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

[barks4eva]

In all honesty there is a heap of stuff I could post, in an unbiased manner or at least as objective as I could try to be on this matter, but I, in all honesty do not deem this place worthy enough, due by and large to gaggle of goggle eyed, gumpy, goofballs and flaggetating flogs on here.

Or is because it proves you were wrong on many things all along?

If pressed, I would offer it backs up everything I've thought on this matter.

............................................................................................

but at the end of the day, this whole messy saga, is coming to completion, what's done is done

I could post some more info, but what would that achieve and afterall the case is currently still being heard, with a final judgement approximately three months away

IMHO, I believe that Thomas should have taken the settlement first offered for $100,000 and most definitely without hesitation the last offer of $120,000 when it was on the table.

I do not believe he will come out of this with more than that, but I'm not a expert in legality so that's just my opinion, which was formed prior to the court case and most definitely backed up, after having heard the evidence.

At the end of the day he has a wife and 8 kids, he wants more money for himself but he's hardly robinson crusoe in this regard,

I suppose IMHO, I just thought that he'd already done quite well financially out of the St.Kilda Football Club and as a member, myself who spends almost $1,000 a year, I regarded this as a tad excessive and unreasonable.

It's sad that the whole Butterss and Thomas affair ended like it did with so
much bitterness.

Money matters aside, Thomas is a sainter and hopefully somewhere down the track, everyone can come together in premiership euphoria.

This club is famous for it's internal divsions, about time we healed and become

"TOGETHER AS ONE"

In all honesty I was a tad dissapointed that Thomas did not accept the settlement proposal from the NEW board back in December, so we could all move on from that point,


but the Butterss fued went to deep, way too much acrimony and bitterness

this is just my opinion, let me be clear about that

I personally believe that Thomas has been led on a tad from his lawyers who have encouraged him to pursue this further, but that is what Law firms do isn't it, that's how THEY make their money

I reiterate, that's just my opinion

[plugger66]

That is the best thing you have written on this never ending saga.

[barks4eva]

If you don't mind answering questions on what was said in Court, I would like to ask a few?

Under cross-examination from GT's Barrister, did AF repeat that GT had agreed to withdraw his claim for AL etc if the Club paid the $15,000 fine?

Yes

DId AF state that the Club paid that fine?

Yes

Under Cross-Examination from Glick, was GT asked if he had a meeting with AF and if he reached agreement about teh AL etc? DIdi GT claim under examination/cross-examination that he didn't understand what was in the Contract he has supposedly signed?

Has anybody produced the contract that GT supposedly signed?

I will address these questions soon, but they require a bit more typing, currently busy, will get back, ok


I am really loathe to get into this, but I understand the interest level and in a similar position I'd want to know more, hey, I still want to know more

[Saints Premiers 2008]

if we are all flogs why post barks?

[saintspremiers]

That is the best thing you have written on this never ending saga.

A shyte, here I go again...agreeing with plugger!

barks4eva is not the maniac in real life as some may think he is on here....just a passionate Saints fan that takes his passion to the court room if necessary.

Thanks barks!

[barks4eva]

The reasons were personal. Not professional.

Butterss didn't like Thomas. And Thomas didn't like Butterss - I believe this part actually happened first. For reasons that I will not post on a forum. Mainly because I don't for a fact, as I heard it second hand. And the reasons I were given are quite controversial.

I heard from someone at the Richmond game, who claimed that he had inside information, you know the old friend or work colleague of a bored member story dodgy and he claimed he'd been reliably informed that the Thomas matter was settled and would not be going to court.

He was very convincing and quite certain that this was the case.

Sound familar dodgy


No wonder you found it hilarious that I actually bothered to attend the court case to hear evidence first hand,


now back in your foxhole, don't worry I'll let you know when groundhog day arrives

[barks4eva]

barks4eva is not the maniac in real life as some may think he is on here....

ya reckon, u obviously don't know me well

[Mr Magic]

If you don't mind answering questions on what was said in Court, I would like to ask a few?

Under cross-examination from GT's Barrister, did AF repeat that GT had agreed to withdraw his claim for AL etc if the Club paid the $15,000 fine?

Yes

DId AF state that the Club paid that fine?

Yes

Under Cross-Examination from Glick, was GT asked if he had a meeting with AF and if he reached agreement about teh AL etc? DIdi GT claim under examination/cross-examination that he didn't understand what was in the Contract he has supposedly signed?

Has anybody produced the contract that GT supposedly signed?

I will address these questions soon, but they require a bit more typing, currently busy, will get back, ok


I am really loathe to get into this, but I understand the interest level and in a similar position I'd want to know more, hey, I still want to know more

Thanks Barks.

[plugger66]

That is the best thing you have written on this never ending saga.

A shyte, here I go again...agreeing with plugger!

barks4eva is not the maniac in real life as some may think he is on here....just a passionate Saints fan that takes his passion to the court room if necessary.

Thanks barks!

I take that back again.

[saintsRrising]

So why was he sacked Rodge?

Come on...don't skirt.

Come out and actually say for a change.

All you ever do is hint...and don't say.

How about actually saying EXACTLY what you believe the reason was ? Then we can actually discuss it.

You do have a reason I trust?

The reasons were personal. Not professional.

Butterss didn't like Thomas. And Thomas didn't like Butterss - I believe this part actually happened first. For reasons that I will not post on a forum. Mainly because I don't for a fact, as I heard it second hand. And the reasons I were given are quite controversial.

He didn't like Thomas, and didn't like the fact that Thomas had more support than he did. He felt threatened, and so he should have. A coach who is performing well, and has the support of his players is far more important to a club than a president who can't get sponsors and find the club a home.

As Butterss once said about business - 'You shouldn't run football clubs like a business. In business you seek your competition out and destry them' (not an exact quote, but along those lines). This is how he treated his 'situation' with Thomas.

Butterss has a severe ego. Even when Thomas was gone, Butterss was incensed that the football world showed support to Thomas, and not him.

He went about changing that.

We soon tired of hearing and seeing him everywhere on TV and quotes everywhere. "Look at me! What about me! I'm still here! I'm the good guy here!"
.

So after all this time of boasting of why you knew GT was sacked it is in fact just your opinion that the two did not like each other (hardly secret).... Is that really the best you can come up with?.

So much for your much boasted about inside knowledge



So according to you just because RB did not like GT the following happened:

*The CEO went along with it....
*The Board went along with it..as it was a Board decision to sack the coach and not just the President.
*a Board from which two Directors still act on the current Board


Now correct me if I am wrong...but is not the St KFC a company??..and therefore Directors are required by law to at all times act in the interest of the company and it's shareholders (which I guess in this case is us the members).

You would have it that the Board and CEO all agreed to sack GT purely to prop up RB's ego



And that Drain was offered the job as Football Manager a season before GT's departure...as what an elaborate cover up?? Funny how Drain is now at the club!!!


Funny how RB went to such HUGE lengths to invent a cover story of restructuring the Football Department...and then doing it to just cover up why he really sacked GT for not liking him.

Funny too how GT himself covered it up by publically stating that he knew what direction the club wanted to go in, but that he disagreed with it...and still thought his way was best....

[rodgerfox]

I heard from someone at the Richmond game, who claimed that he had inside information, you know the old friend or work colleague of a bored member story dodgy and he claimed he'd been reliably informed that the Thomas matter was settled and would not be going to court.

He was very convincing and quite certain that this was the case.

Sound familar dodgy

No, not familiar at all.

I heard it second hand. Not 4th hand like you're describing.

For me to believe it, is reasonable.

For you to believe me, when it is 3rd hand and in this medium, is perhaps not so plausible.

But that's up to you what you believe.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

You would have it that the Board and CEO all agreed to sack GT purely to prop up RB's ego

Without saying it did or didn't happen that way, or believing is the case or otherwise (without anything else to go on, I tend to believe the statements made at the time that the board had their doubts about Thomas going back to '05, that he'd fulfilled his duties as a caretaker, and their opinion was similar to the widely held public one that Thomas was simply benefiting from being in charge of a good list)...

It's not that much of a stretch to suggest a president of a board can put together a case to get anyone he likes hired or fired.

[saintsRrising]

It's not that much of a stretch to suggest a president of a board can put together a case to get anyone he likes hired or fired.

Of course they can...or could.

Anyone can at anytime choose to act immorally, or illegally....

But to suggest that this was the ONLY reason for so many to do so in this case is to my thinking far fetched.

Now this is my opinion..and not what I have heard second hand.


If it was true...you would have to question the integrity of two current Board Members.

But I do not think it was the case.

[SENsei]

I'll be honest and fess up that I was one of those "are you for real?" posters who sniggered at B4E for going to court. I felt it was obsessive, still do really.

But kudos for the even handed reporting, in the face of some strong opposition.

You might be a maniac, you might be borderline obsessive, you might also be a flog....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed report.

[saintsRrising]

, I tend to believe the statements made at the time that the board had their doubts about Thomas going back to '05, that he'd fulfilled his duties as a caretaker, and their opinion was similar to the widely held public one that Thomas was simply benefiting from being in charge of a good list)...

.

Indeed.

And I also tend to believe that GT, RB, MK and others were of like mind early on.....but that over time their opinions of how the club should best be operated divereged.

[saintsRrising]

I'll be honest and fess up that I was one of those "are you for real?" posters who sniggered at B4E for going to court. I felt it was obsessive, still do really.

But kudos for the even handed reporting, in the face of some strong opposition.

You might be a maniac, you might be borderline obsessive, you might also be a flog....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed report.

Maybe you could use your contacts to see if he can get a job as a court reporter

[barks4eva]

I'll be honest and fess up that I was one of those "are you for real?" posters who sniggered at B4E for going to court. I felt it was obsessive, still do really.

But kudos for the even handed reporting, in the face of some strong opposition.

You might be a maniac, you might be borderline obsessive, you might also be a flog....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed report.

You might be someone who once voted for Howard, you might form part of a congaline of the retentive, you might also be a fink.....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed reply.

[saintsRrising]

I'll be honest and fess up that I was one of those "are you for real?" posters who sniggered at B4E for going to court. I felt it was obsessive, still do really.

But kudos for the even handed reporting, in the face of some strong opposition.

You might be a maniac, you might be borderline obsessive, you might also be a flog....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed report.

You might be someone who once voted for Howard, you might form part of a congaline of the retentive, you might also be a fink.....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed reply.

[asiu]

...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.

that was a good read mb , ta

re the above ...........blight equalled the realisation that we needed 'st kilda people' at st kilda to drag us out of the gutter imo

which happened ....on no money .....kudos for that

that the same board, half way through the ten year plan denuded st kilda of all the st kilda people, ....still seems stupido to me

[Mr Magic]

...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.

that the same board, half way through the ten year plan denuded st kilda of all the st kilda people, ....still seems stupido to me

gazrat, AFAIK the only person they let go was Gt? Was hew the only St Kilda person there?

[asiu]

keep some flow going ....is what i was trying to express

yr right of course

[SENsei]

I'll be honest and fess up that I was one of those "are you for real?" posters who sniggered at B4E for going to court. I felt it was obsessive, still do really.

But kudos for the even handed reporting, in the face of some strong opposition.

You might be a maniac, you might be borderline obsessive, you might also be a flog....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed report.

You might be someone who once voted for Howard, you might form part of a congaline of the retentive, you might also be a fink.....but on this one, you have provided a pretty good even handed reply.

Touche. Back handed compliments flying around left right and centre.

[markp]

Seems to me like B4E has dealt himself the trump card for almost any GT related argument... classic.

[saintsRrising]

Seems to me like B4E has dealt himself the trump card for almost any GT related argument... classic.

Funny too that many were chastising Barks for going to the case...but have promptly hung on every word of a 11 page string....

[JeffDunne]

I'm actually glad Andrew went.

It sounds as though he's found some closure.