Balance sheet 2007

[chook23]

While the Saints operated profitably this year, a decision has been made to take "some accounting hits" in the form of capital works write-downs and provisions for payments to former coach Grant Thomas and the recently retired Aaron Hamill.


Backended and long contract of Hamill hurting.........

provision for GT???

Is the GT component for possible payment and legal costs??


Thoughts on this?

[supersaints]

I think Hamill should give at least half the money back.............

[saint66au]

Thoughts??

I'm going to hide in the nearest fallout shelter cos I reckon this thread is gonna get ugly

[Dan Warna]

I think Hamill should give at least half the money back.............

i think if you sign a contract you honor it.

[fingers]

Thoughts??

I'm going to hide in the nearest fallout shelter cos I reckon this thread is gonna get ugly

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

[chook23]

I think Hamill should give at least half the money back.............

i think if you sign a contract you honor it.

No concern re Hamill - he was offered it

The offer from ...........club end the problem

[HarveysDeciple]

I think Hamill should give at least half the money back.............

why?

[saintsRrising]

Thoughts??

:

Thoughts...what thoughts...


We are told that someone was an expert at contracts.....yet his own contract is so unclear that there is now a $270,000 provision many many moons after his departure....


....and who can complain about a back ended deal over many years with another $400,000 odd to be written off this year.....but hey that allowed us to trade for Brooks and Watts....and to play some years a player or two short as we had no salary cap room for a full list.



But hey it's all good as this guy was an expert at contracts and list management....so it must all be good.

Previous Board should have paid more attention me thinks......

[Oh When the Saints]

A 300k operating loss because of about 600k in payments to Hamill and Thomas, plus I suppose increased expenditure on the appointments of new club doctor, David Misson and Matthew Drain.

Re: the Thomas payment.

Clearly this shouldn't have come out of the 2007 bottom line - it should have been resolved last year.

I have a feeling the current board might be taking the attitude "let's get rid of this problem and just pay him the money".

Is that the right move? I don't want a contracted court battle between Thomas and the club ... although Thomas probably wouldn't mind the publicity IMO.

On the other hand, it's a significant amount of money for the club to just give away, and IMO Thomas was fairly compensated for his services to the club when he was there.

I don't know ...

[saintsRrising]

I have a feeling the current board might be taking the attitude "let's get rid of this problem and just pay him the money".

Is that the right move? I don't want a contracted court battle between Thomas and the club ... although Thomas probably wouldn't mind the publicity IMO.

...

Or they may just be providing for it in an accounting sense....in case they have to pay.

[bob__71]

He was contracted for another year when he was sacked....He was conned into signing a document saying he wasnt owed any holiday pay just before they sacked him.

If that happened to me as an employee I would feel shafted as well. Add to that your previous employer then turns around and stops you from getting a job as CEO of the clubs sponser...who then decided to not be sponsor anymore.

I say good on the new board if they can just pay him what he is owed....the karma will be repayed 10 fold.

[Dan Warna]

i like what GT achieved at st kilda, I thought he could take us to teh premiership, thats gone, done, dusted, finished, 15 month old news.

I hope he uses the money to pay of RB and perhaps buy some st kilda memberships for his family. IMO we should pay him what we owe him, and he should pay RB what he owes RB.

yesterdays news.

[Mr Magic]

He was contracted for another year when he was sacked....He was conned into signing a document saying he wasnt owed any holiday pay just before they sacked him.

If that happened to me as an employee I would feel shafted as well. Add to that your previous employer then turns around and stops you from getting a job as CEO of the clubs sponser...who then decided to not be sponsor anymore.

I say good on the new board if they can just pay him what he is owed....the karma will be repayed 10 fold.

The new Board are not paying him anything, if I read the article correctly. ALl they are doing is making a 'provision' to pay him if he wins his case. That is a very far cry from paying him. It is purely a accounting move to put money aside in case it is needed.

As for the firat paragraph of your post, if Thomas had a further year to run on his contract then the Club would have had to pay him out. Either he didn't have a further year to run or the Club did pay him what was owed to him.

The money he is claiming now has absolutely nothing to do with any money owed for a further year on his contract. It is a claim for unpaid 'holiday pay' etc.

As for your statement that he was 'conned into signing a document', surely you are joking? This was the guy who handled all contracts for all players at the Club. You would have thought he knew what he was signing for himself?

[saintsRrising]

As for your statement that he was 'conned into signing a document', surely you are joking? This was the guy who handled all contracts for all players at the Club. You would have thought he knew what he was signing for himself?

Indeed....and not just all players....all the other football staff too.....and remember that he had the contracts role by choice and indeed even insisted that he do it.....and keep doing it when the Board had suggested that his time could be better utilised on football matters.



The matter mainly seems to revolve around GT now claiming that he was doing football work when on leave.....BUT please how many executives on $500,000 plus do not still do some work when off on leave or on the weekends etc.

You get the big bucks because you are 24/7....

[bob__71]

As for your statement that he was 'conned into signing a document', surely you are joking? This was the guy who handled all contracts for all players at the Club. You would have thought he knew what he was signing for himself?

Indeed....and not just all players....all the other football staff too.....and remeber that he had the contracts role by choice and indeed even insisted that he do it.....and keep doing it when the Board had suggested that his time could be better utilised on football matters.

So RB did a good job of shafting him

[saintsRrising]

So RB did a good job of shafting him

Why RB???....do not the Saints have a CEO?

Would not GT have reported to the CEO?

Would not GT have had to submit any leave forms etc to the CEO?

Would not any legal papers that GT would have needed to have signed have been with the CEO, whether that be AF or his predecessors???

Would not the CEO have been the one via the accounting department that would have prepared and signed off on any termination agreement?


Would not the CEO as CEO be fully responsible for ensuring that all paperwork was appropriately performed??

Are you stating that the CEO was derelict in his duties and let the President do all of the above?????

[Dan Warna]

oh FFS

i was a GT fan, he's gone, I was sad, I've moved on.

lets analyse how lyon is going and discuss the future.

GT wont come to st kilda as a coach, its not going to happen, he's dusted, gone, passed.

if he wanted to come back, he shouldn't have behaved as he did, any support he would have had as a realistic chance to triumphantly return as st kilda's coach has been dusted by acting like a jerk over the past 8 or 9 months plus legal action.

we dusted RB for much the same reason.

like it lump it, we have RL as coach for 08, if we do change coaches for 09 IT WONT BE GT.

so lets deal with the issues on hand instead looking backwards.

<waits for post link to march 07>

[Saint Mik]

The club is going to show a loss in 07 because of the great man GT on both payouts end of story.

GT has cost the club a great deal of money in 07 with his actions so i hope RB gets every cent he is owed.

Hard to move on Dan when the club is still putting hands in the pockets with no return on the investments

Hope you enjoy the payout GT in one hand out the other, lets hope you can sponge off someone that is not involved with the club in the future.

[bozza1980]

The club have decided to take a hit this year.

I am not a CPA, but my understanding of the article was that the payment for Hamill could have been recorded against next years bottom line but they chose to record it this year.

As for Thomas, he was an employee of the club, he feels he is owed money due to him, like every other member of the community it is his right to pursue this money. Every story has two sides, maybe he is wrong none of us actually know though, let it take it's course.

Just because he was employed by the football club we all love doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to pursue money he feels he is owed. If you were dismissed from your position and you disputed your holiday payout, would you pursue it or would you say "no, there are people who love this company, I love this company, I won't pursue this money I am owed".

How about we all grow up, we don't know the whole in's and out's of what he is seeking, what he was promised what was signed. We have bit's and pieces 2, 3rd and 4th hand and we are making assumptions to boot. He has the right to pursue this, if it is frivolous in the courts opinion he will be asked to pay restitution to the club. No harm no foul, if the club is in the right he will be forced to pay some costs, he the club is wrong we will pay him what he is owed.

That said it appears that the club have allowed for a payout against this financial year. It may not happen until next financial year, it may not happen at all, but the club have taken the hit on the bottom line this year in case.

[rodgerfox]

I hope he uses the money to pay of RB and perhaps buy some st kilda memberships for his family. IMO we should pay him what we owe him, and he should pay RB what he owes RB.

yesterdays news.

Clearly yesterday's news and a topic I couldn't a give a shiit about.

However the money issue between Butsy and GT isn't about him not paying him back - it's about the interest.

GT says the loan was interest free, Butsy says it wasn't. They were buddies at the time therefore foolishly didn't draw up any papers. GT assumed that mates rates applied (ie. no interest) and Butsy assumed that it went without saying that there would be interest - although he says he did actually say it.

The problem is that there is no paperwork to prove either way.

So it's not a case of GT paying Butterss the money he owes him - the question is how much he owes him.

[JeffDunne]

How about we all grow up, . . .

Now there's a thought.


Nah.

[stinger]

The club have decided to take a hit this year.

I am not a CPA, but my understanding of the article was that the payment for Hamill could have been recorded against next years bottom line but they chose to record it this year.

As for Thomas, he was an employee of the club, he feels he is owed money due to him, like every other member of the community it is his right to pursue this money. Every story has two sides, maybe he is wrong none of us actually know though, let it take it's course.

Just because he was employed by the football club we all love doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to pursue money he feels he is owed. If you were dismissed from your position and you disputed your holiday payout, would you pursue it or would you say "no, there are people who love this company, I love this company, I won't pursue this money I am owed".

How about we all grow up, we don't know the whole in's and out's of what he is seeking, what he was promised what was signed. We have bit's and pieces 2, 3rd and 4th hand and we are making assumptions to boot. He has the right to pursue this, if it is frivolous in the courts opinion he will be asked to pay restitution to the club. No harm no foul, if the club is in the right he will be forced to pay some costs, he the club is wrong we will pay him what he is owed.

That said it appears that the club have allowed for a payout against this financial year. It may not happen until next financial year, it may not happen at all, but the club have taken the hit on the bottom line this year in case.

good sensible post......

[Eastern]

Thoughts??

I'm going to hide in the nearest fallout shelter cos I reckon this thread is gonna get ugly

The UGLIES haven't surfaced yet. Give it time !!

[fonz_#15]

I think Hamill should give at least half the money back.............

well i think your a liitle bit silly

[supersaints]

I think Hamill should give at least half the money back.............

well i think your a liitle bit silly

Well maybe... but not has silly as Hamill and the club, they should have taken out medibank insurance !!!!