Andrew Plympton on SEN

[stinger]

IMO GT cost us a flag. Do I hate him for this? No. Am I unhappy about this = yes.

I.

don't want to get into a row with you sr over this....we all choose sides a long time ago......and the buttarse v grant fiasco turned this forum on it's head.......but it wasn't grant who cost us a premiership...it was mainly bad luck with injuries...oh...and that little turd with the bad rug who has turned his game around playing for the hawks.......

[stinger]

I love it that you know he was allowed to get as many rookies as he wanted ot that he had complete contol over the medical staff. I wish I could come across paper work that says that is all fact or again like a lot of things on here, if mentioned enough it becomes fact. Even with the depth I would say it was great back in 2005. How would any side in this day and age win that final against Adelaide if we had no depth. Like most things on here fiction becomes fact after a while. The one this you are consistant about is letting fiction become fact.

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

[saintsRrising]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

[plugger66]

secondly please supply information as to when the club offerred Drain to the club. Please accept the fact that he had little or no money to work with compared to now or do evn think that is a false statement.

Ok Plugger...your wish is my command.

1/
http://about.theage.com.au/view_award.asp?intid=99

August 2005

These events followed a dispute the previous summer over the appointment of a football manager who, ultimately, was never appointed. The administration had decided to hire former Essendon football manager Matthew Drain but changed its plans in the face of opposition from Thomas and instead added responsibilities to assistant coach Matt Rendell.



and on money...

2/

Thomas negotiated a new three-year contract, opted to take the team to South Africa for a training camp in November at a cost of $250,000 and appointed former Fremantle fitness coach Adam Larcom - a hiring not fully endorsed by the board first.

So Plugger..note that is GT hiring the conditioning staff.....lucky Gt was an expert in such things eh? I mean he was wasn't he????


3/ "He (Thomas) might want to go to South Africa, and I'm thinking, 'Hang on, that's going to cost us $250,000 and we've still got debts of $2 million.' That, for instance, was a contentious issue we struggled with," Butterss conceded.


Now lets see...$250,000 on a great tavel experience....or maybe $250,000 may have been better spent on say more physios for the year???



So Plugger do you now accpt that:

* GT knocked back Drain
* That GT was the guy making the calls on the player condtioning department )traing services)
* That there were sums of money available for player conditioning...or at least there could have been...



Personally I much prefer our more recent approach where we had Ross Smith (a well respected sport scientist..as well as Club Legend) making the calls on who was hired for our player conditioning.

Sorry I didnt realise Stephen O'reilly worked for the Saints. Please tell me his role and what position he had at the club otherwise if we are to believe everything he says here, thats fine but never doubt anything written by other reporters.

[stinger]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

we had one or two mate...i can go back through the records if you like....what i meant was we didn't have the money to sign our full quota.......don't take my word for it...ask burkie...he will tell you the same thing.......

[saintsRrising]

Sorry I didnt realise Stephen O'reilly worked for the Saints. Please tell me his role and what position he had at the club otherwise if we are to believe everything he says here, thats fine but never doubt anything written by other reporters.

I will take that as you will not admit that you were wrong then.

Keep your head in the sand then.

[Mr Magic]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

we had one or two mate...i can go back through the records if you like....what i meant was we didn't have the money to sign our full quota.......don't take my word for it...ask burkie...he will tell you the same thing.......

Not meaning to inflame this debate any more, but didn't we run out of money for more rookies because of salary cap limitations?
I seem to recall we had to utilize the 'veterans list' because we were right up to our salary limit. And I think if you used your veterans list it took available money away from your rookie list?

[saintsRrising]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

we had one or two mate...i can go back through the records if you like....what i meant was we didn't have the money to sign our full quota.......don't take my word for it...ask burkie...he will tell you the same thing.......

So you agree that we had money for rookies then...and that we did have rookies under GT.

If so we are in agreement.

No need to look..I am fully awre that we had rookies each year. Point is that they were not developed properly.

I have not said that we took on the maximum possible number of rookies.

Mind your $250,000 for SA could have paid for some more?

Priorities and what is seen as importnat?

GT also did not flich on money when it came to his own salary...which were psoted on this forum last year. Fora rookie coach with no track record as an assistant AFL coach he was paif above the odds IMO.

$100K less per year would have paid the salaries of another 2 -3 rookies per year perhaps??

Or one rookie and another physio......I guess it depends on what you see as important.

[saintsRrising]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

we had one or two mate...i can go back through the records if you like....what i meant was we didn't have the money to sign our full quota.......don't take my word for it...ask burkie...he will tell you the same thing.......

Not meaning to inflame this debate any more, but didn't we run out of money for more rookies because of salary cap limitations?
I seem to recall we had to utilize the 'veterans list' because we were right up to our salary limit. And I think if you used your veterans list it took available money away from your rookie list?

We maxed out on the salary cap and had to play with less senior players than we could and should have.

[saintsRrising]

Sorry I didnt realise Stephen O'reilly worked for the Saints. Please tell me his role and what position he had at the club otherwise if we are to believe everything he says here, thats fine but never doubt anything written by other reporters.

either.


Just becauuse someone works/workd for the Saints does not mean you can believe them .

Case in point is GT and RB who both lied to us the members on how GT got the job.

[asiu]

Mind your $250,000 for SA could have paid for some more?

Priorities and what is seen as importnat?

thats true ,

half a million invested in 'keeping the younguns together'...like , @ st kilda



it worked , and works


money well spent i reckon

[To the top]

Stinger and Plugger, time to grow up and move on boys!

Perhaps, Stinger, you should learn how to read because then, and only then, you may actually learn something.

And, on Thomas, he should have been sacked immediately after the Round 10 game in 2004.

He absolutely burnt a (basically) very young and talented list, and the damage done then haunted us for years.

Further, just so you guys have some inkling of the real world, the Board were Thomas's employers and the Board sacked him (too late and particularly as the financial fall out from sacking Blight, correctly given his dis-interested performance, had to be worn and Thomas was given the job because he did not cost much as an AFL untried "coach", so he was on probation).

Thomas was sacked - and his subsequent carry on just confirmed why he was THE problem at St Kilda.

On Andrew Plympton, a diligent, articulate and most well met President who set up the progression to Butters.

It was Plympton who identified the dangers of the debt St Kilda had and Butters continued and completed the programme set by Plympton and the Board.

I know that for a fact because during Plympton's time I spoke to him at most matches including some very pleasant evenings inter-state - and, obviously, heard him speak at every (home) President's lunch.

Andrew's views hold currency, and still hold currency, because he was a loyal and dedicated President who "settled" the club upon assuming that position - and on that I will say no more out of respect.

[saintsRrising]

. Hindsight is a great thing but I would be pretty sure back in 2005 and 2006 injuires were mentioned as a reason for losing more than GT coaching. .

Well with respect to me...you would be wrong..as I was essentially posting the same things back then...and before GT was given the heave ho...

And with injuries..I have never denied that they wee not a significant factor...BUT what I have argued is that our injury rate was excessive....and with proper management we should have been at or near the AFL average.

..and I have been a solid Lyon supporter throughout...when few others were backing him.

So you can agree with me or not on my posts.........but my opinions have been consistent in the past..and present.

[Shaggy]

. Hindsight is a great thing but I would be pretty sure back in 2005 and 2006 injuires were mentioned as a reason for losing more than GT coaching. .

Well with respect to me...you would be wrong..as I was essentially posting the same things back then...and before GT was given the heave ho...

And with injuries..I have never denied that they wee not a significant factor...BUT what I have argued is that our injury rate was excessive....and with proper management we should have been at or near the AFL average.

..and I have been a solid Lyon supporter throughout...when few others were backing him.

So you can agree with me or not on my posts.........but my opinions have been consistent in the past..and present.

Lol. Thats not quite right. You went quiet with the losses .. but you are definitely back again .

[The OtherThommo]

"We maxed out on the salary cap and had to play with less senior players than we could and should have."

Persacilly, SRS. Thomas loaded up with overpaid hacks, and took no interest in Rookies. Yep, we got done on exceeding the cap, with rubbish footballers like Knobel, McGough et al on the list.

And now? It's a be in it, to win it, culture.

Watch them play - for each other, it is fair freakin' dinkum wonderful to see. We have been waiting so long for this - now we have it.

Like I have suggested elsewhere, it's us and Geelong. Get prepared.
_________________

[Shaggy]

"We maxed out on the salary cap and had to play with less senior players than we could and should have."

Persacilly, SRS. Thomas loaded up with overpaid hacks, and took no interest in Rookies. Yep, we got done on exceeding the cap, with rubbish footballers like Knobel, McGough et al on the list.

And now? It's a be in it, to win it, culture.

Watch them play - for each other, it is fair freakin' dinkum wonderful to see. We have been waiting so long for this - now we have it.

Like I have suggested elsewhere, it's us and Geelong. Get prepared.
_________________

It is us vs Geelong. You may have missed it but that was the buzz back in 2004. I doubt the rookies for either side make the difference but happy you think so .

[The OtherThommo]

If you do not appreciate the role the rookies play, you know zip.

Name the players off the rookie list for both sides.......

[Shaggy]

If you do not appreciate the role the rookies play, you know zip.

Name the players off the rookie list for both sides.......

Actually its King, Gardner and Ray who reallly have made a huge difference. But call me ignorant

[The OtherThommo]

O.K. you're ignorant....happy? Answer the question. Name their rookies and ours.

I'll go even further - the WCE and Sydney played off back to back. Name the rookies who played in both grand finals for them.

If you can't get the specifics, have a stab at the number ....

[Shaggy]

O.K. you're ignorant....happy? Answer the question. Name their rookies and ours.

I'll go even further - the WCE and Sydney played off back to back. Name the rookies who played in both grand finals for them.

If you can't get the specifics, have a stab at the number ....

Actually I don't care. Its irrelevant.

We are a 23 year plus team which makes a huge difference (with one or two exceptions who are most likely to be replaced later by 23+ players ).

I suspect RL thinks the same way as me even if you do not .

[skeptic]

SRS, if only you could spin a cricket ball the way you can spin a post

[plugger66]

for once i must agree with you plugger......i have spoken to grant on this very issue.......he was clearly told that there was no money for rookies.......so that wasn't his fault......a fact well known and well publicised but denied by some on this forum who have their own agenda

Odd that we actually had rookies when Grant was coach then.

Did they play for free?

we had one or two mate...i can go back through the records if you like....what i meant was we didn't have the money to sign our full quota.......don't take my word for it...ask burkie...he will tell you the same thing.......

Not meaning to inflame this debate any more, but didn't we run out of money for more rookies because of salary cap limitations?
I seem to recall we had to utilize the 'veterans list' because we were right up to our salary limit. And I think if you used your veterans list it took available money away from your rookie list?

We maxed out on the salary cap and had to play with less senior players than we could and should have.

But you know that hd nothing to do with the rookie as you know that isnt under the salary cap but I suppose you just forgot to mention that. Lets face it we had less money to work with. Funny that you didnt comment on part of the post I did saying we were bottom couple in footy spending under GT but under RL we are much higher. I know not near the top but much higher and that includes the salary cap which you say we maxed out on. Proves how little money GT was given to work with.

[saintsRrising]

But you know that hd nothing to do with the rookie as you know that isnt under the salary cap but I suppose you just forgot to mention that. Lets face it we had less money to work with. Funny that you didnt comment on part of the post I did saying we were bottom couple in footy spending under GT but under RL we are much higher. I know not near the top but much higher and that includes the salary cap which you say we maxed out on. Proves how little money GT was given to work with.

You are slow on the uptake Plugger..

What it meant was that we had to play short of SENIOR list players.

Salary cap is a FIXED maximum..and GT spent it......so it was only GT's BUNGLING denied us the abilty to have more senior list players in his reign.

So you can prattle on about us having less money than some clubs all you like...FACT is that in Salary cap we maxed out.

[saintsRrising]

Funny that you didnt comment on part of the post I did saying we were bottom couple in footy spending under GT but under RL we are much higher. .

I commented.

I have never denied that the Club was not amongst the highest spenders..

However this has nothing to do with my opinion that a better coach would have done a better job than the inexperienced yet highly paid Thomas.

* Salary cap was a fixed maximum..that GT fully spent on too few senior players and so we had to play short.

* GT overpaid himself...part of this money would have been better spent on other football department or conditioning staff

* GT alienated people including our VFL affilate with the result that our ability to develop younger players and rookies was impaired



So yes GT had X amount of money...he did not use it wisely....

Then add to that that GT was tatically poor...a poor developer of players....and the total result us an underperforming Head coach wannabbee "demi-god" control freak.


His supposed "strength" of player contracts was actually a disaster area with two long term contacts that backfired poorly...and as already discussed a maxed out salray cap where too much money was goven to too few so that we had to play short.


Which leaves GT beinga good match day motivator...on occasion...but not over 4 quarters except for the streak.


And lastly his choice of movies sucked too...for the end of the world movie was prophetic.

[saintsRrising]

Out of curiosity....where does RL's football department spend stand relative to the other AFL clubs?

Going on the prattle in this thread I assume it must be the largest in the AFL...but I would strongly doubt it.