Footy first board members gutless?

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 8:52am

Or just treating members with contempt

not one of them was at the club or available yesterday when I rang to try and find out the reason for not proceeding with cousins

you would think that after such a decision somebody would there to answer members queries

footy first my butt

Saints94 · Post: # 678389Post **Saints94** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 8:53am

They have not done anything except made a bad decision but lets

not go there

Raven · Post: # 678393Post **Raven** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:02am

What do you expect? Do you seriously think members of the board are going to answer calls from the public on the matter? Think about it for a second.

saint66au · Post: # 678394Post **saint66au** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:02am

So..you honestly expect a board member, many of whom have jobs not pertaining to St Kilda, to sit there manning a phone just to take calls from nuffy (no offfence menat but theres been a few of em on here of late) members who will scream blue murder at them until they back down, admit they were wrong, and draft Cousins on Saturday regardless

Wipe the blind rage out of your eyes, log onto SaintsCentral and find your way to the "Ask Archie" Forum if you are so keen on your own personalised response

FAIR DINKUM

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:05am

saint66au wrote:So..you honestly expect a board member, many of whom have jobs not pertaining to St Kilda, to sit there manning a phone just to take calls from nuffy (no offfence menat but theres been a few of em on here of late) members who will scream blue murder at them until they back down, admit they were wrong, and draft Cousins on Saturday regardless

Wipe the blind rage out of your eyes, log onto SaintsCentral and find your way to the "Ask Archie" Forum if you are so keen on your own personalised response

FAIR DINKUM

after such a decision yes i do

bring on the agm

Go Sainters Go · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:17am

Congratulations Greg Westerway and your Board for making the correct decision regarding Cousins.

I would also have grave doubts about Cousins' honesty and whether shaving his head and waxing the body was in fact an action to deceive and hide guilt.

The fact that Cousins is still mixing with the wrong types is also concerning. How could Cousins really be trusted - no way.

Well done and please continue to have your CEO make statements on behalf of the Board in accordance with normal conventions.

saint66au · Post: # 678405Post **saint66au** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:22am

Such a decision???

Well it would be a pretty one-sided argument anyway, seeing as the Board are in posession of all the facts and you are in posession of none...unless of course you did your own 5 months of investigations and interviews

WayneJudson42 · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:24am

If supporters want to throw out the board because they decided to not draft a recovering addict, who still has some dark clouds hanging over him... then we are truly farked as a club and might as well give it away now, or relocate.

I can understand Essendon's retaliation when they sacked Sheedy, because he was an icon and delivered 4 flags. But Cosuins?

Sheeesh. Get a life people.

If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.

No1_Saint · Post: # 678409Post **No1_Saint** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:25am

I don't see any issue with the clubs actions.

He did not provide enough assurance that there will be no dramas surrounding him while he is at the club. And we of all clubs do not need any more drama surrounding our players.

Regarding the CEO being the public face of the club...I think that is standard practise. I think if you want a more personalised response, or some sort of a hotline to the President, Board, CEO, the boot studder...then become a major sponsor of the club.

skeptic · Post: # 678411Post **skeptic** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:28am

I don't see how u can call the board gutless

they've stuck to their guns on several issues despite serious fan apprehension/negative response.

rodgerfox · Post: # 678415Post **rodgerfox** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:30am

WayneJudson42 wrote:
If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.

Why?

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:35am

saint66au wrote:Such a decision???

Well it would be a pretty one-sided argument(?whos arguing?) anyway, seeing as the Board are in posession of all the facts and you are in posession of none...unless of course you did your own 5 months of investigations and interviews

thats what i rang for to try and find out

der

WayneJudson42 · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:38am

rodgerfox wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:
If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.
Why?

Because they are in the Elite of the competition, and CAN win you a flag of their own boot.

Therefore, supporters would be justified in burning down the club IMO... and I'd be the one holding the matches.

Make sense? Or are you just being your typical "@rsehole" self today?

Go Sainters Go · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:39am

sainteronline wrote:
saint66au wrote:Such a decision???

Well it would be a pretty one-sided argument(?whos arguing?) anyway, seeing as the Board are in posession of all the facts and you are in posession of none...unless of course you did your own 5 months of investigations and interviews
thats what i rang for to try and find out

der

Go back to school, you've got a lot more learning to do.

SENsei · Post: # 678427Post **SENsei** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:39am

WayneJudson42 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:
If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.
Why?
Because they are in the Elite of the competition, and CAN win you a flag of their own boot.

Therefore, supporters would be justified in burning down the club IMO... and I'd be the one holding the matches.

Make sense? Or are you just being your typical "@rsehole" self today?

And also they would have plenty of football years in front of them, whereas Cousins would have a limited time post 30 years of age.

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:40am

WayneJudson42 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:
If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.
Why?
Because they are in the Elite of the competition, and CAN win you a flag of their own boot.

Therefore, supporters would be justified in burning down the club IMO... and I'd be the one holding the matches.

Make sense? Or are you just being your typical "@rsehole" self today?

so can cousins

Devilhead · Post: # 678429Post **Devilhead** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:41am

rodgerfox wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:
If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.
Why?

Answering with another question Rodger .... again!!!!!

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:42am

Go Sainters Go wrote:
sainteronline wrote:
saint66au wrote:Such a decision???

Well it would be a pretty one-sided argument(?whos arguing?) anyway, seeing as the Board are in posession of all the facts and you are in posession of none...unless of course you did your own 5 months of investigations and interviews
thats what i rang for to try and find out

der
Go back to school, you've got a lot more learning to do.

what crap is that?

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:43am

SENsaintsational wrote: And also they would have plenty of football years in front of them, whereas Cousins would have a limited time post 30 years of age.

hopefully only need him for 1

WayneJudson42 · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:44am

sainteronline wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:
If it was Judd or Franklin, then fair enough.
Why?
Because they are in the Elite of the competition, and CAN win you a flag of their own boot.

Therefore, supporters would be justified in burning down the club IMO... and I'd be the one holding the matches.

Make sense? Or are you just being your typical "@rsehole" self today?
so can cousins

Maybe yes, maybe no. Don't have an issue with that. But if you can honestly say that he's still in the same league as the other two in terms of ability and maturity... without rolling over laughing your head off... then I'll concede.

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:45am

WayneJudson42 wrote:

Maybe yes, maybe no. Don't have an issue with that. But if you can honestly say that he's still in the same league as the other two in terms of ability and maturity... without rolling over laughing your head off... then I'll concede.

give him a chance might just surprise you

JeffDunne · Post: # 678436Post **JeffDunne** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:46am

I really don't understand the vitriol directed at the board.

While I don't like how we have handled this (whatever happened to the good-old "no comment" and show your hand at the draft?), it is nonsense to suggest the board were gutless to make the call. IMO the opposition decision may very well have been the gutless call to make after going so far down the path.

I think the other thing people should keep in mind, if it was an esy decision for the board then there'd probably be a dozen clubs lining up for his services and nobody would give a continental where St Kilda stood on the issue given our draft position.

sainteronline · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:52am

JeffDunne wrote:I really don't understand the vitriol directed at the board.

While I don't like how we have handled this (whatever happened to the good-old "no comment" and show your hand at the draft?), it is nonsense to suggest the board were gutless to make the call. IMO the opposition decision may very well have been the gutless call to make after going so far down the path.

I think the other thing people should keep in mind, if it was an esy decision for the board then there'd probably be a dozen clubs lining up for his services and nobody would give a continental where St Kilda stood on the issue given our draft position.

i'm not talking about the decision

i'm talking about not having a board member to answer members questions as to why

as a member i feel i have a right to answers

WayneJudson42 · Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:53am

sainteronline wrote:
WayneJudson42 wrote:

Maybe yes, maybe no. Don't have an issue with that. But if you can honestly say that he's still in the same league as the other two in terms of ability and maturity... without rolling over laughing your head off... then I'll concede.
give him a chance might just surprise you

Dude, I suspect the decision didn't have much to do with his footy ability from what I'm seeing.

Given a chance, he may well screw it all up and leave us 1 mid short.

Recruiting BC isn't only about him taking the spot of a young recruit. It's about planning your entire season around him and the role he'll play. If he fails, then it's see ya later.

Just look at what it cost us with Gtrain not working out.

You cannot on the one hand want to win the flag, yet base your plan on a loose cannon, or someone who has the potential to be one.

The easy option would be to recruit him IMO. Which to me is no better than what we did in 05.

And please, let's not go through the whole list management debate.. or what about KIng blah blah blah.

Moccha · Post: # 678440Post **Moccha** » Thu 27 Nov 2008 9:54am

sainteronline wrote:Or just treating members with contempt

not one of them was at the club or available yesterday when I rang to try and find out the reason for not proceeding with cousins

you would think that after such a decision somebody would there to answer members queries

footy first my butt

best to make an appointment to go and see them.

don't waste your time on this forum asking questions

Footy first board members gutless?

Footy first board members gutless?

Re: Footy first board members gutless?