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

[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.

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

More backhanded than anything else

[barks4eva]

And St Kilda was "off the radar" in its relationship with Umpires - based on a scale of 1 to 6.

The "off the radar" comment appears to be attributed to the Umpire's Coach, at a meeting with Thomas.

The meeting was between Archie Fraser and Jeff Geishan in the football club's first move to repair the fractured relation's after the Thomas comment's and whispers in the sky.

AF asked on a scale of one to 16 where do St.Kilda rate with the umpiring fraternity, Gieshan replied, you're not even on the scale.

[saintsRrising]

. The club was comfortable with his performance as a coach. .

Which of your second hand sources provided the rating?

Or is there actually a factual source this time?

[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?

GT had meetings with AF afterall Fraser was the middle man/go between trying valiantly to get both parties working together.

On the annual leave issue Thomas initially had conversations relating to his annual leave with CFL Ver Beek where he stated that he thought he was owed around 8 weeks, in what was relayed, to the best of my understanding by Thomas, as a somewhat jovial converstion where, Van Beek countered this with "what about 4" with Thomas suggesting 6 weeks to which CFL Van Beek allegedly agreed,

It seemed that Thomas took this as a firm commitment from the football club in relation to his holiday pay and annual leave entitlements, the impression I got anyway

but CFL Van Beek is not in a position to sign off on these matter's.

The previous board took the view all along that this claim for annual leave was fictitious.

The board had told Thomas at various times to take his annual leave and had assumed he had done so.

Allegedly according to the football club the first time this matter arose and this point wasn't disputed, was directly after the St.Kilda Football Club was levied with a $15,000 AFL fine for Thomas's comment's about umpires.

Allegedly Watts assured Thomas that the football club would pay this, but once Butterss got wind of this he was insistent that, Thomas said it, Thomas pays it.

Thomas admitted this made him very pissed off.....the jist, not his words exactly

he was asked how he felt about this

something along the lines of he was furious, upset, dissapointed

This is allegedly where the annual leave issue first arises and Fraser said that in his meetings with Thomas, Thomas said, that this is just to give the board the s***'s, give them the s***'s, give the board the s***'s, one or the other, but that's what was allegedly said by Thomas, as a response to the Club/ Butterss, insisting that he pay the $15,000 AFL fine himself,

Archie Fraser in trying to heal the relationship between the board and coach in 2005, outlined to Thomas a number of issues that needed to be resolved, which included, the relationship's between Thomas and the umpire's, the AFL and in particular Demetriou, the annual leave claim and a few other matters................

Thomas acknowledged according to AF, that the relationship's between himself and the board, umpire's and AFL/Demetriou were poor,

In this meeting AF said that the board would pay the $15,000 AFL fine, if Thomas dropped what the board regarded as a fictitious claim for holiday pay that was apparently according to the board initiated by GT as a direct reaction to Butterss initial insistence that Thomas pay this fine.

AF said that at the meeting Thomas agreed to drop his claim for annual leave entitlements in response to the board agreeing to pay this fine.

I apologize for not answering your direct question, but there was so much information, I could not quite remember the precise moment,

the quick answer is, to the best of my recollection that Thomas said NO as to whether he thought the AL matter had been resolved at this meeting, but to be honest I can't quite recall

[Mr Magic]

Thanks for that Barks.

[Richter]

Barks, thanks for the great reports. Like others I am also surprised, but pleased, in their generosity of spirit. The following passage you have written is particularly pertinent.

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

I was one who supported your calls for the no-rucking clue game plan to go. When GT was axed I, on the whole, felt that it was the right decision for footballing reasons. The subsequent disclosures re personal conflicts/money dealing between GT and RB then cemented this and meant that RB needed to go too.

However, one thing that stuck in my throat has been your insistence that GT was only ever in it for GT. I never thought that.... always believing that at heart GT is a Saints man - as is RB. They both pulled on the shirt, and invested huge portions of their lives to the club.

When we do finally taste premiership glory I would hope that both will be sufficiently rehabilitated in the eyes of supporters to be able to be venerated for what they both did to help turn this club from AFL basketcase to the respectable position it is in now.

[barks4eva]

Did 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?

Both questions are answered below to the best of "my" understanding


GT was asked by his legal rep, Stirling about what happened when he was presented with the document in relation to dropping his claim for annual leave,

GT said, he was busy in a coaches meeting two days before the elimination final and he did not want to be interuppted etc....

Thomas said he signed it, took his copy, screwed it up and threw it in the bin, without even reading it.


Glick asked Thomas the exact same question and once again, Thomas strongly affirmed that he had taken the document signed it, without reading it, screwed up his copy and thrown it into the bin.

I was convinced by Thomas that this is in fact what he had done.

He was asked then if he had taken it out of the bin and read it later and he replied no, he never read it.

Glick then produced Thomas's copy in perfect condition, which in actual fact Thomas had handed back to Archie Fraser who subsequently put it on file.

Thomas at this point looked very uncomfortable and embarrassed, then claimed, in his mind he thought that...........to the best of his recollection..........but obviously I was wrong etc...etc... > general jist

At this point Glick made the absolute most of this, shall we say oversight, as you might imagine

Glick made mention a number of times as to Thomas's recollection of thing's being perhaps somewhat on a par with, his recollection of what he'd done with his copy of the annual leave document, > general jist not quote,

early day two Thomas sought to explain why perhaps he'd got his memory of this event confused, as it did appear as though he'd put his foot in it and it most definitely needed to be addressed, because this gaff did raise question's about Thomas credibility and capacity to remember precise details.

Thomas asserted that he had never read the document he signed, which I personally find to be quite surprising, if I'm at all allowed to have an opinion here.

IMHO, I would think if Thomas was signing the document he would be fully aware of what it was about before signing it, even if he didn't bother to read it,

IMHO again, I would think that he would have known what the jist of it all was about and he just signed it knowing full well it related to the AL, but that is just my opinion, nothing more.

[ausfatcat]

Well he would've been red faced after that



again thanks Barks your unbiased points on this is great, and it takes a effort to post something that contradicts some things you stated as true in the past good one You!!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Got to admit I'm a bit fishy on anyone who claims "never read it" when in disagreement about a contract. Especially under circumstances like those that were going on when Thomas signed his stat dec. I know people sign documents without reading them all the time, but the "never read it" excuse just doesn't fly with me, as someone handing you a document requiring a signature is probably a good hint that it's worth reading - if not at the time than at least later.

I know my signature exists at the bottom of a couple of documents I'm not happy with, but should I ever need to contest them, I certainly wouldn't plead "never read it"... I've learned the hard way to read everything I sign, and along the course as well learned that all a signed document is really worth little more than an affirmation that you've either read a document or waived the opportunity to read a document (i.e. my lesson could have been a lot harder).

[Mr Magic]

Barks,
I don't believe that bit about the contract has appeared in any of the reports so far.

And it is quite a 'telling' piece of information. GT is asking the Court to believe his version of events, via-a-vis meetings he held with AF and others, based on his credibility.

The fact that he got this so wrong if nothing else raises questions about his recollections let alone his credibility.

You would have to assume his Barrister was unaware that the Club had 'his copy' of the contract in their posession otherwise he would never have asked GT the questions he did about it.

Barrister Glick's eyes must have 'lit up' when GT answered that particular question.

[barks4eva]

Another thing that came to light is that when Thomas was sacked he was only entitled to be paid for four and a half months, which amounted to a sum a bit over $202,000

The club instead paid Thomas for 6 months even though he was only entitled to four and a half and paid him out a figure of $270,000, a bit over 67,000 more than the football club was contractually obligated to pay


In the terms of release document, there was/is a clause that this is full and final payment and that there will be no further claims made by Thomas, which Thomas agreed to and signed off on.

[Mr Magic]

Another thing that came to light is that when Thomas was sacked he was only entitled to be paid for four and a half months, which amounted to a sum a bit over $202,000

The club instead paid Thomas for 6 months even though he was only entitled to four and a half and paid him out a figure of $270,000, a bit over 67,000 more than the football club was contractually obligated to pay


In the terms of release document, there was/is a clause that this is full and final payment and that there will be no further claims made by Thomas, which Thomas agreed to and signed off on.

Other than the $100,000 'hush money' surely?

[barks4eva]

You would have to assume his Barrister was unaware that the Club had 'his copy' of the contract in their posession otherwise he would never have asked GT the questions he did about it.

Barrister Glick's eyes must have 'lit up' when GT answered that particular question.

Correct on both counts.

[barks4eva]

Another thing that came to light is that when Thomas was sacked he was only entitled to be paid for four and a half months, which amounted to a sum a bit over $202,000

The club instead paid Thomas for 6 months even though he was only entitled to four and a half and paid him out a figure of $270,000, a bit over 67,000 more than the football club was contractually obligated to pay


In the terms of release document, there was/is a clause that this is full and final payment and that there will be no further claims made by Thomas, which Thomas agreed to and signed off on.

Other than the $100,000 'hush money' surely?

This was still being drawn up at the time of the release document being signed off on, so surely the answer to that question is yes.

[JeffDunne]

Can I ask, why did GT hand his copy back to Archie?

Didn't read it, didn't keep a copy but he signed it?

Surely not?

[asiu]

by accident it would seem

how else could he 'believe' he screwed it up and tossed it binward

[barks4eva]

Can I ask, why did GT hand his copy back to Archie?

Didn't read it, didn't keep a copy but he signed it?

Surely not?

That's what Thomas said, he signed it, never read it, screwed it up and threw it into the bin.

When in actual fact

Thomas signed it, never read it and handed it back to Archie Fraser.

[JeffDunne]

I can sort of understand the bin story (doesn't seem out of character)

The handing it back to Archie though - that's got me stuffed.

[saintsRrising]

Another question for Barks.....


The "missing" paid leave that GT is claiming....was it mentioned when it was??

I mean as I understand it.....the players have a compulsory knock off period at the end of the season....and then have another abscence over Xmas....

Did GT say that he worked "home alone" during both these periods?????


Personally I would have thought that the guys on $500,000 ish are meant to workaholic types who often doa bit of work when leave....and that the large amount of dosh is meant to offset their 24/7 working life...

[lefty]

Even if he did or didnt know what he was singing, I think the club is "dodgy" by taking away someone's annual paided leave, whether it be $1 or $1,000,000.

I dont think he was overpaid or underpaid, it seems fair what he was earning. Coaching is not an easy job.

Feel sorry for GT in a way, someone who loves the club (and has done so much, well getting us to finals) has to fight/put his reputation on the line to get his entitled money. Disappointing.

[Mr Magic]

Even if he did or didnt know what he was singing, I think the club is "dodgy" by taking away someone's annual paided leave, whether it be $1 or $1,000,000.

I dont think he was overpaid or underpaid, it seems fair what he was earning. Coaching is not an easy job.

Feel sorry for GT in a way, someone who loves the club (and has done so much, well getting us to finals) has to fight/put his reputation on the line to get his entitled money. Disappointing.

Do you know something that the rest of us don't?

Just because he alleges he is owed something doesn't necessarily make it true.
Conversely
Just because the Club says it doesn't owe him the money doesn't make that true.

That's why he and the Club are in Court andd letting the Court decide what is the truth behind his claims.

Obvioulsy you already have decided that he is telling the truth and both the previouls and current Boards are not.

[aussierules0k]

Geez mm, let someone have an opinion with out jumping down their throats will ya.

Excellent read barks, cheers.

[Mr Magic]

Geez mm, let someone have an opinion with out jumping down their throats will ya.

Excellent read barks, cheers.

What happened to my free speech AOK?
I'm not entitled to offer my opinion onn his opinion?

[aussierules0k]

It's the way you do it mm. If anyone has an alternate view, you attack the man... every time. Like there's points to score. fwiw, I totally agree with you on this thread. p66 appears to be an AFL plant. lefty on the other hand is just voicing an opinion, and it wasn't aimed at me, you or anyone else. No need to reply to him with such indignation.

[Mr Magic]

It's the way you do it mm. If anyone has an alternate view, you attack the man... every time. Like there's points to score. fwiw, I totally agree with you on this thread. p66 appears to be an AFL plant. westy on the other hand is just voicing an opinion, and it wasn't aimed at me, you or anyone else. No need to reply to him with such indignation.

Well then I accept your criticism in the spirit it is given.
If that was the impression you got from my post it was not what was intended.
My intention was to point out that there doesn't seem much point in making your mind up on who is right or wrong in this case when nobody here has any actual knowledge as to what really went on. Hopefully the Court will decide that.

As for Plugger apearing to be an 'AFL plant' I don't think that even you believe that conspoiracy!