Archie Fraser has to go, he is an embarrasment...

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Just read the article, and it's more than a little ambiguous as it realtes to this thread:
1) While it mentions Fraser being under pressure, that's as far as it goes in suggesting he's in any trouble.
2) Where criticising him, it adresses last years profit/loss result and this years anticipated result (both of which we consciously decided to face).
3) Where noting further angst, it puts up Fraser as having been against contesting with Thomas in court (which surely the result bears out?).
4) The strong implication is that the biggest danger is that Fraser's about to be poached by GC17.
5) Westaway says nothing that comes down on either side of the fence.

Further detail (even if unsubstantiated) from those with strong interest in this area on this site is/will be appreciated.

FWIW, while I've been given nothing that makes me agree with philip, I can't see why the angst against him. He's critical, he's got an agenda (which he makes no secret of, and is his purpose for posting, so seems a strange thing to criticise him for), but that's this site, and that's the internet. While "philip" from saintsational isn't going to make a valid source for publication, here in speculation central, his information is no less valid than anyone elses.

[SENsei]

5) Westaway says nothing that comes down on either side of the fence.

That's probably a worry for AF in itself, is it not? If there was no substance to the line of enquiry, why would GW be categoric in his defence of his CEO. Why sit on the fence?

[Ice Wolf]

5) Westaway says nothing that comes down on either side of the fence.

That's probably a worry for AF in itself, is it not? If there was no substance to the line of enquiry, why would GW be categoric in his defence of his CEO. Why sit on the fence?

If he was backing Archie to the hilt, we would know for sure that he (Archie) is gone.

[SENsei]

5) Westaway says nothing that comes down on either side of the fence.

That's probably a worry for AF in itself, is it not? If there was no substance to the line of enquiry, why would GW be categoric in his defence of his CEO. Why sit on the fence?

If he was backing Archie to the hilt, we would know for sure that he (Archie) is gone.

So by that theory, Ross Lyon, with GW's 'thoughts' of him being at the helm for 10 years, should really be sending out his resume too!!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

5) Westaway says nothing that comes down on either side of the fence.

That's probably a worry for AF in itself, is it not? If there was no substance to the line of enquiry, why would GW be categoric in his defence of his CEO. Why sit on the fence?

Not sure... in fact, after reading the article, I'm not sure whether the issue is that Fraser is looking at moving on or being moved on. We've had an article suggesting he was being hunted by GC17, another suggesting he was hunting the Melbourne job.

As far as Westaway's comments go, I think when a media outlet asks about the performance of an employee, the first order of business is probably not creating a story in your comments (though Butterss might feel differently ) - in that light Westaway gets a pass, because while the existence of the article makes me curious of the board's relationship with Fraser, it certainly doesn't indicate to me one way or other about Fraser himself. Cards close to chest, he neither delivers a mandate of approval for Fraser to possibly put on his resume in discussions with GC17, nor pans him creating a story as we're heading into a finals campaign.

[meher baba]

3) Where noting further angst, it puts up Fraser as having been against contesting with Thomas in court (which surely the result bears out?).

What the article actually says is

and Fraser's strongly held view that the club should not appeal against the County Court decision which recently saw Thomas awarded more than $200,000 compensation for his acrimonious departure

In other words, Fraser pushed strongly to stop there being an appeal. The point here, I speculate, is that the court appeared to accept GT's version of his interractions with AF over the latter's view. The Board is now perhaps perceiving AF as having conceded that GT's version of events was correct and that, therefore, AF did play an instrumental role in knifing GT in the back, just as he clearly seemed to do to RB one year later. But, I only engaging in idle speculation.

BTW, if I were AF, I wouldn't be too happy about what Greg Westaway chose to say about him: if you think you're CEO is doing a good job, you don't want to lose him or her. Therefore you don't say "I'm not surprised that another organisation is looking at him, he's a great CEO". You say something like "we are currently engaged in negoatiations with Bloggs in relation to his salary package and are expecting to make an announcement shortly".

But, really, whatever. I'm far more interested in what happens onfield at the moment.

[Mr Magic]

3) Where noting further angst, it puts up Fraser as having been against contesting with Thomas in court (which surely the result bears out?).

BTW, if I were AF, I wouldn't be too happy about what Greg Westaway chose to say about him: if you think you're CEO is doing a good job, you don't want to lose him or her. Therefore you don't say "I'm not surprised that another organisation is looking at him, he's a great CEO". You say something like "we are currently engaged in negoatiations with Bloggs in relation to his salary package and are expecting to make an announcement shortly".

But, really, whatever. I'm far more interested in what happens onfield at the moment.

What did GW actually say?
We have what The Australian claims he said, and that's all.
We have no way of knowing what was actually asked and what was actually answered.
As I posted in the other AF thread, there are some blatant inaccuracies in both articles that have appeared in The Oz that coupled with the fact that no other media person seems to think this story is worthy of mention, makes me wonder what on earth is going on here?

[meher baba]

3) Where noting further angst, it puts up Fraser as having been against contesting with Thomas in court (which surely the result bears out?).

BTW, if I were AF, I wouldn't be too happy about what Greg Westaway chose to say about him: if you think you're CEO is doing a good job, you don't want to lose him or her. Therefore you don't say "I'm not surprised that another organisation is looking at him, he's a great CEO". You say something like "we are currently engaged in negoatiations with Bloggs in relation to his salary package and are expecting to make an announcement shortly".

But, really, whatever. I'm far more interested in what happens onfield at the moment.

What did GW actually say?
We have what The Australian claims he said, and that's all.
We have no way of knowing what was actually asked and what was actually answered.
As I posted in the other AF thread, there are some blatant inaccuracies in both articles that have appeared in The Oz that coupled with the fact that no other media person seems to think this story is worthy of mention, makes me wonder what on earth is going on here?

Fair enough: from my own experiences in dealing with it, I'm no great fan of the Australian, let me tell you.

[RedWhiteBlack]

I don't know whether or not you guys know much about Archie's history, but he actually lived on the Gold Coast for 15 years after arriving in the country, so of COURSE there are going to be media reports linking him with the job!!

Additionally, it's in the AFL's/GC17's best interests to keep the names of high profile CEO's in the media to boost credibility for the new team. The more tongues they get wagging, the better (as far as the AFL is concerned) - regardless of the rumours and supporter fallout it potentially causes among the established clubs in the competition.

I wouldn't worry too much. As many people have already said, it was a throwaway line in an article with no source and no credible foundation to suggest it is true.

[saintspremiers]

Phillip - you clearly have a personal vendetta against Archie to dig up a 6-week old thread to continue talking your complete and utter crap. Let it go...

It's in The Australian. Philip broke the story months ago.

It's all relevant to the original posts that he was flamed about.

I think it's totally right for him to bring it up and re-open the discussion about it.

You can choose to opt out of the conversation if you wish. You do indeed have a choice.

exactly.

so philip has an agenda and wants Archie gone, what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with having an agenda?

Casey scorp wants us based at Cranny.

Barks wants to jump in bed with Rix and Ferg (at the same time? )

I want the opposition forum deleted.

It makes SS a fun place if we all don't tow the same line eh?

[GreatNo9s]

Agree RWB - not sure why it got another run on here

no one reads The OZ and no other media is running with it
A beat up I say

Also, I think you're spot on re:GC17 - they got another run this morning with the 2010 draft announcement

Mods - isn't it about time we locked this thread and moved on ?

[joffaboy]

Who gives a flying f### if Archie is sacked or not?

CEO's come and go all the time.

[GreatNo9s]

Joffa - agree with your sentiment as I recall a useless stat about there being 65 Club Ceo's come and go over the past 7 years

I think the point though is all great clubs have stability

in my view and from what i hear AF has done a reasonable job transitioning from the old board to a new inexperienced board

I'm ok with robust debate at board level - we should do a better job of keeping it in the board room - again in my view perhaps a bit of inexperience here from the new board

I'm happy with the direction we are going on and off the field

[saintspremiers]

Joffa - agree with your sentiment as I recall a useless stat about there being 65 Club Ceo's come and go over the past 7 years

I think the point though is all great clubs have stability

in my view and from what i hear AF has done a reasonable job transitioning from the old board to a new inexperienced board

I'm ok with robust debate at board level - we should do a better job of keeping it in the board room - again in my view perhaps a bit of inexperience here from the new board

I'm happy with the direction we are going on and off the field

ahhh......so you want AF to stay, hence get this thread locked.

Good reasoning

[philip]

Phillip - you clearly have a personal vendetta against Archie to dig up a 6-week old thread to continue talking your complete and utter crap. Let it go...

It's in The Australian. Philip broke the story months ago.

It's all relevant to the original posts that he was flamed about.

I think it's totally right for him to bring it up and re-open the discussion about it.

You can choose to opt out of the conversation if you wish. You do indeed have a choice.

thanks for that. people confuse agenda's with opinions with rumours and facts.

i don't like AF, i do think he should go but that is because of what I have heard and what I have seen for myself. i have no relationship with him and no axe to grind, purely and simply arrived at the decision based on my intel.

if people don't want to accept that, that's ok too, i linked the story to this thread because it is starting to come out that now the board has settled itself it too is coming to the same decision i came to, no doubt based on even more intel than i have received to date.

but again thanks to those who haven't flamed me even if you have disagreed. it's the way it should be.

philip

[Mr Magic]

Phillip - you clearly have a personal vendetta against Archie to dig up a 6-week old thread to continue talking your complete and utter crap. Let it go...

It's in The Australian. Philip broke the story months ago.

It's all relevant to the original posts that he was flamed about.

I think it's totally right for him to bring it up and re-open the discussion about it.

You can choose to opt out of the conversation if you wish. You do indeed have a choice.

thanks for that. people confuse agenda's with opinions with rumours and facts.

i don't like AF, i do think he should go but that is because of what I have heard and what I have seen for myself. i have no relationship with him and no axe to grind, purely and simply arrived at the decision based on my intel.

if people don't want to accept that, that's ok too, i linked the story to this thread because it is starting to come out that now the board has settled itself it too is coming to the same decision i came to, no doubt based on even more intel than i have received to date.

but again thanks to those who haven't flamed me even if you have disagreed. it's the way it should be.

philip

Philip,
If the stories as printed this week in The Oz had confirmed anyhting you have been posting/hinting then I don't think there would have been any angst against you.

Unfortunately the stories didn't say very much at all. Full of inaccuracies with the main point being made that Board member(s) disagreed with his opinion on appealing the Court decision. Obvioulsy more Borad Members agreed with him than disagreed with him as the Club chose to follow the path he suggested.

There was absolutely nothing else there other than linking him to GC17 and MFC without any categorical facts.

In other words this story was a total 'beat-up' and yet you chose to use it as further 'proof' of your assertions that AF is no good. If anything this story, used in the way you have, tends to give credence to the impression that your postings about AF are nothing more than your own opinion - no factual evidence offered.

You may well prove to be right in the end (who knows?) but so far you have hung, drawn and quartered AF without a skerrick of evidence.
Is it any wonder many on here doubt your motives?

[rodgerfox]

Is it any wonder many on here doubt your motives?

Motives??

What does that mean?

From what I can gather, people post opinions and views on here. It's a forum - this is what it's designed for.

Motives?? What possible motive could there be for someone posting a thread on an internet forum? The only motive could be, to voice their opinion to other people.

I don't think I've ever read a post on any internet forum which doesn't have the exact same 'motive'.

F*** me. Some people forget what this place is about sometimes.


Motives. Agendas. Jesus, it's a footy forum.

[SENsei]

Bless me father for I have sinned.....

Opinions are opinions, thoughts are thoughts and we all have them.

And they have all the same amount of merit.

We don't have to agree. We don't have to like.

But we are a free country in which we have the right to express our opinions.

Philip is clear with his opinion. caseyscorp has been pretty much clear with his opinion regarding Casey Fields (even though I have put him through the mill).

I may not agree with what is written, but unless it is abusive or the like, I respect everyone's right to express their opinion.

Unless anyone says anything negative about Jennifer Love Hewitt.....then it's war. WAR I tell you.

[Mr Magic]

Is it any wonder many on here doubt your motives?

Motives??

What does that mean?

From what I can gather, people post opinions and views on here. It's a forum - this is what it's designed for.

Motives?? What possible motive could there be for someone posting a thread on an internet forum? The only motive could be, to voice their opinion to other people.

I don't think I've ever read a post on any internet forum which doesn't have the exact same 'motive'.

F*** me. Some people forget what this place is about sometimes.


Motives. Agendas. Jesus, it's a footy forum.

Philip chose to raise an old thread on the basis that the article in The Oz on Tuesday somehow validated his original opinion/post. Others, including myself, chose to post on that thread.

Is that not within what we're supposed to do on a football forum?

I realize most of us are just 'morons' to you, and that we very rarely reach your level of intelligence but please educate us simpletons' if we've got the basic understanding of what we're supposed to do incorrect?


I must say you've been reasonably quiet this week on the forum - we must have had a relatively good win last weekend?
Even your 'Look at Me Report' was quite tame this week. But I'm sure your natural vitriol will return if/when we should stumble.


And as for the overt sexual act you implored me to perform - I couldn't think of anything I'd enjoy less!
You'll have to find someone else to soothe your swollen head or maybe go back to self-medication.

[Mr Magic]

Bless me father for I have sinned.....

Opinions are opinions, thoughts are thoughts and we all have them.

And they have all the same amount of merit.

We don't have to agree. We don't have to like.

But we are a free country in which we have the right to express our opinions.

Philip is clear with his opinion. caseyscorp has been pretty much clear with his opinion regarding Casey Fields (even though I have put him through the mill).

I may not agree with what is written, but unless it is abusive or the like, I respect everyone's right to express their opinion.

Unless anyone says anything negative about Jennifer Love Hewitt.....then it's war. WAR I tell you.

What does that all mean SENsaintsational?
I don't think anybody questioned Philip's right to post his opinion. Early on in the thread he seemed to be making accusations that were being challenged by other posters as for accuracy.

He chose to 'pull' this thread back on the basis that the story in The Oz somehow validated his opinion. There was already a lengthy thread on the stories that he could have chosen to post in, but instead he made the deliberate choice to re-post in this one. Surely all other posters are allowed to express their opinion on this thread as well?

I found nothing in the Oz story which 'validated' Philip's posted opinion and chose to post that. I made absolutely no comment on his opinion's validity. Why is that unacceptable?

[rodgerfox]

Is it any wonder many on here doubt your motives?

Motives??

What does that mean?

From what I can gather, people post opinions and views on here. It's a forum - this is what it's designed for.

Motives?? What possible motive could there be for someone posting a thread on an internet forum? The only motive could be, to voice their opinion to other people.

I don't think I've ever read a post on any internet forum which doesn't have the exact same 'motive'.

F*** me. Some people forget what this place is about sometimes.


Motives. Agendas. Jesus, it's a footy forum.

Philip chose to raise an old thread on the basis that the article in The Oz on Tuesday somehow validated his original opinion/post. Others, including myself, chose to post on that thread.

Is that not within what we're supposed to do on a football forum?

I realize most of us are just 'morons' to you, and that we very rarely reach your level of intelligence but please educate us simpletons' if we've got the basic understanding of what we're supposed to do incorrect?


I must say you've been reasonably quiet this week on the forum - we must have had a relatively good win last weekend?
Even your 'Look at Me Report' was quite tame this week. But I'm sure your natural vitriol will return if/when we should stumble.


And as for the overt sexual act you implored me to perform - I couldn't think of anything I'd enjoy less!
You'll have to find someone else to soothe your swollen head or maybe go back to self-medication.

Go on, make this thread about me.

[Mr Magic]

You've already done that.
Bored are we rodger?
Nothing to do today but play little games with us 'morons' (your terminology rodger - deny it if you like) here on Saintsational.

You are so, so predictable.

You know how to stop this childish game.
I've told you many times - I'll accomodate you any time you like (though not in the sexual way you seemed to be asking for in your previous post!).

The choice is entirely yours. You chose to post a comment towards me and you elicited a response (as you probably hoped for).

[SENsei]

Bless me father for I have sinned.....

Opinions are opinions, thoughts are thoughts and we all have them.

And they have all the same amount of merit.

We don't have to agree. We don't have to like.

But we are a free country in which we have the right to express our opinions.

Philip is clear with his opinion. caseyscorp has been pretty much clear with his opinion regarding Casey Fields (even though I have put him through the mill).

I may not agree with what is written, but unless it is abusive or the like, I respect everyone's right to express their opinion.

Unless anyone says anything negative about Jennifer Love Hewitt.....then it's war. WAR I tell you.

What does that all mean SENsaintsational?
I don't think anybody questioned Philip's right to post his opinion. Early on in the thread he seemed to be making accusations that were being challenged by other posters as for accuracy.

He chose to 'pull' this thread back on the basis that the story in The Oz somehow validated his opinion. There was already a lengthy thread on the stories that he could have chosen to post in, but instead he made the deliberate choice to re-post in this one. Surely all other posters are allowed to express their opinion on this thread as well?

I found nothing in the Oz story which 'validated' Philip's posted opinion and chose to post that. I made absolutely no comment on his opinion's validity. Why is that unacceptable?

I didn't say anything was unacceptable did I? Merely that Philip has a right to his opinion, and if he wants to drag up an old post to validate his opinion, as you say, that is also his right.

As is your's to disagree.

Philip got flamed by others and I got the impression others would have preferred he kept his mouth shut.

He doesn't have to. You don't have to. I don't have to.

That's all. Not having specific go at you. It's just an internet forum afterall.

And I'll now leave and give you and Rodger some private time.

[rodgerfox]

You've already done that.
Bored are we rodger?
Nothing to do today but play little games with us 'morons' (your terminology rodger - deny it if you like) here on Saintsational.

You are so, so predictable.

You know how to stop this childish game.
I've told you many times - I'll accomodate you any time you like (though not in the sexual way you seemed to be asking for in your previous post!).

The choice is entirely yours. You chose to post a comment towards me and you elicited a response (as you probably hoped for).

Why do you want to ruin another thread with your childish slanging matches? Why do you insist in turning thread after thread into a dedication to me?

Half of this thread is about wierdos suggesting that people have 'agenda', 'motives' and 'personal vendettas', so my original post was completely in context and totally on topic.

Yet, as usual, you are totally unable to stay on topic and want to talk about me all the time.

It's just bizarre. Flattering I suppose, but for a person of your age it's just really odd.

Please don't hijack another reasonable thread.

I've asked nicely. Don't ruin another one.

[Mr Magic]

Fair enough SENsaintdational.

As for private time with rodger, I couldn't think of anyhting I'd like less.

I'd much prefer 'quiet time' with our Genreal Forum m ascot!