WE can now draw a line under the Grant Thomas and Rod Butterss era and them acting as if the STKFC was their own little fiefdom.
Lets move on.
Now who can we sack now?????
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Could not agree more.JeffDunne wrote:Yes I wonder if it ever occurred to the Thomas bashers that maybe he had good reason to have a problem with the club's administration?
Sorry Jeff but you're wrong here. The ruling does indeed say.... "The Club has never suggested or run a case to the contrary" - whilst that may be the case in the court room the Club, as represented by then president Rod Butterss certainly did suggest to the contrary.GrumpyOne wrote:OK Jeff, I'll accept that comment in light of the quote you supplied. If Butterss had appeared he might have given his reasons for that assertion, but the club not calling him to give evidence still leaves a cloud over his statements and the reasons for them. Would have preferred that the matter was proven in court, rather than accepted due to a lack of conflicting evidence.JeffDunne wrote:GrumpyOne wrote:No, just not able to be legally quantified.JeffDunne wrote:So can we now assume that the 'white-anting' comments were completely baseless?In a word Grumpy, your comment is "bullsh*t".Thomas has performed and observed all of his obligations in respect of non disparagement, non poaching and confidentiality. The Club has never suggested or run a case to the contrary. I accept that Thomas has always been prepared to sign a formal deed in accordance with what was agreed at the meeting.
You.joffaboy wrote:
Now who can we sack now?????
Only Mid 2004. I thought you could go back further than that. And the compensation would be enough to get Bill Gates scraping the barrelsaintspremiers wrote:You.joffaboy wrote:
Now who can we sack now?????
From what my sources are telling me, you are planning on taking Saintsational to court for pain and suffering since mid 2004.
I understand your claim for $4.5 Billion though is justified.
Cheers.
I echo these comments JD. i have also read the finding of the lady justice.....JeffDunne wrote:It makes me angry Grumpy.
...................
What Rod did last year was incredibly destabilising and completely unnecessary.
I cannot believe we’d sack a coach and not have covered our legal obligations given the circumstances between the coach and the president.
I cannot believe someone that was about to sue the person he was sacking would be so generous with the club’s money when he didn’t need to be. FFS, pay him every cent he was entitled and not a dollar more! Given the timing of Rod’s legal case it also makes you wonder why the 1st april was picked (other than being a sick joke).
I am flabbergasted having read the ruling on the case. Why in God’s name would we argue there wasn’t an agreement in place?
Of course I remember. I was refering to it earlier.Richter wrote:Sorry Jeff but you're wrong here. The ruling does indeed say.... "The Club has never suggested or run a case to the contrary" - whilst that may be the case in the court room the Club, as represented by then president Rod Butterss certainly did suggest to the contrary.GrumpyOne wrote:OK Jeff, I'll accept that comment in light of the quote you supplied. If Butterss had appeared he might have given his reasons for that assertion, but the club not calling him to give evidence still leaves a cloud over his statements and the reasons for them. Would have preferred that the matter was proven in court, rather than accepted due to a lack of conflicting evidence.JeffDunne wrote:GrumpyOne wrote:No, just not able to be legally quantified.JeffDunne wrote:So can we now assume that the 'white-anting' comments were completely baseless?In a word Grumpy, your comment is "bullsh*t".Thomas has performed and observed all of his obligations in respect of non disparagement, non poaching and confidentiality. The Club has never suggested or run a case to the contrary. I accept that Thomas has always been prepared to sign a formal deed in accordance with what was agreed at the meeting.
Rod came on to SEN breakfast show and publicly accused Grant Thomas of undermining the club. Surely you remember that.
Yeh that one really perplexed me also,, wouldve been taken off the claim amount withoiut question???? Crazy.... I mean the current board obviously did not agree with Butters's view on proceedings, but its 15k ffs, to which GT agreed he would pay, we paid it and never claimed it back. This plus the 100K plus the 6 months instead of 4.5 months were all sweeteners for him to go away quietly and forget about everything but GT was smarter and went for the lot knowing he would get it. He sat back and accepted them all knowing full well he was going to rheam them in court about leave etc.Richter wrote: [
5. Why did the club pay Thomas' fine for abusing the umpiring fraternity, agree that GT should have it deducted from his salary but never actually get the money back from GT? In addition to this, why did the club not counterclaim - the judge suggest that this is a claim that would have had some merit! (line 37)
Thanks Bratty, that was the number I was after.saintbrat wrote:so do we have a total due?
page 29 Annual report
http://saints.com.au/Portals/0/saints_d ... %20DD2.pdf
states $278.000 as being a possible extent of liability to former employee.
------------------------------
statement from the club later in the day.
Thomas statement- pleased with the decision, no further comment
SEN expect him to say more tomorrow on radio.
http://news.realfooty.com.au/sport/sack ... -31kl.htmlThomas claimed a $100,000 hush payment promised following his sacking was never received.
He also claimed he was asked to sign away $90,000 in annual leave entitlements while in an important team meeting before the club's elimination final match against Melbourne in 2006.
Thomas was sacked just days after the Saints lost the final.
Victorian County Court Judge Katherine Bourke ruled Thomas was entitled to both the annual leave and the $100,000 severance payment.
Judge Bourke also ordered St Kilda Football Club pay Thomas more than $20,000 in legal costs
http://www.theage.com.au/national/thoma ... -31k8.htmlThomas sued St Kilda for $100,000 he said he was owed in severance payments and $90,000 in leave entitlements.
He was also granted approximately $15,000 interest on the severance payment amount.
Judge Bourke is expected to make a ruling on costs following a short adjournment.
Outside the court, Thomas said he was "thrilled".
"The judge has made a decision - we're happy with the decision," he said.
"We're thrilled that it is finally closed - that's the end of it."
Has to be correct Dodge.... Why else would you compile a defence like that and GT knew he was holding all the cards, so yeh agree, he would've felt the need for revenge. Plus the current board would probably like to taint the previous one even further. Two sides looking for the same result.... and got it.rodgerfox wrote:Do you think the current Board were pretty keen to let this one go? Not put up a huge fight?
Be done with it. Perhaps even agree with it?
Perhaps GT didn't want to settle, so some details would come out in court?
I may have misunderstood you.JeffDunne wrote: It just reinforces how god damn stupid our case was. The f***ing president admitted there was an agreement on radio! Surely we would have argued he breached the agreement, not that it didn't exist!
Taking a baseless shot at someone when appearing on the softest footy show anywhere is hardly mounting a case. It's nothing more than spreading gossip and innuendo because you're too chicken sh** to stand up to someone. Rod and the club have had ever opportunity to put up on this matter and haven't.
It's a bloody disgrace TBH.
from memory there were several times late last year and early this year that the new board attempted to make payment- but the offer was not taken up- for whatever reasonrodgerfox wrote:Do you think the current Board were pretty keen to let this one go? Not put up a huge fight?
Be done with it. Perhaps even agree with it?
Perhaps GT didn't want to settle, so some details would come out in court?
Spot on Jeff.JeffDunne wrote:When given a choice between a conspiracy and incompetence - I'll guess incompetence every time.
If they didn’t want it to go to court and they were willing to settle for the entire amount then the case shouldn’t have even last 5 minutes – regardless of GT wanting to settle or not.
The club could have easily settled if they wanted.
I don’t blame the entire board as such as they are acting under advice. But some – including our CEO – should hang their heads in shame.