St Kilda feared player exodus after sacking Grant Thomas

[Teflon]

Robert Harvey re-signed the day after the sacking.

I think once again Harvs allows actions to speak much louder than words...and thats good enough for me.....glossed over by those GT drones whose arguments it doesnt support...

The Dali Lama of all things "corporate cliched" in football is gone - and f@rk Im glad.

[barks4eva]

We must be the first club in history to sack a coach because he had the support of the players.

At least you're consistent.

[skeptic]

Robert Harvey resigned the day after the sacking.

kept playing the previous 5yrs under GT's reign too

[JeffDunne]

We must be the first club in history to sack a coach because he had the support of the players.

I know the usual simpletons will pipe up with so-and-so didn't like GT, blah, blah, blah . . . but clearly the club thought he had it.

or maybe he just had the support of some even 1 franchise player you dill.

Or maybe some people are so deluded they can fabricate anything to justify their pathological hatred.


Let's see what the club has to say shall we?

St Kilda's barrister, Leslie Glick QC,

That would be the bloke representing the club.

. . . put it to Thomas that he was unique in the AFL in that he was not only coach but a defacto football manager and had an important role in dealing with player contracts.

. . . who is declaring here that GT was doing two jobs.

"There was a perception you were close to certain players in the group?" Mr Glick asked.

Since some have a limited attention span - that's the bloke representing the club asking GT the question.

Thomas replied: "I was close to them all."

Make of that what you will. I'm sure those simpleton's I was refering to earlier could write an essay on those six words.

Mr Glick suggested the board had a fear about Thomas's closeness to key players . . .

Hang on, I think we've found something here.

Mr Glick - again the bloke representing St Kilda - suggested the board had a fear of Thomas's closeness to key playerS.

That's right "players" . . . as in plural.

Ummm . . . someone's looking a dill here and we've only just started.

. . and his knowledge of contracts and they didn't want him having discussions with team members that might undermine loyalty to St Kilda football club.

Again . . . team memberS . . . plural.

Dill indeed.

That last quote from Mr Glick pretty well sums up where the previous administration and the current CEO are failing - they feared players were more loyal to an individual than they were to the club and their team-mates. Pretty insulting really to those team members that were close to Thomas - and they're still repeating it.

If the board had a valid reason to sack GT, why were they so scared of a backlash from players?

So scared in fact that they were willing to pay 100K to someone they felt they were being more than generous with.

One player?

[bozza1980]

TBH if any player wanted to quit on his mates because the coach got sacked then he's probably not the player you want anyway.

Were the players representing the St KFC or Grant Thomas?

This issue like most issues with GT has been completely overblown.

I think it was more a question of loyalty.

The club had seemed to dismiss the concept in relation to the coach because of falling out between he and the president.

I don't know about you, but it seemed from the outside that the players had been kept at the club for less than they could have received elsewhere because of a group concept of loyalty.

The club made it clear at the time that Grant Thomas' coaching performance had no bearing on his sacking.

It would be reasonable to expect that the players might feel a little concerned that "loyalty" was not shown to the coach regardless of his performance and may question whether they should stay at a club who'd values seemed to be questionable.

[rodgerfox]

The club made it clear at the time that Grant Thomas' coaching performance had no bearing on his sacking.

Whoa whoa whoa there Bozza.

That may confuse a few people!!

Don't tell SrR, Nuflon, Boppa and plenty more - I'm not sure they'll be able to cope!

[bigcarl]

If the board had a valid reason to sack GT, why were they so scared of a backlash from players?

indeed

[ace]

Archie Fraser has testified that Jeff Gieschen did not rate St Klida's relationship with the umpires on a scale of 1 to 16.
From that you can conclude that one of the reasons for the sacking of Thomas was that it was necessary as part of an attempt to get a fair go from a corrupt bunch of umpires and their despicable bosses.

The level to which the AFL has sunk under Demetriou is that he allows a situation where you must sack your coach to get a fair go.
AFL merely an abbreviation for corruption.

[saintsRrising]

The club made it clear at the time that Grant Thomas' coaching performance had no bearing on his sacking.

Whoa whoa whoa there Bozza.

Firstly, Bonza actually you provide some links to your claim of what the club said???

That way we can have some meaningful discussion on it.

That may confuse a few people!!

Don't tell SrR, Nuflon, Boppa and plenty more - I'm not sure they'll be able to cope!

Well it seems to have confused you Rodger....

This is what GT said when he went:

"The board firmly believes the club is heading in a different direction and I will have to live with it. I still think I am the right bloke for the club but the club has made the decision to head in another direction."



Question: Now has the club gone in a different direction?

Answer: Yes. The football department including the head coaches role has been completely restructured anda Football Manager installed. Players contracts are now not done by the head coach else and various areas such as player development have been increased. In addition other changes have been made such as improving our relationship and utilsation of Casey.


And yes it would seem from this string that the relationship with umpires was also targetted to be improved. Is that a bad thing????

[Dan Warna]

and this thread is an examply of GT has gone wrong since his departure.

I wonder if similar discussions are mirrored amongst the players?

I also remark that the NEW board, not teh butters board, but the NEW board has chose to fight this issue out, rather than pay him or negotiate with him.

the club must feel they have a viable case and are in the right. Andrew thompson and nathan burke are about two of the most decent players going around for all their faults.

GT might feel he deserves the money, but the fact is it is dragging out in court and he is coming across very poorly.

I am still a fan of what GT was building at the club at the time of his departure, BUT his actions SUBSEQUENTLY have been greatly greatly dissapointing.

this case is dividing the fans, I can only hope that it isn't dividng the club.

IF our form continues to slump, GT will have to share some of the blame with RL for the demise of the 08 season.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Robert Harvey re-signed the day after the sacking.

I think once again Harvs allows actions to speak much louder than words...and thats good enough for me.....glossed over by those GT drones whose arguments it doesnt support...

The Dali Lama of all things "corporate cliched" in football is gone - and f@rk Im glad.

Who would argue that Harvey was one of the players the club was scared would walk because there was no Thomas? Harvey's played footy for St Kilda longer than some posters on this board have been alive. His decision to re-sign signifies absolutely zero about any concerns the club may or may not have had about Thomas influece over his charges.

[rodgerfox]

The club made it clear at the time that Grant Thomas' coaching performance had no bearing on his sacking.

Whoa whoa whoa there Bozza.

Firstly, Bonza actually you provide some links to your claim of what the club said???

That way we can have some meaningful discussion on it.

That may confuse a few people!!

Don't tell SrR, Nuflon, Boppa and plenty more - I'm not sure they'll be able to cope!

Well it seems to have confused you Rodger....

This is what GT said when he went:

"The board firmly believes the club is heading in a different direction and I will have to live with it. I still think I am the right bloke for the club but the club has made the decision to head in another direction."



Question: Now has the club gone in a different direction?

Answer: Yes. The football department including the head coaches role has been completely restructured anda Football Manager installed. Players contracts are now not done by the head coach else and various areas such as player development have been increased. In addition other changes have been made such as improving our relationship and utilsation of Casey.


And yes it would seem from this string that the relationship with umpires was also targetted to be improved. Is that a bad thing????

So funny.

He had no game plan, we'd gone backwards on-field, didn't use rookies, no plan B, couldn't handle the flood, killed the list etc. etc.

I thought these were the reasons you stated for his sacking?

[ace]

Maybe the St Kilda football club could become an AFL umpires major sponsor.
The umpires would like the money and would obviously give St Kilda free kicks directly in front of goal when needed and not pay genuine frees to St Kilda's opponents.
Demetriou would see it as more income to the AFL and not intervene.
The increased number of wins would allow St Kilda to raise more sponsorship money themselves to offset the cost of sponsoring the umpires.

[rodgerfox]

Question: Now has the club gone in a different direction?

Answer: Yes. Down. From 14 wins, to 11.

The brilliantly football minded Board chose a new direction (which still isn't why they sacked him) which 18 months on, hasn't helped our cause one iota.

[rodgerfox]

I also remark that the NEW board, not teh butters board, but the NEW board has chose to fight this issue out, rather than pay him or negotiate with him.

I thought they made him two offers for settlement?

[Saints43]

[This is what GT said when he went:

"The board firmly believes the club is heading in a different direction and I will have to live with it. I still think I am the right bloke for the club but the club has made the decision to head in another direction."

Didn't he believe he was getting $100,000 to toe the line?

[bozza1980]

Firstly, Bonza actually you provide some links to your claim of what the club said???

That way we can have some meaningful discussion on it.

Not being smart enough to record tv interviews or keep newspaper articles from the time, I'm working from memory here.

Butters was quoted in the aftermath of the sacking as saying that even had St Kilda won the premiership in 2006 GT would still have been sacked as coach.

I remember there being quite a bit of disbelief at the time at this statement.

That comment, in my mind at least, suggests that the club was not firing Grant Thomas on his performance as senior coach.

[saintsRrising]

Firstly, Bonza actually you provide some links to your claim of what the club said???

That way we can have some meaningful discussion on it.

Not being smart enough to record tv interviews or keep newspaper articles from the time, I'm working from memory here.

Butters was quoted in the aftermath of the sacking as saying that even had St Kilda won the premiership in 2006 GT would still have been sacked as coach.

I remember there being quite a bit of disbelief at the time at this statement.

That comment, in my mind at least, suggests that the club was not firing Grant Thomas on his performance as senior coach.

Thank you Bozza for clearing that up and that your comment is your opinion rather that what the club actually stated.

""The club made it clear at the time that Grant Thomas' coaching performance had no bearing on his sacking".

I do not recall a statement. that the coaching performance had no bearing.



I do recall the club stating that they wanted to take the club in a different direction.

Coaching to me is not just match day coaching. When GT was there the head coaches role was very broad. The coaching job that RL has is now much narrower.

Personally I rate GT's match day coaching post- Bonnie Doon to have been good. I posted this prior to GT going...not long after he went...and quite a few occassions since. Pre-Donnie Doon I think he went off the rails post-streak.

Now there are other aspects of coaching (as GT's role was defined as at that time)...ie list management, player development etc that was and I am still not so happy about.


I supported at the time, and still do, the then Board' decision to move from an omnipotent combined FootbalManagerCoach position to a broader structure in the football department.

GT did not want to go along with this. He was terminated, such is the right of a Board.

[saintsRrising]

The club made it clear at the time that Grant Thomas' coaching performance had no bearing on his sacking.

Whoa whoa whoa there Bozza.

Firstly, Bonza actually you provide some links to your claim of what the club said???

That way we can have some meaningful discussion on it.

That may confuse a few people!!

Don't tell SrR, Nuflon, Boppa and plenty more - I'm not sure they'll be able to cope!

Well it seems to have confused you Rodger....

This is what GT said when he went:

"The board firmly believes the club is heading in a different direction and I will have to live with it. I still think I am the right bloke for the club but the club has made the decision to head in another direction."



Question: Now has the club gone in a different direction?

Answer: Yes. The football department including the head coaches role has been completely restructured anda Football Manager installed. Players contracts are now not done by the head coach else and various areas such as player development have been increased. In addition other changes have been made such as improving our relationship and utilsation of Casey.


And yes it would seem from this string that the relationship with umpires was also targetted to be improved. Is that a bad thing????

So funny.

What is funny Rodger is how you have lept in without thinking about what a poster posted as the "club made it clear"...which after I asked the question has turned out to rather be the "opinion" of the poster.


You have then for some reason gone on to "imagine" what I have posted in the past about why GT was sacked.....which is an entirely different discussion from what I think about GT's "coaching".

He had no game plan, we'd gone backwards on-field, didn't use rookies, no plan B, couldn't handle the flood, killed the list etc. etc.

I thought these were the reasons you stated for his sacking?

Once again Rodger you are factually incorrect.

You would be better spent, spending your time writing your own thoughts rather than constantly misquoting me and stating I have said things I have not.

Some of those were the reasons amongst others I have stated why that his overall performance as a coach (as his position was defined at the time which was broader than RL's role) post streak was not satisfactory.


You are wrong on the Plan B..I have stated many times that after Bonnie Doon that GT at long last adopted a Plan B and the team played differently in that period with I might note a lift in wins. Prior to that after the streak, yes I said he did not have a Plan B at that time.. Post Bonnie Doon I have also regularly posted that his match day coaching was quite good.


They were not the prime reasons that I posted why the decision to sack GT was justified....and I certainly did not post that at the time of his sacking that his match day coaching was no good.

They were along the lines of the club needed to restructure the football department and that GT did not want to go along the lines that the Board had decided to.

I certainly made a case then that we needed to address areas such as rookies, our relationship with Casey, list management, player development etc.....and that a head coaches times was best spent on "pure" coaching rather than matters such as players contracts. An improved football department structure would allow these to be improved and these were areas that the club needed to improve in.

[saintsRrising]

[This is what GT said when he went:

"The board firmly believes the club is heading in a different direction and I will have to live with it. I still think I am the right bloke for the club but the club has made the decision to head in another direction."

Didn't he believe he was getting $100,000 to toe the line?

Are you suggesting that GT would take $100,000 to lie???? Is that your assessment of his character?



I thought the $100,000 was meant to be for other reasons??

[bozza1980]

SaintsRrising, if the club saying that they would have fired the coach regardless of if the team won the 2006 premiership is not saying that the coaching performance had no bearing on their decision, what are they saying??

Are they saying a premiership does not mean the coach coached well??

For the most part we agree, the club wanted a new direction Thomas didn't want to give the ground the club wanted him to and that was the end of it.

The fact he owed the president a million bucks and couldn't get along with anyone other than most of the playing group wouldn't have helped his cause though.

[saintsRrising]

SaintsRrising, if the club saying that they would have fired the coach regardless of if the team won the 2006 premiership is not saying that the coaching performance had no bearing on their decision, what are they saying??

Are they saying a premiership does not mean the coach coached well??

For the most part we agree, the club wanted a new direction Thomas didn't want to give the ground the club wanted him to and that was the end of it.

.

Well only they can really answer that...and it also would need to include what "coaching" was at that time. However a coaches performance is not just match day coaching...it is all the factors that he is respononsible for in cluding his working realtionships with others, and in also being appropriately responsive to direction when given.

It was meant to be the St KFC...and not the GT FC.



Was "match coaching" enough to offset his "flaws". It would seem not.

However I think that what their intent was that there were issues at hand, and not just match day coaching......but I do not go along with the theory mentioned by some that GT was only fired because he would not repay the money owed by him to RB. (Which I agree was not a healthy situation).


GT and RB were both good for the club when they came...but both reached their use by dates and the club is now the better for each not being at their respective reins.

PS My posts above were not directed at what you were saying, but rather at a another poster who tried to use what you had said as fact (as opposed to your oppinion)...and then proceeded to imply that I had said things that I had not in the past.

[rodgerfox]

My posts above were not directed at what you were saying, but rather at a another poster who tried to use what you had said as fact

Liar.

That is a lie.

[Mr Magic]

My posts above were not directed at what you were saying, but rather at a another poster who tried to use what you had said as fact

Liar.

That is a lie.

You bandy that term around quite a lot RodgerFox.

It is patently clear to anybody reading this thread that you responded to Bozza's post and sRr responded to your post of Bozza's.

Why then, if sRr states he was not responding to Bozza's post but yours, is it a 'lie'?
It seems to be perfectly accurate to me?

[plugger66]

and this thread is an examply of GT has gone wrong since his departure.

I wonder if similar discussions are mirrored amongst the players?

I also remark that the NEW board, not teh butters board, but the NEW board has chose to fight this issue out, rather than pay him or negotiate with him.

the club must feel they have a viable case and are in the right. Andrew thompson and nathan burke are about two of the most decent players going around for all their faults.

GT might feel he deserves the money, but the fact is it is dragging out in court and he is coming across very poorly.

I am still a fan of what GT was building at the club at the time of his departure, BUT his actions SUBSEQUENTLY have been greatly greatly dissapointing.

this case is dividing the fans, I can only hope that it isn't dividng the club.

IF our form continues to slump, GT will have to share some of the blame with RL for the demise of the 08 season.

Dont tell me we are going to use this as another excuse. The plyers couldnt give a stuff about this case. Not even the slightest interest aoart from Bakes because if he continues his relationship he may get some in the end.
As for what GT has done since he was sacked, well he has asked for money he thinks is owed. If not owed he will not get one cent. He has said 90% positive things since he left so that leaves 10% negitive. Remember this is about a club that sacked him. Malcom Blight probably hasnt said one positive thing since he was sacked. He says 10% negitive where as most posters on here lately have said about 60% negitive so he has actually been very fair.