Club explanation

[saynta]

It's like our supporter base are a bunch of zombies. Just happy to accept mediocrity and being walked all over. You really think Collingwood or the other big boys would just accept the conflict and move on without at least asking questions?

The apathy of people here is a serious concern.

Do you think Collingwood would tell all their supporters if they asked questions? They gone though three CEO's in about two years didnt see Eddy explaining much ... If the club had any concerns they would have been discussed in house as in any professional organization
The strangest thing I find on this forum is the number of posters who think the club should should sack everyone be run from Saintsational.

How about given those in charge some credit? There a lot to look me about the Saints , they owe me nothing , in fact I consider it an honour supporting my club.

[ace]

The club owes the supporter base an explanation as to the circumstances of Bains' departure.

If anyone knew; why was Bains allowed to oversee trade period?

Example: Stringer was available. Bains would reasonably not have traded for him on the assumption that he might be seen to have been conflicted upon telling us of his departure to the dogs.

That is a conflict of interest.

Either Bains should have stepped out of the trade period completely, OR St.Kilda should have removed him from the process.

We need answers, because this is not the way a well run club would/should operate.

We need another key forward with the loss of Nick Riewoldt.
Bulldogs were interested in Schache.
But St Kilda were not.
Made it easy for the Bulldogs to trade for him late without any rivals.

[ace]

So every club that loses a senior staff member to another club should submit an explanation on the circumstances of the departure? Yeah right.

You think we have only lost a senior staff member.
We have lost an operations manager.
The guy who knows who is good at their job, who is outstanding.
Those outstandings will be offered jobs at the Bulldogs.
We have lost a lot more than a senior staff member.

Some think Jaxons is Bains but could it be that he is someone loyal to Bains and respected by Bains ?
Someone who already knows they are on the way to the Bulldogs themselves.
Someone who now needs to cut ties with Saintsational ?
Next year's Jaxons post will tell us.

[BringBackMadDog]

The club owes the supporter base an explanation as to the circumstances of Bains' departure.

If anyone knew; why was Bains allowed to oversee trade period?

Example: Stringer was available. Bains would reasonably not have traded for him on the assumption that he might be seen to have been conflicted upon telling us of his departure to the dogs.

That is a conflict of interest.

Either Bains should have stepped out of the trade period completely, OR St.Kilda should have removed him from the process.

We need answers, because this is not the way a well run club would/should operate.

We need another key forward with the loss of Nick Riewoldt.
Bulldogs were interested in Schache.
But St Kilda were not.
Made it easy for the Bulldogs to trade for him late without any rivals.

Why do we need another key forward, we have Bruce (25yo) McCartin (21yo) Membrey (22yo) Battle (20) Marshall (21) Thats 5 key forwards. Richmond had 1 in a premiership team

[saintsRrising]

Agree with both of you- but it needs explaining.

Poor from Bains, or poor from the club... but poor from someone and we should know who.

Was it poor of the club when we gained Richo?

Bains is a career sports administrator who is clearly ambitious and no doubt has been seeking an advancement for a while.

The Dogs having the position available when they did is what drove the timing.

So yes the timing was unfortunate from a St Kilda perspective, but I do not believe that is "poor" from Bains or the club.

[Drake Huggins]

What choice did we have? Yes, it's unfortunate to lose him, and the timing was less than ideal, but there were signs all year that he may have been on the move to take the next step in his career. Even if he told the club a month ago he was leaving, who did we have to take over his duties? Elshaug? Please don't make me laugh. Ameet had a very complex job, requiring experience and specialist skills. If they were so concerned that the club would be damaged by a conflict of interest, they would've asked him to leave and had someone else fill his role.

I would hazard a guess the only person who would have the skills necessary would've been Matt Finnis and I imagine he would have enough on his plate. I doubt Ameet compromised our position. Everything about his demeanour and behaviour while he was in the job suggests he is a man of integrity. In a way, it is a compliment to the club that others wanted him. It's the same in any business. You lose your best to the poachers. I hope they find another like him. We got him when he was eager and hungry for success. He grew in the job and attracted attention from others. Let's hope his replacement does the same.

[Joffa Burns]

I am astounded by the stupidity of the conspiracy theorists on this site.

Until you have information pertaining to...

1. When Bain's informed the club he was in discussions with Bulldogs, Hawks etc
2. When he accepted the role
3. When he informed the club
4. The agreed timing of his departure between club and individual
5. The agreed responsibilities he was to undertake before leaving
6. The ongoing restrictions put upon him by the club and his contract

... you are as usual, blindly speculating on opinion and theory with no fact.

So if we listen to conspiracy we have Bain's potentially choosing not to trade for Schache and Stringer to feather the nest of the Dogs while keeping his contact with Dogs a secret (yep, secrets in footy )
It also appears Bain's and Bain's alone had total lost management responsibility
FFS some left wing apologists on here have no idea about business in the real world

I guess it's too logical to think that Bain's was professional and informed the Saints all the way through the process of discussion with the Dogs and negotiated a mutually beneficial departure after the trade period.

[mr six o'clock]

I am astounded by the stupidity of the conspiracy theorists on this site.

Until you have information pertaining to...

1. When Bain's informed the club he was in discussions with Bulldogs, Hawks etc
2. When he accepted the role
3. When he informed the club
4. The agreed timing of his departure between club and individual
5. The agreed responsibilities he was to undertake before leaving
6. The ongoing restrictions put upon him by the club and his contract

... you are as usual, blindly speculating on opinion and theory with no fact.

So if we listen to conspiracy we have Bain's potentially choosing not to trade for Schache and Stringer to feather the nest of the Dogs while keeping his contact with Dogs a secret (yep, secrets in footy )
It also appears Bain's and Bain's alone had total lost management responsibility
FFS some left wing apologists on here have no idea about business in the real world

I guess it's too logical to think that Bain's was professional and informed the Saints all the way through the process of discussion with the Dogs and negotiated a mutually beneficial departure after the trade period.

You forgot that it was Bains behind the grassy knoll !

[Drake Huggins]

It was the Russians.

[Joffa Burns]

It was the Russians.

Paul actually died in a car crash in 1967 and was replaced in the Beatles by Bain's before he was actually born.
It's reported he told John, Ringo & George about his plot to shaft the saints in the Schache deal in 50 years time.

[parkeysainter]

Bains is actually Kim Jong-Un's cousin. Serious.

[ace]

So we have lost Bains to AFL free agency.
But what draft pick do we get in compensation.

I think a beginning of round one pick would be a minimum.
You know PICK No 1, Gillon.

[ace]

I am astounded by the stupidity of the conspiracy theorists on this site.

Until you have information pertaining to...

1. When Bain's informed the club he was in discussions with Bulldogs, Hawks etc
2. When he accepted the role
3. When he informed the club
4. The agreed timing of his departure between club and individual
5. The agreed responsibilities he was to undertake before leaving
6. The ongoing restrictions put upon him by the club and his contract

... you are as usual, blindly speculating on opinion and theory with no fact.

So if we listen to conspiracy we have Bain's potentially choosing not to trade for Schache and Stringer to feather the nest of the Dogs while keeping his contact with Dogs a secret (yep, secrets in footy )
It also appears Bain's and Bain's alone had total lost management responsibility
FFS some left wing apologists on here have no idea about business in the real world

I guess it's too logical to think that Bain's was professional and informed the Saints all the way through the process of discussion with the Dogs and negotiated a mutually beneficial departure after the trade period.

You forgot that it was Bains behind the grassy knoll !

That grassy knoll caused the bad bounce.
Cost us a premiership.

[ace]

The club owes the supporter base an explanation as to the circumstances of Bains' departure.

If anyone knew; why was Bains allowed to oversee trade period?

Example: Stringer was available. Bains would reasonably not have traded for him on the assumption that he might be seen to have been conflicted upon telling us of his departure to the dogs.

That is a conflict of interest.

Either Bains should have stepped out of the trade period completely, OR St.Kilda should have removed him from the process.

We need answers, because this is not the way a well run club would/should operate.

We need another key forward with the loss of Nick Riewoldt.
Bulldogs were interested in Schache.
But St Kilda were not.
Made it easy for the Bulldogs to trade for him late without any rivals.

Why do we need another key forward, we have Bruce (25yo) McCartin (21yo) Membrey (22yo) Battle (20) Marshall (21) Thats 5 key forwards. Richmond had 1 in a premiership team

Membry is 188 cm.
Key forward ? a bit early in the day to be over the legal limit.
When Riewoldt was out of the team late in the season we played Bruce and Membry
Membry forced to compete against genuine talls.
Marshall and Battle still at Sandringham not yet ready for AFL.
McCartin, still at Sandringham, and with my head hurts, concussion, concussion, concussion but our medical staff can cure that with an asprin.

[To the top]

An indicative question, so indicative of questions which could be put not given the departure but given the timing of the departure and Bains' (you would assume) influence on St Kilda's position in building its List for 2018 including trading and assessments of the Top 10 Draft Picks and un-contracted players seeking new Clubs, is, given I understand that WB are looking to give the ex-Brisbane lad opportunities in defence because they have existing tall forward options, what was Bains' assessment FOR St Kilda.

Simply, the lad's name would have been discussed because that is due diligence. References to the lad's "weak" mental state are a poor deflection and not on subject. Many players look to return to their home States and that is a recruiting opportunity

So, had Bains by that time had discussions with WB?

And did they impact on whatever Bains bought to the table at St Kilda?

Now, I do not know. And it may be that Bains is of impeccable integrity, beyond question (if such an individual exists in the first place!)

But, it seems to me to be a very relevant question to ask

And indicative of some other questions which could, now, also be asked

Simply, you can not have 2 masters - even perceived.

And, once you do you have a problem.

The other matter is that this feeds into the problem the AFL have - that it is who you know not what you know at the Board table so some have influence some others do not have - and some Clubs or an amalgamation of some Clubs benefit over and above others such as in fixturing and ANZAC Day games by way of example, so "Blockbuster Games" because of dates et al

And that feeds to revenue. Including by marketing to sponsors.

And influence where someone such as Maguire can offer media careers (despite being quickly axed as Channel 9 CEO after being appointed by his mate, Packer, who also sacked him months later because he was not up to the requirements) and free international flights along with introductions to Corporate Australia to come and play with Collingwood on ANZAC Day.

The difference in President's Table guests at home AFL games tells a story.

Bains, timing and disclosure is just another spoke in the wheel

[CQ SAINT]

The difference here TTT is that Brisbane didnt resist and let the player go cheaply. Unlike Cameron, Austin, Weller and a host of others who nominated clubs, his value was dimished, his potential was unfulfilled and indicatively, it seemed this was due to an overwhelming desire to come home and the resulting poor mental health, he recently extended his contract after all. The move may be of benefit to him but not necessarily. It appeared he was willing to walk out with years on his contract.
The WB were also losing Stringer, Cloke is cooked and their previous big investment in a key forward has produced a ruckman at his best
Perhaps Bains also has influence at Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Geelong and Melbourne in leaving free passage for the Dogs to nab Schache. Or simply, all of these clubs had other priorities.
Also, perhaps our club is committed to Paddy, Bruce, Marshall and Battle and focussed, as it unfolded, on KPD trades, whom they had been following for some time; instead of pursuing a last minute flight of fancy.
Also, next year Lynch is available through free agency.
Your question is presumptuous at best, weak in basis and borderlines paranoia.

[ausfatcat]

Either Bains should have stepped out of the trade period completely, OR St.Kilda should have removed him from the process.

We need answers, because this is not the way a well run club would/should operate.

That's presuming that the saints knew

[CQ SAINT]

Either Bains should have stepped out of the trade period completely, OR St.Kilda should have removed him from the process.

We need answers, because this is not the way a well run club would/should operate.

That's presuming that the saints knew

I'll assume they knew and proceeded with the plan they have subscribed to for some time.

We couldnt get Kelly we have 2 first and 1 second round picks and we have acquired a likely KPD.

Paddy, with a contract extension financially relative to his form, Goddard and Freeman will be on notice.

Battle will play more this year if necessary, Goddard could be tried up forward if necessary and Paddy could do anything.

Sloane and Lynch will be in our FA radar and our 3 new mids will be 19.

Bains went for an AFL job, was approached by Hawthorn and took the WB job. No shock here, he was destined for bigger things.He is going to be CEO at the Bulldogs, not COO. Move on FFS.

[SaintPav]

I am astounded by the stupidity of the conspiracy theorists on this site.

Until you have information pertaining to...

1. When Bain's informed the club he was in discussions with Bulldogs, Hawks etc
2. When he accepted the role
3. When he informed the club
4. The agreed timing of his departure between club and individual
5. The agreed responsibilities he was to undertake before leaving
6. The ongoing restrictions put upon him by the club and his contract

... you are as usual, blindly speculating on opinion and theory with no fact.

So if we listen to conspiracy we have Bain's potentially choosing not to trade for Schache and Stringer to feather the nest of the Dogs while keeping his contact with Dogs a secret (yep, secrets in footy )
It also appears Bain's and Bain's alone had total lost management responsibility
FFS some left wing apologists on here have no idea about business in the real world

I guess it's too logical to think that Bain's was professional and informed the Saints all the way through the process of discussion with the Dogs and negotiated a mutually beneficial departure after the trade period.

A few assumptions in there Joff and you may very well be right but the question still needs to be asked: what protocols does the club have in place when these types of situations occur?

[CQ SAINT]

I am astounded by the stupidity of the conspiracy theorists on this site.

Until you have information pertaining to...

1. When Bain's informed the club he was in discussions with Bulldogs, Hawks etc
2. When he accepted the role
3. When he informed the club
4. The agreed timing of his departure between club and individual
5. The agreed responsibilities he was to undertake before leaving
6. The ongoing restrictions put upon him by the club and his contract

... you are as usual, blindly speculating on opinion and theory with no fact.

So if we listen to conspiracy we have Bain's potentially choosing not to trade for Schache and Stringer to feather the nest of the Dogs while keeping his contact with Dogs a secret (yep, secrets in footy )
It also appears Bain's and Bain's alone had total lost management responsibility
FFS some left wing apologists on here have no idea about business in the real world

I guess it's too logical to think that Bain's was professional and informed the Saints all the way through the process of discussion with the Dogs and negotiated a mutually beneficial departure after the trade period.

A few assumptions in there Joff and you may very well be right but the question needs to be asked: what protocols does the club have in place when these types of situations occur?

Scenario: WB approaches Bains in late July/August and Bains goes hang on, we could make the 8. Bulldogs go, all you gotta do is say yes, we will wait, but you cant take Stringer or Schache. Bains goes ok.
Bains tells Finnis. Finnis says ok but lets roll out the plan for trading and the draft before you announce it. Bains goes ok.
Bains tells Richo and Trout and says should we take Schache and Stringer. Trout goes what with? Bains goes we could f*** everything up neatly and trade of 7 and 8 to Brisbane and WB for them and they all have a big laugh.
Trout goes I'm gonna miss you Jaxons. Bains giggles and gives him the log in details for the Jaxons account.

[ausfatcat]

[quote="CQ SAINT
Scenario: WB approaches Bains in late July/August and Bains goes hang on, we could make the 8. Bulldogs go, all you gotta do is say yes, we will wait, but you cant take Stringer or Schache. Bains goes ok.
Bains tells Finnis. Finnis says ok but lets roll out the plan for trading and the draft before you announce it. Bains goes ok.
Bains tells Richo and Trout and says should we take Schache and Stringer. Trout goes what with? Bains goes we could f*** everything up neatly and trade of 7 and 8 to Brisbane and WB for them and they all have a big laugh.
Trout goes I'm gonna miss you Jaxons. Bains giggles and gives him the log in details for the Jaxons account.[/quote]

1. Sachade had just resigned at that stage no club thought he would be available
2. Stringers issue didn't come to fruition at that stage
3. If he was in the Bulldogs pocket by then why wouldn't they say "take stringer with pick 8" not leave him alone (dog's were desperate all week to land a first round for him with what 3 deals falling over trying to get one).
4. Read the second half of the post and released it was all tongue in cheek to get to the conspiracy theorist well done

[ss1986]

You're missing the point.

I don't truly believe it would ultimately have made a difference; the fact of the matter is, it shouldn't have been allowed to happen no matter what the facts are.

There should be NO scenario, where a man can almost singlehandedly determine the trade strategy of a club, and be on a promise to another club.

Either dilute the role, or improve internal processes for dealing with that scenario.

[kalsaint]

What mediocrity, what conflict and who is being walked over? Just part of the comings and goings in the AFL and any employment industry.
It is at the end of the season when these type of promotions occur - better than halfway through. No concerns at all.[/quote]

You don't see a conflict of interest, given one of the bigger names up for trade in the trade period was from the Bulldogs, and our minister of trade was the incoming CEO at that club?

What mediocrity? The mediocrity of our club that would rather be PC than win games of football and is happy to plod along for another 5 years in limbo with a putrid trade week(s).

If you dont believe it- talk to your mates and ask them about what they think of St.Kilda. We are no better than North Melbourne.[/quote]

Well consolation might be that Bains gets little control given their Presidents style (according to Caroline Wilson on Footy Classified)

[kalsaint]

Not "poor" at all. It is the end of the 2017 football season, not the start of 2018. Players are on leave, the trade period has ended and the draft is still a month away.

The days of club stalwarts filling highly paid positions at AFL clubs are long gone. We keep getting told AFL is an 'industry" but when an employee of the club leaves we tend to forget that and imagine they are the club's property - not their own person.

Ameet Bains has been a brilliant employee of StKilda and, as said elsewhere, has been probably the lead agent in rebuiding our player list. For his 6 years of top-level work, he has been rewarded with a CEO position. And, as good as he seems to have been at StKilda, he is not capable of winning a game come match day.

So, get over the conspiracy theories and let go. Plenty of other smart people out there, someone will fill his shoes.

How has he been brilliant?
How is our list rebuild actually going?
6 years and zero finals appearance. No finals wins. Not even close.
Most recent finish 11th.
How is that 'brilliant'? How is it 'top level'?

Can you come to my work and do my performance appraisal please? I think you are pretty generous. Below average performance is called brilliant and top level.

The last two years we've been close to finals. We also have a very young list. We're certainly not miles off it. The hope is that the improvement will come rapidly, which we know can happen. Would not be surprised if we win a final next year. We are developing good depth in my opinion. As I said, the list is young.

The list was not young in 2017. we were middle of the ladder in terms of experience. Now we suffer inexperience with Nick and Joey finishing up. Melbourne were younger than Saints overall. I will grant you inexperience when we look at distribution of players age per team. Bulldogs still younger then us now. Adelaide aren't huge on years of games either. We have a lng way to go if we keep bleating the we're a young side story.

[kalsaint]

It's like our supporter base are a bunch of zombies. Just happy to accept mediocrity and being walked all over. You really think Collingwood or the other big boys would just accept the conflict and move on without at least asking questions?

The apathy of people here is a serious concern.

Do you think Collingwood would tell all their supporters if they asked questions? They gone though three CEO's in about two years didnt see Eddy explaining much ... If the club had any concerns they would have been discussed in house as in any professional organization
The strangest thing I find on this forum is the number of posters who think the club should should sack everyone be run from Saintsational.

How about given those in charge some credit? There a lot to look me about the Saints , they owe me nothing , in fact I consider it an honour supporting my club.

All true we bleat about this stuff and much other stuff not directly affecting performance but don't get the real acolades by focussing on winning the premiership. We wont get recognition by all the extras to footy game wins unless we get on field success.

I think Ross Lyon was right in that "we shouldn't be playing the kindergarten". We should persevere with development but ensure our team has maturity and strength to match other teams. Similarly we need a balance of soldiers with x factor to strike a cord or spark when we need it.

2018 is very important for Richo. The bulk of players now need to stand up. Lets hope the Paddys, Freemans can contribute enough with the overe 1-2% improvement from our soldiers to get us over the line. I'm not confident we will improve more than other teams younger players. In fact several teams passed us or gave us a scare in 2017 and they didn't do that in 2016. We must learn to win big at times and not lose big as we have. We are no longer a young side (that's an excuse, not a reason)..