That's what all great leaders do.Eastern wrote:
Greg Westaway strikes me as being a person who surrounds himself with the very best people. The latest two additions to our board (a month or so ago) also appear to be quality people !!
Lyon thanks footy first board ?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
It is false to say that the club was debt free when Butters left. I asked the CFO (same guy then and now) , who explained in some detail. In the campaign they claimed they made the club debt free, but the audited books show clearly not so. Approx $600k in debt .
Also, not accurate to talk about how he "fixed the debt" or "inherited a debt". Butterss inherited a debt free club when he took over from Plympton. He is in the press confirming this, and he created the debt . He says this in the press also, in an interview with him.
Happy to find the article in which Butterss says so.[/quote]
MR Magic :
Please do so - I'd be interested to see it as I understood that the Butters admin paid back about 5 Million of debt.
see article below from 2003
And as far as CFO's figures go - they can make them say and do anything they want them to.
I think you'll find if you delve into the accounts you'll find that the Plympton admin hadn't 'written down' assets like the grandstand which gave a totally false impression of the financial health of the Club.
Quote from the Age late 2003 :"The club recorded a $3.7 million loss last season and briefly looked at applying for special assistance funding. Cost-cutting this season and a $1 million increase in sponsorship has led to the positive result. Even allowing for the fact that $1 million of that loss represented a write-down on the value of Moorabbin, the profit this year still means the Saints have turned around their cash situation by $3.2 million".
If you're intimating that RB's admin 'created the debt' by writing off these fictitious assets (they existed but were of no value except in the accounts), then you are playing with semantics to try and bolster your argument.
see article below.
Not even FFS went as far as to question the job the previous admin had done on 'righting the financial ship'. Their argument was that they felt it had continued on too long.[/quote]
Butterss admits: We haven't delivered
February 25 2003
It's put-up or shut-up time at St Kilda, and Saints president Rod Butterss pulls no punches in his appraisal of the club to Stephen Rielly.
When Rod Butterss succeeded Andrew Plympton as president of St Kilda in August 2000, he inherited a debt-free football club that, although in the last days of an ill-fated partnership with coach Tim Watson, had been a finalist two years earlier.
This, at least, was the popular view of Butterss' inheritance.
The president, who was reappointed by the St Kilda board last week for a further three years, has a different interpretation of affairs. It is one he believes partly explains why, under his guidance, the club has won only nine matches in two seasons and is now burdened by $2.5 million of debt.
Much of the blame for the decline he has overseen is his own, Butterss agrees, and he will not question the Plympton legacy.
"How would I assess our performance? I would give ourselves a five out of 10," Butterss said. "On a range of fronts, I underestimated the complexities and demands of football. We've made mistakes."
Not least the decision to appoint Malcolm Blight as Watson's successor on a contract worth $1 million a season, an error that was manifest within months. Blight was sacked 15 rounds into the 2001 season and the new administration appeared stunned - firstly into a state of paralysis and, later, introspective caution.
"We were so passionate and enthusiastic about introducing change and seeing things happen that we enticed Malcolm out of retirement a year or two before he was ready and we both got burnt," Butterss concedes. "I don't look back on it often, but when I do, I think that we both erred."
As Butterss sees things, his inexperience, and that of his board in 2000, served to undermine the tremendous energy and the flow of ideas introduced to the boardroom at the time, which amounted to a belief that radical change was required.
"It took some time to understand that unlike in the traditional small business world, where changes of fortune and direction can be made in a matter of months through a range of initiatives, football doesn't allow quick turnarounds," he said.
"You live with your decisions in this game for a very long time."
It is the way of all leaders to impose themselves, but Butterss and Brian Waldron, the chief executive he appointed in 2001, were almost zealous in their determination to make fundamental changes.
Their view was shaped, overwhelmingly, by one fact - the undeniable failure of the club to regularly contend. St Kilda's rock'n'roll habits of self-destruction and excess were to be tempered rather than disowned, for to scythe them completely would be to dishonour much of the club's unique appeal, but failure and a chronic shortage of funds were no longer acceptable.
"The new regime came to power and we took the view that the St Kilda formula of the past was, in essence, flawed. One premiership in 130-odd years was a testament to the fact that it was simply not working and had rarely ever worked," Butterss said.
"Notwithstanding the many grand contributions from people such as Andrew Plympton or Robert Harvey or Nathan Burke or any number of others, the model in place at St Kilda was not delivering even the opportunity of a premiership every 10 years.
"So the only option, as we saw, it was to strip the club back to its very basics and rebuild. Now stripping anything back that far can threaten its very existence but we felt there was no alternative."
The club has not quite been imperilled over the past two seasons as others - namely the Western Bulldogs and Kangaroos - have, but nor has there been much gain for a lot of pain.
"The truth is we haven't yet delivered a damn thing," Butterss concedes.
The story of his presidency thus far is not, however, entirely one of naivety, well-intentioned haste and on-the-job learning. The decision to relocate from Waverley Park to Telstra Dome - one Butterss says was impossible not to make, given the inflated financial estimates provided to clubs by the AFL when it was spruiking the venue - coupled with two dreadful seasons while coach Grant Thomas rebuilds the list have amounted to an "unfortunate combination".
This year, the club should, at "the very least", break even, says Butterss. If, by the end of his new term, the club is not financially stable and deriving funds from non-football related activities, supported by at least 25,000 members and entrenched in the top eight, Butterss says he ought to step down.
He thinks the fans would demand that, anyhow.
"The average fan really does know his football and while I'm heartened by the support we seem to be receiving and the widespread sense of optimism about our direction, I know some still have misgivings and others are holding their judgement and those people won't do that forever," he said. "Nor should they keep the faith if we don't start to offer them reasons to believe."
Also, not accurate to talk about how he "fixed the debt" or "inherited a debt". Butterss inherited a debt free club when he took over from Plympton. He is in the press confirming this, and he created the debt . He says this in the press also, in an interview with him.
Happy to find the article in which Butterss says so.[/quote]
MR Magic :
Please do so - I'd be interested to see it as I understood that the Butters admin paid back about 5 Million of debt.
see article below from 2003
And as far as CFO's figures go - they can make them say and do anything they want them to.
I think you'll find if you delve into the accounts you'll find that the Plympton admin hadn't 'written down' assets like the grandstand which gave a totally false impression of the financial health of the Club.
Quote from the Age late 2003 :"The club recorded a $3.7 million loss last season and briefly looked at applying for special assistance funding. Cost-cutting this season and a $1 million increase in sponsorship has led to the positive result. Even allowing for the fact that $1 million of that loss represented a write-down on the value of Moorabbin, the profit this year still means the Saints have turned around their cash situation by $3.2 million".
If you're intimating that RB's admin 'created the debt' by writing off these fictitious assets (they existed but were of no value except in the accounts), then you are playing with semantics to try and bolster your argument.
see article below.
Not even FFS went as far as to question the job the previous admin had done on 'righting the financial ship'. Their argument was that they felt it had continued on too long.[/quote]
Butterss admits: We haven't delivered
February 25 2003
It's put-up or shut-up time at St Kilda, and Saints president Rod Butterss pulls no punches in his appraisal of the club to Stephen Rielly.
When Rod Butterss succeeded Andrew Plympton as president of St Kilda in August 2000, he inherited a debt-free football club that, although in the last days of an ill-fated partnership with coach Tim Watson, had been a finalist two years earlier.
This, at least, was the popular view of Butterss' inheritance.
The president, who was reappointed by the St Kilda board last week for a further three years, has a different interpretation of affairs. It is one he believes partly explains why, under his guidance, the club has won only nine matches in two seasons and is now burdened by $2.5 million of debt.
Much of the blame for the decline he has overseen is his own, Butterss agrees, and he will not question the Plympton legacy.
"How would I assess our performance? I would give ourselves a five out of 10," Butterss said. "On a range of fronts, I underestimated the complexities and demands of football. We've made mistakes."
Not least the decision to appoint Malcolm Blight as Watson's successor on a contract worth $1 million a season, an error that was manifest within months. Blight was sacked 15 rounds into the 2001 season and the new administration appeared stunned - firstly into a state of paralysis and, later, introspective caution.
"We were so passionate and enthusiastic about introducing change and seeing things happen that we enticed Malcolm out of retirement a year or two before he was ready and we both got burnt," Butterss concedes. "I don't look back on it often, but when I do, I think that we both erred."
As Butterss sees things, his inexperience, and that of his board in 2000, served to undermine the tremendous energy and the flow of ideas introduced to the boardroom at the time, which amounted to a belief that radical change was required.
"It took some time to understand that unlike in the traditional small business world, where changes of fortune and direction can be made in a matter of months through a range of initiatives, football doesn't allow quick turnarounds," he said.
"You live with your decisions in this game for a very long time."
It is the way of all leaders to impose themselves, but Butterss and Brian Waldron, the chief executive he appointed in 2001, were almost zealous in their determination to make fundamental changes.
Their view was shaped, overwhelmingly, by one fact - the undeniable failure of the club to regularly contend. St Kilda's rock'n'roll habits of self-destruction and excess were to be tempered rather than disowned, for to scythe them completely would be to dishonour much of the club's unique appeal, but failure and a chronic shortage of funds were no longer acceptable.
"The new regime came to power and we took the view that the St Kilda formula of the past was, in essence, flawed. One premiership in 130-odd years was a testament to the fact that it was simply not working and had rarely ever worked," Butterss said.
"Notwithstanding the many grand contributions from people such as Andrew Plympton or Robert Harvey or Nathan Burke or any number of others, the model in place at St Kilda was not delivering even the opportunity of a premiership every 10 years.
"So the only option, as we saw, it was to strip the club back to its very basics and rebuild. Now stripping anything back that far can threaten its very existence but we felt there was no alternative."
The club has not quite been imperilled over the past two seasons as others - namely the Western Bulldogs and Kangaroos - have, but nor has there been much gain for a lot of pain.
"The truth is we haven't yet delivered a damn thing," Butterss concedes.
The story of his presidency thus far is not, however, entirely one of naivety, well-intentioned haste and on-the-job learning. The decision to relocate from Waverley Park to Telstra Dome - one Butterss says was impossible not to make, given the inflated financial estimates provided to clubs by the AFL when it was spruiking the venue - coupled with two dreadful seasons while coach Grant Thomas rebuilds the list have amounted to an "unfortunate combination".
This year, the club should, at "the very least", break even, says Butterss. If, by the end of his new term, the club is not financially stable and deriving funds from non-football related activities, supported by at least 25,000 members and entrenched in the top eight, Butterss says he ought to step down.
He thinks the fans would demand that, anyhow.
"The average fan really does know his football and while I'm heartened by the support we seem to be receiving and the widespread sense of optimism about our direction, I know some still have misgivings and others are holding their judgement and those people won't do that forever," he said. "Nor should they keep the faith if we don't start to offer them reasons to believe."
Last edited by oneteam on Mon 05 Oct 2009 5:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12779
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 426 times
Thanks for posting the article(s).
I'm not sure what they prove?
They state categorically that in one year the RB admin 'wrote off' a million dollars from 'Moorabbin' which clearly demonstrates that the assets at that time were overstated in the 'books'.
They further state that the figures given to the Saints about the running costs of Telstra Dome did not live up to expectation. This would seem to be an accurate statement as every Club, other then Essendon, who calls TD home seems to be complaining about the same thing.
If your on-field performance is impinging on your income and your expenses are higher than what you budgeted on, then quite simply you have a financial problem. From your posts on the matter you seem to feel that it was imprudent not to rein in spending at that time.
I'm not sure why it seems so difficult to accept that SFF found the Club in a much better state financially because of the work of the previous Board?
I'm not sure what they prove?
They state categorically that in one year the RB admin 'wrote off' a million dollars from 'Moorabbin' which clearly demonstrates that the assets at that time were overstated in the 'books'.
They further state that the figures given to the Saints about the running costs of Telstra Dome did not live up to expectation. This would seem to be an accurate statement as every Club, other then Essendon, who calls TD home seems to be complaining about the same thing.
If your on-field performance is impinging on your income and your expenses are higher than what you budgeted on, then quite simply you have a financial problem. From your posts on the matter you seem to feel that it was imprudent not to rein in spending at that time.
I'm not sure why it seems so difficult to accept that SFF found the Club in a much better state financially because of the work of the previous Board?
Mr Magic wrote: I wonder what this current admin would have done over the last 2 years if instead of balanced books they were confronted with 5 million dollars of debt to service when they arrived?
Mr Magic wrote:Thanks for posting the article(s).
I'm not sure what they prove?
They state categorically that in one year the RB admin 'wrote off' a million dollars from 'Moorabbin' which clearly demonstrates that the assets at that time were overstated in the 'books'.
They further state that the figures given to the Saints about the running costs of Telstra Dome did not live up to expectation. This would seem to be an accurate statement as every Club, other then Essendon, who calls TD home seems to be complaining about the same thing.
If your on-field performance is impinging on your income and your expenses are higher than what you budgeted on, then quite simply you have a financial problem. From your posts on the matter you seem to feel that it was imprudent not to rein in spending at that time.
I'm not sure why it seems so difficult to accept that SFF found the Club in a much better state financially because of the work of the previous Board?
Where does your $5m debt figure come from?
On the books when he took over -club was debt free
True club position when he took over - $1m in debt due to over value of the stands.
The club made a cash/trading loss in 2002 of $2.7m, plus the $1m on the stands writedown. At the end of 2002, Butterss had created a debt of $2.3m.
Position when he left , club was in debt .
But even if it was not , and it was debt free by the end, then in his 7 years, then he reduced debt over 7 years by $1m, and reduced spending in vital areas over the journey until the end.
Just seeking some accuracy re the Butterss financial management and performance, and not leave Plympton blamed for leavuing big debt that Rod had to come in and fix.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12779
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 426 times
This has become a pontless exercise.
You quote an article referring to a single season where they wrote off 1 million dollars.
How do you know what the grandsand, and other fixed assets, were valued at in the books at the beginning of the RB admin?
I know at the end of that admin the grandstands were valued at $0, their true worth. But you're correct. At the start of his admin there was no 'debt' becasue there were worthless 'fixed assets' in the books. They had absolutely no value as we no longer played games at Moorabbin and as such we couldn't rent out seats in them.
I suggest you go talk to the creditors of ABC Childcare and ask them about the 'assets' in the books of that company and what their true value is. You might also ask them what the inclusion of those assets did to the 'books', other than to paint a false impression of the health of the company.
Maybe you could ask some of the posters with financial experience what that all means, if you're having difficulty understanding this concept?
You seem to have a problem with RB - that's fine.
I didn't realize that admitting his Board did some good work financially was part of that problem.
And BTW, I think if you bother to delve into the accounts of the Club over the last 2 years you'll also find some 'creative accounting' has taken place.
Expenses brought forward, income delayed, all to diminish the results.
Maybe you ashould ask that CFO about that?
You quote an article referring to a single season where they wrote off 1 million dollars.
How do you know what the grandsand, and other fixed assets, were valued at in the books at the beginning of the RB admin?
I know at the end of that admin the grandstands were valued at $0, their true worth. But you're correct. At the start of his admin there was no 'debt' becasue there were worthless 'fixed assets' in the books. They had absolutely no value as we no longer played games at Moorabbin and as such we couldn't rent out seats in them.
I suggest you go talk to the creditors of ABC Childcare and ask them about the 'assets' in the books of that company and what their true value is. You might also ask them what the inclusion of those assets did to the 'books', other than to paint a false impression of the health of the company.
Maybe you could ask some of the posters with financial experience what that all means, if you're having difficulty understanding this concept?
You seem to have a problem with RB - that's fine.
I didn't realize that admitting his Board did some good work financially was part of that problem.
And BTW, I think if you bother to delve into the accounts of the Club over the last 2 years you'll also find some 'creative accounting' has taken place.
Expenses brought forward, income delayed, all to diminish the results.
Maybe you ashould ask that CFO about that?
-
Arthur Mullard
- Club Player
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Mon 17 Aug 2009 4:44pm
where does your $5m debt figure come from?Mr Magic wrote:This has become a pontless exercise.
You quote an article referring to a single season where they wrote off 1 million dollars.
How do you know what the grandsand, and other fixed assets, were valued at in the books at the beginning of the RB admin?
I know at the end of that admin the grandstands were valued at $0, their true worth. But you're correct. At the start of his admin there was no 'debt' becasue there were worthless 'fixed assets' in the books. They had absolutely no value as we no longer played games at Moorabbin and as such we couldn't rent out seats in them.
I suggest you go talk to the creditors of ABC Childcare and ask them about the 'assets' in the books of that company and what their true value is. You might also ask them what the inclusion of those assets did to the 'books', other than to paint a false impression of the health of the company.
Maybe you could ask some of the posters with financial experience what that all means, if you're having difficulty understanding this concept?
You seem to have a problem with RB - that's fine.
I didn't realize that admitting his Board did some good work financially was part of that problem.
And BTW, I think if you bother to delve into the accounts of the Club over the last 2 years you'll also find some 'creative accounting' has taken place.
Expenses brought forward, income delayed, all to diminish the results.
Maybe you ashould ask that CFO about that?
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12779
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 426 times
I obviously made it uponeteam wrote:where does your $5m debt figure come from?Mr Magic wrote:This has become a pontless exercise.
You quote an article referring to a single season where they wrote off 1 million dollars.
How do you know what the grandsand, and other fixed assets, were valued at in the books at the beginning of the RB admin?
I know at the end of that admin the grandstands were valued at $0, their true worth. But you're correct. At the start of his admin there was no 'debt' becasue there were worthless 'fixed assets' in the books. They had absolutely no value as we no longer played games at Moorabbin and as such we couldn't rent out seats in them.
I suggest you go talk to the creditors of ABC Childcare and ask them about the 'assets' in the books of that company and what their true value is. You might also ask them what the inclusion of those assets did to the 'books', other than to paint a false impression of the health of the company.
Maybe you could ask some of the posters with financial experience what that all means, if you're having difficulty understanding this concept?
You seem to have a problem with RB - that's fine.
I didn't realize that admitting his Board did some good work financially was part of that problem.
And BTW, I think if you bother to delve into the accounts of the Club over the last 2 years you'll also find some 'creative accounting' has taken place.
Expenses brought forward, income delayed, all to diminish the results.
Maybe you ashould ask that CFO about that?
Here's a free tip if you're really interested in knowing the truth?
Go back and look at the books from Plympton's last year and see what the assets were, and what they were made up of.
Then check what the assets were in Butters last year. I'm pretty sure they'll be a lot different. But then you will probably choose to believe that Butters' cooked the books for whatever reason, so those 'books' will have no meaning to you.
There's no point in continuing this discussion because you obviously are not interested in anything but your own skewed version of history, and nothing I or anybody else says that is contrary to that skewed version of history appears to be acceptable to you.
I didn't expect a rational or factual response from you anyway.Mr Magic wrote:I obviously made it uponeteam wrote:where does your $5m debt figure come from?Mr Magic wrote:This has become a pontless exercise.
You quote an article referring to a single season where they wrote off 1 million dollars.
How do you know what the grandsand, and other fixed assets, were valued at in the books at the beginning of the RB admin?
I know at the end of that admin the grandstands were valued at $0, their true worth. But you're correct. At the start of his admin there was no 'debt' becasue there were worthless 'fixed assets' in the books. They had absolutely no value as we no longer played games at Moorabbin and as such we couldn't rent out seats in them.
I suggest you go talk to the creditors of ABC Childcare and ask them about the 'assets' in the books of that company and what their true value is. You might also ask them what the inclusion of those assets did to the 'books', other than to paint a false impression of the health of the company.
Maybe you could ask some of the posters with financial experience what that all means, if you're having difficulty understanding this concept?
You seem to have a problem with RB - that's fine.
I didn't realize that admitting his Board did some good work financially was part of that problem.
And BTW, I think if you bother to delve into the accounts of the Club over the last 2 years you'll also find some 'creative accounting' has taken place.
Expenses brought forward, income delayed, all to diminish the results.
Maybe you ashould ask that CFO about that?
Here's a free tip if you're really interested in knowing the truth?
Go back and look at the books from Plympton's last year and see what the assets were, and what they were made up of.
Then check what the assets were in Butters last year. I'm pretty sure they'll be a lot different. But then you will probably choose to believe that Butters' cooked the books for whatever reason, so those 'books' will have no meaning to you.
There's no point in continuing this discussion because you obviously are not interested in anything but your own skewed version of history, and nothing I or anybody else says that is contrary to that skewed version of history appears to be acceptable to you.
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12779
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 792 times
- Been thanked: 426 times
Given your posts on this topic, that's a classic example of 'pot/kettle/black'oneteam wrote: I didn't expect a rational or factual response from you anyway.
As I said, there's no point discussing this with you as you seem totally incapable of even pretending to look at an alternative pov. You are so certain of your own misguided view of events ytou cannot entertain any possibility that you may be wrong.
Sad really.