Teflon wrote:JeffDunne wrote:We must be the first club in history to sack a coach because he had the support of the players.
I know the usual simpletons will pipe up with so-and-so didn't like GT, blah, blah, blah . . . but clearly the club thought he had it.
or maybe he just had the support of
some even 1 franchise player you dill.
Or maybe some people are so deluded they can fabricate anything to justify their pathological hatred.
Let's see what the club has to say shall we?
St Kilda's barrister, Leslie Glick QC,
That would be the bloke representing the club.
. . . put it to Thomas that he was unique in the AFL in that he was not only coach but a defacto football manager and had an important role in dealing with player contracts.
. . . who is declaring here that GT was doing two jobs.
"There was a perception you were close to certain players in the group?" Mr Glick asked.
Since some have a limited attention span - that's the bloke representing the club asking GT the question.
Thomas replied: "I was close to them all."
Make of that what you will. I'm sure those simpleton's I was refering to earlier could write an essay on those six words.
Mr Glick suggested the board had a fear about Thomas's closeness to key players . . .
Hang on, I think we've found something here.
Mr Glick - again the bloke representing St Kilda - suggested the board had a fear of Thomas's closeness to key playerS.
That's right "player
s" . . . as in plural.
Ummm . . . someone's looking a dill here and we've only just started.
. . and his knowledge of contracts and they didn't want him having discussions with team members that might undermine loyalty to St Kilda football club.
Again . . . team memberS . . . plural.
Dill indeed.
That last quote from Mr Glick pretty well sums up where the previous administration and the current CEO are failing - they feared players were more loyal to an individual than they were to the club and their team-mates. Pretty insulting really to those team members that were close to Thomas - and they're still repeating it.
If the board had a valid reason to sack GT, why were they so scared of a backlash from players?
So scared in fact that they were willing to pay 100K to someone they felt they were being more than generous with.
One player?