ROSS DIDN'T DECEIVE US

[3rd generation saint]

You know Barks, you should be a politician, you make sweeping statements, but when anybody questions them, you avoid the answer.
You put a negative spin on everything, if you hate the board that much, hand in your membership.
As I said before, in a few years time Seaford wont be an issue because our players will be living down there.
Not everyone wants to live in the middle of the city! Some people prefer to live in and work in the outer suburbs, probably explains why there is a couple of hundred thousand and growing down there.
But, hell, let's have it your way, sack the board now, so no one runs the place, put whoever in charge, hell I can guarantee in a few years you'll want them sacked as well.
I mean for weeks we heard you screaming to play Tommy Walsh, I suppose that was the board's fault he didn't get a game.
But look on the bright side Bark's according to the Mayans as Aztecs the world is suppose to end next December, and hell I'll bet you'll spend eternity complaining that was the board's fault.

[barks4eva]

You know Barks, you should be a politician, you make sweeping statements, but when anybody questions them, you avoid the answer.

Excuse me but you made a sweeping statement about how I should get my facts straight and chose to put it in CAPITAL LETTERS....TWICE!

When I posted my reply and I assume you now realise what I wrote is indeed correct, you avoided answering the reply!!!

Very hypocritical indeed!

At least show the humility to apologise now you know you were wrong and made an incorrect assumption.

Or do I need to teach you how to be humble as well as give you a fair dinkum clue?

[3rd generation saint]

Granted, I was a year early on the board election, I also checked and found that we initially announced the move to Frankston on 21 November 2007 and that the move was to be to Frankston City oval to be co partners with Frankston.
However, that fell thru, probably because Frankston weren't keen to share the ground, probably because they thought they would be our VFL affiliate, so Belvedere Park was chosen.
However, you still keep advising us the board should be sacked, and failed, and failed, and failed to provide a viable alternative.
I suppose you feel Nathan Burke's account of the events in Inside Footy and Russell Holmsby accounts are a pack of board spin.
Well, fine, but next time you see Nathan, tell that to his face.
But hey let's do the one great St.Kilda tradition, when things go bad, for whatever the reason, instantly blame the board, sack them in the hope the next lot will do it better, of which there is absolutely no guarantee.
By the way, if Westaway is such a clueless administrator, how did he get his own business so successful, or was he just lucky and won a big Poweball jackpot?

[barks4eva]

I suppose you feel Nathan Burke's account of the events in Inside Footy and Russell Holmsby accounts are a pack of board spin.

Absolute spin, protecting their own arses, seriously what do you expect him to say!

What it does highlight is that Lyon wanted an unconditional ( NO GET OUT CLAUSES ) 2.6 million dollar contract for four years and that the board refused to agree to this at the time

AND delayed it to the point where they got embarrassed and lost him

Nathan Burke

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

A two year CONDITIONAL contract extension is insulting, and let's not forget the appointment of Pelchen giving him authority over Lyon!

I'm sure Ross Lyon is delighted, he was initially happy to coach us for four years at 2.6 million and ended up with 7.5 million for five years!

The "process" is spin for the failings of an incompetent board who sat on their hands and allowed this to happen!

[3rd generation saint]

So one of our greatest players, team of the century nominee is a liar?
Is that what you are inferring?

[Con Gorozidis]

.... this one's the boards fault , imo.

... preaching the 10 year plan , then inserting a get out clause ,
showed both sides where they stood.

... he was gone then .
... believing in the he was 'headhunted' story is for ron l hubbard fans.

he even had a 'convient' smokescreen /s to do his work behind.
... there's interest in following those leads.

theres been a bit of a doublepronged attack on our footy club , imo ,
... one mob , coz they could and coz we couldnt beat em , the second mob are pissed off.

THIS

yeah the board should have signed lyon up for 4 unconditional years at 1 mill a year when were were 1-1-8 or whatever we were even when he was contracted until end 2012 and they were in talks with his mgt. cos that is a prudent course of action. FFS.

in any case isnt the get out clause 6 month notice?
cant we sue him now? isnt he in breach as we speak?

Yep lets sue. That would be very good.

im not suggesting we do plugger. im making the point that we had a contract in place and that he left of his own accord. this idea that we let slip through our fingers is a real stretch.

put simply we were outbid by a club with more money for a guy where money was a very high priority (going on what we know now).

even his own mgt were blindside - so im not sure why all these 20/20 hindight geniuses on here thought the board could have pre-empted it - and even if they knew what was going on they still could not match the $ bid. He could just as easily have been stalling us.

People like barks4e are making the assumption that if we gave him a decent offer he would have signed for certain.

I dont agree with that assumption.

[barks4eva]

So one of our greatest players, team of the century nominee is a liar?
Is that what you are inferring?

Are you for real!


The board completely **** this up through their sheer incompetence and you expect them to not want to cover their clueless arses?


It's full of spin!


Do you believe everything Nettlefold says for example??????????

[3rd generation saint]

Nettlefold didn't say it, Nathan did, he was at the meeting, not you.

[kaos theory]

I mean for weeks we heard you screaming to play Tommy Walsh, I suppose that was the board's fault he didn't get a game.

No. He wanted RL to be sacked!

Its typical of the bleating poster. He has no idea of reality, but instead runs his life on extremes.

4 weeks ago Tommy Walsh was his hero and RL was evil bumbling fool. Go back further and it was a seconds player call Rix as the hero.

And everything he experiences is interpreted through his hero/evil prism. His dole cheque is late (I assume he is on the dole), its the boards fault. He wins at the dish-lickers his hero sent him a sign on what mutt to back.

Fast forward to now and RL is the hero and our board the evil empire. So no matter what RL says, he speaks the pure truth, he is Mother Teresa & Gandhi all wrapped into one, whereas our board is some manifestation of an blood sucking vampire and the devil.

Sad really.....

[Con Gorozidis]

So one of our greatest players, team of the century nominee is a liar?
Is that what you are inferring?

Are you for real!


The board completely **** this up through their sheer incompetence and you expect them to not want to cover their clueless arses?


It's full of spin!


Do you believe everything Nettlefold says for example??????????

this is really uncovering something deep in your childhood.
crikeys. did nettlefold steal your gf at high school?

(but keep it up i love your passion and im not one to stop a man from his right to rant).

[barks4eva]

Nettlefold didn't say it, Nathan did, he was at the meeting, not you.

FAIR DINKUM


I was asking you a separate question!!!!!!!!!!


FOR EXAMPLE DO YOU TRUST EVERYTHING NETTLEFOLD SAYS??????????

[markp]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

[3rd generation saint]

What, I shouldn't trust Nettlefold when it is reported he said -

"Gentlemen, I have some news ... Ross has just resigned."

Gee, I don't know Barks, maybe he is really putting some spin on it there.

By the way has it occured to you that maybe Ross is just doing a little spinning of his own to help make him look good and be betrayed as the victim.

Fair Dinkum, everyone spins mate, but, Nathan Burke's article and Holmsby article shed more light on the truth and what happened and I too find it difficult that this merely started on the 1st weekend of September, because no one just suddenly ups and moves his family to the other side of the country. There is usually some advance planning, I've been through it personally when we decided to move down here from the U.S.

Plus how many organistaions just blindly agree to whatever one their employess request in their contract. No there is usually, request and counter offer etc etc, until both parties come to an areement.

Hell, if they had signed Ross up earlier in the year, and the inevitable slide came, you'd still be calling on the board to resign because they stupidly and blindly gave Ross exactly what he wanted.

[barks4eva]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!

A brilliant coach who had steered us to consecutive Grand Final appearances and was only asking for $650,000 a year for the next four years with those get out clauses removed to provide him with some level of security!

VERY reasonable and the board initially refused and preferred to hedge their bets!

Then appoint Pelchen giving him authority over Lyon!

AND then after six months initially only offer a two year extension with CONDITIONS ( GET OUT CLAUSES )

and is anyone really stupid enough to wonder why Ross Lyon felt insulted!

FAIR DINKUM

This is one massive screwball exercise in stupidity!

Absolute numbskulls!

[SainterK]

So why didn't Ross say the talks stalled because he was managed by Ricky?

[markp]

So why didn't Ross say the talks stalled because he was managed by Ricky?

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

No mention of Ricky there, either.

[degruch]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!

Makes you think doesn't it? Well, maybe not you, because you're dense, but it makes ME think...possibly the board doubted his value to the club moving forward? Debts, threats of resignation, fielding other offers...doesn't sound like the stable figurehead the club wanted when they initially signed him up.

[markp]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!

Makes you think doesn't it? Well, maybe not you, because you're dense, but it makes ME think...possibly the board doubted his value to the club moving forward? Debts, threats of resignation, fielding other offers...doesn't sound like the stable figurehead the club wanted when they initially signed him up.

Then... why did they eventually offer him exactly what he initially sought, and obviously after their thorough, prudent, rigorous, lengthy, and responsible consideration?

[degruch]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!

Makes you think doesn't it? Well, maybe not you, because you're dense, but it makes ME think...possibly the board doubted his value to the club moving forward? Debts, threats of resignation, fielding other offers...doesn't sound like the stable figurehead the club wanted when they initially signed him up.

Then... why did they eventually offer him exactly what he initially sought, and obviously after their thorough, prudent, rigorous, lengthy, and responsible consideration?

I don't know that they did? Do you? Or are we just going off Burkey's rant? Being a lateral thinker, I'm expanding on the idea that the board did a go-slow intentionally (Burke says for financial reasons), just as B4E has spun off in the opposite direction (once again).

[markp]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!

Makes you think doesn't it? Well, maybe not you, because you're dense, but it makes ME think...possibly the board doubted his value to the club moving forward? Debts, threats of resignation, fielding other offers...doesn't sound like the stable figurehead the club wanted when they initially signed him up.

Then... why did they eventually offer him exactly what he initially sought, and obviously after their thorough, prudent, rigorous, lengthy, and responsible consideration?

I don't know that they did? Do you? Or are we just going off Burkey's rant? Being a lateral thinker, I'm expanding on the idea that the board did a go-slow intentionally (Burke says for financial reasons), just as B4E has spun off in the opposite direction (once again).

That makes no sense.

They were poised to sign and announce it in a presser last thursday, but were only foxing?

A board members written account is a rant?

[degruch]

It is disappointing that Ross saw our initial offer of a two-year extension as insulting; that certainly wasn't our intention. And as you would expect, when the request of a four-year $2.6 million unconditional contract was received, the board wanted to consider it carefully.

Yes, we took our time because we've all seen what financial mismanagement and lack of rigour can do to football clubs. It would be irresponsible of the board not to be prudent and if ultimately this is why Ross Lyon left the club, we take responsibility for that, but stand by our process.

Shattering to know he only wanted $650k a year for 4 years (oh, but without a get-out clause!), and we didn't jump at it.

Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!

Makes you think doesn't it? Well, maybe not you, because you're dense, but it makes ME think...possibly the board doubted his value to the club moving forward? Debts, threats of resignation, fielding other offers...doesn't sound like the stable figurehead the club wanted when they initially signed him up.

Then... why did they eventually offer him exactly what he initially sought, and obviously after their thorough, prudent, rigorous, lengthy, and responsible consideration?

I don't know that they did? Do you? Or are we just going off Burkey's rant? Being a lateral thinker, I'm expanding on the idea that the board did a go-slow intentionally (Burke says for financial reasons), just as B4E has spun off in the opposite direction (once again).

That makes no sense.

They were poised to sign and announce it in a presser last thursday, but were only foxing?

A board members written account is a rant?

Makes more sense than trying to take all the facts, totally misconstrue them, and shove it all into B4E's negativity bubble...aren't the board foxing about everything?

Honestly, we were never going to pay full tote odds for RL, yet that's what he was demanding by the sound of it. I'm sure the board knew he was putting it out there, so there was always the risk he might run off at any moment, so why no rush to sign him up sooner (other than his poor start, sudden improvement and then having to concentrate on a finals campaign)?

[markp]

Makes more sense than trying to take all the facts, totally misconstrue them, and shove it all into B4E's negativity bubble...aren't the board foxing about everything?

Honestly, we were never going to pay full tote odds for RL, yet that's what he was demanding by the sound of it. I'm sure the board knew he was putting it out there, so there was always the risk he might run off at any moment, so why no rush to sign him up sooner (other than his poor start, sudden improvement and then having to concentrate on a finals campaign)?

The facts as presented by a board member are that Lyon wanted $650k a year for 4 years, unconditional...

Is that 'full tote odds'? I would've thought it a great deal for the club. They eventually agreed to it, so they must've thought it was at least acceptable too.

Unfortunately in the interim (6 months) the relationship had deteriorated, Lyon felt insulted and that things had become untenable, and accepted a massive offer to go elsewhere.

Which facts have I misconstrue?

[degruch]

Makes more sense than trying to take all the facts, totally misconstrue them, and shove it all into B4E's negativity bubble...aren't the board foxing about everything?

Honestly, we were never going to pay full tote odds for RL, yet that's what he was demanding by the sound of it. I'm sure the board knew he was putting it out there, so there was always the risk he might run off at any moment, so why no rush to sign him up sooner (other than his poor start, sudden improvement and then having to concentrate on a finals campaign)?

The fact as presented by a board member are that Lyon wanted $650k a year for 4 years, unconditional...

Is that 'full tote odds'? I would've thought it a great deal for the club. They eventually agreed to it, so they must've thought it was at least acceptable too.

Unfortunately in the interim (6 months) the relationship had deteriorated, Lyon felt insulted and that things had become untenable, and accepted a massive offer to go elsewhere.

Which facts have I misconstrue?

Seems like a good deal, when you take into account what Freo have supposedly offered him...before that, it was obviously considered a large sum of money.

If Ross felt 'insulted' by the initial offer and sulked for 6 months until we finally reached his price (bearing in mind he was hardly in a brilliant bargaining position mid-season), I'm not sure the situation was tenable for the club, let alone Ross.

Amongst generally misconstrued facts:
RL was widely considered a brilliant coach mid-season.
Contractual out-clauses are not typical...
...blah, blah, blah.

[joffaboy]

Possibly wanted to stay out of loyalty to the playing group BUT

Out of RL's own mouth - he doesn't do loyalty - oh mate this jsut gets worse for you - how embarrassing

I perfectly understand why Lyon would leave when a better offer comes along, when the coach was not already signed, sealed and secured ages ago!

But the OP was RL DID NOT DECEIVE US - when it is patently obvious he did.

He owed the board nothing after

But the OP was RL DID NOT DECEIVE US - when it is patently obvious he did.

they inserted GET OUT CLAUSES

But the OP was RL DID NOT DECEIVE US - when it is patently obvious he did.

maintained a frosty relationship for years

But the OP was RL DID NOT DECEIVE US - when it is patently obvious he did.

refused to sign a new contract offer

But the OP was RL DID NOT DECEIVE US - when it is patently obvious he did.

appointed Pelchen

etc...etc...

But the OP was RL DID NOT DECEIVE US - when it is patently obvious he did.

beep beep beep.

None of the above has anything to do with the fact that it is now revealed that Lyon DECEIVED both the board and his own representation.

Keep going mate, this is hilarious. The hole you have dug for yourself is getting bigger and bigger

[barks4eva]

joffaboy it's ok...calm down


I choose to agree with Nick Riewoldt and Brendon Goddard


You choose to agree with Gerard Whateley and Caroline Wilson


We will just agree to disagree then, ok?