Time for Butterss to slip away
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Brian Collis
- Club Player
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Thu 06 May 2004 2:47pm
- Location: Light her up babe
Time for Butterss to slip away
The writing is on the wall Rod. Just like your ex mate Grant Thomas it's time to move on. Can't you see the irony of your actions. You've done a good job, but it's time to move on.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
I think it is time for the Rod Butterss administration to go!
I think they should be remembered as providing a solid base for the StKFC at a critical and pivotal time in the clubs history.
Early mismanagement was counteracted in turning the club around.
Like GT in his role as coach, I believe the current Board has served its tenure and taken the club as far as it can go.
The main mitigating factor being the public brawling with GT and the profile of Butterss which is escalating at a concerning rate and has the perception of the person being greater than the entity.
I think that the current administration has certainly been dealt with very harshly on a number of matters and at times very unfairly, but when your time is up you need the heart to accept this and move on gracefully – I doubt Rod has the capacity to acknowledge this and accept his fate.
A couple of points I see as relevant….
1/ Losing Sponsors
I don’t see the loss of the sponsors as the mitigating factor; I see the packages that were handed to sponsors who are not A-List companies as non sustainable.
Our sales department has been substandard IMO and the resulting sponsors reflect this level of professionalism.
I’d be interested how the new group is going to sell to the right end of town to ensure stability and sustainability in sponsorship.
2/ Elite Training facility
Big blunder by the Club. Was Jim Watt’s baby and supposedly his legacy to the club. Went pear shaped and appeared outwardly to be very poorly handled by the club and in particular Archie Bunker.
3/ Steven Baker case
The Board being hung out to dry on this topic.
Was handed to a football department that quite obviously mishandled the case.
Is Ken Sheldon the right person? I doubt it but do not know enough to comment further.
4/ Drug inference
Disgusting tactic from the rival Board. Come out and say it if you want to intimate it – have the courage. FWIW I have witnessed RB first hand on dozens of occasions at club and other functions and have seen him put away plenty of the red stuff but never have I suspected anything else.
To imply by pathetic mud slinging that RB or any other board member takes illicit drugs without (pardon the pun) any substance is deplorable.
For posters such as rogerfox to imply it directly but surprise surprise not offer up any supporting evidence is typical of his and some other posters objective to smear the incumbent administration. If you know something rogerfox – put up or shut up!
Rogerfox, you are a full of sh!t insinuating pathetic weasel, I’d love to teach you a bit of good old fashioned etiquette.
I certainly hope the new Board’s drug policy will include regular tests (funded at their own expense) and the results those tests should be made available to the members.
5/ Alcohol
I am in total agreement with this policy from the rival Board as I have seen intoxicated Board members at club functions – first hand and I find it disgusting!
I suggest they need to tighten the self regulation and imply a .05 policy for all board members at club functions.
6/ Football spending
I will not speculate as I haven’t witnessed anything first hand that I understand or can comment on. In this instance I would suggest NB and AT in their recent experience and contact with other clubs players and administration would be in a solid position to advise from a structural point.
In summary if the FF (sound familiar Family First?) ticket can offer a clear and defined plan to take the club forward they will have my vote, simply because the old administrations reign seems to be untenable and we require a committed and organized administration to take our club forward.
Let’s hope they get it right if they come to power as it looks extremely likely they will do so!
I think they should be remembered as providing a solid base for the StKFC at a critical and pivotal time in the clubs history.
Early mismanagement was counteracted in turning the club around.
Like GT in his role as coach, I believe the current Board has served its tenure and taken the club as far as it can go.
The main mitigating factor being the public brawling with GT and the profile of Butterss which is escalating at a concerning rate and has the perception of the person being greater than the entity.
I think that the current administration has certainly been dealt with very harshly on a number of matters and at times very unfairly, but when your time is up you need the heart to accept this and move on gracefully – I doubt Rod has the capacity to acknowledge this and accept his fate.
A couple of points I see as relevant….
1/ Losing Sponsors
I don’t see the loss of the sponsors as the mitigating factor; I see the packages that were handed to sponsors who are not A-List companies as non sustainable.
Our sales department has been substandard IMO and the resulting sponsors reflect this level of professionalism.
I’d be interested how the new group is going to sell to the right end of town to ensure stability and sustainability in sponsorship.
2/ Elite Training facility
Big blunder by the Club. Was Jim Watt’s baby and supposedly his legacy to the club. Went pear shaped and appeared outwardly to be very poorly handled by the club and in particular Archie Bunker.
3/ Steven Baker case
The Board being hung out to dry on this topic.
Was handed to a football department that quite obviously mishandled the case.
Is Ken Sheldon the right person? I doubt it but do not know enough to comment further.
4/ Drug inference
Disgusting tactic from the rival Board. Come out and say it if you want to intimate it – have the courage. FWIW I have witnessed RB first hand on dozens of occasions at club and other functions and have seen him put away plenty of the red stuff but never have I suspected anything else.
To imply by pathetic mud slinging that RB or any other board member takes illicit drugs without (pardon the pun) any substance is deplorable.
For posters such as rogerfox to imply it directly but surprise surprise not offer up any supporting evidence is typical of his and some other posters objective to smear the incumbent administration. If you know something rogerfox – put up or shut up!
Rogerfox, you are a full of sh!t insinuating pathetic weasel, I’d love to teach you a bit of good old fashioned etiquette.
I certainly hope the new Board’s drug policy will include regular tests (funded at their own expense) and the results those tests should be made available to the members.
5/ Alcohol
I am in total agreement with this policy from the rival Board as I have seen intoxicated Board members at club functions – first hand and I find it disgusting!
I suggest they need to tighten the self regulation and imply a .05 policy for all board members at club functions.
6/ Football spending
I will not speculate as I haven’t witnessed anything first hand that I understand or can comment on. In this instance I would suggest NB and AT in their recent experience and contact with other clubs players and administration would be in a solid position to advise from a structural point.
In summary if the FF (sound familiar Family First?) ticket can offer a clear and defined plan to take the club forward they will have my vote, simply because the old administrations reign seems to be untenable and we require a committed and organized administration to take our club forward.
Let’s hope they get it right if they come to power as it looks extremely likely they will do so!
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
Very comprehensive post JB, and tend to agree.
I really think the time is up.
Call me risk adverse however I am just very wary of FFS and their lack of detail.
Once they come out with that detail I will be very relieved and will probably vote for the aspirants.
I really think the time is up.
Call me risk adverse however I am just very wary of FFS and their lack of detail.
Once they come out with that detail I will be very relieved and will probably vote for the aspirants.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
That is it JB, what are they offering?joffaboy wrote:Very comprehensive post JB, and tend to agree.
I really think the time is up.
Call me risk adverse however I am just very wary of FFS and their lack of detail.
Once they come out with that detail I will be very relieved and will probably vote for the aspirants.
ATM it is a little like Kevin Rudd, I'm not offering much other than an alternative but don't vote for the other guy
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
So presumably you believe that a group who is focussed on the footy side of our footy club, who has identified shortcomings and feels so strongly about them that they want to fix them, is less likely to win us a flag than a divided board that has made several high-profile blunders to the club's detriment, failed to prove its mettle in anything other than accountancy, and which is in denial of their problems?spert wrote:It's good to know that winning a flag is as easy as having a board with a vision..looking forward to our flag in 2008!!
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Personally I think the profile of sponsors is somewhat irrelevant. I'm sure Rod would argue companies like Vodafone & NEC are A list companies.
Sponsorships are like any other service being sold and it has to provide value for money. If you can't market yourself effectively you are hardly going to fill them with confidence that you can represent their brand in the market place.
Sponsorships are like any other service being sold and it has to provide value for money. If you can't market yourself effectively you are hardly going to fill them with confidence that you can represent their brand in the market place.
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13239
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 643 times
- Been thanked: 1907 times
I think it's more what the club can do for the sponsor than how the sponsor perceives how the club is marketing itself..for EG if the worst club in the league said that their players would tattoo Vodafone on their foreheads they would jump at it.JeffDunne wrote:Personally I think the profile of sponsors is somewhat irrelevant. I'm sure Rod would argue companies like Vodafone & NEC are A list companies.
Sponsorships are like any other service being sold and it has to provide value for money. If you can't market yourself effectively you are hardly going to fill them with confidence that you can represent their brand in the market place.
This is the first time that I am undecided on how to vote, it's not a nice feeling. Please...someone advise me.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Kevin07.The Fireman wrote:This is the first time that I am undecided on how to vote, it's not a nice feeling. Please...someone advise me.![]()
Hope that helps
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
jb, I think Rudd's being smart.
The Lib's learnt the hard way that to win an election in Australia from opposition you make yourself look as much like the incumbent policy wise and let their integrity and failures become the issue. John Howard won office without any policies at all (other than "never ever a GST"), not to mention Steve "Who" when he won in Victoria.
The Labour party have gone one step further this time, and they've gone with someone that even physically resembles the incumbent.
Who was it the said the Australian Electorate were smart?
The Lib's learnt the hard way that to win an election in Australia from opposition you make yourself look as much like the incumbent policy wise and let their integrity and failures become the issue. John Howard won office without any policies at all (other than "never ever a GST"), not to mention Steve "Who" when he won in Victoria.
The Labour party have gone one step further this time, and they've gone with someone that even physically resembles the incumbent.
Who was it the said the Australian Electorate were smart?
On the issue of sponsorship, who would be the least desirable club to sponsor at the moment? I reckon we wouldn't be too far down the list.
We have one player so naughty he gets rubbed out for 7 weeks.
Several players appearing in court for assault / sexual assault.
A president that won't stop fighting with the ex coach.
Virtually nil positive airtime in the mainstream footy media.
Didn't make the 8.
Drug allegations against the board.
You'd want to see some real upside before you aligned your brand with ours I reckon, simply getting your name seen isn't enough.
We have one player so naughty he gets rubbed out for 7 weeks.
Several players appearing in court for assault / sexual assault.
A president that won't stop fighting with the ex coach.
Virtually nil positive airtime in the mainstream footy media.
Didn't make the 8.
Drug allegations against the board.
You'd want to see some real upside before you aligned your brand with ours I reckon, simply getting your name seen isn't enough.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Thing is that the hard yards have been done......so either alternative will look good by 2008 seasons end.
Most likey that the new Board will get in.....and as the Saints will be better in 2008 they will wrongly get the kudos.
Any chages that they make will most likely not really come into play till the 2008 season...
Most likey that the new Board will get in.....and as the Saints will be better in 2008 they will wrongly get the kudos.
Any chages that they make will most likely not really come into play till the 2008 season...
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- No1_Saint
- Club Player
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Tue 01 Aug 2006 6:09pm
- Location: Back in Melbourne...woo hoo.
Fair call Joffa, it will be interesting to see what the fall out will be after the EAGM.
I am grateful to Rod and his board for boosting the clubs fortunes...what a breath of fresh air it is that a challenge to the current administration is not focused on "saving the club" and wiping of accumulated debt. Thanks to Rod and his board the new administration(if they succeed) will be in a strong position to move forward and not have to try and save a sinking ship(like when Rod took over).
So we shall wait and see what happens....but whatever happens thank you to Rod for making the club stronger and more viable financially then it has ever been.
We need to reacess the relationship with Telstra Dome. The available streams of revenue available to club are woefully inadeque compared to those enjoyed at ever other stadium. The Dome is a great place to watch footy, but it is yet to prove the financial saviour the AFL promised us when we move there. Remember Waverley Parks break even point was only around 13,000 people, whilst the Dome still sits around the 35,000. I would like this relationship with Dome management to be the centre of attention.
Rather then reducing costs the club should be focused on maximising revenue streams. The reported $21 million in revenue is simply not sufficient to operate and compete in the AFL.
I am grateful to Rod and his board for boosting the clubs fortunes...what a breath of fresh air it is that a challenge to the current administration is not focused on "saving the club" and wiping of accumulated debt. Thanks to Rod and his board the new administration(if they succeed) will be in a strong position to move forward and not have to try and save a sinking ship(like when Rod took over).
So we shall wait and see what happens....but whatever happens thank you to Rod for making the club stronger and more viable financially then it has ever been.
We need to reacess the relationship with Telstra Dome. The available streams of revenue available to club are woefully inadeque compared to those enjoyed at ever other stadium. The Dome is a great place to watch footy, but it is yet to prove the financial saviour the AFL promised us when we move there. Remember Waverley Parks break even point was only around 13,000 people, whilst the Dome still sits around the 35,000. I would like this relationship with Dome management to be the centre of attention.
Rather then reducing costs the club should be focused on maximising revenue streams. The reported $21 million in revenue is simply not sufficient to operate and compete in the AFL.
Last edited by No1_Saint on Thu 13 Sep 2007 6:53pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brewer, we get plenty of exposure and most of it good. The past 12 months have been a shocker but I don't think it's been worse than a lot of clubs. I doubt Carlton fans would be bragging if they didn't have Pratt's financial strength & Visy contracts to use as leverage. Being a privately owned company Pratt can do as his wishes and most of the sponsorships & donations he is bringing is due to Visy not Carlton. That situation is rare.
The problem I have with both the current board and the proposed alternative is the lack of real marketing people involved. Problem with a lot of corporations these days is that financial and legal experts are promoted to senior positions and boards rather than those that from a marketing background. One of my major clients here in Queensland is a perfect example of that. A company that once thrived on growth because the people in charge could sell a vision has replaced the CEO with a axe wielder rather than a visionary. The change in focus has been due to a change in the board's composition. Rather than grow the business they are now more concerned with increasing profitability and in turn the share price. While they'll argue they are looking after the shareholder interests (& coincidently theirs), the result will be that they will forfeit market share. Give me a visionary any day of the week that focuses on growing an organisation rather than pencil dick accountants (no offence joffaboy).
St Kilda needs people with vision and not more of the same. I'm yet to be convinced the alternative offers that but I have no doubt they can represent us better in the media than the incumbents. That might have to be enough at this stage.
The problem I have with both the current board and the proposed alternative is the lack of real marketing people involved. Problem with a lot of corporations these days is that financial and legal experts are promoted to senior positions and boards rather than those that from a marketing background. One of my major clients here in Queensland is a perfect example of that. A company that once thrived on growth because the people in charge could sell a vision has replaced the CEO with a axe wielder rather than a visionary. The change in focus has been due to a change in the board's composition. Rather than grow the business they are now more concerned with increasing profitability and in turn the share price. While they'll argue they are looking after the shareholder interests (& coincidently theirs), the result will be that they will forfeit market share. Give me a visionary any day of the week that focuses on growing an organisation rather than pencil dick accountants (no offence joffaboy).
St Kilda needs people with vision and not more of the same. I'm yet to be convinced the alternative offers that but I have no doubt they can represent us better in the media than the incumbents. That might have to be enough at this stage.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
We actually agree for a change.... there is very little marketing or business development expertise on either ticket.JeffDunne wrote:
The problem I have with both the current board and the proposed alternative is the lack of real marketing people involved..
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Its not lack of courage its common sense, on his behalf and the forums.Joffa Burns wrote:4/ Drug inference
Disgusting tactic from the rival Board. Come out and say it if you want to intimate it – have the courage. FWIW I have witnessed RB first hand on dozens of occasions at club and other functions and have seen him put away plenty of the red stuff but never have I suspected anything else.
If names were named, or any sort of details were given this place might get shut down, and/or the possibilty of legal action.
I have heard the rumours from some very reliable sources also, even going back to when I thought RB was a good guy.
Also worth considering, NB and AT would have been in a position to see this sort of stuff first hand, so I doubt they would have put their names to a ticket that was going down this path without knowing what they were in for and therefore supporting it one would assume.
Instead of seeking legal advice why doesn't RB have an independant hair sample drug test done, which apparently can detect these sort of substances a month or so back. This would strengthen his case in court and he would put it to rest... that is unless he has something to hide
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9067
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 426 times
Re the current challenge and their initiatives..I just feel I've heard it all before and I don't think they are any different to any other bloody football club board. After all, once we got players back from injury and starting to get back to form, we were the third best performing team in the second half of the 07 season, a solid base for RL to work on for 08, and a bit of smart recruiting and trading would probably see us established in the 8 in 08..now all this bloody upheaval!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Mon 29 May 2006 12:03pm
- Location: Animal Enclosure
- Been thanked: 12 times
Running a transport company does not qualify you to run a Football Club, maybe Westaway can do it, maybe he can't. One thing i do know is that RB has the club in a strong position and done the hard work for future years....whoever may lead the club. I have heard lots of general comments about spending more money but no details about where it will come from etc...
The drug issue is a load of crap and should not have been mentioned by Westaway.
The drug issue is a load of crap and should not have been mentioned by Westaway.
Happiness is a warm pie!
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
The drug issue is a load of crap?
I don't think so, in light of the AFL stand on illicit drugs.
If a member, or members of a club board were found to be partaking of illicit drugs, it would make a mockery of any AFL drugs policy.
All players, coaches, support staff, board members, AFL commissioners and staff should be randomly drug tested.
I don't think so, in light of the AFL stand on illicit drugs.
If a member, or members of a club board were found to be partaking of illicit drugs, it would make a mockery of any AFL drugs policy.
All players, coaches, support staff, board members, AFL commissioners and staff should be randomly drug tested.
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
Why are you in your job?Bernard Shakey wrote:The drug issue is a load of crap?
I don't think so, in light of the AFL stand on illicit drugs.
If a member, or members of a club board were found to be partaking of illicit drugs, it would make a mockery of any AFL drugs policy.
All players, coaches, support staff, board members, AFL commissioners and staff should be randomly drug tested.
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
well it seems obvious that marketing/sales expertise is the key ingredient missing at the moment on the ticket.....BUT....given that the new ticket is not yet running the club, there is time for someone in that field to join the ticket, PLUS there are several unnamed players/people on the ticket who's identities will be revealed IF SFF get's the gig (according to their spin).
So if Westaway is worth his salt, he'll have already had this base covered.
So if Westaway is worth his salt, he'll have already had this base covered.