Footy Confidential

[BAM! (shhhh)]

She's a token who says anything to justify her (perceived) high standing position in the football media. Sometimes she's right, sometimes she's wrong, but she's where she is because of her gender, not her journalistic ability, not for her football knowledge, and certainly not for her integrity.

Even if someone from the age and channel 9 came out tomorrow and confirmed she'd been hired into her roles under affirmative action, this would still be the single most bigoted thing I've read on this forum.

[Eastern]

Could be interesting on Footy Classified next year. It is rumoured that Grant Thomas will be replacing Glen Archer. GT and Caro within punching distance of each other. Very Interesting !!

[stinger]

[

it sheAhan actually....

? you serious? you really got me there. who gives a toss?

if you are going to rubbish someone...at least have the class to get his name right......

[stinger]

Mischa,

Just because a judge found in his favour on one issue, doesn't mean jack about all the other events, does it? Some of us ARE trying to look at this in a balanced approach. No one is blaming GT. The question arose about whether or not he knew about the MB sacking, and when.

Or do you only look at certainn lines and jump to conclusions?

BTW, there's a lot of guily crims walking the streets who were found "not guilty" in court

not the same thing ffs...anyway......completely different onus of proof in civil cases.....thomas was always going to win..........holiday pay/leave is guaranteed by statue...you can't sign it away ffs........the club was being bloody minded....and poorly advised fighting it......

[joffaboy]

Mischa,

Just because a judge found in his favour on one issue, doesn't mean jack about all the other events, does it? Some of us ARE trying to look at this in a balanced approach. No one is blaming GT. The question arose about whether or not he knew about the MB sacking, and when.

Or do you only look at certainn lines and jump to conclusions?

BTW, there's a lot of guily crims walking the streets who were found "not guilty" in court

not the same thing ffs...anyway......completely different onus of proof in civil cases.....thomas was always going to win..........holiday pay/leave is guaranteed by statue...you can't sign it away ffs........the club was being bloody minded....and poorly advised fighting it......

But surely if someone calls you a liar on National TV and you haven't lied you would have a good case I would have thought.

Carolyn Wilson called Grant Thomas a liar. Said he told "porky pies" about the Blight sacking on radio.

Now "porky pies" we all know cannot be construed as anything else than saying Mr Thomas told lies on radio about the Blight sacking. When Garry Lyon said - are you calling GT a liar - she said no, but just second before said he told "porky pies" on radio.

ie the woman squibbed it. It was a slur on GT's character and she meant it as such.

If she has defamed GT's character surely he should sue for the sake of his and his families name, after all he was inferred to be a liar by Ms Wilson.

So far i haven't heard if Gt will sue, will be interesting if anyone brings up the issue tomorrow night on SEN about the alleged "porky pies" Ms Wilson alluded to.

[Con Gorozidis]

[

it sheAhan actually....

? you serious? you really got me there. who gives a toss?

if you are going to rubbish someone...at least have the class to get his name right......

fairly pedantry correction. and getting the name wrong is part of the bagging process. displays a lack of respect. in fact i might call him "that mark sheman guy"

even more disrespectful. and its a footy fan forum. so class is frowned upon. possibly illegal.

[Eastern]

Mischa,

Just because a judge found in his favour on one issue, doesn't mean jack about all the other events, does it? Some of us ARE trying to look at this in a balanced approach. No one is blaming GT. The question arose about whether or not he knew about the MB sacking, and when.

Or do you only look at certainn lines and jump to conclusions?

BTW, there's a lot of guily crims walking the streets who were found "not guilty" in court

not the same thing ffs...anyway......completely different onus of proof in civil cases.....thomas was always going to win..........holiday pay/leave is guaranteed by statue...you can't sign it away ffs........the club was being bloody minded....and poorly advised fighting it......

But surely if someone calls you a liar on National TV and you haven't lied you would have a good case I would have thought.

Carolyn Wilson called Grant Thomas a liar. Said he told "porky pies" about the Blight sacking on radio.

Now "porky pies" we all know cannot be construed as anything else than saying Mr Thomas told lies on radio about the Blight sacking. When Garry Lyon said - are you calling GT a liar - she said no, but just second before said he told "porky pies" on radio.

ie the woman squibbed it. It was a slur on GT's character and she meant it as such.

If she has defamed GT's character surely he should sue for the sake of his and his families name, after all he was inferred to be a liar by Ms Wilson.

So far i haven't heard if Gt will sue, will be interesting if anyone brings up the issue tomorrow night on SEN about the alleged "porky pies" Ms Wilson alluded to.

If the rumours are correct, he will be working with her next year on that very show. The Ch 9 pay cheque might be more than the courts would grant him !!

[Con Gorozidis]

that fugly is irrelevant...and so is the sh!t show she appears on ...along with mud guards(shiny on top.....full of s*** underneath) hutchinson

dude. you cant be serious about bagging me for lack of class ?

caros looks are not relevant. u are a hypocrite and a bigot and you call me on a vowel in she-mans name? nice work.

[Con Gorozidis]

Mischa,

Just because a judge found in his favour on one issue, doesn't mean jack about all the other events, does it? Some of us ARE trying to look at this in a balanced approach. No one is blaming GT. The question arose about whether or not he knew about the MB sacking, and when.

Or do you only look at certainn lines and jump to conclusions?

BTW, there's a lot of guily crims walking the streets who were found "not guilty" in court

not the same thing ffs...anyway......completely different onus of proof in civil cases.....thomas was always going to win..........holiday pay/leave is guaranteed by statue...you can't sign it away ffs........the club was being bloody minded....and poorly advised fighting it......

But surely if someone calls you a liar on National TV and you haven't lied you would have a good case I would have thought.

Carolyn Wilson called Grant Thomas a liar. Said he told "porky pies" about the Blight sacking on radio.

Now "porky pies" we all know cannot be construed as anything else than saying Mr Thomas told lies on radio about the Blight sacking. When Garry Lyon said - are you calling GT a liar - she said no, but just second before said he told "porky pies" on radio.

ie the woman squibbed it. It was a slur on GT's character and she meant it as such.

If she has defamed GT's character surely he should sue for the sake of his and his families name, after all he was inferred to be a liar by Ms Wilson.

So far i haven't heard if Gt will sue, will be interesting if anyone brings up the issue tomorrow night on SEN about the alleged "porky pies" Ms Wilson alluded to.

If the rumours are correct, he will be working with her next year on that very show. The Ch 9 pay cheque might be more than the courts would grant him !!

u have to display loss to run a defamation case. reputation is not enough. has GT suffered a material loss from her comments?? nope.

if u could sue for defamation everytime someone got bagged the courts would be full. half of saintsational would be bankrupt.

probably all hype to set up the show ratings next year. create tension. etc etc. old tv show trick.

[WayneJudson42]

POINT IS: Just because he was awarded the $$ in court doesn't mean that he's always told the truth, ok?

When he got the job, he denied until he was blue in the face (as did Butthead) that the correct process was followed. Which he recently confessed that it wasn't.

HENCE... you cannot take into consideration the recent court outcome when it comes to judging his integrity.

Fairly logical, I would have thought.

This, as I understand was core argument raised on this thread. Did he or did he not tell the truth on radio about MB?

Some journos want him buried. I don't give a stuff, but will debate it, becuase we were all lied to, and that pyssis me off.

If Mischa was refering to the journos wanting him "buried", then my bad, and I apologise for taking his post out of context.

If he was refering to posters on this forum, then I stand y my comment.

Time will tell, either way

[Con Gorozidis]

But surely if someone calls you a liar on National TV and you haven't lied you would have a good case I would have thought.

Carolyn Wilson called Grant Thomas a liar. Said he told "porky pies" about the Blight sacking on radio.

Now "porky pies" we all know cannot be construed as anything else than saying Mr Thomas told lies on radio about the Blight sacking. When Garry Lyon said - are you calling GT a liar - she said no, but just second before said he told "porky pies" on radio.


If she has defamed GT's character surely he should sue for the sake of his and his families name, after all he was inferred to be a liar by Ms Wilson.

So far i haven't heard if Gt will sue, will be interesting if anyone brings up the issue tomorrow night on SEN about the alleged "porky pies" Ms Wilson alluded to.

you cant sue just for your "family name" or "character".

you can be mad. you can call caro names back . but you cant sue. hed have to prove material loss. i.e has he lost employment or a contract because of her untrue comments? NOPE. Also - can he show her comments were false? might be various conflicting pieces of evidence. either way. GT has not actually lost anything so is entitled to no recourse in the courts.

the recent court case is a completely different matter. it was simply about holiday leave wasnt it? he was just claiming his statutory right to holiday pay. pretty simple. im not sure about the hush money contract?

[WayneJudson42]

Funny.

Didn't he call her a liar when he was at The Age?

She got him fired, but didn't sue.

[Teflon]

2: Teflon, interesting point you raise about this. Once the decision was made to cut MB, surely the board would have had a contingency plan for someone to take over... In this case it was GT.

To announce it all at one dinner is astounding - almost coup like.

That is ridiculous and it's not what he said.

He was told at the meeting what the others were feeling. GT like the others already had serious reservations about how MB was doing his job, but he was called to the meeting because others had already discussed getting rid of him.

I'm sure the options for a replacement would have been very much part of the discussion.

As was the case 12 months earlier when Timmy wanted to walk, there were people in the admin that felt Thomas could do the job.

If GT was plotting to take over the job, and RB was fully in support of this plan, why on earth would the two spend so much time, energy & money going after Blight? It doesn't make sense.

Jeff it makes perfect sense - IF YOU WANT to see it.

Your being deliberately dumb...you have to be.

The clowns put Blight in - they thought "just add water and we got our flag..." they (and Jim Watts and others) started to have reservations about the EFFORT Blight and ass-sistants were putting in on the job. I also suspect (and Butters hinted at this) that they realised Malcom was coaching the same style as the 90's......started to see that AFL footy coaching had progressed on from genius plans off the back of serviettes... and had an "oh shyte" moment realising they had a football legend who was not only past his prime but past any form of motivation and that they had just lost $1m.

At the time of the Blight appointment I have no doubt GT wasnt a coach in waiting. After the sacking he WAS the coach/personality we needed (Ive said this repeatedly). He was, as Jeans mentioned, the St kilda person we needed for stability while being ridiculed by the footy world as rabble.

All that aside, at this time he and Rod were bum chumming and Grant needed to borrow some dough - heck they were BBQ frequently with Grants kids calling Butters "Uncle Rod" - DONT TELL US ALL Grant "wasnt aware" Blught was gonna get sacked OR wasnt told cause hed "argue against it". Its simple nonsense.

Caro did say 1 thing which was interesting on FC the other night - "I can guarantee you he knew" - ofcourse he did.

Thomas is lying - no doubt hes taking his opportunity to swipe Butters...why not? the man sacked the "unsackable man manager". It was overdue and in some ways he "righted" the wrongs of a cr@p appointment process that he and Thomas now publicly (and shamelessly...) acknowledge was a sham.

The irony in this last act is Rod Butters then was instrumental in appointing Ross Lyon.....and if he takes this club to the holy grail.....many on here will owe Rod Butters a massive apology.....

You need to move on from your hatred of Butters and acknowledge he did some fine things for the club - in amongst many mistakes.

[JeffDunne]

Jeff it makes perfect sense - IF YOU WANT to see it.

Your being deliberately dumb...you have to be.

You mean "You're being deliberately dumb". Pot, kettle, etc.

At the time of the Blight appointment I have no doubt GT wasnt a coach in waiting. After the sacking he WAS the coach/personality we needed (Ive said this repeatedly). He was, as Jeans mentioned, the St kilda person we needed for stability while being ridiculed by the footy world as rabble.

. . .

It was overdue and in some ways he "righted" the wrongs of a cr@p appointment process that he and Thomas now publicly (and shamelessly...) acknowledge was a sham.

Was Jeans part of this sham?

Is it a problem anyway if he "WAS the coach/personality we needed"??

If he was the right man but the club played up to the media, what's the problem?

The irony in this last act is Rod Butters then was instrumental in appointing Ross Lyon.....and if he takes this club to the holy grail.....many on here will owe Rod Butters a massive apology.....

Why would anyone from St Kilda owe Rod anything?

THe only thing we should be thankful for is that Rod's not around to have more "oh shyte" moments.

[markp]

But surely if someone calls you a liar on National TV and you haven't lied you would have a good case I would have thought.

Carolyn Wilson called Grant Thomas a liar. Said he told "porky pies" about the Blight sacking on radio.

Now "porky pies" we all know cannot be construed as anything else than saying Mr Thomas told lies on radio about the Blight sacking. When Garry Lyon said - are you calling GT a liar - she said no, but just second before said he told "porky pies" on radio.


If she has defamed GT's character surely he should sue for the sake of his and his families name, after all he was inferred to be a liar by Ms Wilson.

So far i haven't heard if Gt will sue, will be interesting if anyone brings up the issue tomorrow night on SEN about the alleged "porky pies" Ms Wilson alluded to.

you cant sue just for your "family name" or "character".

you can be mad. you can call caro names back . but you cant sue. hed have to prove material loss. i.e has he lost employment or a contract because of her untrue comments? NOPE. Also - can he show her comments were false? might be various conflicting pieces of evidence. either way. GT has not actually lost anything so is entitled to no recourse in the courts.

the recent court case is a completely different matter. it was simply about holiday leave wasnt it? he was just claiming his statutory right to holiday pay. pretty simple. im not sure about the hush money contract?

I would've thought you could try to sue anyone (how successful you are is a different matter), and that he could attempt to prove damage to his reputation, stress, anxiety etc.....

[markp]

The clowns put Blight in - they thought "just add water and we got our flag..." they (and Jim Watts and others) started to have reservations about the EFFORT Blight and ass-sistants were putting in on the job. I also suspect (and Butters hinted at this) that they realised Malcom was coaching the same style as the 90's......started to see that AFL footy coaching had progressed on from genius plans off the back of serviettes... and had an "oh shyte" moment realising they had a football legend who was not only past his prime but past any form of motivation and that they had just lost $1m.

At the time of the Blight appointment I have no doubt GT wasnt a coach in waiting. After the sacking he WAS the coach/personality we needed (Ive said this repeatedly). He was, as Jeans mentioned, the St kilda person we needed for stability while being ridiculed by the footy world as rabble.

All that aside, at this time he and Rod were bum chumming and Grant needed to borrow some dough - heck they were BBQ frequently with Grants kids calling Butters "Uncle Rod" - DONT TELL US ALL Grant "wasnt aware" Blught was gonna get sacked OR wasnt told cause hed "argue against it". Its simple nonsense.

Caro did say 1 thing which was interesting on FC the other night - "I can guarantee you he knew" - ofcourse he did.

Thomas is lying - no doubt hes taking his opportunity to swipe Butters...why not? the man sacked the "unsackable man manager". It was overdue and in some ways he "righted" the wrongs of a cr@p appointment process that he and Thomas now publicly (and shamelessly...) acknowledge was a sham.

The irony in this last act is Rod Butters then was instrumental in appointing Ross Lyon.....and if he takes this club to the holy grail.....many on here will owe Rod Butters a massive apology.....

You need to move on from your hatred of Butters and acknowledge he did some fine things for the club - in amongst many mistakes.

Don't worry, this will prove to be the definitive view....

[JeffDunne]

I would've thought you could try to sue anyone (how successful you are is a different matter), and that he could attempt to prove damage to his reputation, stress, anxiety etc.....

Proving that you were wronged is one issue, proving damages is another.

It's easy to sue someone and prove you were wronged. It's far more difficult to quantify damages.

That's why I couldn't understand why our piss-weak ex-president wouldn't front the court to defend the payment of the $100K. If the ex-coach had breached the terms of that agreement - as was the allegation we all heard on breakfast radio - then it should have been easy to prove in court and saved the club $100K (plus costs). Christ, here was the perfect opportunity to put on the record all the devious things GT was supposed to done - and save $100K in the process.

Rod's legacy will be one of self-interest and some of the most ridiculous comments ever made by an AFL president.

[markp]

I would've thought you could try to sue anyone (how successful you are is a different matter), and that he could attempt to prove damage to his reputation, stress, anxiety etc.....

Proving that you were wronged is one issue, proving damages is another.

It's easy to sue someone and prove you were wronged. It's far more difficult to quantify damages.

That's why I couldn't understand why our piss-weak ex-president wouldn't front the court to defend the payment of the $100K. If the ex-coach had breached the terms of that agreement - as was the allegation we all heard on breakfast radio - then it should have been easy to prove in court and saved the club $100K (plus costs). Christ, here was the perfect opportunity to put on the record all the devious things GT was supposed to done - and save $100K in the process.

Rod's legacy will be one of self-interest and some of the most ridiculous comments ever made by an AFL president.

Every man and his dog knows that if things went nuclear and these two started publicly (or worse still, in court) slinging mud at each other , GT would probably have far more (damaging) mud to throw than RB..... means little at the end of the day though, but GT knows that RB knows this.

[rodgerfox]

GT coached us to the finals.

We now have the best list assembled at our club since 1997 and 1991.

We won last week for the 4th time in a row. We're in the 8 and look like a genuine top 4 contender.


Why is everyone so upset with GT?


We're in good shape. What's the problem?

[JeffDunne]

Markp, are you suggesting the club paid GT $100K & a generous severance package to protect Rod's reputation?

Surely not?

You need to move on from your hatred of Butters and acknowledge he did some fine things for the club - in amongst many mistakes.

Don't worry, this will prove to be the definitive view....

Ok, I'm all ears.

Tell me the "fine things" Rod has done for St Kilda.

Or as Teffers calls him "our greatest ever president".

[markp]

Markp, are you suggesting the club paid GT $100K & a generous severance package to protect Rod's reputation?

Surely not?

You need to move on from your hatred of Butters and acknowledge he did some fine things for the club - in amongst many mistakes.

Don't worry, this will prove to be the definitive view....

Ok, I'm all ears.

Tell me the "fine things" Rod has done for St Kilda.

Or as Teffers calls him "our greatest ever president".

Refer to Rodge's post above...... we're in good shape, RB just went a bit Conrad Black on us.

[JeffDunne]

You're kidding me.

The best you can come up with?

[WayneJudson42]

TBH, in all of this...

RB's timely was just plain dumb, and says moe abou thim than anything.

Let sleeping dogs lie FFS, as it does nothing to help the club.

However, he was quite candid and openly fessed up up making an error of judgement, as well as admitting that they were inexperienced and gung-ho in their approach.

I don't hate either, but FFS I wish they'd both move on and leaves us the F alone.

FWIW, they both did good things to stablise the club. Had we pinched a flag in 04 or 05, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

They should both now ride off into the sunset. And keep their mouths shut.

[markp]

You're kidding me.

The best you can come up with?

WTF does that mean?

I'm not gonna defend either of them, glad they're gone.......

Don't have time to split hairs with you Jeff.

[WayneJudson42]

Facts are JD, that until we all know the truth, noone can say who did what, who did good, and who did bad.

If, as it appears that GT was sacked because he refused to comply with the board's wishes to restructure the footy dept... and that RB was inept as the Pres... then history will judge them both as having wasted a golden opportunity for this club.