Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda

[LENNY LEADS THE WAY]

KING
GARDINER
SCHNEIDER
DEMPSTER

Problems fixed

[plugger66]

KING
GARDINER
SCHNEIDER
DEMPSTER

Problems fixed

We were talking about key position backs.

[perfectionist]

When Penny went down, what was done?

When Gehrig was shifted forward, what was done?

And how old is Max now? Is this his last year?

So where are the contingency arrangements?

Who has been developed as back up - because every good side develops back up for key positions.

Sam Fisher is adequate in a key position - and excels on a flank.

Whilst we keep playing essentially flankers in key positions we are not progressing, and we will not progress.

There is Gilbert, but who else in a list of how many?

Remember, a couple of short years ago, Adelaide had a couple of 192cm, 90kg players on their Rookie List.

Care to check back?

What was St Kilda doing by comparison?

And that is why we are exposed now, and were required to play Gwilt at full back (188cm) last year - just as well Max is back because just how much does his name add to the structure of our side for tomorrow night?

If he was unavailable, what were the options?

And injury is a fact of life - that is why you have a list and you develop that list to cover contingencies, and to put pressure on every player on that list because someone is breathing down their necks hanging out to prove themselves.

All good questions, but totally irrelevant to the decision of the court. The issue has far ranging implications. On the one hand, people in the past have maintained that their high contract figure was recognition that they did not receive AL, LSL,SL and the like. On the other hand, does a common law contract negate community standards? My guess is that the court is unlikely to buy into this last point and rule against Thomas unless there is a clause in his contract which provides for AL payments (which I doubt).

Having said that, Thomas is clearly a greedy pig, but is not alone in those stakes, especially amongst past and present StK Boards.

[Mr Magic]

KING
GARDINER
SCHNEIDER
DEMPSTER

Problems fixed

We were talking about key position backs.

Maybe he has been using the Rookie list for this?
Miles
Chivers
Haretaku
Allen may get a stint down back as many junior forwrds seem to do?

[plugger66]

KING
GARDINER
SCHNEIDER
DEMPSTER

Problems fixed

We were talking about key position backs.

Maybe he has been using the Rookie list for this?
Miles
Chivers
Haretaku
Allen may get a stint down back as many junior forwrds seem to do?

He said Gwilt was too small at 188 so I dont think Miles and chivers count. Haretaku has been a ruckman or forward all his life as has Allen so he hasnt addessed a so called problem either so maybe it isnt a problem.

[Mr Magic]

When Penny went down, what was done?

When Gehrig was shifted forward, what was done?

And how old is Max now? Is this his last year?

So where are the contingency arrangements?

Who has been developed as back up - because every good side develops back up for key positions.

Sam Fisher is adequate in a key position - and excels on a flank.

Whilst we keep playing essentially flankers in key positions we are not progressing, and we will not progress.

There is Gilbert, but who else in a list of how many?

Remember, a couple of short years ago, Adelaide had a couple of 192cm, 90kg players on their Rookie List.

Care to check back?

What was St Kilda doing by comparison?

And that is why we are exposed now, and were required to play Gwilt at full back (188cm) last year - just as well Max is back because just how much does his name add to the structure of our side for tomorrow night?

If he was unavailable, what were the options?

And injury is a fact of life - that is why you have a list and you develop that list to cover contingencies, and to put pressure on every player on that list because someone is breathing down their necks hanging out to prove themselves.

All good questions, but totally irrelevant to the decision of the court. The issue has far ranging implications. On the one hand, people in the past have maintained that their high contract figure was recognition that they did not receive AL, LSL,SL and the like. On the other hand, does a common law contract negate community standards? My guess is that the court is unlikely to buy into this last point and rule against Thomas unless there is a clause in his contract which provides for AL payments (which I doubt).

Having said that, Thomas is clearly a greedy pig, but is not alone in those stakes, especially amongst past and present StK Boards.

One of the things I find interesting about all of this is that one of the 2 Directors from the old Board who is on the new Board is Ross Levin - a lawyer whose specialty, I believe, is IR Law.

I would be extremely surprized if he wasn't intimately involved in what did/didn't happen with GT's termination.

[To the top]

Correct.

The problem with our list management continues.

But, we missed opportunity, and we still miss opportunity.

You could not envisage, in normal circumstances, the run Maguire has had.

Granted.

And Gilbert appears the successor to Max, but is injured.

The point I make is that we are thin, and have been since Penny went down and Fraser's days of playing in defence past him by.

To turn this into an obssesion with Thomas v. Lyon (why?) misses the point.

We lagged badly with Thomas in terms of depth of list and contingencies accross the ground, and we have not improved much with Lyon (except for the ruck situation).

Thomas had over 5 years, Lyon is in his second year.

Go through our list and name the players of 192cm or more who can contest key positions. Players of this stature do not come along every year, so Lyon would appear to have the excuse (currently) that such players have not been available since he assumed his position at the club. Although it needs to be acknowledged that Allen and McEvoy are on the list - so there is hope.

And the rucks, your spine and your mid-field are the keys.

Around them you build your flankers, your opportunists and your wingers.

[stinger]

just goes to show that the whispers in the sky scandal was really swept under the carpet by the afl when really the powers that be knew that the saints were being crucified...and still are ffs.........disgraceful.....

[To the top]

As I have mentioned before Mr Magic (before certain took off at a tangent to protect Thomas), St Kilda FC Ltd. is perpetual.

What is of interest is that successive Administrations have been involved in this matter, and the current Administration (acting on legal advice obviously) has the matter in the jurisdiction it is in now.

So, you could assume it was always headed to Court.

As I have also counselled, you can never confidently predict a decision at law, no matter the presence and the regard given precedence.

But, for what it is worth, if I were Thomas, I would have accepted the pre-trial offer (or any offer that may be forthcoming during proceedings - because this can happen also).

A lot is done in the ante-rooms at Court!

Thomas is in a vunerable position even if the decision goes for him but with a lesser settlement than St Kilda offered in mediation, because then he will be liable for legal fees - and these will run to plenty!

The issue of costs in these matters is very significant.

There are issues raised under oath today which call the AFL into question - so this will escalate.

[barks4eva]

I seriously am sitting here laughing loudly in disbelief!

What do you do? Sit there with a bag of popcorn? Cheer or boo when you hear things you like or don't like? Take notes?

I mean, this is unbelievable.

Just a small matter of getting informed, getting the FACTS, hearing both sides of the story, popcorn never occured to me, can I ride with you some day dude?

[mbogo]

We all know here (those of us that lived through the chaos on here after the Melbourne Elim Final in 2006) that this case is far beyond anything to do with LSL and AL.
The fact is that this will be a landmark case in the History of the Saints and this site.
Was GT a physically intimating bully-boy - who ruled selfishly with an iron fist with disregard for our future? Was he greedy and self-serving?
Or was the admin strangling him of the freedom he needed to win and be successful? Should the board have been sacked and GT kept?
This case is the closest we will come to know of the inner working of that time.
Everybody here knows this stuff for a fact - let's not trivialise the case's importance.
Barks was castigated endlessly for his anti-GT views at the time and lost friendships over it - and yet - perhaps he was right.
Let's see what comes out of it?
Aren't we all a little curious?
And if court is so boring how come lawyers seem interested in it for years?
BTW - I was anti-GT at the time ....... and was happy to see him go.
But I detest the personal abuse stuff that goes on here - including the almost defamatory stuff that the pro-GT - Barks bashers seem to get away with endlessly! (When raising anything they can about what they think they know about the poster personally ---- that stuff is out of order and against the policy on here. ---- Mods????)

[plugger66]

We all know here (those of us that lived through the chaos on here after the Melbourne Elim Final in 2006) that this case is far beyond anything to do with LSL and AL.
The fact is that this will be a landmark case in the History of the Saints and this site.
Was GT a physically intimating bully-boy - who ruled selfishly with an iron fist with disregard for our future? Was he greedy and self-serving?
Or was the admin strangling him of the freedom he needed to win and be successful? Should the board have been sacked and GT kept?
This case is the closest we will come to know of the inner working of that time.
Everybody here knows this stuff for a fact - let's not trivialise the case's importance.
Barks was castigated endlessly for his anti-GT views at the time and lost friendships over it - and yet - perhaps he was right.
Let's see what comes out of it?
Aren't we all a little curious?
And if court is so boring how come lawyers seem interested in it for years?
BTW - I was anti-GT at the time ....... and was happy to see him go.
But I detest the personal abuse stuff that goes on here - including the almost defamatory stuff that the pro-GT - Barks bashers seem to get away with endlessly! (When raising anything they can about what they think they know about the poster personally ---- that stuff is out of order and against the policy on here. ---- Mods????)

At least this post doesnt show bias.

[barks4eva]

actually , he's quite **** talented ....

piss poor effort , look in yr own back yards boys

i know he's got deadlines , re his work ......he's struggled with the decision to 'allow himself the time'


and yes , seriously, he's in there ... good on him for going .......at least he'll hear it 'first hand '

wish i was there myself


where do you think gt's yearly remuneration figures came from?

the exchange between gt and barks is how it happened !

who knows what could come out of this

judge at yr peril girls , surely thats one of lifes' most obvious lessons

**** me

thanks gaz, appreciate,

tho, the whole endearing myself to laterally challenged, know nothing numbnutted, flaggetating flogs and has never been my strong suit, so don't really feel the need to explain myself and what I do outside of creating mayhem in here

but thanks for your nice words


point of order

Grant's renumeration is as follows or to the very best of my memory which is usally quite good, if I do say so myself

2001, 7 game caretaker coach $325,000
2002, $420,000
2003, $465,000
2004, 508,000
2005, 525,000
2006, ? but an increase from the previous year and so on

with bonuses paid where applicable, relating to the information revealed in the first post in this thread

this information came from the evidence presented to the court and not from the conversation's I had with Grant, just to clarify.

[plugger66]

Just said your memory was good but dont know his salary in 2006. You really make me laugh. And how scared were you when you had a chat to him. Did you change your jocks afterwards.

[meher baba]

just goes to show that the whispers in the sky scandal was really swept under the carpet by the afl when really the powers that be knew that the saints were being crucified...and still are ffs.........disgraceful.....

I agree shark man

AF's evidence as reported is rather mind-boggling.

I had never quite believed the conspiracy theory that suggested that RB agreed to sack GT in order to further his ambitions for high office on the AFL Board.

But now I'm beginning to wonder.....

[barks4eva]

Personally, think the club have handled the whole matter since the new board came on board, PERFECTLY to the best of my understanding,

previous board, they "might" be another matter

I am super impressed and could not be more pleased with the current board, this club is definitely on the right track

[Saints43]

actually , he's quite **** talented ....

tho, the whole endearing myself to laterally challenged, know nothing numbnutted, flaggetating flogs and has never been my strong suit, so don't really feel the need to explain myself and what I do outside of creating mayhem in here

Clearly. And why pander to those who’ve never even heard the Blackburn High School orchestra?

[Teflon]

Mark you make far to much sense for this joint.

So why are you still here?

Nobody's begging you to stay. Quite the opposite in fact.

You do a bit of begging?

Im not surprised....

[Teflon]

...fancy Rod Butters asking for repayment of a $1m loan also...the hide...

Followed by....

Now after hearing ONE side of the argument...

Well played Nuflon.

Cheers Flog.

The good thing with your views is next week you'll be contradicting yourself,confusing yourself again, telling us all how badly we need a rebuild before then telling us what a list we have...only to conclude with "I told you so some time ago...."

[Teflon]

But I detest the personal abuse stuff that goes on here - including the almost defamatory stuff that the pro-GT - Barks bashers seem to get away with endlessly! (When raising anything they can about what they think they know about the poster personally ---- that stuff is out of order and against the policy on here. ---- Mods????)

Hear friggin hear.

Some of the personal abuse cause Barks decides to listen in on a case that WE ALL are interested in and then provide an update for ALL on the site is a disgrace.

I was under the impression we had a "change" to the way the site was moderated to stop it being hijacked by those with no other agenda other than to attract attentions to themselves.

[The Fireman]

But I detest the personal abuse stuff that goes on here - including the almost defamatory stuff that the pro-GT - Barks bashers seem to get away with endlessly! (When raising anything they can about what they think they know about the poster personally ---- that stuff is out of order and against the policy on here. ---- Mods????)

Hear friggin hear.

Some of the personal abuse cause Barks decides to listen in on a case that WE ALL are interested in and then provide an update for ALL on the site is a disgrace.

I was under the impression we had a "change" to the way the site was moderated to stop it being hijacked by those with no other agenda other than to attract attentions to themselves.

That can work both ways. Barks has been very demeaning towards me when I have shown my loyalty towards GT His comments about my camping activities have been atrocious , but I will still maintain it is because he was instructed to share his own tent that may have set him off.

[Teflon]

But I detest the personal abuse stuff that goes on here - including the almost defamatory stuff that the pro-GT - Barks bashers seem to get away with endlessly! (When raising anything they can about what they think they know about the poster personally ---- that stuff is out of order and against the policy on here. ---- Mods????)

Hear friggin hear.

Some of the personal abuse cause Barks decides to listen in on a case that WE ALL are interested in and then provide an update for ALL on the site is a disgrace.

I was under the impression we had a "change" to the way the site was moderated to stop it being hijacked by those with no other agenda other than to attract attentions to themselves.

That can work both ways. Barks has been very demeaning towards me when I have shown my loyalty towards GT.

Hes also been banned for 2 weeks and done his time ....I spose as some sorta lesson to who?

And I havent read a single disparaging comment from Barks to you in this thread......

[The Fireman]

But I detest the personal abuse stuff that goes on here - including the almost defamatory stuff that the pro-GT - Barks bashers seem to get away with endlessly! (When raising anything they can about what they think they know about the poster personally ---- that stuff is out of order and against the policy on here. ---- Mods????)

Hear friggin hear.

Some of the personal abuse cause Barks decides to listen in on a case that WE ALL are interested in and then provide an update for ALL on the site is a disgrace.

I was under the impression we had a "change" to the way the site was moderated to stop it being hijacked by those with no other agenda other than to attract attentions to themselves.

That can work both ways. Barks has been very demeaning towards me when I have shown my loyalty towards GT.

Hes also been banned for 2 weeks and done his time ....I spose as some sorta lesson to who?

And I havent read a single disparaging comment from Barks to you in this thread......

He has held back
If you get banned it must be some sort of lesson. Surely.

[barks4eva]

He has held back
If you get banned it must be some sort of lesson. Surely.

Might have to come on one of these trips to the mountain's, ( not that I'm looking to be re-orientated or anything, purely observational )with the so called "fishing buddy", I'm mean leaving the rod's behind was a giveaway, only hope the other third, was none the wiser

[The Fireman]

He has held back
If you get banned it must be some sort of lesson. Surely.

Might have to come on one of these trips to the mountain's, ( not that I'm looking to be re-orientated or anything, purely observational )with the so called "fishing buddy", I'm mean leaving the rod's behind was a giveaway, only hope the other third, was none the wiser

You like to watch???
PS I brought a rod. oh and are you going to do that whip around for GT ?