GT wins on both counts ...

[joffaboy]

Well the court has spoken. He has got his whack.

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?????

[SaintWal]

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?

Could not agree more.

I know where I place my blame. RB got Archie into the place so he could railroad GT. RB allowed his own agenda to influence his decision making of the club. I bet RB does not run his own business affairs in the same manner. It is about time that our club was not a Ego trip for someone like RB. IMHO

[aussiejones]

"What amazes me most about this episode is that the 'club' didn't cover their bases when they decided to sack Thomas.

I'm also starting to see why Thomas was the bloke negotiating contracts "

Totally agree.

Butters is a weak @#$$ for not appearing in Court.
Archie stuffed up many many times.
Van Beek sucessfully did not get involved .

Like it or not I admire GT for standing up for himself.

Lets move on

[Richter]

So can we now assume that the 'white-anting' comments were completely baseless?

No, just not able to be legally quantified.

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.

In a word Grumpy, your comment is "bullsh*t".

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.

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.

Rod came on to SEN breakfast show and publicly accused Grant Thomas of undermining the club. Surely you remember that.

[saintspremiers]

Now who can we sack now?????

You.

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.

[SaintWal]

Now who can we sack now?????

You.

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.

Only Mid 2004. I thought you could go back further than that. And the compensation would be enough to get Bill Gates scraping the barrel

[Ray Broughton]

[quote="Richter
Rod came on to SEN breakfast show and publicly accused Grant Thomas of undermining the club. Surely you remember that.[/quote]

Yeh I definitely thought something like that had happened however the defence seemed not bothered to pursue that avenue for whatever reason.. Perhaps they thought he didnt...

As stated earlier the whole thing is waste of money going to the lawyers.. If we were not going to contest anything, just settle out of court and pay GT.. Then move on....

[Richter]

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?

I echo these comments JD. i have also read the finding of the lady justice.....

A few more points - and I don't expect that as members we will get answers to any of these.......

1. Why was Rod Butterss not called by the club?

2. Why was James van Beek not called by the club? (Line 23)

In the light of this, and not even providing any statements from them....

3. Why did the club continue to contest GT's claim in court? Thus ensuring that the club has to fork out legal costs on top of the finding against them.

4. Why was the $100,000 termination agreement put in place at all? (line 97)

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)

6. Why did the club pay GT 6 months severance pay of $270,000 when they were only obliged to pay 4.5 months! (line 101)

*EDIT: Adding together points 4,5 and 6 = $100,000 + $65,000 + $15,000 + legal fees that have been unnecessarily spent in this case. This on top of the ruling of $190k going against the club.

The $180,000 I blame on Rod as he clearly interfered as the President. The legal costs could have been reduced by the current board/exec if they had just stopped to think for a minute - however, given the stage that the claim had already got to, perhaps they figured that the extra legal fees were justified by the potential chance there might be a finding in the Club's favour - i.e. if there were another $20k in legal fees to be paid - this would be worth putting in if there were anything aboe a 10 to 1 aganist chance that the club would not be found liable to pay Thomas the $200k.

[saintbrat]

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.

[JeffDunne]

So can we now assume that the 'white-anting' comments were completely baseless?

No, just not able to be legally quantified.

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.

In a word Grumpy, your comment is "bullsh*t".

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.

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.

Rod came on to SEN breakfast show and publicly accused Grant Thomas of undermining the club. Surely you remember that.

Of course I remember. I was refering to it earlier.

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.

[Ray Broughton]

[
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)

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.

The records/deals/contracts and ultimately te defence was and is a joke!

[saintspremiers]

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.

Thanks Bratty, that was the number I was after.

So.....we have already accounted for 278K, we need to pay GT 230K - so there is a 48K surplus.

BUT.....

As we lost the case, we need to factor in legal fees and court costs.

I assume that would be well in excess of the surplus.

ie. we will cop some extra losses on this year's books as a result of the large payout to GT from my read.....

[asiu]

sen ...it was 'close the quotes' not ev who posted the link




rocket should hang his head in shame

**** me

[rodgerfox]

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?

[saintbrat]

SP- I currently read it as $100.000 + $90.000 + costs of $20-30,000

$210.000 or $220.000 to Grant

+ costs of the clubs- another $20.000??? if similiar legal fees??

Thomas 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://news.realfooty.com.au/sport/sack ... -31kl.html

varies news items related found here, http://www.sainters.com/

with no exact amount given.

Thomas 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."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/thoma ... -31k8.html

[Ray Broughton]

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?

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.

[Richter]

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.

I may have misunderstood you.

Got to agree with every word of what you have written here. Take a look at my other points above - think it will make you feel even more nauseous.....

[asiu]

Plus the current board would probably like to taint the previous one even further. Two sides looking for the same result....



are we that smart?

[saintbrat]

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?

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 reason

[JeffDunne]

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 lasted 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.

[Richter]

If only Gaz.....

I don't really see that there's enough in it for the current board to kick the previous one. Rod and his crew are fairly much discredited now anyway.

More likely a stark assessment of risk I would think - a little bit more in legal fees for the chance (albeit remote) of saving a significantly larger chunk of $$ in court.

Any poker players out there would recognise this concept as similar to that of "pot odds" - same goes in sports betting and stock trading for that matter.

[GrumpyOne]

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.

Spot on Jeff.

[JeffDunne]

I can accept that argument Richter but you don't insult a judge by putting up what he clearly thought was a bullsh*t defense. You may was well write the cheque and save yourself the legal fees & the time.

Even if we'd come out $50K better was it really worth it considering the damage these sort of stories do to the club's reputation?

[Richter]

Think you may be being a bit harsh on AF JD.

There could still be a utility in taking the matter to court even if the lawyers advised that was a significant chance of losing the claim. It's not just a question of "is it more likely to be a successful challenge or not" - mathematically it is more complicated than that.

Also, AF clearly walked in as CEO at a time when relations between the coach and Board were at their nadir. As the court documents show he clearly tried to patch up relations between the two parties.

Given the invidious position he was in, he has since overseen the departure of both these cancerous elements at the heart of the footy club. Some credit to him for that IMO.

[JeffDunne]

I don't think I'm being tough on him at all TBH.

He is the CEO and these decisions and claim both happened on his watch.