Rod Butterrs on sport 927 audio

saintly · Post: # 464135Post **saintly** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 5:03pm

http://www.sport927.com.au/sport927/mediaCentre.asp

Armoooo · Post: # 464136Post **Armoooo** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 5:05pm

Getting desperate...

riccardo · Post: # 464160Post **riccardo** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 5:48pm

What was said, please?

JeffDunne · Post: # 464163Post **JeffDunne** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 5:49pm

riccardo wrote:What was said, please?

Why don't you listen to it yourself?

riccardo · Post: # 464168Post **riccardo** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 5:52pm

JeffDunne wrote:
riccardo wrote:What was said, please?
Why don't you listen to it yourself?

Um, I have a job. I'd like to keep it.

JeffDunne · Post: # 464173Post **JeffDunne** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:06pm

lol, fair enough Riccardo

In summary, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"

- claims SFF are going to take the issue of the date of the meeting to court (actually the hosts mentioned that not Rod)
- claims the current board have a track record of keeping things out of the court

- claims he doesn't want to see us in "bankruptcy court"
- claims he wants the players to be paid in the future
- all in all a lot of hysterical nonsense

then later he adds the players aren't concerned because they know they'll get paid going forward and the club won't go bankrupt (failed to mention that players salaries are guaranteed by the AFL)

Also claims proxies have been sent to Collingwood members.

Sucked up to Barry Breen, claims he has sponsors lining up . . . that's about all I remember.

Someone might want to add more but for the most part "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" was the theme and repeated numerous times. Rod seems to think without him we'll go bankrupt.

spert · Post: # 464175Post **spert** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:08pm

Judging by what the challenging board are saying, lets spend up ..I prefer things as they are now.

GeorgeYoung27 · Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:24pm

Rod says "I'm sure (the players) are aware we have a very strong record of delivering $1M profits" and "they are very happy". They can do without the 'spectre' of relocation, taking games interstate and merger talks.

But he tells us "I don't want to involve the players in any political disruption"

SENsei · Post: # 464190Post **SENsei** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:28pm

spert wrote:Judging by what the challenging board are saying, lets spend up ..I prefer things as they are now.

Yep I agree. I love having my Septembers free. I love that I don't have any sponsor to nag me about buying something from them. I love it.

Shades · Post: # 464195Post **Shades** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:32pm

His PHUCKED

saintsRrising · Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:34pm

SENsaintsational wrote: I love that I don't have any sponsor to nag me about buying something from them. I love it.

While there is no denying that we are not playing finals......

On sponsors we technically still have 2 major sponosors.....and there is still ample time to have new major sponosrs in place for next season.

Naturally I would rather have it confirmed already.....but as Vodafone has only just decided to not tale up the option foe 2008 it is a bit unrealistic to expect to have another major sponsor already signed up.

Perhaps it is more relevant to suggest that we should have more second tier sponsors on Board?????

SENsei · Post: # 464203Post **SENsei** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 6:44pm

You reckon they wouldn't have had an inkling that Vodafone were wavering? I heard rumours months ago.

Therefore, it would be height of mismanagement to leave it to the last minute.

BTW I don't think they have done that. I believe this is a very very tight sponsorship market and we should be doing everything in our power to retain the sponsors.

saintbrat · Post: # 464306Post **saintbrat** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 8:53pm

GeorgeYoung27 wrote:Rod says "I'm sure (the players) are aware we have a very strong record of delivering $1M profits" and "they are very happy". They can do without the 'spectre' of relocation, taking games interstate and merger talks.

"

the idea of interstate and relocation are new to me- when did they enter the discussion?

4theluvoftheclub · Wed 26 Sep 2007 9:00pm

They entered the discussion when RB decided to say on 927 ,in effect:" if you dont vote for me, the world will collapse" interstae relocation, bankruptcy etc...all just a certainty if ROD BUTTERSS IS NOT AROUND..."no one can do it..only me....only me....only me...keep me, please ...please..."

saintspremiers · Wed 26 Sep 2007 9:06pm

saintsRrising wrote: Perhaps it is more relevant to suggest that we should have more second tier sponsors on Board?????

exactly.

RB's bumbling team has mismanaged this aspect so badly we are exposed at the moment.

IMO if you have a reasonable number of second tiers, it at least gives you a decent revenue base in case a Vodafone situation occurs...a bit like insurance I guess?

There is also the possibility of a 2nd tier becoming top tier

Teflon · Post: # 464349Post **Teflon** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 9:58pm

What a pack of hysterical SFF propaganda machines weve got on this thread?

I mean FFS......Butters NEVER once said we WILL go broke if SFF win...all he said was its a consideration when electing a Board?...and isnt it?

Couple of points:

1. Theyre putting themselves up for re-election and will wear whatever consequences

2. Dont want to end up in Court - I think thats entirely fair.

3. ARE talking to sponsors and ARE confident we will have that in place for next year.

4. Havent invited Burke/Thompson onto the current Board - but to be part of a newly MEMBER elected Board.

5. Want the November date to ensure ALL members get a chance to vote - fair point....SFF ...want it over by next week....understandable...theyre doing well in the political campaign

6. HAVE ALREADY (not newly) endorsed an increased $500k spend on football but understand that debt management is equally important....fair enough his Carlton example was valid..

I dont see anything in that that was (a) derogatory (see Westonhouse) or (b) not factual?

What I did find concerning - and have so far during this POLITICAL campaign by SFF is that other clubs have received our proxies and kids also?????.....you do wonder about a group that "claims" to have 8000 proxies...yet when asked for some detail ANY detail/planning/strategies with respect to how they will manage the clubs money responds with "trust us".

I dont care who wins....but I would like an informed discussion ...not posters appearing overnight on this forum shoving SFF propoganda down our neck......a big "hi" to Greg also...

joffaboy · Post: # 464378Post **joffaboy** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:21pm

Thanks for the balanced and objective summary teflon.

And i agree with you sentiments.

Dont care who wins. Probably best if Rod goes (judging by the sustained attacks on him all this year and the lengths the Spendaway acolytes will go to denigrate and destabilise - see the vilification of Frawley, Barry Breen, and Cowboy Neale - all club champions, but have been attacked for not following the party line) but the propoganda is relentless from the Wasteaway baying mob.

really cant stand Butters in the media, sounds slippery, but would love a little bit of detail from Westaway.

Now it is reported here that he is only "investigating" sponsorships

Teflon · Post: # 464390Post **Teflon** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:29pm

joffaboy wrote:Thanks for the balanced and objective summary teflon.

And i agree with you sentiments.

Dont care who wins. Probably best if Rod goes (judging by the sustained attacks on him all this year and the lengths the Spendaway acolytes will go to denigrate and destabilise - see the vilification of Frawley, Barry Breen, and Cowboy Neale - all club champions, but have been attacked for not following the party line) but the propoganda is relentless from the Wasteaway baying mob.

really cant stand Butters in the media, sounds slippery, but would love a little bit of detail from Westaway.

Now it is reported here that he is only "investigating" sponsorships

Im more than happy to vote Butters out - I wsont shoot my bolt just yet untill I get SOMETHING from Westonhouse that resembles a strategy/direction/plan........without that.......making an "informed" decision is simply not possible.

Imnot interested in "trust our commercial acumen"......sounds a tad Edelston for mine......

But agree Joffa - been reading a lot on here lately and positng less...and must say "the mob"(including some new ring ins....Alltheway????) are clearly about ensuring ony 1 side is considered. Why as a paid up member would you not at least sit back and look at the facts as they are presented????????????? then vote?

stinger · Post: # 464409Post **stinger** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:37pm

joffaboy wrote:T Probably best if Rod goes (judging by the sustained attacks on him all this year and the lengths the Spendaway acolytes will go to denigrate and destabilise - see the vilification of Frawley, Barry Breen, and Cowboy Neale - all club champions, but have been attacked for not following the party line) but the propoganda is relentless from the Wasteaway baying mob.

your a real drama queen jb.........frawley, breen and cowboy haven't been villified......not by me anyway......apart from me saying that cowboy has finally got his snout in the saints trough...which he has..ffs.....

stinger · Post: # 464415Post **stinger** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:39pm

[quote="Teflon"]
But agree Joffa - been reading a lot on here lately and positng less...and must say "the mob"(including some new ring ins....Alltheway????) are clearly about ensuring ony 1 side is considered. {quote]

then there is an up side to this whole sorry mess....hallelujah......

Teflon · Post: # 464418Post **Teflon** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:42pm

joffaboy wrote:Thanks for the balanced and objective summary teflon.

And i agree with you sentiments.

Dont care who wins. Probably best if Rod goes (judging by the sustained attacks on him all this year and the lengths the Spendaway acolytes will go to denigrate and destabilise - see the vilification of Frawley, Barry Breen, and Cowboy Neale - all club champions, but have been attacked for not following the party line) but the propoganda is relentless from the Wasteaway baying mob.

really cant stand Butters in the media, sounds slippery, but would love a little bit of detail from Westaway.

Now it is reported here that he is only "investigating" sponsorships

Keep up the good posting Joff.....the regular psychos arent a distraction..

joffaboy · Post: # 464423Post **joffaboy** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:46pm

stinger wrote:
your a real drama queen jb.........frawley, breen and cowboy haven't been villified......not by me anyway......apart from me saying that cowboy has finally got his snout in the saints trough...which he has..ffs.....

do you mind keeping this from being personal. If you cant argue the facts please dont respond to my posts thank you.

In response to the non abusive part of your post. In my view they have been. They have all been slured and you do it once again above.

I dont care how much you roll you eyes stinger, I find it disgraceful that anyone who has done nothing but support the Saints could abuse and slur the name of a Saints great.

And for what? becaue they dont agree with your politics

For Christs sake I dont agree with Thommo or Burkie but I respect their right to do what they are doing.

I can imagine the outrageous indignitation if anyone happened to mention that Burke and Thomson will have they "snouts in the trough" once they are on the board.

Fair Dinkum.

Teflon · Post: # 464426Post **Teflon** » Wed 26 Sep 2007 10:48pm

joffaboy wrote:
stinger wrote:
your a real drama queen jb.........frawley, breen and cowboy haven't been villified......not by me anyway......apart from me saying that cowboy has finally got his snout in the saints trough...which he has..ffs.....
do you mind keeping this from being personal. If you cant argue the facts please dont respond to my posts thank you.

He cant help himslef. And mods refuse to help us all.
Please god ...let it be so............

GeorgeYoung27 · Thu 27 Sep 2007 12:59am

I mean FFS......Butters NEVER once said we WILL go broke if SFF win...

No he implied it.

Why mention it at all as an issue if he doesn't think SFF will lead us that way? Presumably he doesn't believe his board will lead us there.

It's his latest game. Spread fear amongst the fans.

So let me see, 2 of the current board members shouldn't be feared as they have been part of 4 x $1M profits. And Burkey and Thompson are OK as Rod thinks they should be on the board. So 3 people are going to potential going to lead our club into relocation, merger or extinction!

stinger · Post: # 464566Post **stinger** » Thu 27 Sep 2007 10:21am

joffaboy wrote:
stinger wrote:
your a real drama queen jb.........frawley, breen and cowboy haven't been villified......not by me anyway......apart from me saying that cowboy has finally got his snout in the saints trough...which he has..ffs.....
do you mind keeping this from being personal. If you cant argue the facts please dont respond to my posts thank you.

In response to the non abusive part of your post. In my view they have been. They have all been slured and you do it once again above.

I dont care how much you roll you eyes stinger, I find it disgraceful that anyone who has done nothing but support the Saints could abuse and slur the name of a Saints great.

And for what? becaue they dont agree with your politics

For Christs sake I dont agree with Thommo or Burkie but I respect their right to do what they are doing.

I can imagine the outrageous indignitation if anyone happened to mention that Burke and Thomson will have they "snouts in the trough" once they are on the board.

Fair Dinkum.

i will respond to whatever post i like...you have done nothing but insult pro sff posters since the day the challenge was mounted...then you hide like a coward behind statements like.....i wasn't referring to you"....no just insult everyone.....you are acting like a drama queen...if you think that is insulting..tough luck....