Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda
wondered why no one posted this.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
ST KILDA promised to pay ex-coach Grant Thomas $100,000 not to denigrate the club after he was sacked, a judge was told today.
But barrister Matthew Stirling said the club reneged on the deal after a "very messy" series of negotiations that included private financial deals between Thomas and then club president Rod Butterss.
Mr Stirling told the County Court that in dealing with his client's departure the club had tried to "chain his lips" and Thomas agreed to the conditions imposed on the $100,000 payment.
But within days of his sacking St Kilda tried to impose a further series of conditions that were "out of bounds" and would have required Thomas to sign away statutory and legal rights.
Thomas, who was sacked in the wake of the club's elimination final defeat against Melbourne in September 2006, has sued St Kilda Saints for $272,000, he claims he is owed in contractural payments and annual leave entitlements.
Opening his case Mr Stirling said Thomas signed a series of contracts after his appointment as full-time coach in 2002. By the time he signed his fourth contract he was earning $525,000 a year.
On top of his base payments in his contracts were bonuses of $30,000 if the club made the top four on the AFL ladder, $75,000 if they made the top two and $100,000 if they won a premiership.
Mr Stirling said that in his four years as a senior coach St Kilda never paid Thomas any annual leave and this became a matter of ongoing dispute between him and the club.
In August 2005 the AFL fined Thomas $15,000 for comments he made about umpires and the club told his client it would "look after him".
But soon after it made the statement Butterss said Thomas should pay the fine and the coach agreed.
Later the club said it would pay the $15,000 if Thomas agreed to forego his annual leave entitlements which were worth in excess of $80,000.
Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.
Mr Stirling said Thomas did not read the document before he signed it but it said that the coach agreed he had taken all of his annual leave.
Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne.
Mr Stirling said that under workplace laws an employee ciould not sign away statutory entitlements.
The hearing is continuing.
time to let the sycophants loose.
mic
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
ST KILDA promised to pay ex-coach Grant Thomas $100,000 not to denigrate the club after he was sacked, a judge was told today.
But barrister Matthew Stirling said the club reneged on the deal after a "very messy" series of negotiations that included private financial deals between Thomas and then club president Rod Butterss.
Mr Stirling told the County Court that in dealing with his client's departure the club had tried to "chain his lips" and Thomas agreed to the conditions imposed on the $100,000 payment.
But within days of his sacking St Kilda tried to impose a further series of conditions that were "out of bounds" and would have required Thomas to sign away statutory and legal rights.
Thomas, who was sacked in the wake of the club's elimination final defeat against Melbourne in September 2006, has sued St Kilda Saints for $272,000, he claims he is owed in contractural payments and annual leave entitlements.
Opening his case Mr Stirling said Thomas signed a series of contracts after his appointment as full-time coach in 2002. By the time he signed his fourth contract he was earning $525,000 a year.
On top of his base payments in his contracts were bonuses of $30,000 if the club made the top four on the AFL ladder, $75,000 if they made the top two and $100,000 if they won a premiership.
Mr Stirling said that in his four years as a senior coach St Kilda never paid Thomas any annual leave and this became a matter of ongoing dispute between him and the club.
In August 2005 the AFL fined Thomas $15,000 for comments he made about umpires and the club told his client it would "look after him".
But soon after it made the statement Butterss said Thomas should pay the fine and the coach agreed.
Later the club said it would pay the $15,000 if Thomas agreed to forego his annual leave entitlements which were worth in excess of $80,000.
Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.
Mr Stirling said Thomas did not read the document before he signed it but it said that the coach agreed he had taken all of his annual leave.
Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne.
Mr Stirling said that under workplace laws an employee ciould not sign away statutory entitlements.
The hearing is continuing.
time to let the sycophants loose.
mic
No one ever built a statue for a critic.
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Re: Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda
Does this mean that if we didn't lose 4 key players to injury during that game, all the talk about 'gen Y', 'taking the next step', 'Sydney' and 'off-field structures' wouldn't have happened?bigmicka wrote:
Thomas did not know, Mr Stirling said, that the president and the board had already agreed that the coach would be sacked if St Kilda lost to Melbourne.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Sun 22 May 2005 11:42pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 90 times
Just because he thinks he's right, doesn't make him right. All he has is an argument and he's taking a mighty risk if ut turns out he's wrong and ends up paying court costs.Spinner wrote:As much as I hate GT....I dont think he would go to this length if he wasn't technically in the right by law. Ive got a feeling that the club is in the wrong this time
Personally, I don't think he's got a hope in hell. Whilst an uneducated employee may argue they were forced to sign away contractual rights, I find it less believable that a bloke capable of being the CEO of a large company could be bullied into signing a document or failing to read a document properly.
I wonder if B4Eva is a casual observer in the docks!!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Tend to agree. If true, paints the club in a very poor light on the way it treats it's employees.Spinner wrote:As much as I hate GT....I dont think he would go to this length if he wasn't technically in the right by law. Ive got a feeling that the club is in the wrong this time
Other than that;
$525,000 per year.....what a f****** joke.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
I still find it amazing that people still continue to focus just on GT.
Could the management of the club have acted any less professionally?
Thank christ most St Kilda members aren't as deluded as some of the people I'm sure we'll see in this thread.
GT may have been incompetent, he may have been greedy, but FFS can we at least for once lay some responsibility at the feet of the people that allowed this situation to develop?![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Could the management of the club have acted any less professionally?
Thank christ most St Kilda members aren't as deluded as some of the people I'm sure we'll see in this thread.
GT may have been incompetent, he may have been greedy, but FFS can we at least for once lay some responsibility at the feet of the people that allowed this situation to develop?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
<shrug>
pay the money and tell the man he's not welcome through our doors no more.
he's gone now, and his actions in the past 18 years indicate he won't be welcome back any time soon.
(I dont see the point in discussing what he did or didn't achieve with the team while at the club we've been through that once a week for 18 months)
pay the money and tell the man he's not welcome through our doors no more.
he's gone now, and his actions in the past 18 years indicate he won't be welcome back any time soon.
(I dont see the point in discussing what he did or didn't achieve with the team while at the club we've been through that once a week for 18 months)
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12754
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 764 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
So far all you've heard is GT's Barrister's version of events.Spinner wrote:As much as I hate GT....I dont think he would go to this length if he wasn't technically in the right by law. Ive got a feeling that the club is in the wrong this time
Other than that;
$525,000 per year.....what a f****** joke.
It may be right, it may be wrong.
You cannot form an opinion after hearing only 1 side of the argument.
although he I'd bet B4E would enjoy the chance to give his version of events.
he is
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
andafter a meeting of eyes ,
........ , when turning again from his seat a second time
hello andrew , are you still living in hawthorn ?
........ , who replyed with
yes, hello grant , are you still living in brighton?
1st year $325 k (as caretaker) .....7 games
then $420k (x2?)
then $465k
then $508k
then $525k
plus bonuses
he's just gone back in after another adjournment
(said a few other things , but thats for him to say , if he wants)
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Sounds like it..SENsaintsational wrote:Gaz, are you saying that B4E is actually at the hearing?
Seriously?
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
you there too gaz?gazrat wrote:although he I'd bet B4E would enjoy the chance to give his version of events.
he is![]()
andafter a meeting of eyes ,
........ , when turning again from his seat a second time
hello andrew , are you still living in hawthorn ?
........ , who replyed with
yes, hello grant , are you still living in brighton?
1st year $325 k (as caretaker) .....7 games
then $420k (x2?)
then $465k
then $508k
then $525k
plus bonuses
he's just gone back in after another adjournment
(said a few other things , but thats for him to say , if he wants)
lol
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- evertonfc
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 9:11pm
- Location: 'Quietly Confident' County
- Has thanked: 115 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
- Contact:
So, it turns out that million-dollar premiership bonus was a paltry $100,000? A tenth of the figure?
Ah dear. Never let the truth get in the way, hey?
FFS - he turned the club around and made us so much stronger. He taught us to think big - to reject mediocrity. We were a stinking rabble before he stepped in, and the lunatic fringe still want to twist the knife. Crazy.
I didn't agree with everything he did, but, off-field, he was the best thing to happen to this football club since Allan Jeans.
Ah dear. Never let the truth get in the way, hey?
Three outstanding points.JeffDunne wrote:I still find it amazing that people still continue to focus just on GT.
Could the management of the club have acted any less professionally?
Thank christ most St Kilda members aren't as deluded as some of the people I'm sure we'll see in this thread.
No, because GT didn't win a flag, he's an evil, evil man.but FFS can we at least for once lay some responsibility at the feet of the people that allowed this situation to develop?
FFS - he turned the club around and made us so much stronger. He taught us to think big - to reject mediocrity. We were a stinking rabble before he stepped in, and the lunatic fringe still want to twist the knife. Crazy.
I didn't agree with everything he did, but, off-field, he was the best thing to happen to this football club since Allan Jeans.
Clueless and mediocre petty tyrant.
![Image](http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/684651e21d.jpg)
![Image](http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/684651e21d.jpg)
concur with points.
his actions after leaving the club for whatever reason have been poor, and the fact the new management of st kilda are still going to fight GT is indicative of where he is now.
Certainly I don't think this thread should be discussing where GT WAS, but hte issues of the current action as frankly I would be interested in seeing how this pans out without reading 12,000 pages of GT was the greatest followed by GT eats babies posts.
his actions after leaving the club for whatever reason have been poor, and the fact the new management of st kilda are still going to fight GT is indicative of where he is now.
Certainly I don't think this thread should be discussing where GT WAS, but hte issues of the current action as frankly I would be interested in seeing how this pans out without reading 12,000 pages of GT was the greatest followed by GT eats babies posts.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
- evertonfc
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 9:11pm
- Location: 'Quietly Confident' County
- Has thanked: 115 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
- Contact:
Have they?Dan Warna wrote:his actions after leaving the club for whatever reason have been poor
He never bags the club in public; he's never raised anything about the pay-out/his sacking in public. I think his actions have been fine (mind you you, I'd keep quiet for the cash, too.).
RB is the one who was desperate to air the dirty laundry, hoping to win public sympathy. But everyone knew it was RB who knifed GT, and everyone knew it was unfair. End result? Overwhelming push for change of board and RB ousted, as he should have been.
Here's another question. If it was so obvious within the club's board room that Grant had to go, why would they pay him hush money?
We, the members, deserve a lot better than what was dished out by 'our' board.
Un-be-lie-vable.NEWS.com.au wrote: Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.
Clueless and mediocre petty tyrant.
![Image](http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/684651e21d.jpg)
![Image](http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/684651e21d.jpg)
I had the same thought reading that.evertonfc wrote:Un-be-lie-vable.NEWS.com.au wrote: Two days before the 2006 elimination final St Kilda's CEO, Archie Fraser, visited Thomas as he was conducting a meeting with his coaching assistants and asked him to sign a document relating to his annual leave.
I'm starting to think they would have actually sacked him even if we'd won the flag.