Familiar bells ringing at the Western Bulldogs

[cwrcyn]

Has anyone seen the article in today's Herald Scum about the Bulldogs?

Sounds like Smorgon has had similar issues to deal with as Butterss did with Thomas.

.

[JeffDunne]

Sounds like Smorgon has had similar issues to deal with as Butterss did with Thomas..

Smorgon lent him cash?

[GrumpyOne]

Sounds like Smorgon has had similar issues to deal with as Butterss did with Thomas..

Smorgon lent him cash?

LOL.

Similar Jeff, not identical.

[Oh When the Saints]

Terrific point.

The days of the "man-in-charge" are over.

Bomber Thompson had responsbility stripped and four or five more people employed to assist with his workload. That came after an extensive review by one of the smartest operators in the game (Brian Cook).

Rodney Eade has had similar powers taken from him, and will have a restructured football depatment and more medical and support staff to allow him to focus on coaching.

Grant Thomas was sacked for refusing such a system, which has now been implemented at St Kilda around Ross Lyon, with several assistants, development coaches, a football manager and an array of medical and injury people.


With the retirement of Sheedy and sacking of Pagan (both of whom assumed a lot of control), it is safe to say that the one-man who does everything model is dead in the water. Finished. History.

I'm glad we've not only moved with the times, but have appointed quality football people in the right roles.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not saying that those coaches who liked the "in control of everything" approach were bad coaches. Just that AFL football has moved on to something else.

[Spinner]

Hmmm, Sharing the load....Who would have thought.

[Teflon]

Yeah a President who had the balls to not only give the ex coach his go BUT also had the gonads to pull the pin when it was clearly not helping our club move with the times...and whats he get for his trouble????............

[Spinner]

Yeah a President who had the balls to not only give the ex coach his go BUT also had the gonads to pull the pin when it was clearly not helping our club move with the times...and whats he get for his trouble????............

Yes...But he did employ him for 5 years....

[Teflon]

Yeah a President who had the balls to not only give the ex coach his go BUT also had the gonads to pull the pin when it was clearly not helping our club move with the times...and whats he get for his trouble????............

Yes...But he did employ him for 5 years....

Im not sure the issue was the period of employment..or more the issue of control.....we did play 2 prelims in that time and miss a GF appearance by a kick so is prolly fair that Grant got his tenure.........I do think Butters gets no kudos at all for making a tough decision that cynics brushed aside as him just squaring up with Thomas after a falling out (they convenently forget the Board also voted for the change).

Regardless, to remove him was the right decision - possibly a year to late for mine.......we needed to be blooding some youth a little earlier and under Grant we werent going to.

[Teflon]

Yeah a President who had the balls to not only give the ex coach his go BUT also had the gonads to pull the pin when it was clearly not helping our club move with the times...and whats he get for his trouble????............

Yes...But he did employ him for 5 years....

Im not sure the issue was the period of employment..or more the issue of control.....we did play 2 prelims in that time and miss a GF appearance by a kick so is prolly fair that Grant got his tenure.........I do think Butters gets no kudos at all for making a tough decision that cynics brushed aside as him just squaring up with Thomas after a falling out (they convenently forget the Board also voted for the change).

Regardless, to remove him was the right decision - possibly a year to late for mine.......we needed to be blooding some youth a little earlier and under Grant we werent going to.

[Spinner]

Yeah a President who had the balls to not only give the ex coach his go BUT also had the gonads to pull the pin when it was clearly not helping our club move with the times...and whats he get for his trouble????............

Yes...But he did employ him for 5 years....

Im not sure the issue was the period of employment..or more the issue of control.....we did play 2 prelims in that time and miss a GF appearance by a kick so is prolly fair that Grant got his tenure.........I do think Butters gets no kudos at all for making a tough decision that cynics brushed aside as him just squaring up with Thomas after a falling out (they convenently forget the Board also voted for the change).

Regardless, to remove him was the right decision - possibly a year to late for mine.......we needed to be blooding some youth a little earlier and under Grant we werent going to.

No doubt he made the best decision.

And it was so much harder considering we had played finals that year....

Lets face it, Rod contributed a lot of positives as well as negatives....What I cant understand is how some can be so certain a change of board was the answer....??? It baffles me.

[Teflon]

me too spinner.

Im nowhere NEAR convinced yet on anything re: change of Board.....its why Im waiting to see the congo line of sponsors we were promised and why Im also watching with interest how much involvement Fox and his mate Grant have dolwn the track at OUR club.

I do not believe a few bad stoushes between Butters and Thomas in the media means you throw an entire Board out that has ensured we dont end up the basket case Nth is.....yet we did.

change is as good as a holiday....except if your booked into Thailand the night before a Tsunami....will watch with interest.

[Oh When the Saints]

Disingenuous argument Teflon.

You believe a series of stoushes was the reason the Butterss administration was voted out?

[Teflon]

Disingenuous argument Teflon.

You believe a series of stoushes was the reason the Butterss administration was voted out?

The antomym to disingenuous is "straightforward"...sometimes things are...

Ofcourse it was - had Butters shut up and NOT given the 'doubting Thomas's' a reason for the coup de ta by coming out in the media and telling Grant to back off then he'd still be President. What other reason would you oust the Board - poor financial management?

Dont think so.

[Oh When the Saints]

You think 8,000 members voted to oust the board because of a stoush in the media?

The large majority of the support for the alternative board was simply venting frustration about poor on-field performance and a realisation that we missed a golden opportunity to win a premiership.

Supporters were annoyed and frustrated that we slid backwards and did not play finals. When presented with a proxy ticket, it allowed them a way of expressing that frustration. Perfect politics - played on emotion.

Objectively, there were few immediate considerations for getting rid of a board, but supporter frustation meant that the change occured. This was the vast majority of the votes.

There was residual support from those (hi mischa) who were still angry about the Thomas sacking and were itching to make Butterss accountable.

Then another bulk of members - particularly SS members - who wanted increased football spending and had a number of concerns about the marketing and football side of the club, and our low revenue. The alternative gave them that opportunity.


But the stoushes in the media, whilst embarrassing, were not the factor behind Butterss' downfall. They weren't even the catalyst.

Had we played off deep in finals, GW's ticket would not have received more than 2-3000 votes.

That's the fact of the matter.

Rod was a victim of the culture of success and expectation of excellence that he created.

[Apu]

Disingenuous argument Teflon.

You believe a series of stoushes was the reason the Butterss administration was voted out?

The antomym to disingenuous is "straightforward"...sometimes things are...

Ofcourse it was - had Butters shut up and NOT given the 'doubting Thomas's' a reason for the coup de ta by coming out in the media and telling Grant to back off then he'd still be President. What other reason would you oust the Board - poor financial management?

Dont think so.

Well that was the reason I was all for getting rid of Butters. the unnecessary comments he made in the media was inforgivable in my book. that sort of stuff should have been kept in-house.

The footy first ticket was based on a lack of spending on the footy dept, however i reckon a big part of it was due to Rods higher than average media prescence

[Ghost Like]

Disingenuous argument Teflon.

You believe a series of stoushes was the reason the Butterss administration was voted out?

I don't think the in media arguing helped the ex Prezs cause but as far as I was concerned there were other anomalies such as Training Facilities, Staff cut backs, Sponsors jumping off every second year (it felt like), Leaks to the media, the state of Moorabbin (Social Club?) and Membership packages began to appear like a basement showbag.

...just the "vibe" really.

[bigcarl]

the gt sacking split the club. wouldn't have mattered had his replacement made the finals first up ... but he didn't, and the rest is history.

good to see that both gt and rb are welcome back at the club under the new administration and we go into 2008 as a more unified club.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

Disingenuous argument Teflon.

You believe a series of stoushes was the reason the Butterss administration was voted out?

The antomym to disingenuous is "straightforward"...sometimes things are...

Ofcourse it was - had Butters shut up and NOT given the 'doubting Thomas's' a reason for the coup de ta by coming out in the media and telling Grant to back off then he'd still be President. What other reason would you oust the Board - poor financial management?

Dont think so.

oh go tell daddy he did a decent job teffers

[Spinner]

You think 8,000 members voted to oust the board because of a stoush in the media?

The large majority of the support for the alternative board was simply venting frustration about poor on-field performance and a realisation that we missed a golden opportunity to win a premiership.

Supporters were annoyed and frustrated that we slid backwards and did not play finals. When presented with a proxy ticket, it allowed them a way of expressing that frustration. Perfect politics - played on emotion.

Objectively, there were few immediate considerations for getting rid of a board, but supporter frustation meant that the change occured. This was the vast majority of the votes.

There was residual support from those (hi mischa) who were still angry about the Thomas sacking and were itching to make Butterss accountable.

Then another bulk of members - particularly SS members - who wanted increased football spending and had a number of concerns about the marketing and football side of the club, and our low revenue. The alternative gave them that opportunity.


But the stoushes in the media, whilst embarrassing, were not the factor behind Butterss' downfall. They weren't even the catalyst.

Had we played off deep in finals, GW's ticket would not have received more than 2-3000 votes.

That's the fact of the matter.

Rod was a victim of the culture of success and expectation of excellence that he created.

OWTS, it is naive not to think that majority of supporters based their decision on the publicized media war between Rod and Grant.

[bigcarl]

Rod was a victim of the culture of success and expectation of excellence that he created.

good post OWTS. i agree with all that you've written but it would have been more accurate to have said "rod was a victim of the culture of success and expectation of excellence that he and GT created".

[Teflon]

Disingenuous argument Teflon.

You believe a series of stoushes was the reason the Butterss administration was voted out?

The antomym to disingenuous is "straightforward"...sometimes things are...

Ofcourse it was - had Butters shut up and NOT given the 'doubting Thomas's' a reason for the coup de ta by coming out in the media and telling Grant to back off then he'd still be President. What other reason would you oust the Board - poor financial management?

Dont think so.

oh go tell daddy he did a decent job teffers

I hope your not baiting?...tsk tsk...thats against the rules...
But since your 100% in the know with your sauce an all we can let this go...

[Teflon]

You think 8,000 members voted to oust the board because of a stoush in the media?

The large majority of the support for the alternative board was simply venting frustration about poor on-field performance and a realisation that we missed a golden opportunity to win a premiership.

Supporters were annoyed and frustrated that we slid backwards and did not play finals. When presented with a proxy ticket, it allowed them a way of expressing that frustration. Perfect politics - played on emotion.

Objectively, there were few immediate considerations for getting rid of a board, but supporter frustation meant that the change occured. This was the vast majority of the votes.

There was residual support from those (hi mischa) who were still angry about the Thomas sacking and were itching to make Butterss accountable.

Then another bulk of members - particularly SS members - who wanted increased football spending and had a number of concerns about the marketing and football side of the club, and our low revenue. The alternative gave them that opportunity.


But the stoushes in the media, whilst embarrassing, were not the factor behind Butterss' downfall. They weren't even the catalyst.

Had we played off deep in finals, GW's ticket would not have received more than 2-3000 votes.

That's the fact of the matter.

Rod was a victim of the culture of success and expectation of excellence that he created.

OWTS, it is naive not to think that majority of supporters based their decision on the publicized media war between Rod and Grant.

Thank you Spinner - naive at best.

Who was talking poor funding of the football dept BEFORE Westonhouse came along with Burkie? honestly who was talking Board challenges (seriously and no Bedlams drivel doesnt constitute a seruious challenge) BEFORE Butters and Thomas had their stoush in the media?

Yeah talk vibes, sponsors getting off, football spending blah blah blah - THE CATALYST for the sacking of Butters and the Board was undoubtedly the ongoing media feud with Grant Thomas.

To suggest otherwise is folly - as I said HAD Butters said nothing I doubt many members wouldve bought the "theres to many leaks and to much being said outta Moorabbin" party line.

[joffaboy]

good to see that both gt and rb are welcome back at the club under the new administration and we go into 2008 as a more unified club.

Thomas should never be welcome back. All he did was use the club as a cash cow and is still trying to milk money from the club.

A huge arrogant A-hole who went out of his way this season to scupper the Saints because his huge ego wanted revenge for being rightfully sacked.

The man is a disruptive influence and should have nothing to do with the club.

OTOH Rod Butterss did nothing but put $1000's of his own into the club. When the jig was up he knew it was time to go and for the good of the club fell on his own sword.

Butterss is a Saints man through and through and should be thanked and welcomed at the club.

Thomas is a thomas man and has his own welfare as No.1 and the Saints way down the list.

How much more money does this bloke want to siphon off the members for NOT delivering a flag?

No - Thomas split the club, and would do so again. tay away Thomas - Forever.

[joffaboy]

THE CATALYST for the sacking of Butters and the Board was undoubtedly the ongoing media feud with Grant Thomas.

Thats it in a nutshell. And Thomas made sure the feud kept going all year, causing as much disruption to the club as possible. He went out of his way to keep high profile and cause a split at the club.

I remember listening to him on SEN saying "oh I'm not bitter, Rods gun was bigger then mine and so I'm not there and he is". All the while you could tell that Thomas was angling for a "bigger gun'.

thomas couldn't care less what happened to the club in 2007, as long as he de-stabilised Butters and the Admin. He did that admirably and with the rat cunning I would expect someone with his monumental ego.

And people want this type of disruptive influence back at the club Look out Ross Lyon if Thomas ever comes back and isn't coach.

[Teflon]

good to see that both gt and rb are welcome back at the club under the new administration and we go into 2008 as a more unified club.

Thomas should never be welcome back. All he did was use the club as a cash cow and is still trying to milk money from the club.

A huge arrogant A-hole who went out of his way this season to scupper the Saints because his huge ego wanted revenge for being rightfully sacked.

The man is a disruptive influence and should have nothing to do with the club.

OTOH Rod Butterss did nothing but put $1000's of his own into the club. When the jig was up he knew it was time to go and for the good of the club fell on his own sword.

Butterss is a Saints man through and through and should be thanked and welcomed at the club.

Thomas is a thomas man and has his own welfare as No.1 and the Saints way down the list.

How much more money does this bloke want to siphon off the members for NOT delivering a flag?

No - Thomas split the club, and would do so again. tay away Thomas - Forever.

Could not agree more - 100% on the money.

The guys a leech and his actions since leaving the club and his latest "i want holiday pay" yada yada speak volumes about the man.

He was not gonna go away till he got Butters - thats done so now no more Thomas he is not welcome in any official capacity at our club at all. Guys like Thomas dont take back seats - dont know how...given em time and they want to drive all the time. A disease and ego we can ill afford.