on the couch

[matrix]

where the f*** is this 7.5 million coming from?
reports were it was 3.2 over 4 years

[fingers]

St Kilda, negotiating through Craig Kelly were given the impression that they had done a deal to re-sign Lyon to a new 4 year deal.

This is the main reason I am disappointed with RL. If you want to go - then go. No issue. If you want more money and can get it - then good luck to you.

But to be negotiating in good faith, to the point where parties have agreed and are essentially awaiting signature - and then to pull out. That is an absolute lack of integrity.

[barks4eva]

So the board should have just given Lyon whatever he wanted?

Nope, just $650k X 4 without get-out clauses, when he sought it 6 month ago... if they wanted to keep him.

The thing is, it's just outrageous to paint him as a devil for taking a better offer in the end. They had a chance to lock him in for 4 years and missed it. Simple. End of story.

Who on this earth would turn down $7.5million against $2.6 million from someone who'd been dithering for 6 months?... by the time freo made their offer it was too late.

Bad blood + truly epic offer = walk.

EXACTLY 100%

[SainterK]

The thing is, it's just outrageous to paint him as a devil for taking a better offer in the end.

Well to be fair, club hasn't done that at all.

[samoht]

I see it as a win/win situation.

RL is better off without us and I suggest we're better off without him.
We'll hopefully get back now to recruiting and developing youth and not relying on ungifted recycled players.

Plus we might start to finally see more forward 50 pressure, under a new coach ... RL couldn't figure that one out.

RL had his fair share of flaws... and you don't need to look too hard to see them.

[barks4eva]

But to be negotiating in good faith, to the point where parties have agreed and are essentially awaiting signature - and then to pull out. That is an absolute lack of integrity.

I thought you already started a thread a few days ago saying this is my last word on the subject!


Now you have made a new post on the subject you already said you'd had your last word on!


Where is your integrity?


I assumed when you started a NEW THREAD announcing this is MY LAST WORD on the subject you meant it!


And now this!!!!!!!!


I took it in good faith that when you started that thread and wrote what you did..... you actually meant it!


OH DEAR!

[fingers]

But to be negotiating in good faith, to the point where parties have agreed and are essentially awaiting signature - and then to pull out. That is an absolute lack of integrity.

I thought you already started a thread a few days ago saying this is my last word on the subject!


Now you have made a new post on the subject you already said you'd had your last word on!


Where is your integrity?

I have never claimed to have any integrity - you know that


I assumed when you started a NEW THREAD announcing this is MY LAST WORD on the subject you meant it!


And now this!!!!!!!!


I took it in good faith that when you started that thread and wrote what you did..... you actually meant it!


OH DEAR!

I am the first to say that I have zero integrity.

[matrix]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

[barks4eva]

I have never claimed to have any integrity - you know that

But you jump to conclusions as if you know all the circumstances and question someone else's integrity!

[barks4eva]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

Freo

[fingers]

I have never claimed to have any integrity - you know that

But you jump to conclusions as if you know all the circumstances and question someone else's integrity!

Well at the risk of having another last word - I know for an absolute fact that what I posted is correct. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

[markp]

anyone?

where did the 7.5 million over x amount of years come from??

It's a figure 'reported' at the time, and one I've heard more than any other... 3.2 is equally just speculation.

[markp]

The thing is, it's just outrageous to paint him as a devil for taking a better offer in the end.

Well to be fair, club hasn't done that at all.

True... I was referring to here.

[barks4eva]

I have never claimed to have any integrity - you know that

But you jump to conclusions as if you know all the circumstances and question someone else's integrity!

Well at the risk of having another last word - I know for an absolute fact that what I posted is correct. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

Keeping in mind the frosty relationship between board and coach

A board who at the first contract signing with Lyon chose to insert GET OUT CLAUSES that the initial contract signed by the previous board did not contain

An offer in April from coach obviously seeking long term security to board 2.6 million for four years GET OUT CLAUSE removed is refused

Pelchen then appointed not long after and given authority over Lyon

Six months after initial offer from Lyon board offer two year extension WITH CONDITIONS = GET OUT CLAUSES

When the board see the prospect of Lyon leaving they then up the offer to the four years without conditions he initially sought six months earlier

OK SO NOW WE GET TO THE POINT YOU RAISE

So let's say for arguments sake

Lyon sends a text message the next day at 2.30 pm indicating that he accepts the new offer of four years unconditional after all the shenanigans etc....

Then somewhere between 2.30 and 5.00pm Fremantle make a HUGE counter offer that is simply too good to refuse

More coin, more years, more authority, more trust

and Lyon then uses the GET OUT CLAUSE that THIS board insisted on that states either party can end the agreement at ANYTIME!

ANYTIME means ANYTIME

yes he initially agreed to accept the offer it would seem

but when a better offer came he used the GET OUT CLAUSE that THIS board had insisted on and inserted to begin with


What would you do?

[joffaboy]

I have never claimed to have any integrity - you know that

But you jump to conclusions as if you know all the circumstances and question someone else's integrity!

Oh the dripping irony

[joffaboy]

I have never claimed to have any integrity - you know that

But you jump to conclusions as if you know all the circumstances and question someone else's integrity!

Well at the risk of having another last word - I know for an absolute fact that what I posted is correct. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

Considering I know what you do and who you know, I would take your credibility credentials over some others here who have little idea, and even less contacts.

As for not posting it unless it is an absolute fact, other ignorant hysterics on here should take note.

[skeptic]

If his leaving had to do the appointment of Pelchen and diminished authority... well i say suck it up sunshine

it's illogical to have the coach incharge of every facet of the footy department

isn't that one of the reasons why we hated GT???

The coach is incharge of the players and the assistant coaches

If the entire club falls over coz the coach has left... then we never had a great system to begin with

[barks4eva]

joffaboy

it seems to be public knowledge that Lyon did in fact send a text message at 2.30pm stating that he agreed to the new terms

four years unconditional

and that by 5.00pm contacted the club again to say he was leaving!


That is not being disputed and I never have not once posted otherwise!


So what point are you trying to make?


I'm asking fingers to reply to my post on the matter


Please attempt to keep the discussion on the actual issue!

[fingers]

Just saw your post.

If you are asking what I would do then I would uphold the initial agreement I made with the Saints. No question. And to be totally open, 5 years ago when I took my current job I was in exactly that situation - except the 2nd offer came the morning after I had verbally accepted the 1st offer. It's a small market and your word is all you have. Text message or handshake - there was an agreement.

[samoht]

.. why don't we all just "agree" with Barks and admit our board got it "wrong"?

[SaintPav]

.. why don't we all just "agree" with Barks and admit our board got it "wrong"?

because he is a neurotic moron.

[joffaboy]

joffaboy

it seems to be public knowledge that Lyon did in fact send a text message at 2.30pm stating that he agreed to the new terms

four years unconditional

and that by 5.00pm contacted the club again to say he was leaving!


That is not being disputed and I never have not once posted otherwise!


So what point are you trying to make?


I'm asking fingers to reply to my post on the matter


Please attempt to keep the discussion on the actual issue!

You mean Ross Lyon did decieve the STKFC????

Oh btw the issue has moved from the OP.

It was about Roos NOT saying what he knows.

Everything else is speculation, unless you can specifically and substantiate with corroborating evidence that you know for a FACT what Roos is talking about, .ie. that Roos has put this down on the public record, somewhere and that it is verifiable.

As for fingers, all he said is what most others have said - to paraphrase " RL was entitled to leave, was entitled to grab for more money, was not expected to show loyalty, as AFL clubs show no loyalty to coaches - (see the club that RL sold himself to as a recent example), but the manner in which he agreed to terms by text to his representation (whom he had cut out of the dutch auction of his services) and the STKFC board at 2.30 pm on the Thursday, but by 5.00 pm he was Fremantle coach after unexpectatly walked in and resigned.

All the peripherial blathering about the club not signing him before or after April, or Roos maybe knowing half the story, or you knowing nothing is just froth and bubble.

But apparently you cant see this simple notion.

oh well, not the first time you have been totally out of your depth when it comes to something a little complicated and subtle. You just believe what you want. Like the RIX fiasco, like your vendetta against the AFL for the Hall/Maguire incident, you seem to be fighting an increasingly futile battle.

At least it keeps you occupied I suppose

[joffaboy]

Just saw your post.

If you are asking what I would do then I would uphold the initial agreement I made with the Saints. No question. And to be totally open, 5 years ago when I took my current job I was in exactly that situation - except the 2nd offer came the morning after I had verbally accepted the 1st offer. It's a small market and your word is all you have. Text message or handshake - there was an agreement.

Final word

+1

[barks4eva]

Sorry Barks - I am not sure what you are asking me specifically?

You questioned Ross Lyon's integrity!


FOR STARTERS

*Keeping in mind the frosty relationship between board and coach

*A board who at the first contract signing with Lyon chose to insert GET OUT CLAUSES that the initial contract signed by the previous board did not contain

*An offer in April from coach obviously seeking long term security to board 2.6 million for four years GET OUT CLAUSE removed is refused

*Pelchen then appointed not long after and given authority over Lyon

*Six months after initial offer from Lyon board offer two year extension WITH CONDITIONS = GET OUT CLAUSES

*When the board see the prospect of Lyon leaving they then up the offer to the four years without conditions he initially sought six months earlier

OK SO NOW WE GET TO THE POINT YOU RAISED ABOUT LYON'S INTEGRITY

Lyon sends a text message the next day at 2.30 pm indicating that he accepts the new offer of four years unconditional

Then somewhere between 2.30 and 5.00pm Fremantle make a HUGE counter offer that is simply too good to refuse

More coin, more years, more authority, more trust

and Lyon then uses the GET OUT CLAUSE that THIS board insisted on that states either party can end the agreement at ANYTIME!

ANYTIME means ANYTIME

Yes he initially agreed to accept the offer it would seem

but when a better offer came he used the GET OUT CLAUSE that THIS board had insisted on and inserted to begin with


WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Would you stay or accept a new more lucrative offer given similar circumstances?

And legally you have every right to break the agreement because your employer had previously insisted on a condition whereby the agreement can be ended at anytime!

[SaintPav]

Yes the board should have signed Lyon in April and then he could have started planning for the future!

You don't have all the facts or the background. I know for a fact they wanted to sign him.

I would believe Nathan Burke over a clown and a fool any day of the week.

The boards decision not to take Cousins possibly cost us the 2009 premiership!

What a load of crap. It probably would have been a major distraction for the players and the club. At the time Lyon used it as motivation for players like Joey and others to improve and that they couldn't rely on star recruits. You must be forgetting that we started the season with 19 consecutive wins. Some people are hard to please....Sheesh

Anyway SaintPAV does Pav not play for Freo....you must be on the wrong site!

Jeez, that's original.