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

[ausfatcat]

Now Banger has been spotted training when on leave.

Should he put in for 20 odd seasons of holiday pay, or part there of?

I'd go so far to say players are expected to train when on holidays, and if they come back with skin folds that are unsatisfactory???? (a bloke in sydney got sacked for that).

[Shaggy]

I must have missed something - did AF state that the Club had agreed to 8 weeks annual leave for GT? If so then his claim for Holiday pay would be somewhere between $60,000 and $75,000 p.a. depending on his salary.

That he is not claiming abywhere near this amount means that he either took some of his annual leave (according to him) or he wasn't entitled to 8 weeks (according to him)

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.

I assume the claim (but B4E can make me look like a d**khead because he should know I am only taking what is written on this thread) is for 2 to 3 weeks each year (which is the preparation time before the players come back) * 3 maybe 4 years.

GT obviously took holidays for at least 4 weeks a year

[saintsRrising]

Now Banger has been spotted training when on leave.

Should he put in for 20 odd seasons of holiday pay, or part there of?

I'd go so far to say players are expected to train when on holidays, and if they come back with skin folds that are unsatisfactory???? (a bloke in sydney got sacked for that).

Indeed...but... Banger was directed not to train so much in many years He was a chronic overtrainer.

Now with GT...he was, if we believe the information supplied to us...directed to take leave...but GT says he worked anyway.

So if GT is to get paid....would not there then be a legal precedent for Banger too



Or do we just take it that he "chose" do do extra work in his own time????

[Mr Magic]

I must have missed something - did AF state that the Club had agreed to 8 weeks annual leave for GT? If so then his claim for Holiday pay would be somewhere between $60,000 and $75,000 p.a. depending on his salary.

That he is not claiming abywhere near this amount means that he either took some of his annual leave (according to him) or he wasn't entitled to 8 weeks (according to him)

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.

I assume the claim (but B4E can make me look like a d**khead because he should know I am only taking what is written on this thread) is for 2 to 3 weeks each year (which is the preparation time before the players come back) * 3 maybe 4 years.

GT obviously took holidays for at least 4 weeks a year

I'm not sure that is the case Shaggy.
Somewhere in the back of my mind is a memory that he was claiming he didn't take any time off for annual leave?

Barks having been at the courthouse will probably be the best to answer this?

[Moccha]

Can some please summarize this thread in 5 lines or less.

[saintsRrising]

But all of what you say is irrelevant because he obviously did not take 8 weeks leave. No AFL coach does.

If the club believes you are entitled to 8 weeks leave and they are the boss then that is what you are entitled to.

It appears there was no contract dealing with annual leave but AF accepts 8 weeks is reasonable.

The CFO agreed a settlement with GT based on the 8 week leave principle which the Board reneged on.

If you want to start looking at dysfunctionality at the Saints (old admin) I think you need to look at the top not just at the football department. How would the CFO feel knowing he doesn't have the authorisation to deal with staff annual leave .

It really is pathetic the Board didn't accept the deal done between the CFO and GT to sort out a problem that since lingered and split us since (until both GT and RB were gone).

Sorry...I missed the quote about the CFO agreeing to 8 weeks leave per year to GT.

Can you point this out to me? Thanks

If what you say is true...that would put a new light on things.

[Shaggy]

Now Banger has been spotted training when on leave.

Should he put in for 20 odd seasons of holiday pay, or part there of?

I'd go so far to say players are expected to train when on holidays, and if they come back with skin folds that are unsatisfactory???? (a bloke in sydney got sacked for that).

Indeed...but... Banger was directed not to train so much in many years He was a chronic overtrainer.

Now with GT...he was, if we believe the information supplied to us...directed to take leave...but GT says he worked anyway.

So if GT is to get paid....would not there then be a legal precedent for Banger too



Or do we just take it that he "chose" do do extra work in his own time????

SR you are completely missing the point.

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).

Since you are a process man, where it has fallen down is the rules and regulations governing GT are not written. And when the CFO tries to make good he is told by the Board he does not have the authority .

Dysfunctionality starts from the top.

[Shaggy]

But all of what you say is irrelevant because he obviously did not take 8 weeks leave. No AFL coach does.

If the club believes you are entitled to 8 weeks leave and they are the boss then that is what you are entitled to.

It appears there was no contract dealing with annual leave but AF accepts 8 weeks is reasonable.

The CFO agreed a settlement with GT based on the 8 week leave principle which the Board reneged on.

If you want to start looking at dysfunctionality at the Saints (old admin) I think you need to look at the top not just at the football department. How would the CFO feel knowing he doesn't have the authorisation to deal with staff annual leave .

It really is pathetic the Board didn't accept the deal done between the CFO and GT to sort out a problem that since lingered and split us since (until both GT and RB were gone).

Sorry...I missed the quote about the CFO agreeing to 8 weeks leave per year to GT.

Can you point this out to me? Thanks

If what you say is true...that would put a new light on things.

Thanks.

Give me half an hour to go back through the thread

[Shaggy]

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.

In response to Sr:

Beek was our CFO.

If the CFO says you are entitled then you should be able to trust that.

Which if you do some simple sums was based upon 8 weeks per year annual leave.

I do not believe there is no bulls*** or dishonesty between the relationships of GT and Beek. At the time I thought Beek was a major RB backer.

The fact that our CFO agreed a settlement shows to me that it was fair. The fact that Beek afterwards could not sign off shows to me the dysfunctionality came from the top.

But at least Beek had the balls to negotiate what he considered was a fair deal whereas AF acted on behalf of the Board not to negotiate but deliver a result when GT was at his weakest point (i.e he was focused on the final) ... pathetic from the Board and not surprising two defected even after they had successfully culled GT.

[saintsRrising]

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 conversation where, Van Beek countered this with "what about 4" with Thomas suggesting 6 weeks to which CFL Van Beek allegedly agreed,

In response to Sr:

Beek was our CFO.

If the CFO says you are entitled then you should be able to trust that.

Which if you do some simple sums was based upon 8 weeks per year annual leave.

I do not believe there is no bulls*** or dishonesty between the relationships of GT and Beek. At the time I thought Beek was a major RB backer.

The fact that our CFO agreed a settlement shows to me that it was fair. The fact that Beek afterwards could not sign off shows to me the dysfunctionality came from the top.

But at least Beek had the balls to negotiate what he considered was a fair deal whereas AF acted on behalf of the Board not to negotiate but deliver a result when GT was at his weakest point (i.e he was focused on the final) ... pathetic from the Board and not surprising two defected even after they had successfully culled GT.

The fact? What fact?????

According the Barks that is what GT said...not what the CFO himself said.

If you have testimony from the CFO I would be interested to hear it.

I am sure that GT's legal team will get a stat dec from the ex -CFO to back up his claim. If so...then it will be a fact.



Interesting too...that the GT who was promoted as such a great negotiator/contracts man...went to water so quick on his one paperwork.

Now the clubs processes do not appear to have been fully sound either.......but GT is either a "great contracts" guy.....or a naive operator in this regard. He can't be both.

[Shaggy]

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 conversation where, Van Beek countered this with "what about 4" with Thomas suggesting 6 weeks to which CFL Van Beek allegedly agreed,

In response to Sr:

Beek was our CFO.

If the CFO says you are entitled then you should be able to trust that.

Which if you do some simple sums was based upon 8 weeks per year annual leave.

I do not believe there is no bulls*** or dishonesty between the relationships of GT and Beek. At the time I thought Beek was a major RB backer.

The fact that our CFO agreed a settlement shows to me that it was fair. The fact that Beek afterwards could not sign off shows to me the dysfunctionality came from the top.

But at least Beek had the balls to negotiate what he considered was a fair deal whereas AF acted on behalf of the Board not to negotiate but deliver a result when GT was at his weakest point (i.e he was focused on the final) ... pathetic from the Board and not surprising two defected even after they had successfully culled GT.

The fact? What fact?????

According the Barks that is what GT said...not what the CFO himself said.

If you have testimony from the CFO I would be interested to hear it.

I am sure that GT's legal team will get a stat dec from the ex -CFO to back up his claim. If so...then it will be a fact.



Interesting too...that the GT who was promoted as such a great negotiator/contracts man...went to water so quick on his one paperwork.

Now the clubs processes do not appear to have been fully sound either.......but GT is either a "great contracts" guy.....or a naive operator in this regard. He can't be both.

You are going off the point Sr.

If in your company the CFO and you can agree then it is probably a fair deal (unless there is some corruption.

In this case it is not about any of the parties lying. There is no need for stat decs to prove he said I said. I think they already agree in principle how much GT will receive on the annual leave if he wins that part of his claim. Its about all the grey areas and who is right. But the Board IMO is very responsible for not being willing to face GT directly until the very end nor accepting the CFO deal during the intermittent period.

The procedures are not merely unsound for a company they are completely unacceptable ... and AF has no balls .

[saintsRrising]

What agreement...according to Barks GT indicated he had a jovial conversation...

If there was an agreement...then Van Beek will be able to back it up....and no doubt the monies paid.

However the New Board have to be disputing some amount?????

As to CFO's.....I don't think that in most organisations that they would be involved with determining if an employee was at work or not.

In such matters I would assume that CEO would sign off on the Head of Football Department.... .

[Shaggy]

What agreement...according to Barks GT indicated he had a jovial conversation...

If there was an agreement...then Van Beek will be able to back it up....and no doubt the monies paid.

However the New Board have to be disputing some amount?????

As to CFO's.....I don't think that in most organisations that they would be involved with determining if an employee was at work or not.

In such matters I would assume that CEO would sign off on the Head of Football Department.... .

You and I really do disagree on nearly everything. Lets hope we never have to work with each other .

A jovial discussion or not at that level is normally a way of discussion at a senior level to resolve a real conflict.

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.

Of course a CFO is not going to count days worked but he is going to try resolve an issue ammicably before it becomes a huge issue. The Board rejected their CFO advice ... their choice ... and that is probably why there is a court case today .

[saintsRrising]

A jovial discussion or not at that level is normally a way of discussion at a senior level to resolve a real conflict.

: .

I think the point is that it was not actually really resolved....

[Shaggy]

A jovial discussion or not at that level is normally a way of discussion at a senior level to resolve a real conflict.

: .

I think the point is that it was not actually really resolved....

Only because GT spoke for himself and Beek thought he spoke for the club but wasn't too sure and it got proven he wasn't . Where is the dysfunctionality

[saintsRrising]

The new Board hasn't disagreed with the numbers..

well I am just going on Barks reports.

He indicated that the Club first offered $100,000...and then wwent toa last offer of $120,000.

If there is no disagreement...why are both at court?

Now Barks did add

"both parties have agreed that in the event that Thomas's claim for holiday pay and annual leave entitlements is successful, he will recieve $90,000 for this claim "

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.

.

I would have thought that $90,000 + $100,000 would = $190,000

and not the $120,000 made as a last offer?????

[saintsRrising]

A jovial discussion or not at that level is normally a way of discussion at a senior level to resolve a real conflict.

: .

I think the point is that it was not actually really resolved....

Only because GT spoke for himself and Beek thought he spoke for the club but wasn't too sure and it got proven he wasn't . Where is the dysfunctionality

Maybe Van Beek...was not that good at his job????

[Shaggy]

I must have missed something - did AF state that the Club had agreed to 8 weeks annual leave for GT? If so then his claim for Holiday pay would be somewhere between $60,000 and $75,000 p.a. depending on his salary.

That he is not claiming abywhere near this amount means that he either took some of his annual leave (according to him) or he wasn't entitled to 8 weeks (according to him)

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.

I assume the claim (but B4E can make me look like a d**khead because he should know I am only taking what is written on this thread) is for 2 to 3 weeks each year (which is the preparation time before the players come back) * 3 maybe 4 years.

GT obviously took holidays for at least 4 weeks a year

I'm not sure that is the case Shaggy.
Somewhere in the back of my mind is a memory that he was claiming he didn't take any time off for annual leave?

Barks having been at the courthouse will probably be the best to answer this?

I think you have misread the threads or I have .

[The_Dud]

LOUD NOISES!

[Shaggy]

A jovial discussion or not at that level is normally a way of discussion at a senior level to resolve a real conflict.

: .

I think the point is that it was not actually really resolved....

Only because GT spoke for himself and Beek thought he spoke for the club but wasn't too sure and it got proven he wasn't . Where is the dysfunctionality

Maybe Van Beek...was not that good at his job????

It takes enormous courageous to do what Van Beek tried to do. Most people (i.e. AF) will not stand up to a Board and deliver a result they do not want to hear. Beek was obviously blown away but he was not in control of the process in the first place. RB was.

Do I think Beek was not good at his job ... stupid question ... he obviously did not have the pull with the Board but at least he tried ... Would you have the same balls with top management

2 directors defected and it had nothing to do with GT because he was already outed. Obviously the Board was dysfunctional. That is a difficult work environment for anyone but particularly if you are a CFO or a coach.

[Shaggy]

The new Board hasn't disagreed with the numbers..

well I am just going on Barks reports.

He indicated that the Club first offered $100,000...and then wwent toa last offer of $120,000.

If there is no disagreement...why are both at court?

Now Barks did add

"both parties have agreed that in the event that Thomas's claim for holiday pay and annual leave entitlements is successful, he will recieve $90,000 for this claim "

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.

.

I would have thought that $90,000 + $100,000 would = $190,000

and not the $120,000 made as a last offer?????

According to B4E GT got an extra $65 k (or roughly there) above his termination entitlements with the former admin.

The deal offered to GT by the new admin rounded out = hush money + annual leave claimed (less freebee past payment).

Thats a fair deal.

Its always good to try to understand the logic of the maths (even if I am wrong ).

[JeffDunne]

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".

Anyhow, the 100K hush money and the reasons the club weren't going to pay it interest me.

Remember, RB's outburst on SEN? Archie's comments backing RB?

We were told by the club that GT was not only in breach of the agreement - but he was actively trying to destablise the club. Not only that, we were told if he pushed it we would expose his supposed underhanded work.

So why did we eventually offer to pay the $100K?

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?

B4E might be able to help on this since he's not only been in the court - but he also claimed at the time to have known what GT was up to.

Why aren't we hearing these so-called "facts" now we're in court like was promised?

[saintsRrising]

Personally I have no problems with the club making a "Golden Parachute" payment.

Most such payments come with strings....

It would seem that the New Board made an estimation as to what they deemed reasonable....but that GT believes it should be bigger.

[JeffDunne]

I would imagine the new board are allowing the CEO to act on the club's legal advice.

If GT is being the money hungry grub as being painted - surely we'd take the opportunity to expose the dirt & not pay him the $100K?

Surely?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Personally I have no problems with the club making a "Golden Parachute" payment.

Most such payments come with strings....

It would seem that the New Board made an estimation as to what they deemed reasonable....but that GT believes it should be bigger.

My read is that this isn't Golden Parachute, the Golden Parachute was the extra payout on the minimum at the time of Thomas sacking. I also have no issue with this, it's the kind of thing companies do to ensure exiting executives don't carry bad blood... 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.

The issue of leave sounds like it comes down to administrative miscommunication. The Board would have likely had the power to demand Thomas take his leave, but unless they actioned it, if Thomas didn't action it either, payroll wouldn't deal with it, and Thomas would still have a certain period of time owing. May be Thomas taking a pound of flesh, may be that Thomas genuinely never had a holiday, the court will decide, and since it's a statutory entitlement, the "Golden Parachute" payment's covering of it would probably depend on the paperwork... but it's quite possible that since the numbers don't add up, they will be considered unrelated.

Like others, I'm far more interested in the "hush money" side of things, as from the $90k figure on the leave compared to the $120k offer of settlement, this seems to be the disagreement that would bring this to court over a difference of $70k (and possible award of interest), but with a significant degree of risk attached to Thomas financially if he loses this even should he win the remainder (again, possibly barring a decision on interest)... but the reports would seem to indicate that most of the contention was focused on the Leave side of things?

Did Thomas adequately demonstrate the existence of a "hush money" agreement?
Did the club contest this agreement?
Did the club offer evidence that Thomas had not abided by his side of the agreement?