I fully back the board

[Dr Spaceman]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

Why would anyone expect an opposition supporter to back our Board?

[GrumpyOne]

I happen to know the offer was made during our BYE week in Round FOUR after we had played THREE GAMES!

Proof?

And I still know your Auntie John.

[barks4eva]

A 1.5 million dollar loss after back to back Grand Finals

with a 2011 record membership figure obviously due to back to back Grand Final appearances

AND in no small way back to back Grand Finals appearances due to some brilliant coaching

Is the board responsible for this?

nah, let's blame everything on Lyon, you know it makes sense!

[GrumpyOne]

A 1.5 million dollar loss after back to back Grand Finals

with a 2011 record membership figure obviously due to back to back Grand Final appearances

AND in no small way back to back Grand Finals appearances due to some brilliant coaching

Is the board responsible for this?

nah, let's blame everything on Lyon, you know it makes sense!

The only thing I'm blaming Lyon for are the circumstances of his exit.

[barks4eva]

I happen to know the offer was made during our BYE week in Round FOUR after we had played THREE GAMES!

Proof?

REGARDLESS, the FACT is we only played one more game in April after this and won!

It has already been established that the offer from Lyon came in April!

Are you really that simple, I have explained it very clearly!

By the end of April

ONE WIN, ONE DRAW TWO LOSSES

During the bye week we were

ONE DRAW TWO LOSSES

Blake brain fade cost us in round one which we should have won!



You and many others keep sprouting one win from eight when Lyon made the offer which is total bollocks!


KEEP IT REAL!

[barks4eva]

A 1.5 million dollar loss after back to back Grand Finals

with a 2011 record membership figure obviously due to back to back Grand Final appearances

AND in no small way back to back Grand Finals appearances due to some brilliant coaching

Is the board responsible for this?

nah, let's blame everything on Lyon, you know it makes sense!

The only thing I'm blaming Lyon for are the circumstances of his exit.

Who created those circumstances?

WHO INSISTED ON GET OUT CLAUSES?

[skeptic]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

didn't we back the board to spend money on football?

wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

[markp]

Yes they should have resigned him in april......all the players would have thought so also


In lyon's own words

Freo did in 72 hours what stk could not get done in 6 months.....they wanted him more...

"If they liked it then they should have put a ring on it..."

[barks4eva]

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

If one were that simple!

[degruch]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

didn't we back the board to spend money on football?

wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

Has the move to Seaford been factored into our losses? I keep seeing the question pop up, never gets answered before someone starts blubbering that public transport to Seaford doesn't run on time, the trip down causes duco fatigue on their car, or some such nonsense.

[asiu]

"If they liked it then they should have put a ring on it..."

Not worth the finger its put on.

I watched that soft porn clip the other day ... what skanks.

[joffaboy]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

didn't we back the board to spend money on football?

wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

Yup - it was all about spending the money that the Butterss Admin had managed to save.

I was lambasted for having the temerity at the time to question this reckless spending that Westaway vowed would happen.

And what do we get last week? Westaway vowing not to cut spending but rely on an AFL handout to get us out of the s.hit.

Thats right, for the first time in our clubs history, we wil join the likes of Norf and the Bulldogs and Melbourne in getting handouts from the AFL to survive.

Even in the 80's there wew no handouts (there was no AFL admin either but thats another story), in the 90's during SoS no handout. When we made a 2.3 mill loss early under Waldron and Butterss, no handout.

For the first time in our history the Saints had balanced books under Butterss.

The underlying belief that the cost cutting had affected our performance onfield due to poor facitities and poor fitness/conditioning.

Well with all the spending over the past five years we still haven't a flag. All we now have is a 1.5 mill loss.

Now unlike some ignorant know nothings, I do know a 1.5 mill loss could be from a number of issues and a loss may not be as bad as it sounds. To fully examine the financial health of an organisation one needs to examine the Bal Sheet and Cash Flows (or whatever the hell they are now called) to see the reall health.

However the trend under Westaway is very concerning. One thing, Westaway and the board are not liars, they said they would spend like crazy and they have.

This is what the vast majority wanted, and now I hear many whinging we are broke. Well you lot should have thought of it at the time instead of knee jerk getting rid of the board.

[GrumpyOne]

A 1.5 million dollar loss after back to back Grand Finals

with a 2011 record membership figure obviously due to back to back Grand Final appearances

AND in no small way back to back Grand Finals appearances due to some brilliant coaching

Is the board responsible for this?

nah, let's blame everything on Lyon, you know it makes sense!

The only thing I'm blaming Lyon for are the circumstances of his exit.

Who created those circumstances?

WHO INSISTED ON GET OUT CLAUSES?

The circumstances of saying yes to us, saying yes to the players, saying yes to the board, saying yes to his management, and then counteracting it all at the last moment by saying yes to Freo's money.

[Johnny Member]

Thats right, for the first time in our clubs history, we wil join the likes of Norf and the Bulldogs and Melbourne in getting handouts from the AFL to survive.

Serious question....

What's the difference between getting a cash handout from the AFL, and being handed an ANZAC match every year?

[degruch]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

didn't we back the board to spend money on football?

wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

Has the move to Seaford been factored into our losses? I keep seeing the question pop up, never gets answered before someone starts blubbering that public transport to Seaford doesn't run on time, the trip down causes duco fatigue on their car, or some such nonsense.

I reckon I've seen every 'expert' on the forum go through the 'users browsing', this question still goes through to the keeper...MAYBE THIS QUESTION NEED CAPS??? Or lots of...emoticons... FFS

[markp]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

didn't we back the board to spend money on football?

wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

Has the move to Seaford been factored into our losses? I keep seeing the question pop up, never gets answered before someone starts blubbering that public transport to Seaford doesn't run on time, the trip down causes duco fatigue on their car, or some such nonsense.

I reckon I've seen every 'expert' on the forum go through the 'users browsing', this question still goes through to the keeper...MAYBE THIS QUESTION NEED CAPS??? Or lots of...emoticons... FFS

Full annual financial report comes out around the end of the calendar year I think... and as JB points out, a 'loss' could mean or be attributed to any number of things.

[degruch]

We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.

didn't we back the board to spend money on football?

wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?

one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals

Has the move to Seaford been factored into our losses? I keep seeing the question pop up, never gets answered before someone starts blubbering that public transport to Seaford doesn't run on time, the trip down causes duco fatigue on their car, or some such nonsense.

I reckon I've seen every 'expert' on the forum go through the 'users browsing', this question still goes through to the keeper...MAYBE THIS QUESTION NEED CAPS??? Or lots of...emoticons... FFS

Full annual financial report comes out around the end of the calendar year I think... and as JB points out, a 'loss' could mean or be attributed to any number of things.

Was it the emoticons?

[markp]

Was it the emoticons?

Yep... 3 or more rolly eyes, or five of any emoticon (particularly when used in conjunction with caps lock) is guaranteed to get you a response!

[3rd generation saint]

B4E, the biggest factor in our round 1 loss was not Blake, it was our inability to kick goals.
The only teams that are going to have consistent wins by kicking 6 goals in a game in this town are Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Hearts.
This piss poor forward performance for a game we dominated possession in was despite RL saying we needed a more attacking game.
Yet time and time again all season, we win the ball on our half back line and have no one to kick it to up forward.
Is that the fault of the board, or the coach.
Our forwards have become a joke, Ross became obsessed with defence.
We went out not to win games but try not to lose them.
As someone on this site said during the Brisbane game, watching us play was like trying to self gratify yourself with a cheese grater, it was painful.
I know so many long time Saint supporters who still went to the games this year, still supported the club, but hated watching us play.
As one said, if it wasn't his team, he'd never watch.
As for the Pelchen appointment, why should that upset Ross, his job his to caoch the team, Pelchen's is to accrue the best players possible for Ross to coach, no conflict.
Professional people work with each other for the benefit of the organisation and the success of that organisation reflects on the good work they do working as a team.
One last point, if anyone can answer, if RL had a get out clause where he was to get or give 3 months notice, shouldn't he be still contracted to December?

[SainterK]

Nobody has answered my earlier question yet, is it normal for the coach to put in an offer?

Seems a bit strange, but could be normal?

[3rd generation saint]

Regarding our loss, and as I have asked, has anyone factored in the cost of the whole Kim Duthie affair?
Also, what was our loss, profit 08,09 and 10. I seem to recall we did make profits those years.
As for the Seaford thing, yes no footballer will want to play with us because we are in Seaford, hate to live in a nice house in Mt Eliza, Mt Martha or Mornington with a short commute up the Pennisula freeway.
Would rather train out at Tullamarine, or maybe that short drive to Geelong., or they all want to live in the central city where parking costs a fortune and the traffic is nightmare, especially Swan St during school holidays when Disney on Ice or some other kids show is on at rod Laver Arena.
Incidently, for those who are proposing they are all going to leave, you do realise that the salary cap will still be in place once Free Agency comes in.

[meher baba]

Nobody has answered my earlier question yet, is it normal for the coach to put in an offer?

Seems a bit strange, but could be normal?

Well I'm pretty sure it's more or less unprecedented: especially with a season and a half to go on his existing contract, and with the team at 1-8 for the season.

Very odd. Why would anyone want to make such an offer? With all that time left on your contract, and the likelihood that other clubs would be interested after you had coached your side to two near premierships in two years, you think you'd wait for the club to offer you something.

The only reason I can think of as to why anyone would want to make such an offer would be because they wanted to borrow a whole lot of money from a bank or financial institution (eg, and I'm speaking hypotehtically here, because they had huge personal debts they needed to deal with) and a long-term contract for $2.6m or whatever would be a form of security for the loan.

If I were to receive such an offer, and I thought that the offer had been made to me by someone in a position of financial weakness as I had described, I wouldn't have thought there was any particular urgency to accept it. And I'd also wonder how binding it would effectively be on them (knowing that it would definitely be binding on me).

You see, as things turned out, would a contract for 4 years signed in April have prevented Lyon from leaving? He was under a contract for another season, but that didn't stop him. If we had signed him to such a contract, and then had tried to stop him leaving when Freo offered him 3 times as much, he would have gotten his mates like Roos to to go to the press with sob stories about how impoverished he was, living at his mum and dad's house, etc., etc.

We were never going to keep him IMO. All of this crying over spilt milk is a waste of everyone's time.

[Leo.J]

Thats right, for the first time in our clubs history, we wil join the likes of Norf and the Bulldogs and Melbourne in getting handouts from the AFL to survive.

Serious question....

What's the difference between getting a cash handout from the AFL, and being handed an ANZAC match every year?

Great question dude.

None imo.

We are in debt because we moved.

The afl have now paid for it.

And the reason I believe we get part of the funding is to grow the game in our new area.

Also to make up for the crap stadium deal we have.

[gringo]

B4E, the biggest factor in our round 1 loss was not Blake, it was our inability to kick goals.
The only teams that are going to have consistent wins by kicking 6 goals in a game in this town are Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Hearts.
This piss poor forward performance for a game we dominated possession in was despite RL saying we needed a more attacking game.
Yet time and time again all season, we win the ball on our half back line and have no one to kick it to up forward.
Is that the fault of the board, or the coach.
Our forwards have become a joke, Ross became obsessed with defence.
We went out not to win games but try not to lose them.
As someone on this site said during the Brisbane game, watching us play was like trying to self gratify yourself with a cheese grater, it was painful.
I know so many long time Saint supporters who still went to the games this year, still supported the club, but hated watching us play.As one said, if it wasn't hs team, he'd never watch.
As for the Pelchen appointment, why should that upset Ross, his job his to caoch the team, Pelchen's is to accrue the best players possible for Ross to coach, no conflict.
Professional people work with each other for the benefit of the organisation and the success of that organisation reflects on the good work they do working as a team.
One last point, if anyone can answer, if RL had a get out clause where he was to get or give 3 months notice, shouldn't he be still contracted to December?

My old man said earlier in the season after Ross played Gilbert forward for a second and then sent him back again, that he thought Ross was playing funny buggers with the board who were pressuring him to have higher scores. Does anyone else think our loses may have been a conspiracy by Ross Lyon to show the board the consequences of playing a less defensive game plan? It did seem to all come around the time of all the "we need to score more" talk in the media and after we got back our defensive press we started winning again

[markp]

Nobody has answered my earlier question yet, is it normal for the coach to put in an offer?

Seems a bit strange, but could be normal?

Not sure.

Maybe as suggested it was related to his financial woes... and/or maybe he could see the team needed a rebuild, and sought a commitment 'going forward'.

However, you'd think/hope those handling this for the club would be able to derive from it that he was proactively seeking longer term security and would be very likely be weighing up his options if it wasn't provided.

As I've said, I would've thought a yes/no decision virtually then and there was called for, and reasonable to expect... otherwise you seriously risk having to deal with the alternative -he shops himself about, exercises his club inserted contractual right, and walks.