First Untruth from SFF?

[Mr Magic]

I'm certain I heard NB on 3AW last night state the following:-

He was the last memeber approached to join the ticket
He never spoke with AT about the issue
He never was at a meeting with AT about the ticket

BUT
I'm sure I heard/read yeterday that AT claimed NB approached him to join?

These statments would seem to be diametrically opposite?

Why would there be a need to 'coverup' any dialogue between these 2?


From the news reports this week it would appear that AT spoke with his father-in-law last week about the challenge.

When was AT approached?
Was he a player at the time?
If so, why was he approached whilst still playing?

Who else was approached?

I only pose these questions as I've just heard Westaway on SEN state that they (SFF) want to be an 'open board'. HIs stated reason for not wanting to meet with RB was he didn't want any 'back-room' deals done.

[killa_gram]

When was AT approached?
Was he a player at the time?
If so, why was he approached whilst still playing?

It doesn't matter if he was approached while still playing. Everyone knew he was finishing up and they probably wanted a recent ex player on the ticket as well they might have been aware of AT's opinions on our seriously under-funded football dept.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

seriously the least most important issue behind this board challange !

[riccardo]

Thier vision is unquestioned, but they can't get the sequence of events right - how disgusting of them!

[SENsei]

Don't really care about sequence of events. I want substance. They will hopefully have it because I'm sure RB doesn't.

[Mr Magic]

I categorically apologise for offending anybody by questioning anything said by NB and AT.

I was wrong to even think that there may have been something amiss with a group that espouses 'openness' and 'candour' as their hallmarks in an attempt to persuade us members to vote for them to remove the 'bad, bad, bad, Board'.

What was I thinking?

[stinger]

I'm certain I heard NB on 3AW last night state the following:-

He was the last memeber approached to join the ticket
He never spoke with AT about the issue
He never was at a meeting with AT about the ticket

BUT
I'm sure I heard/read yeterday that AT claimed NB approached him to join?

These statments would seem to be diametrically opposite?

Why would there be a need to 'coverup' any dialogue between these 2?


From the news reports this week it would appear that AT spoke with his father-in-law last week about the challenge.

When was AT approached?
Was he a player at the time?
If so, why was he approached whilst still playing?

Who else was approached?

I only pose these questions as I've just heard Westaway on SEN state that they (SFF) want to be an 'open board'. HIs stated reason for not wanting to meet with RB was he didn't want any 'back-room' deals done.

why does it matter...he is as free as the rest of us to do what he wants.....

[Behind Play]

I am assuming mr. magic that the current board is straight -please!!!!!!!

[Mr Magic]

I am assuming mr. magic that the current board is straight -please!!!!!!!

NO, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

It's just that there seems to be universal euphoria about this group, who profess to be 'clean' and 'open' and I thought it was really strange that they chose to send these 2 out to the media yesterday, when they apparently didn't have their stories 'straight'.

I'll judge them on their plans for my Club - I expect them to tell lies and be as underhanded as they need to be to run the Club properly. Just stop giving me the bs about 'clean'.

Burkey is a legend of our Club and Thommo has been a highly decorated stalwart, but do they actually know what they have gotten themselves into by jumping into the politics of boardroom?

I'm fearful they are out of their depth in this particular area. And I think what I raised in the OP is a sign of this.

[Behind Play]

I am assuming mr. magic that the current board is straight -please!!!!!!!

NO, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

It's just that there seems to be universal euphoria about this group, who profess to be 'clean' and 'open' and I thought it was really strange that they chose to send these 2 out to the media yesterday, when they apparently didn't have their stories 'straight'.

I'll judge them on their plans for my Club - I expect them to tell lies and be as underhanded as they need to be to run the Club properly. Just stop giving me the bs about 'clean'.

Burkey is a legend of our Club and Thommo has been a highly decorated stalwart, but do they actually know what they have gotten themselves into by jumping into the politics of boardroom?

I'm fearful they are out of their depth in this particular area. And I think what I raised in the OP is a sign of this.

You may be totally correct, however, RB's board hasn't delivered a flag for their premiership starved members and supporters. In actual fact the team hasn't even made a GF, but their has been many resignations, sackings and monies blown on wrong choices.
They have had an lengthy opportunity to achieve, I am not saying let us jump straight on to the alternative.... in actual fact, I am not happy with the Fox involvement, but let us consider our options.

[Mr Magic]

And neither has every administration since G.G. Huggins in 1966.

But unlike most of the administrations since then at least this one has managed to put us back in the black. I for one am sick of 'rattling tins' to get us money because Boards have spent too much, without winning a premiership, and put us in 'hock' again.

Is the RB Board the right one to carry us through the next stage of our Club's life? Probably not.

Is the SFF group the right one? Probably, but I don't know for sure because they have told me virtually nothing other than, as someone else so eloquently stated in other threads, 'motherhood statements' and some bs about being 'open' and 'clean'.

I would have more faith if they came out and told me things along the lines of:-

We'll do anyhting to make this Club successful!

We're in a tough market here in Melbourne - 10 Clubs all fighting for their existence. Do you think that Collingwood under Eddie are run 'openly' and 'cleanly'? Or Carlscum, Essendon, Hawthorn or any of the other Clubs?

If the SFF stay true to their 'word' then we'll be the only ones who are and in 2 years time we will be 'broke' again because we will have spent, spent, spent, spent our way back into the red.

If they think they can get new sponsors so easily, why haven't they done it up til now? If they were truly committed to the Saints cause why wait until you are on the Board before getting the sponsors?

If AT was so worried about the lack of funds in the Football Dept whilst he was playing, who did he tell? If he did actually say something then why not go public with it now? It would make his position so much more credible?
Instead he tells us that he's had 'concerns' for some time.

I suppose my frustration is that they are not saying what I wnat them to say - 'Forget about the past. RB's Board, just like GT's coaching, has been good enough to get us to this great position. Now we're ready to reach our rightful place at the top of the AFL and we're the group to do it'.

I'm not interested in hearing what RB's group did wrong - I want to hear what SFF are going to do right.

And no BS.

[evertonfc]

I'm not interested in hearing what RB's group did wrong - I want to hear what SFF are going to do right.

Righhhhttt....so you only want to hear about the wonderful things Rod has done? Interesting theory.

These attempts to push up mates on the board - while delibrately canning the new ticket - do nothing for this forum.

We're getting sick of the rants.

This is Barks4eva-esq.

[Mr Magic]

These attempts to push up mates on the board - while delibrately canning the new ticket - do nothing for this forum.

We're getting sick of the rants, Magic.

You're becoming as obsessed as Barks4eva used to be.

Thank you Everton.

What mates on the Board?

Glad to see you can be impartial on this topic.

Because I want to know more about what they plan to do it is a 'rant'?

BTW who's 'we're'?

[evertonfc]

Why did you just ignore the question I asked?

You care not for the faults of RB - but then want to castigate the new board?

You're eloquant enough, but don't expect people to take you seriously when you can't answer basic questions.

[Mr Magic]

Why did you just ignore the question I asked?

You care not for the faults of RB - but then want to castigate the new board?

You're eloquant enough, but don't expect people to take you seriously when you can't answer basic questions.

What are you talking about?
This thread was about what Nathan Burke and Andrew Thompson had said.

If you want me to respond to something Rod Butters has said/done than start a thread and I will be happy to contribute, if there is something I know or think about the matter.

I'm still curious to know who 'we're' are?
And also who I'm supposedly mates with on the Board?

You've made the accusations, surely I'm entitled to know the substance of them?

[Behind Play]

[quote="Mr Magic"]And neither has every administration since G.G. Huggins in 1966.

The club has been around for 100 odd years and we are still going. Even through our darkest days we managed.

Unfortunately RB hasn't delivered a premiership, and that is what supporters want.

[Mr Magic]

And neither has every administration since G.G. Huggins in 1966.

The club has been around for 100 odd years and we are still going. Even through our darkest days we managed.

Unfortunately RB hasn't delivered a premiership, and that is what supporters want.

Great Behind Play, I actually agree it's time for Rod to now go, all things considered.

All I'm trying to say is that many seem to be accepting SFF, without knowing too much detail, simply because they are opposing Butters' regime.

I for one would like to know more? Why is that so radical a request?

[SENsei]

I don't have a problem with Mr Magic looking for holes in the SFF. If they are not up to scratch, we the members should know about it.

At present, I lean to voting for SFF and doubt that will change as I have worn my detestment of RB on my sleeve over the last days, weeks and months. Since January 2005 actually.

But MM is quite within his rights to question as are we all. Just because he questions doesn't mean he is mates.

Just because I'm anti RB doesn't mean I'm mates with GW, NB or AT.

[Behind Play]

No problems MM.

Keep up the good work.