Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
NEWS.com.au wrote:
Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.
Un-be-lie-vable.
I had the same thought reading that.
I'm starting to think they would have actually sacked him even if we'd won the flag.
But what about this....
"Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne. "
So what if we won? What would have happened then?
I wonder if anyone still believes the reasons we were given for the sacking?
"Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne. "
So what if we won? What would have happened then?
I wonder if anyone still believes the reasons we were given for the sacking?
Old news. You are behind the times Rodge...by a long period.
It was stated some time back that the decision to sack GT was made before the finals.
So nothing new on this today...except to you.
The Board wanted new football structures...and GT refused to go along and so hence the decision to terminate him.
Last edited by saintsRrising on Wed 14 May 2008 5:58pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
"Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne. "
So what if we won? What would have happened then?
I wonder if anyone still believes the reasons we were given for the sacking?
Old news. You are behind the times Rodge...by a long period.
It was stated some time back that the decision to sack GT was made before the finals.
So nothing new on this today...except to you.
The Board wanted new football structures...and GT refused to go along and so hence the decision to terminate him.
Well, according to the above - it was only if we lost to Melbourne. Not regardless of what happened.
That's what I'm raising. Based on what's been reported from a Court of Law, you're wrong.
its stuff like this, together with the massive amount of TV rights money the afl get, the raping of cash via pokies that all clubs seem to lean on, that really make me question whether I should pay the membership each year.
Mr Stirling is the barrister acting for GT is he not?... Might be an idea to wait till both sides are presented, or even till a decision is handed down before we pull the trigger.
I thought the issue was about interest on the loan, not about paying back the $1m loan?
Are you lying again?
Have you ever tried discussing a point without your name calling ?
Often when you are foundering in discussion you trot out your liar line...always without any supporting material.
If you pay back a loan...the repayments may or may not include interest.
Principal and interest are still repayments.
However as I understand re-payment of the principal was late as well and indeed some reports had it that GT tried to maintain that none of it need be repaid.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
However as I understand re-payment of the principal was late as well and indeed some reports had it that GT tried to maintain that none of it need be repaid.
rodgerfox wrote:
Well, according to the above - it was only if we lost to Melbourne. Not regardless of what happened.
That's what I'm raising. Based on what's been reported from a Court of Law, you're wrong.
No...I am right. And what was said was techically inacurate.
The decision was made to sack him at the end of the Saints finals campaign...not specifically after the Melbourne match.
This happened in the end to be Melbourne.
Follow???
I follow what you are saying, but reports from a Court of Law say something else.
Do they???
Al they say is:
"Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne"
Let me explain it to you then...if we had won then he would have been sacked after the next final if we had lost that one.
also remember that Mr Stirling is not representing the club.
Now I cannot remember the exact wording now....but some time back it came out that the decision to sack GT was made prior to the finals. It was basically as brief as that...or similar to it.....and did not say or not if GT would have been retained if the Saints had won the GF.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
However as I understand re-payment of the principal was late as well and indeed some reports had it that GT tried to maintain that none of it need be repaid.
What reports?
You may have missed it but there was an aticle or two (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) on the matter.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
saintsRrising wrote:....and did not say or not if GT would have been retained if the Saints had won the GF.
That's another complete and utter fabrication.
Both RB & AF are on the record with the quote.
I can understand you don't like Thomas, but for the life of me I cannot understand the B/S you spin to justify a completely incompetent administration. I don't care what they did prior to '06, in '06 & '07 they were embarrassing.
I thought the issue was about interest on the loan, not about paying back the $1m loan?
Are you lying again?
Have you ever tried discussing a point without your name calling ?
Huh??
What name did I call you?
You obviously move in different social circles to me.
In mine calling people Liars like you do is considered an insult....as you full well know...which is why you regularly seek to bait with it....and why your question is a disgenuine one.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
rodgerfox wrote:
Well, according to the above - it was only if we lost to Melbourne. Not regardless of what happened.
That's what I'm raising. Based on what's been reported from a Court of Law, you're wrong.
No...I am right. And what was said was techically inacurate.
The decision was made to sack him at the end of the Saints finals campaign...not specifically after the Melbourne match.
This happened in the end to be Melbourne.
Follow???
I follow what you are saying, but reports from a Court of Law say something else.
Rodger,
Surely not even you fail to understand that the 'reports from a Court of Law' are purely and simply the opening statement/remarks of GT's Barrister and are proof of absolutely nothing.
I am sure that when teh Club's Barrister gets to have his turn we will have statements from him that contradict what this gentleman has asserted. Will you be quoting them as 'reports from a Court of Law' in your positive post about the Club's defense against GT's claim?
I thought the issue was about interest on the loan, not about paying back the $1m loan?
Are you lying again?
Have you ever tried discussing a point without your name calling ?
Huh??
What name did I call you?
You obviously move in different social circles to me.
In mine calling people Liars like you do is considered an insult....as you full well know...which is why you regularly seek to bait with it....and why your question is a disgenuine one.
Mr Magic wrote:
Rodger,
Surely not even you fail to understand that the 'reports from a Court of Law' are purely and simply the opening statement/remarks of GT's Barrister and are proof of absolutely nothing.
I am sure that when teh Club's Barrister gets to have his turn we will have statements from him that contradict what this gentleman has asserted. Will you be quoting them as 'reports from a Court of Law' in your positive post about the Club's defense against GT's claim?
Of course.
That's why I said they were 'reports from a Court of Law'.
I didn't state them as facts like others - such as SrR does.
