.

The issue with the re-location from Linton Street is a political issue with a local Council - and relates to poker machines at the site - as WB now have with their proposed site.

The club has a requirement including a need for revenue from its poker machines - the Council has a stated position of too many poker machines within its boundaries.

So, should the club just roll over or should it seek to maximise on its revenue generating assets?

I think the latter.

So the game is being played - and brinksmanship is a feature of such games.

Fact of life.

In terms of the profit/s announced, the revenue streams are vital because, despite what we hear of an economic boom, revenues are under pressure accross the wider community - and sponsorships need a lot of work and a little bit of luck.

But St Kilda is no different to any other club.

IF there is to be a challenge, you would hope it is coming from professional people, with serious contacts in corporate Australia and with serious credentials accross business management.

And the future well-being of St Kilda FC as the cornerstone.

We do not look for publicity seekers who have an agenda of using St Kilda FC and their association to promote their personal endeavours, and egos.

Strong, stable administration is a pre-requisite for strong performances on the field - and being in a position to challenge the premiership consistently.

Whether Butters and his Board (or components of it) are the optimum depends on who the alternate are - and why they are the alternate.

Any group which is aligned to Thomas, or which courts Thomas returning to the club should not be entertained.

All they will be doing is deferring the situation we have now, courtesy of Thomas, until Thomas's unilateral control agenda runs its course, again.

The St Kilda FC require a liquid Balance Sheet, sustainable cash flow, profitable trading and maximum exposure with the result being a) the maintenance of the playing list as required by the Football Department and b) that list being produced in the most professional manner week in and week out.

a) and b) expand to the micro issues.

In terms of Creditors who previously were satisfied under a Scheme of Arrangement, that is the fact of the matter.

That period in St Kilda's history is exactly that, history.

And the only thing history does is act as a teacher.

[rodgerfox]

This appears to hang on the "Why did we get rid of Thomas" argument.

Why?

[SENsei]

Got nothing to do with Thomas. He was a symptom, not the overall reason for discontent.

Burke & Thomas do not get on, so Burke will not be involved to further any cause for Grantley.

[Solar]

This appears to hang on the "Why did we get rid of Thomas" argument.

One question though.

Didn't Burke tender his resignation as an Assistant Coach during the time of Thomas?

So, where does he stand with Thomas?

Thomas was sacked as coach by the Board, and for very valid reasons.

And, given the amount of unilateral control of the footy club (and its players) that he sought, his departure was always going to be messy.

And it has been.

If Thomas wants to coach, and control as he did, then he should look at a SANFL Club because most of those clubs do not have the resource to put professional support around the playing staff. Even then, most of them have a person responsible for the management side of playing football - and then they have a coach.

Look at the support which has been put around Lyon - and the quality of that support, notwithstanding that improvement is required in some areas such as player conditioning where recources are not only personnel related but facility related.

The issue with the re-location from Linton Street is a political issue with a local Council - and relates to poker machines at the site - as WB now have with their proposed site.

The club has a requirement including a need for revenue from its poker machines - the Council has a stated position of too many poker machines within its boundaries.

So, should the club just roll over or should it seek to maximise on its revenue generating assets?

I think the latter.

So the game is being played - and brinksmanship is a feature of such games.

Fact of life.

In terms of the profit/s announced, the revenue streams are vital because, despite what we hear of an economic boom, revenues are under pressure accross the wider community - and sponsorships need a lot of work and a little bit of luck.

But St Kilda is no different to any other club.

IF there is to be a challenge, you would hope it is coming from professional people, with serious contacts in corporate Australia and with serious credentials accross business management.

And the future well-being of St Kilda FC as the cornerstone.

We do not look for publicity seekers who have an agenda of using St Kilda FC and their association to promote their personal endeavours, and egos.

Strong, stable administration is a pre-requisite for strong performances on the field - and being in a position to challenge the premiership consistently.

Whether Butters and his Board (or components of it) are the optimum depends on who the alternate are - and why they are the alternate.

Any group which is aligned to Thomas, or which courts Thomas returning to the club should not be entertained.

All they will be doing is deferring the situation we have now, courtesy of Thomas, until Thomas's unilateral control agenda runs its course, again.

The St Kilda FC require a liquid Balance Sheet, sustainable cash flow, profitable trading and maximum exposure with the result being a) the maintenance of the playing list as required by the Football Department and b) that list being produced in the most professional manner week in and week out.

a) and b) expand to the micro issues.

In terms of Creditors who previously were satisfied under a Scheme of Arrangement, that is the fact of the matter.

That period in St Kilda's history is exactly that, history.

And the only thing history does is act as a teacher.

Did I miss something or has this got nothing to do with the actual topic?? I would assume that thomas is not involved, would not be very smart to include a personal who is suing the club on a opposition ticket for the board.

I think it's more around how much and what is being spent on the football department and how our club facilities are at present. Lets be honest, the board buggered up big time over the moorabin re-development.

Listening to burke this morning I could not help but wonder why everyone is screaming for this other ticket to show their hand straight away. Why would they, the elections are at the end of the year unless a extraordinary GM is called. From where I stand the only de-stabilizing of the club is coming from the current board, especially one in rod. Why not just get on with the hard work that is needed right now by the board and stop picking fights with shadows.

[mischa]

The names we know are out there because Rod's putting them out there.

The true cost of Rod hanging onto his position and his dream of a seat on the AFL commission will be the deals he does in an attempt to solidify his position.

Yep. Me thinks our Rod and Andy D. are very close

SEN played a grab in which Roddy said the best way was 'not through the media'. He's the only one I hear

Ain't that the truth. Been that way all year!