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

[saintsRrising]

but the reports would seem to indicate that most of the contention was focused on the Leave side of things?

Not suprisng..

Club claims that GT was directed to take leave.

GT was head of Football Department and would have, and should have, as such been, managing the leave requirements of all football department staff including his own ( which incidently is a great waste of a head coaches time and another reason to have changed our Football Departments Structure as we did).


Over such an extended period why did GT let such a leave liability build up?

Did he as head of the football department handle all leave the same way as he did his own?

[saintsRrising]

Did Thomas adequately demonstrate the existence of a "hush money" agreement?

While everyone seems to be using the term "Hush Money"....from what the St Kilda lawyer at the trial said...the money was for a range of things...and not just for "Hush".

GT was after all not just coach...but the contracts manager...

[saintsRrising]

... while 6 months may seem a lot of money to us, it's not unusual for executive contracts to have termination periods of that and longer, partially to set up such payments.

I was offered 6 months once...but negotiated it up to a year.

Very nice little bonus for me as I had already decided to go..and had already started interviews.

I walked out on Friday...and into a my new office on Monday..much to my previous employers surprise

[meher baba]

For my sins, I have spent some of my chequered career as a human resource manager (please don't hold it against me).

On the basis on my experience with similar cases - and also drawing on the reports I have read in here from B4E and also in the media - it appears to me that the case hinges on one key point.

Namely, will the court recognise the piece of paper signed by GT as representing a fair and accurate record of his leave entitlements?

On the one hand, you have the piece of paper, which GT's lawyers are attempting to portray was signed under duress, or at least in inappropriate circumstances.

On the other hand, you have the fact that the club appears to have no administrative records whatsoever in relation to GT's leave entitlements, any leave he ever actually took, what he was still owed in September 2006, etc., etc.

In similar cases in which I have been involved, which involve public servants, the courts always come out in favour of the plaintiff: simply because the government is seen as having endlessly deep pockets, so the court will always err on the side of unfairly penalising the government.

In this case, who knows how the court will lean? GT is a public figure who was on a very high salary. The club is effectively a large business. So there is no obvious underdog.

One thing I can be certain about is that 15 other AFL clubs are currently making a very careful review of the leave entitlements of their coaches!!

[saintsRrising]

One thing I can be certain about is that 15 other AFL clubs are currently making a very careful review of the leave entitlements of their coaches!!

Indeed....however as a group Head Coaches have always been workhaholics...and in recent years very well rewarded ones (and in the far past mainly doing it just for the passion)

It would not surprise me at all that Head Coaches as a group had been largely left to run their own race.

Sheedy does not strike me as the type to have been too fussed about putting in leave forms in triplicate....

[JeffDunne]

I'm sure most other clubs would have made sure they were on top of issues like long service leave after the first time they were on the receiving end of a claim.

[asiu]

Now we're in court, why aren't the club and Archie defending our right to not pay the $100K? Why aren't we presenting the so-called "evidence" that was damaging enough to warrant a president & CEO embarrassing the club in the press and further inflaming the situation?

good question doc

[saintsRrising]

I'm sure most other clubs would have made sure they were on top of issues like long service leave after the first time they were on the receiving end of a claim.

I thought that long service did not start pr-rata till you had about 7 years up?

Besides what I am getting a is that with fixed windows to take their leave in that the coaches may just be expected to take it then.

I mean a Head Coach cannot really apply for two weeks off over say Easter can he?

He has to take it in the period that the players are off...and should be expected to do so.

More importantly the coach should expect to do so. I mean this is hardly Einstein stuff.

[barks4eva]

Banger has a contract which deals with his annual leave which allows 8 weeks (according to this thread).

I don't think GT did have a contact before his last year (unless I am misreading B4E) and the Saints are accepting 8 weeks a year for him as they do Banger.

But there is no way GT could have had 8 weeks leave each year (no AFL coach does).

AS sRs posted earlier in the thread, to the very best of my understanding

Players get 8 weeks annual leave as part of their collective bargaining agreement

Coaches are on 4 weeks annual leave, to the very best of my understanding.

In relation to how much annual leave Thomas claimed he was owed, in "ESTIMATING" eight weeks in a conversation with the CFO Van Beek, who countered with four weeks, with Thomas then suggesting six weeks, to which Van Beek agreed, even though he personally had no final say in this matter, was based on the entire period of his tenure or at least up until that point of time in 2005.

I hope that clears this up for anyone still in any doubt.

[SENsei]

I'm sure most other clubs would have made sure they were on top of issues like long service leave after the first time they were on the receiving end of a claim.

Or at least are professional enough to keep records of any leave.

Hopefully Archie runs a tighter ship in that regard than Waldron and Watts before him.

[barks4eva]

The new Board hasn't disagreed with the numbers. By my calculation they were prepared to give GT what he wanted in terms of hush money and annual leave taking into account past payments.

You continually get so much wrong Shaggy, I'm not sure I can be even bothered correcting you.

What you just wrote is garbage.

[JeffDunne]

Now we're in court, why aren't the club and Archie defending our right to not pay the $100K? Why aren't we presenting the so-called "evidence" that was damaging enough to warrant a president & CEO embarrassing the club in the press and further inflaming the situation?

good question doc

Andrew, can you shed any light on this?

Have we 1) disputed paying it & 2) mentioned what RB & AF were accusing GT of?

[JeffDunne]

I'm sure most other clubs would have made sure they were on top of issues like long service leave after the first time they were on the receiving end of a claim.

Or at least are professional enough to keep records of any leave.

Hopefully Archie runs a tighter ship in that regard than Waldron and Watts before him.

We probably shouldn't be surprised given the amount of times we've been fined for late paperwork.

I'm starting to think we operate best as a club when we're in fear of our own survival.

[barks4eva]

As I understand it (and Barks please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) GT is claiming he is owed for all annual leave he never took? As he is claiming around $160,000 it would point to the annual leave being 4 weeks and not 8.

Correct

Thomas's claim originally was around $168,000 in annual leave entitlements.

The annual leave claim, to the very best of my understanding was re-negotiated between both parties last Wednesday with an agreed sum of $90,000 being the figure Thomas would recieve for his annual leave claim, if the decision went in his favour.

[Mr Magic]

As I understand it (and Barks please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) GT is claiming he is owed for all annual leave he never took? As he is claiming around $160,000 it would point to the annual leave being 4 weeks and not 8.

Correct

Thomas's claim originally was around $168,000 in annual leave entitlements.

The annual leave claim, to the very best of my understanding was re-negotiated between both parties last Wednesday with an agreed sum of $90,000 being the figure Thomas would recieve for his annual leave claim, if the decision went in his favour.

So his original claim was for approx of 4 weeks untaken annual leave over 5 years?
And now they have agreed that the figure he can claim is approx 2 weeks per year for 5 years?

GT's lawyers have now agreed that he did take some annual leave during the time he was coach, even though in his claim of particulars he stated he hadn't taken it?

[barks4eva]

GT's lawyers have now agreed that he did take some annual leave during the time he was coach, even though in his claim of particulars he stated he hadn't taken it?

Again to the best of my understanding, Thomas did not claim he'd never taken any annual leave, just that he had amounts outstanding.

[Mr Magic]

GT's lawyers have now agreed that he did take some annual leave during the time he was coach, even though in his claim of particulars he stated he hadn't taken it?

Again to the best of my understanding, Thomas did not claim he'd never taken any annual leave, just that he had amounts outstanding.

Thanks Barks.

[joffaboy]

I'm going to ask what is probably a stupid question here but this issue concerns me more than issues around leave entitlements.

TBH I find it hard to comprehend that after all this time the best the club can come up with to defend themselves on the annual leave is "we thought he took his leave".

This is a very good point and I would question the STKFC internal accounting and control procedures if this is in fact he case.

All employee annual leave is provided for as a current (or non current after a year) liability and the expense apportioned on a periodic basis. Annual leave, when taken, comes out of the provision so as not to distort the periodic reporting of P&L.

Also internal controls in HR requires an employee to apply for Annual Leave with approval coming from a superior, in Grant Thomases case, from the board. This is then placed on the employment history file of the employee.

I find it very strange that these HR files have not been produced by the club. If they dont have them, I am very concerned with the clubs internal procedures.

Of course the above is predicated on the a annual salaried employee. I dont know how GT was paid, however as a full time employee he is entitled to four weeks annual holiday.

Most organisations will make employess take annual leave so their liability wont balloon and will keep tight control on any AL going into NCL's.

5 years worth??? FFS STKFC who was in control of the Bal Sheet???????

[plugger66]

I actually think he may be entilted to 8 weeks leave. Surely someone noticed if he was working or not in that time.

[joffaboy]

I actually think he may be entilted to 8 weeks leave. Surely someone noticed if he was working or not in that time.

I dont what he has claimed or not, but if it is that he took no holidays, he would be owed in the vicinty of 20 weeks.

[plugger66]

I actually think he may be entilted to 8 weeks leave. Surely someone noticed if he was working or not in that time.

I dont what he has claimed or not, but if it is that he took no holidays, he would be owed in the vicinty of 20 weeks.

No I actually meant he is entilted to 8 weeks a year not 8 weeks all up as that is what the footballers get.

[JeffDunne]

Why would the player's leave entitlements have any relevance?

[barks4eva]

Now we're in court, why aren't the club and Archie defending our right to not pay the $100K? Why aren't we presenting the so-called "evidence" that was damaging enough to warrant a president & CEO embarrassing the club in the press and further inflaming the situation?

good question doc

Andrew, can you shed any light on this?

Have we 1) disputed paying it & 2) mentioned what RB & AF were accusing GT of?

The situation is this, to the best of my understanding

The club/board according to AF, were prepared to offer $100,000 to Thomas subject to certain conditions.

The first draft of these conditions was quickly put together as initially the club were going to inform Thomas that his services were no longer required on the Thursday 14th September, but were advised that it would get out to the media if they delayed any further and so subsequently contacted Thomas and told him to meet with the board at Butterss house on Tuesday/12th September.

The first original draft of the conditions were agreed to in principle at the meeting on the 12th,

the club told Thomas that it would have the complete full final draft available to sign off in 7 days.

Thomas left the country for a holiday with his family on the 19th September, leaving the issue unresolved as the final draft had not been signed off on.

I am a bit unclear as to what happened next,

It would seem that the final draft was never actually signed off on, so therefore the offer was off the table,

This is all to the best of my understanding.

[plugger66]

Why would the player's leave entitlements have any relevance?

Because it is an industry entiltment I think.

[JeffDunne]

Why would the player's leave entitlements have any relevance?

Because it is an industry entiltment I think.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.