Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13245
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 644 times
- Been thanked: 1908 times
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Actually tugger, I cannot reveal his 2006 salary because this was not revealed in court, but thanks for your enquiryplugger66 wrote:Just said your memory was good but dont know his salary in 2006. You really make me laugh.
His 2005 salary was declared by his own lawyer as $508,000 plus dollars ( which I assume is extra bonuses paid ) and no figure was given for 2006, only that there was an incremental increase, unquantified
So the reason, just for you tugger, because I know you're a bit slow on the uptake, the reason I did not list a salary figure for 2006, because this figure was not mentioned, capiche>?
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 11:13pm
Banned fishing rods in mountains... oh you guys!!!
Never liked gt, but couldn't complain when winning. When he wanted 1mil for a flag I smelt a big rat. No biggie really, but this guy wore r,w,b on his sleeve. I'd give the club 1 mil (if I had it) if I could somehow help to win us a flag. Plenty of people have worked tirelessly to get us where we are as a club. Was gt a tin rattler when we looked like going under?
When I made this I was only joking...
![Image](http://www.kenny.com.au/AussierulesOK/cards/AOKcard58.jpg)
Never liked gt, but couldn't complain when winning. When he wanted 1mil for a flag I smelt a big rat. No biggie really, but this guy wore r,w,b on his sleeve. I'd give the club 1 mil (if I had it) if I could somehow help to win us a flag. Plenty of people have worked tirelessly to get us where we are as a club. Was gt a tin rattler when we looked like going under?
When I made this I was only joking...
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Image](http://www.kenny.com.au/AussierulesOK/cards/AOKcard58.jpg)
Last edited by aussierules0k on Fri 16 May 2008 12:57am, edited 2 times in total.
5 prelims in 7 years. 40 wins from 49 games.
2009 and 2010 were 2 of the 5 best years ever by the St.Kilda FC.
Thanks for all your efforts Saints.
2009 and 2010 were 2 of the 5 best years ever by the St.Kilda FC.
Thanks for all your efforts Saints.
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
It really does depend on what's gracing the scenery.The Fireman wrote:You like to watch???barks4eva wrote: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 wiserThe Fireman wrote: He has held back![]()
If you get banned it must be some sort of lesson. Surely.
PS I brought a rod.oh and are you going to do that whip around for GT ?
and as for whip around's, there's more than enough circle jerker's on here to keep any whip around well propelled for at least the next millenium
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 503 times
BTW, what are Lyon's current contractual arrangements? And how about those of other comparable one club coaches such as Williams, Thompson, Craig, Roos, Clarkson, Worsfold, Laidley etc, etc?
It's all very well and good to slag off at the former Board for how much they paid GT but what's the benchmark for comparison? And don't give me any of that crap about he should have agreed to take less money because he bleeds for the R, W and B: I don't know about any of you, but I have never offered to accept a lower salary than my employer was prepared to offer me. I'm sure that Lyon hasn't been.
We must also remember that GT took over a team that was at rock bottom and was then required to work with a significantly smaller budget for support staff than Lyon or many of the guys mentioned above. I know some of you believe he was the greatest control freak in the history of the universe, but some of his one-man band approach was forced on him by circumstances (and all of it was signed off by the former Board).
What the evidence reported so far from the court case reveals to me is a situation in which an inexperienced Board under Butterss was prepared to give a left field coaching candidate a go in pretty desperate circumstances. Not much attention was given to the contractual arrangements under which GT was engaged, because he was seen as a bit of a long shot who was more likely to be a stop gap than to succceed in the long term.
He then performed far better than anyone could have expected and then used this success - as anyone would - to demand more money and power.
What then seems to have happen is that, after Waldron (who clearly had a cooperative relationship with GT) was moved on in rather curious circumstances, the Board settled on Archie Fraser for CEO. Looking from the outside, this gentleman seems from the outset to have resented the power exercised by GT and to have used every possible opportunity to clip GT's wings and, eventually, to stab him in the back.
GT probably didn't help himself by his arrogant attitude but, let's face it, the guy was riding high and I wouldn't have thought that - given his record - his coaching position would have been under any threat at the majority of other AFL clubs.
The crap about GT being offside with the umpires illustrates my point. Put alongside the endless whinging and whining about unfair treatment by the likes of the Bombers and a number of other clubs, GT's criticisms of umpires were balanced and objective. The only reason they became controversial was because they gave Demetriou an opportunity to carry on his longstanding personal feud with GT. And this then played straight into Fraser's hands. And, subsequently, perhaps those of Butterss as well, whose personal relationship with GT had gone to seed.
Like a number of other posters (including some such as Over the Top who I generally don't see eye to eye with), I am gobsmacked by Fraser's evidence about his discussions with Gieschen. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about that evidence and will be interested to see if the AFL now tries to dispute it in any way.
If we had any decent and independent investigative journalists in the AFL world, there is potentially a monster story behind all of this. It is clear that few if any of us know even the half of it, which is why I cannot take at all seriously those who want to heap endless abuse and criticism on GT and his legacy.
It's all very well and good to slag off at the former Board for how much they paid GT but what's the benchmark for comparison? And don't give me any of that crap about he should have agreed to take less money because he bleeds for the R, W and B: I don't know about any of you, but I have never offered to accept a lower salary than my employer was prepared to offer me. I'm sure that Lyon hasn't been.
We must also remember that GT took over a team that was at rock bottom and was then required to work with a significantly smaller budget for support staff than Lyon or many of the guys mentioned above. I know some of you believe he was the greatest control freak in the history of the universe, but some of his one-man band approach was forced on him by circumstances (and all of it was signed off by the former Board).
What the evidence reported so far from the court case reveals to me is a situation in which an inexperienced Board under Butterss was prepared to give a left field coaching candidate a go in pretty desperate circumstances. Not much attention was given to the contractual arrangements under which GT was engaged, because he was seen as a bit of a long shot who was more likely to be a stop gap than to succceed in the long term.
He then performed far better than anyone could have expected and then used this success - as anyone would - to demand more money and power.
What then seems to have happen is that, after Waldron (who clearly had a cooperative relationship with GT) was moved on in rather curious circumstances, the Board settled on Archie Fraser for CEO. Looking from the outside, this gentleman seems from the outset to have resented the power exercised by GT and to have used every possible opportunity to clip GT's wings and, eventually, to stab him in the back.
GT probably didn't help himself by his arrogant attitude but, let's face it, the guy was riding high and I wouldn't have thought that - given his record - his coaching position would have been under any threat at the majority of other AFL clubs.
The crap about GT being offside with the umpires illustrates my point. Put alongside the endless whinging and whining about unfair treatment by the likes of the Bombers and a number of other clubs, GT's criticisms of umpires were balanced and objective. The only reason they became controversial was because they gave Demetriou an opportunity to carry on his longstanding personal feud with GT. And this then played straight into Fraser's hands. And, subsequently, perhaps those of Butterss as well, whose personal relationship with GT had gone to seed.
Like a number of other posters (including some such as Over the Top who I generally don't see eye to eye with), I am gobsmacked by Fraser's evidence about his discussions with Gieschen. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about that evidence and will be interested to see if the AFL now tries to dispute it in any way.
If we had any decent and independent investigative journalists in the AFL world, there is potentially a monster story behind all of this. It is clear that few if any of us know even the half of it, which is why I cannot take at all seriously those who want to heap endless abuse and criticism on GT and his legacy.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
Thanks for that but why didnt you mention that at the time. Did you forget?barks4eva wrote:Actually tugger, I cannot reveal his 2006 salary because this was not revealed in court, but thanks for your enquiryplugger66 wrote:Just said your memory was good but dont know his salary in 2006. You really make me laugh.
His 2005 salary was declared by his own lawyer as $508,000 plus dollars ( which I assume is extra bonuses paid ) and no figure was given for 2006, only that there was an incremental increase, unquantified
So the reason, just for you tugger, because I know you're a bit slow on the uptake, the reason I did not list a salary figure for 2006, because this figure was not mentioned, capiche>?
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Penny was 21 when we recruited him. And he was the backup for Max.To the top wrote: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.
We had pretty good depth with Sam Fisher coming through too, then Gilbert was recruited.
Seriously, there is only so much depth you can possibly have. I don't know what people expect. We also had Gwilt and Ferguson as 3rd and 4th tier defenders.
You mention Adelaide, but most would argue that injury is what has cost Adelaide the flag in about 2 of the past 3 or 4 years. So they're not a good example to use for your argument.
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Obviously that is why you went. The question that simply beggars belief is why are the facts of a guy who left the club 2 years ago so important to you!barks4eva wrote: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?rodgerfox wrote: 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.
It's mind boggling!
Hilarious, but mind boggling.
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
mbogo wrote: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.
See I don't agree with this.
Surely the only question has ever been, was he a good coach? Was he getting the best results on-field that we could expect?
I couldn't care less whether or not he votes Liberal, how he pronounces tomatoes or whether he wipes up or down - it was always about whether or not we were winning games to me.
The issue started when that question was raised. Is he a good coach? Those who didn't think so, argued that he wasn't. Those who did, argued that he was.
Those who argued that he wasn't, resorted to attacking his personality. It went from being about coaching ability, to him being a bad man. That's fine. Some also think the Australian Cricket team should be nice first, then think about winning second. I don't.
For those who argued whether or not he's a good guy or a egotist lunatic, good luck with that debate. I personally don't see the relevance either way. If you feel this court case will prove one way or the other, good luck again.
One thing that is for sure, we won games and injury alone cost us at least 1 premiership. I'd argue that vehemenently until the cows come home.
What this case may or may not prove (and I think it's starting to suggest it already) that on-field performance and results had nothing to do with the sacking.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
You use the word comparable.meher baba wrote:BTW, what are Lyon's current contractual arrangements? And how about those of other comparable one club coaches such as Williams, Thompson, Craig, Roos, Clarkson, Worsfold, Laidley etc, etc?
.
I am not familar with all of their work histories prior to them becoming head coaches.
How many had not been assistant coaches at AFL Clubs before before?
GT's salary in his first year was that on an elite AFL coach.
If any of the above group had not been assistant coaches in the AFL before were said coaches paid at the elite level in their first year?
Indeed were any of them paid at the elite level in their first year?
One can certainly argue that GT's salary should have been at the level it was when he departed....but when he arrived????
The previous Board erred in paying so much so quickly.
PS: I am not sure what your definition of one club is. For example Clarkson I think had been assistant coach at St Kilda nd PA first.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- BAM! (shhhh)
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
- Location: The little voice inside your head
If we could get some clarity on what the salary and other contractual arrangements are for an elite AFL coach, that would be helpful.saintsRrising wrote:You use the word comparable.meher baba wrote:BTW, what are Lyon's current contractual arrangements? And how about those of other comparable one club coaches such as Williams, Thompson, Craig, Roos, Clarkson, Worsfold, Laidley etc, etc?
.
I am not familar with all of their work histories prior to them becoming head coaches.
How many had not been assistant coaches at AFL Clubs before before?
GT's salary in his first year was that on an elite AFL coach.
I know that the mentoring role Sheedy turned down in Freo was worth approx $500 KPA, but that's a different calibre of experience, and a supporting role rather than the lead one... it does suggest the expenditure around coaching would be well above St. Kilda's, but that's not a big surprise - they've got a lot more money than we do.
Personally, my belief had always been that Thomas' contractual arrangements weren't out of whack with roles and responsibilities filled (regardless of whether one thinks he should have had that bredth of responsibilities or not), until joining this forum where comments like the above are made... and I honestly don't have the benchmarking info to judge. Do others?
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
- Henry Ford
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5509
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
This is where we are forgetting a relevant piece of information.saintsRrising wrote:GT's salary in his first year was that on an elite AFL coach.
...
One can certainly argue that GT's salary should have been at the level it was when he departed....but when he arrived????
The previous Board erred in paying so much so quickly.
The club, at the time of appointing Thomas, were trying to very quickly reduce the debt the footy club had. They had also just paid $1M to Blight for 14 rounds effort.
Grant Thomas would have represented a bargain to club as he was able to fill multiple roles. The club would have saved a fortune by rolling up the tasks of two or three people into one and paying him the equivalent of 1 1/2.
This line of thinking also extends to the rookie list that others here bang on about. The club was so hell bent on clearing the debt that the football department suffered for it. We would have been paying close to the 100% of the salary cap to keep our playing group together. So the money for the rookies was not there. Others here point to clubs like Adelaide and West Coast for developing rookies. They are extremely wealthy clubs. But a number of clubs did not have rookie lists due to financial reasons. I think, for memory, they included the Bulldogs, Kangaroos and Demons.
I would be stunned if every senior coach did not want as many players available to him as he could possibly have. Just a he would love to have state of the art facilities. The fact is that not all clubs can afford these luxuries. Just as not all clubs can afford to have their own VFL side to develop their players as the club wants.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Personally I don't think the amount that was paid is a big issue.
I do think he was overpaid initially though...and his later years was probablt fair enough.
However remuneration is not that important in the big picture scheme of things.
The big picture gets back to the club wanting to bring in a football department restructure whith had the responsibilty shared over more shoulders, whereas GT wanted to retain the structure where everything was channelled through him.
GT having so many dysfunctional relationships inside and outside of the club only compounded this further.
I do think he was overpaid initially though...and his later years was probablt fair enough.
However remuneration is not that important in the big picture scheme of things.
The big picture gets back to the club wanting to bring in a football department restructure whith had the responsibilty shared over more shoulders, whereas GT wanted to retain the structure where everything was channelled through him.
GT having so many dysfunctional relationships inside and outside of the club only compounded this further.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Fair enough you see this as a problem, but you don't seriously still believe this is why he was sacked?saintsRrising wrote:
The big picture gets back to the club wanting to bring in a football department restructure whith had the responsibilty shared over more shoulders, whereas GT wanted to retain the structure where everything was channelled through him.
GT having so many dysfunctional relationships inside and outside of the club only compounded this further.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
luke miles could be in the back line depending how he goes after getting over his injury.plugger66 wrote:Just love you to give me 2 names RL has recruited in 2 years to address this so called problem.To the top wrote: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.
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
plugger66 wrote:Thanks for that but why didnt you mention that at the time. Did you forget?barks4eva wrote:Actually tugger, I cannot reveal his 2006 salary because this was not revealed in court, but thanks for your enquiryplugger66 wrote:Just said your memory was good but dont know his salary in 2006. You really make me laugh.
His 2005 salary was declared by his own lawyer as $508,000 plus dollars ( which I assume is extra bonuses paid ) and no figure was given for 2006, only that there was an incremental increase, unquantified
So the reason, just for you tugger, because I know you're a bit slow on the uptake, the reason I did not list a salary figure for 2006, because this figure was not mentioned, capiche>?
Did you forget to harrass any jaywalkers this morning, I'm sure there are plenty out there.
Forget what exactly, FAIR DINKUM
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Dodgy considering all the disinformation, speculation, innuendo, assumption's etc...etc... that have been traded back and forth from both sides of the argument, I genuinely wanted to hear the positions of both sides represented in court, to listen to some actual facts and see for myself rather than rely on some court reporter to report one third of what actually happens in there and trust me stuff happened in the courtroom which hasn't made it to the papersrodgerfox wrote:Obviously that is why you went. The question that simply beggars belief is why are the facts of a guy who left the club 2 years ago so important to you!barks4eva wrote: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?rodgerfox wrote: 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.
It's mind boggling!
Hilarious, but mind boggling.
I'm not about to share it on here though and why should I
As regards getting facts and being informed, for example, I was guilty of declaring that Thomas was paid $500,000 a year from the get go
when in actual fact he was paid
$325,000 for 7 games as cartaker coach in 2001, way excessive if you ask me, but Butterss and Thomas were best mates at the time
$420,000 in 2002
$465,000 in 2003
$508,000 in 2004
$525,000 in 2005
this figure increased again in 2006 but the exact figure wasn't revealed to the best of my memory
Thomas also recieved bonuses on top of this where applicable, related to the first post in this thread
These are the facts, pure and simple
I wasn't aware of the exact amounts previously, but now I am
See dodgy the difference between us is this, I prefer to be informed, get the facts, hear them first hand, you obviously prefer to continue to spread disinformation that you gleaned second hand from some "virtual" bored member and what you read in the herald sun, relying on some court reporter to disseminate what is relevant and what is not,
each to their own
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 503 times
But what is the point of knowing precisely how much GT was paid unless you are trying to argue, or at least imply, that it was too much?barks4eva wrote:Dodgy considering all the disinformation, speculation, innuendo, assumption's etc...etc... that have been traded back and forth from both sides of the argument, I genuinely wanted to hear the positions of both sides represented in court, to listen to some actual facts and see for myself rather than rely on some court reporter to report one third of what actually happens in there and trust me stuff happened in the courtroom which hasn't made it to the papersrodgerfox wrote:Obviously that is why you went. The question that simply beggars belief is why are the facts of a guy who left the club 2 years ago so important to you!barks4eva wrote: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?rodgerfox wrote: 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.
It's mind boggling!
Hilarious, but mind boggling.
I'm not about to share it on here though and why should I
As regards getting facts and being informed, for example, I was guilty of declaring that Thomas was paid $500,000 a year from the get go
when in actual fact he was paid
$325,000 for 7 games as cartaker coach in 2001, way excessive if you ask me, but Butterss and Thomas were best mates at the time
$420,000 in 2002
$465,000 in 2003
$508,000 in 2004
$525,000 in 2005
this figure increased again in 2006 but the exact figure wasn't revealed to the best of my memory
Thomas also recieved bonuses on top of this where applicable, related to the first post in this thread
These are the facts, pure and simple
I wasn't aware of the exact amounts previously, but now I am
See dodgy the difference between us is this, I prefer to be informed, get the facts, hear them first hand, you obviously prefer to continue to spread disinformation that you gleaned second hand from some "virtual" bored member and what you read in the herald sun, relying on some court reporter to disseminate what is relevant and what is not,
each to their own
And how can we assess whether or not it was too much when we appear to have absolutely no idea of how much is paid to Lyon, Clarkson, Craig, Worsfold, Laidley and etc.?
And who - other than it would seem B4E - ultimately cares?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Did you hear ALL of the evidence?meher baba wrote:What the evidence reported so far from the court case reveals to me is.........
NO
The curious circumstances have already been alluded to on here and they have absolutely nothing to do with any agenda that you appear to be drivingWhat then seems to have happen is that, after Waldron (who clearly had a cooperative relationship with GT) was moved on in rather curious circumstances, the Board settled on Archie Fraser for CEO.
That is unsubstantiated crap, perhaps those voices in your head/your info sources, could be best described as a gaggle of goggle eyed, gumpy goofballsLooking from the outside, this gentleman seems from the outset to have resented the power exercised by GT and to have used every possible opportunity to clip GT's wings and, eventually, to stab him in the back.
Archie Fraser walked into a club that already had an existing dysfunctional relationship between the President and Coach and tried his best to heal the rift, which as we know was an impossible task.
Fraser was NOT an axeman appointed by Butterss to exorcize Thomas, this is pure fantasy, you me babble a lot are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The St.Kilda Football Club is in deed very fortunate to have Archie Fraser as CEO and he did his upmost to heal the divisions between the coach and board, but this was inevitably an exercise in futility.
Fraser had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to sack Grant Thomas.
That is just a FACT!
He was not Butterss man, he was not Thomas's man he was his own man trying to help the football club in an impossible situation.
Thankfully we now have a new board, football department etc...etc... and the foundations that are absolutely essential for success have now been laid.
Mebabble you are an absolute know nothing flog, this is way beyond dispute.
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 503 times
And Brutus and Cassius are honourable men.............barks4eva wrote:That is unsubstantiated crap, perhaps those voices in your head/your info sources, could be best described as a gaggle of goggle eyed, gumpy goofballs
Archie Fraser walked into a club that already had an existing dysfunctional relationship between the President and Coach and tried his best to heal the rift, which as we know was an impossible task.
Fraser was NOT an axeman appointed by Butterss to exorcize Thomas, this is pure fantasy, you me babble a lot are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The St.Kilda Football Club is in deed very fortunate to have Archie Fraser as CEO and he did his upmost to heal the divisions between the coach and board, but this was inevitably an exercise in futility.
Fraser had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to sack Grant Thomas.
That is just a FACT!
He was not Butterss man, he was not Thomas's man he was his own man trying to help the football club in an impossible situation.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Me babble a lot, it might be a bit a hard for you and the gaggle of goggle eyed, gumpy goofballs otherwise referred to as the voices in your head to understand, BUT I was simply reporting the FACTS, nothing moremeher baba wrote: But what is the point of knowing precisely how much GT was paid unless you are trying to argue, or at least imply, that it was too much?
I was implying nothing.
Thomas's salary has been misreported on Saintsational by many including myself for over SIX YEARS
The information I supplied, derived from courtroom evidence was merely to address all the heresay, assumption, innuendo etc...etc... with the bare bone FACTS once and for all!
babble on
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.