breen backs butterss board

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Breen's exactly the kind of guy I'd like to see involved in either ticket, long term footy exposure from every angle, regardless of what he's done on the field. I don't know that he specifically is the guy (in fact, since SFF looks a shoe-in, coming out anti-SFF almost guarentees he isn't), but I'd be more comfortable moving forward knowing that experience was there.

[To the top]

I would suggest that you people read what Breen says, because I can assure you that, at this moment, St Kilda FC are being spoken of as a joke among the wider footballing community - and that any progress they have made over the past couple of years has been wiped clean - "typical St Kilda, what a rabble".

It is embarrassing to have to defend the club - and that is to power brokers at other clubs who are ringing and querying "What the hell is going on down there?".

My response is that, like everyone else, I am watching - in disbelief.

But there is query as to what the St Kilda licence may be worth, and to that I give my opinion that it is 15 contracted players. And you could not continue the franchise as a member's club. Far, far too unstable.

"If you can get the licence, get the 15 contracted players and take the member's out, there is a model which can be successfully built on - and in the short term - so go and read your documents and do your sums"

I repeat, read what Breen says.

And to attack "Cowboy" Neale as being on the "gravy train"?

Tell him that to his face.

I repeat, with supporters such as this, what hope has St Kilda got to build the stable environment which is a pre-requisite to on-field success?

Breen and Neale are 2 of 20 St Kilda players who appear in a photograph hanging on the club rooms wall ("so you really only have the re-location cost of 1 photograph").

That is the sum result of how many years of turmoil and distraction?

And the turmoil and the distraction continues.

Unabated.

Why?

Because we do not win premierships, and are declining (once again) in on-field performance causing frustration among members - and the business plan is skewed toward self-serving failure because what immediately happens is what is happening now.

If you have the weight of argument, and you persevere you will gain acceptance.

And in strong organisations that process happens from within.

Good, strong, robust, researched debate, even by "devil's advocate" presentations, just to ensure that best practice is being observed and opportunity maximised.

That is what happens on good boards, sitting atop stable and successful organisations.

The days of turning up, slipping into a Chivers on ice and moving on to the next Board meeting are gone.

Read the requirements of Directors.

[spert]

I'm really looking for stability over everything else, as the club will go backwards if we destabilise. The club is in good financial shape, which has taken a while and was only done with prudent financial practices. This is financial stability the club has never had and should now see the club spending in areas which need it, this I believe has started with the board approving spending.
Sponsors come and go and there is absolutely no issue with advertising for business..and there's no problem with playing the status of this club up in advertisements. I think that's what advertising is about -correct me if I'm wrong. Board members in clubs and business for example regularly jump off when they are not happy with direction or the attitude of the CEO, manager, president, chairman etc. -they're not robots, so why is this a sudden issue? Many people in key positions have left my workplace in the last year, some on good terms, some not on good terms -same as many places I've worked -why is it a sudden problem because this has happened at St.Kilda?? As much as I find Butters a bit abrasive, it is clear that the alternative argument is full of holes and I fear a spending free-for-all if they weazle their way in.
We just missed the finals and with a good pre-season, many of our players who have had injury issues this year, should find form again and there's no reason why we won't be back in the finals race in 2008..why stuff it up??

[joffaboy]

How monumentally gutless. No wonder you have received some critical PMs. At least the Teflons and other have the guts to stand up and be counted as firm supporters of the current regime. Let's face it, there are morons, braying mobs and cheersquads on both sides of the divide: just as there were when GT was sacked.

So i have to with thee or agin thee do I? Typical narrowminded simplistic thinking from someone who is part of the baying mob. Of course you would support the two biased mods because I dare to critisise the challengers. Of course you take the tack i want the current board cannonised

jb - I have enjoyed many of your posts in the past, but your current attitude - like that you adopted 12 months ago - seems to involve attacking other posters more or less just for the heck of it. But then you seem to object to the fact that other posters want to hurl some of the same back at you.

please name one person I have personally attacked. I attack the simplistic mentality of the cheersquad and baying mob mentality of this place. i attack anyone with a biased and subjective agenda. If that pricks a nerve well..If the hat fits...

And then you try to accuse me of not being able to stand hearing an alternative view?

I listen to all alternative viewpoints thats what happens when you can listen and objectively analyse all the information, not narrowmindedly cheer for one side like it is a footy match. Try it sometime you may become enlightened.

And if TTT is correct and somebody has vilified Cowboy Neale, it just proves my point that the mob will go to any lengths to vilify and insult and put down past champoions.

First Frawley
then Breen
now Neale.

Who else is on the FFS SS hitlist of past champions.

Sick making

[TimeToShineFellas]

FWIW Joffaboy I am 100% in aggreance with your present stance.....

[rodgerfox]

I'm really looking for stability over everything else, as the club will go backwards if we destabilise.

I'm sure we all are.

But this is the problem - we currently aren't stable.

There is currently infighting within the current board.

We're losing members.

We've lost sponsors.

We've lost key staff.

We are not currently stable.

This is what is being addressed.

[rodgerfox]

We just missed the finals and with a good pre-season, many of our players who have had injury issues this year, should find form again and there's no reason why we won't be back in the finals race in 2008..why stuff it up??

It could be argued that current board 'stuffed it up' by destabilising the club themselves.

They sacked a coach at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Things aren't rosy.

Something needs to be done, and is being done.

[bigcarl]

It could be argued that current board 'stuffed it up' by destabilising the club themselves.

They sacked a coach at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Things aren't rosy.

Something needs to be done, and is being done.

hit the nail on the head. thanks for the service rod. been great for the club. only really made the one stuff up

[aussierules0k]

[kaos theory]

would suggest that you people read what Breen says, because I can assure you that, at this moment, St Kilda FC are being spoken of as a joke among the wider footballing community - and that any progress they have made over the past couple of years has been wiped clean - "typical St Kilda, what a rabble".

It is embarrassing to have to defend the club - and that is to power brokers at other clubs who are ringing and querying "What the hell is going on down there?".

TTT - I'm sorry but this is garbage propaganda.

Who do you think, by their actions, have brought us to this state??? Can't think? I'II give you a hint....the initials are RB.

Honestly, take a look at his behaviour, his public and very costly spat with the ex-coach, the 'processes' and costly salaries for too few, the lack of unity in the board, and the obvious frastrations amounst the staff & supporters in general & even the playing group (as evidenced by Thommo's actions).

So do you think that burke, GW, Bryant, Dana, Gdansky, Levin & co, just wanted to stir up trouble for the hell of it? Yep, nothing better to do with their time but make trouble at their club

I think Breen is wrong, or a little too distant from the happenings at the club, but it doesn't mean I disrespect him.

We don't need melodramatics about 'rabble' and 'doom'....its a process we are going through to improve the club.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

...

So do you think that burke, GW, Bryant, Dana, Gdansky, Levin & co, just wanted to stir up trouble for the hell of it? Yep, nothing better to do with their time but make trouble at their club

I think Breen is wrong, or a little too distant from the happenings at the club, but it doesn't mean I disrespect him.

We don't need melodramatics about 'rabble' and 'doom'....its a process we are going through to improve the club.

FWIW,

I have little to no opinion on Westaway himself still because all I've got from him is that he'd like to spend more money. He hasn't been visible for long enough for me to have any more faith in him than RB. His biggest pro seems to be that he isn't RB, and for me, that's not enough... and could IMO be fairly interpreted by some as making trouble.

Brant (or is it Bryant?) appears well qualified to be a treasurer/CFO, however this is an area of strength for the current board, so without a rap sheet of achievements relating to sports, or solving the problems of the vertical, he's a requisite for consideration, not a reason to vote.

Nelson seems to have big wraps. Why? MD of a $165M company certainly isn't anything to sneeze at, and part of her business is taking a pound of flesh for every coke sold at TD, which seems is vaguely AFL related... she'd be well versed in high staff turnover business employing casuals... I can see Delaware North being a company that St KFC should be in bed with, but I don't know why she makes a great footy club director. 1 year as member, want a bet that Delaware North is one of the new sponsors? (and I'm not trying to be a smartarse in questioning her, enough people seem to be very high on her that I'm sure there's more to know, I'd like to know it.)

Gdanski & Levin are necessary from a continuity POV, and bring legalese with them, but as the guys who have played both sides aren't exactly getting me worked up... and certainly are fair call for stirring up trouble.

Simon Grant certainly seems an interesting proposition, that's one heck of a resume, and in his case I'd certainly be saying "what job do you want". Not a director, but plenty of senior experience in big companies, and you'd expect a contact list a mile long.

I wasn't blown away on day 1, and I'm not blown away now. I would expect the requisite skillset to exist among these individuals, but IMO, the most important qual is industry experience, and the only ones who have it are Gdanski & Levin. I'd love to get some view of the challengers from somebody who is excited about them for reasons other than just "they're not Butterss".

Also, FWIW, I don't know if the "rabble" and "doom" are justified or not - I can see how the old perception would remain, and it can certainly be painted beside actions of the past, but the important is now and moving forward, I can't see how a challenge should be a destructive force by itself... however, 9000 proxies in 2 weeks based on what we've seen to date? It sounds like mob mentality to me, though know the ringleaders would paint it as the disaffected masses exercising their voice.

[GrumpyOne]

.. however, 9000 proxies in 2 weeks based on what we've seen to date? It sounds like mob mentality to me, though know the ringleaders would paint it as the disaffected masses exercising their voice.

Mob mentality, or an overwhelming indication of discontent?

I prefer not to underestimate the intelligence of a large number of my fellow Sainters.

The offer to Thommo and Burkey, and the promise of more money to the Football Dept, indicates to me that the incumbent Board have finally realised that something is terribly wrong in the state of Moorabbin.

Why did they not know before, if they were supposed to be in touch with the running of the club? Even if they only just read this forum, they would have known a challenge was coming, many months ago. Why were they not on the front foot, explaining to the members how they intended to improve the club long before the challenge was raised?

It looks very strongly that Butterss has fallen asleep at the wheel, and is now desperatly struggling to get back on the road.

Even if this challenge fails, there has been a huge wake-up call given to the board.

I don't buy the Mindless Lemmings vs the Rich Playboy argument. Elements of both exist on both sides. What I will be deciding on is whether the inaction of the current board warrants their replacement by untried newcomers. And to be honest, the current board are looking very shakey at the moment.

[To the top]

"They sacked the coach at the wrong time for the wrong reasons".

So now lets get those who sacked the coach.

At Norwood FC, in my time so I speak from first hand experience, Robert Oatey, the son of a Norwood legend and premiership player and coach, re-built the club (and I mean re-built the playing side with the country scoured for players, backed by a stable administration which ensured those players then came to the club) from bottom in 1968 to competative in 1970 and 1972 (just missing finals both years) to finals in 1972 and 1973, and close losses, by less than a goal to eventual premiers, North Adelaide, but was sacked in 1973.

Bob Hammond was appointed and promptly took the side to premierships in 1975 and 1978.

Why?

We were told it was the view of the administration that Robert could not take the club to the next level - a premiership, and that we had the list to achieve that objective.

No one questioned this.

Robert went to Sturt to continue his playing career.

Thomas was sacked for the same reason - and some others to boot, that Oatey was.

As I say, no wonder St Kilda has the history it has - a history which is being repeated at the exact same period in time Norwood were at in 1973.

The core of a side to finish the job, and then back up.

We accepted the Boards presentation, put our heads down and worked harder.

The supporters of this club have a bit to learn.

[kaos theory]

FWIW,

I have little to no opinion on Westaway himself still because all I've got from him is that he'd like to spend more money. He hasn't been visible for long enough for me to have any more faith in him than RB. His biggest pro seems to be that he isn't RB, and for me, that's not enough... and could IMO be fairly interpreted by some as making trouble

BAM -
GW has built one of Australia's biggest logistics companies....You don't do that through making trouble & just likeing to spend money. I don't know him personally, but know about him. He is easily superior to RB in terms of building & running organizations.

Your jibe at him personally as someone making trouble is rediculous in the extreme.

[cwrcyn]

St kilda would still have Mortgage House as their sponsor today if the board had not gotten so cocky. The deal with Mortgage house was a good one, with incentives for every win the Saints had.

Unfortunately, the board went back to Mortgage House nad told them if they wanted to continue as sponsors, they had better cough up double the incentive money for games won.

Now, I happen to know that the initial incentive money was very generous indeed, and Mortgage House were pretty insulted by the board's attitude and arrogance at the time. The result - Mortgage House pulled the pin and the word got around town about what had happened.

This made any future sponsors very nervous about getting on board the saints wagon. And this is where we stand today. No major sponsor, and the club begging for one via the print medium

[JeffDunne]

It is embarrassing to have to defend the club - and that is to power brokers at other clubs who are ringing and querying "What the hell is going on down there?".

Not sure what 'power brokers' you're talking to, but I have spent 4 hours today with a very senior club official who was scathing about our current president.

[SENsei]

Geez I'm sick of some of you lot. What a couple of gems we have today in this thread.

To the top - 'supporters have a lot to learn'. Get off your high horse. What a load of sanctimonious claptrap.

How the f*** is Norwood 40 years ago relevant to this situation? It's not. Every situation is unique.

Another poster, BAM, reckons it must be 'mob mentality' with the 9000 proxies. Are we not smart enough to work it out for ourselves? And yes, I followed no one in casting my VOTE for the new challenge.

But hey, if they don't agree, just belittle them. Isn't that the way to go?

Fair dinkum.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

FWIW,

I have little to no opinion on Westaway himself still because all I've got from him is that he'd like to spend more money. He hasn't been visible for long enough for me to have any more faith in him than RB. His biggest pro seems to be that he isn't RB, and for me, that's not enough... and could IMO be fairly interpreted by some as making trouble

BAM -
GW has built one of Australia's biggest logistics companies....You don't do that through making trouble & just likeing to spend money. I don't know him personally, but know about him. He is easily superior to RB in terms of building & running organizations.

Your jibe at him personally as someone making trouble is rediculous in the extreme.

GW built Gregory's transport. RB Built an IT centric recruitment company, got out, and got back in post .com Neither's easy to do, and while they're both succesful men, neither is a guarenteed good president of a board of an AFL football club.

Due respect - if St. KFC board's brief was to ship footballs, I'd vote for GW in a second. If it were the clubs brief to expand their core business, or to implement better logistics across their far flung operations, I'd give him serious consideration. What has he done that's relevant? I cannot begin to describe to you how dissapointed I am that it takes so little to get a mandate to be president of St. KFC... I wait for somebody to explain to me why I'm wrong, and why I should be content, let alone excited about the new board that's coming.

I'm didn't intend to jibe him personally, but he hasn't given me any reason to vote for him other than not being RB, which can be interpreted as troublemaking. FWIW, I think he does want what's best for the club, trouble is from what he's said all I can tell is that's not Rod, and it means spending more... but I've gone into this many times, I'm not impressed by your arguments, you're not impressed by mine. If you think I'm out of line by leaving room to interpret starting what I regard as an incredibly shallow, momentum driven election with 0 substance to it as making trouble, then bite me. That wasn't my intent, but if that's how people want to read it, feel free.

I responded to your post in the hope that I'd get a view as to why it's so "obvious" that GWs candidates would make such great AFL club board members - I even gave you my views on them. If I've offended you by not being impressed by GW and co. at this stage, either deal with it, or give me something to debate. The only reason I've fallen into the Butterss crew at this point is because the pro GW arguments are as poor as the above.

[To the top]

Because Sensational, you learn from successful models.

Not from unsuccessful models such as St Kilda.

Which implodes when they sack a coach.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Another poster, BAM, reckons it must be 'mob mentality' with the 9000 proxies. Are we not smart enough to work it out for ourselves? And yes, I followed no one in casting my VOTE for the new challenge.

Good for you. Not everyone who votes for Westaway is an idiot - never said they were. I'd surely hope that given the strong SFF sentiment here, not everyone thinks I'm so stupid as to keep posting on a site where I thought everyone was a moron.

Seriously though, 9,000 in 2 weeks? That's ridiculous. I HOPE the new guys do a good job, because they've done just about nothing to earn the mandate they're receiving, except put their hands up and vaguely look the part. The unholy rush to vote for the new guy reeks of knee jerk reaction, and it reeks of mob mentality. Again, please, tell me WHY I'm wrong - if you think it's "overwhelming discontent", I think you're right... and if you think this is a productive way to voice that, then we're back to square one - so go the route of SENsaintsational, and just call me an arrogant name caller for being unimpressed by the 9,000.

We'll know whether we were smart enough to work it out for ourselves in a few years (or lucky enough, as the case may be... but in hindsight we'll all be geniouses, even 'lil 'ol not filling out his proxy Bam). For now it's all tea leaves and hope.

Btw, thanks to poster above for the insight on the Mortgage House deal's breakdown. A bit of honest to god new info (to me anyway) almost makes me not wish I'd never logged into this thread in the first place.

[Oh When the Saints]

BAM! (shhhh), I would be interested on your thoughts about the business experience of our current board.

You have been through and commented on the alternate board in terms of what they bring to the table ... what about the incumbents?

To me they all seem to be in business together, and all in the same industry (recruitment, employment, HR services etc.) ... so same contacts, same networks, same business knowledge.

Certainly King, Butterss, Kellet and Basset anyway.


rodgerfox summed it up perfectly for mine.


We all want stability - but the current board IS NOT STABLE.

The President is allegedly involved in unsuitable activities, he cannot be in the media 5 minutes without talking about our previous coach, and his actions are the cause of the club being sued for money.

Further more, we have sponsors leaving, a decline in membership, a fractured board, a CEO who is undermining the President and key quality staff leaving (CFO, CEO, Marketing etc.).


To the Top, that IS NOT stability.


You cannot succeed in that context.


Nathan Burke has spoken to RB on several occasions since 2005, and none of Burke's concerns (similar to the ones above) have been addressed.

None.


So we have an unstable board who won't listen to its shareholders (members).

But hey, everything's rosy and because we paid off some debt let's just leave RB to keep things how they are and hope and pray that they get better.

[JeffDunne]

Carlton are a successful model - equal most premierships in the VFL/AFL.

Let's follow their model . . .

BTW, if Norwood are so successful why the merger talks with Sturt?

Why aren't they in the AFL?

Why have they only won 1 flag in 20 years in a two-bob competition?

They were successful in an 8 team comp and most of their success was a long, long time ago when demographics were on their side.

[spert]

Sorry guys, a couple of board members who have been out-egoed and want to step down, don't make a destabilised club...Sacking a failed coach who couldn't win a flag with a champion team doesn't destabilise a club. Major destabilisation is created by challenging the existing board and president and filling members heads with a load of sales talk and promises.. Westaway is an expert at that - much more destabilising than a few arguments at board level and the president shooting off his mouth. I am surprised so many are looking for an excuse for just missing the finals- this has been the problem with Saint supporters, things go bad and they want a scapegoat..coach, players, managers, presidents..just bloody well put up and let RL get the team ready for 2008. Poor Saints, here we go again, hstory repeating itself over and over and over

[JeffDunne]

spert, if we sacked a coach based on him not winning a flag with a 'champion' team, why aren't we in the market for a coach this year?

Who is looking for a scapegoat?

I wanted Rod gone long before we'd missed the 8. I suspect I'm not alone either.

[bungiton]

I would suggest that you people read what Breen says, because I can assure you that, at this moment, St Kilda FC are being spoken of as a joke among the wider footballing community - and that any progress they have made over the past couple of years has been wiped clean - "typical St Kilda, what a rabble".

It is embarrassing to have to defend the club - and that is to power brokers at other clubs who are ringing and querying "What the hell is going on down there?".

My response is that, like everyone else, I am watching - in disbelief.

But there is query as to what the St Kilda licence may be worth, and to that I give my opinion that it is 15 contracted players. And you could not continue the franchise as a member's club. Far, far too unstable.

"If you can get the licence, get the 15 contracted players and take the member's out, there is a model which can be successfully built on - and in the short term - so go and read your documents and do your sums"

I repeat, read what Breen says.

And to attack "Cowboy" Neale as being on the "gravy train"?

Tell him that to his face.

I repeat, with supporters such as this, what hope has St Kilda got to build the stable environment which is a pre-requisite to on-field success?

Breen and Neale are 2 of 20 St Kilda players who appear in a photograph hanging on the club rooms wall ("so you really only have the re-location cost of 1 photograph").

That is the sum result of how many years of turmoil and distraction?

And the turmoil and the distraction continues.

Unabated.

Why?

Because we do not win premierships, and are declining (once again) in on-field performance causing frustration among members - and the business plan is skewed toward self-serving failure because what immediately happens is what is happening now.

If you have the weight of argument, and you persevere you will gain acceptance.

And in strong organisations that process happens from within.

Good, strong, robust, researched debate, even by "devil's advocate" presentations, just to ensure that best practice is being observed and opportunity maximised.

That is what happens on good boards, sitting atop stable and successful organisations.

The days of turning up, slipping into a Chivers on ice and moving on to the next Board meeting are gone.

Read the requirements of Directors.

I don't really give a toss what happened at Norwood, far as I recall they are in a second or third rate competition, and has nothing to do with what I expect from a board.

The current board at St Kilda are reactive rather than proactive, yes they rid the club of debt, they also cut spending, this was cut in areas important too the day to day running of a club. Marketing, Injury management and the football department a few of the areas hardest hit. Cutting costs is fine to retire debt but if it interferes with what is actually the most important aspect of running the club, ie the players then it is in fact not such a great thing to keep cutting and spending should be targetted at the areas suffering.

The SFF ticket have been pilloried because they intend to increase spending, in line with increasing revenue. Their opinion is not to spend the money made by the current board but to investigate increasing revenue including offering better membership incentives. This year the current board has lost three to four thousand members, both major sponsors, and a raft of senior office staff, yet in response to the SFF ticket have promised to increase spending by $500, 000 on the footy department. Where is the indignation regarding this manouvre?

The current board has made a mess out of dealings with the Kingston council, trying to bluff that other councils would fall at their feet to get them to move to greener pastures, the council called their bluff, we then had a CEO and president giving contradicting statements to the media. The president spent most of the year attackigg a coach sacked six months previously, the club meanwhile still crippled with injuries slid out of the eight and missed finals for the first time in three years. This also has a negative implication for potential sponsors.

So to start your diatribe with you and your up town buddies are all over how suddenly because of a board challenge to rid the club of the bumbling buffoons, the club id NOW a laughing stock??? The Club is NOW a rabble, so what you and your high class toffs were patting each other obn the back up till a fortnight ago with how wonderful the club was???

There is something boroken at St Kilda, the time is now to fix it, id Butterss and his board have done such a great job and are prepared to stand on their credentials, why all the stalling?

Why not go to the members, have an EGM as soon as is humanly possible and get the process over and done with so the playing group get the best preperation for the next season??


Don't tell me ....... Hmmm one time at Norwood, you sound like the dopey girl with the clarinet, one time at band camp.......