Westaway speaks!

[stinger]

I dont mind this at all.
Why shouldnt he be an advocate. Why is it only Eddie that advocates and speaks out and then just gets everything his way. About time some diversity of views are put up. The AFL shouldnt be the effing Eddie show.

The fact is the saints are one of the poorer clubs and if we sit back and take it - we will be totally sideswiped by the likes of the pies/eagles/hawks/crows.

and to top it off the afl also gives special help to sydney/gws.
so if we dont fight for our rights clubs like us and the dogs etc etc will seriously never win a flag.

i have to agree with you...when the prez doesn't speak up...he is criticized...when he does...he is criticized...he can't win...this time though, i believe he was just telling it like it is.....i bet he gets asked that question(about bj) nearly everyday.....

[Scollop]

Greg and the board were voted in with 'footy first' as their motto. They backed RL and his footy department and gave RL an opportunity. Obviously the relationship changed and the team seemed to be going backwards so a decision on RL's future had to be made. That footy first philosophy is still there imo, and they are backing what the footy department thought was the best outcome imo, regarding Goddard. And, i think it is consistent with SW public statements.

[stinger]

I think getting up and challenging for a premiership is a lot better than being a non contender. We were broke in the late 70's, nearly folded, until Lindsay Fox bought us. Unfortunately not before Melbourne took Ditterich and the Elliots.

that's another urban myth.....fox himself never put a dollar of his own money into the saints, apart from the odd raffle ticket...never claimed too either...it was his business acumen that saved us.....he did however put plenty of money into carscum for some ungodly reason...

[SaintPav]

Greg and the board were voted in with 'footy first' as their motto. They backed RL and his footy department and gave RL an opportunity. Obviously the relationship changed and the team seemed to be going backwards so a decision on RL's future had to be made. That footy first philosophy is still there imo, and they are backing what the footy department thought was the best outcome imo, regarding Goddard. And, i think it is consistent with SW public statements.

That's not exactly correct. The previous administration and board stepped down in a bloodless coup...

[stinger]

Our great recruiting in 2000/2001 was a net result of about zero, perhaps even we lost out

Hall..... Gehrig
Everitt....... Hamill
Penny........ Wakelin

Then there was Lawrence, Capuano, Delaney, Gale, Powell, Knobel, McGough, Ackland...... And others at that time

that list reads like the script for a horror movie.....

but..they seemed good picks at the time........powell was....

capuano was a dog.....ackland?? ..'nough said.....knobel never got to say hello to a footy on the field....

[plugger66]

I dont see why he said it.

[sunsaint]

i have to agree with you...when the prez doesn't speak up...he is criticized...when he does...he is criticized...he can't win...this time though, i believe he was just telling it like it is.....i bet he gets asked that question(about bj) nearly everyday.....

you are missing the point, which has already been made above, why go over old ground, the time for that "speech" was four months ago.

[samuraisaint]

Can you imagine what Eddie, or Jeff would have done after the whole KD affair was proved to be a complete fabrication.
Think they would have come down hard on a few so called journos in this town and demand a public apology to not only the club, but to a few players whose names we're dragged thru the mud.
I still believe that whole torrid affair probably cost this club 100's of 1,000's of dollars in legal fees, lost revenue and sponsorship.

If you believe Nettlefold he estimates around seven (or several) million dollars.

[samuraisaint]

I think getting up and challenging for a premiership is a lot better than being a non contender. We were broke in the late 70's, nearly folded, until Lindsay Fox bought us. Unfortunately not before Melbourne took Ditterich and the Elliots.

that's another urban myth.....fox himself never put a dollar of his own money into the saints, apart from the odd raffle ticket...never claimed too either...it was his business acumen that saved us.....he did however put plenty of money into carscum for some ungodly reason...

yeah, I should have said took over rather than bought. my bad.

[stinger]

I think getting up and challenging for a premiership is a lot better than being a non contender. We were broke in the late 70's, nearly folded, until Lindsay Fox bought us. Unfortunately not before Melbourne took Ditterich and the Elliots.

that's another urban myth.....fox himself never put a dollar of his own money into the saints, apart from the odd raffle ticket...never claimed too either...it was his business acumen that saved us.....he did however put plenty of money into carscum for some ungodly reason...

yeah, I should have said took over rather than bought. my bad.

i have to agree with you...when the prez doesn't speak up...he is criticized...when he does...he is criticized...he can't win...this time though, i believe he was just telling it like it is.....i bet he gets asked that question(about bj) nearly everyday.....

you are missing the point, which has already been made above, why go over old ground, the time for that "speech" was four months ago.

missing the point???...what point sunshine...???? ...and who says so...you.....????...don't make me laugh....

[stinger]

I think getting up and challenging for a premiership is a lot better than being a non contender. We were broke in the late 70's, nearly folded, until Lindsay Fox bought us. Unfortunately not before Melbourne took Ditterich and the Elliots.

that's another urban myth.....fox himself never put a dollar of his own money into the saints, apart from the odd raffle ticket...never claimed too either...it was his business acumen that saved us.....he did however put plenty of money into carscum for some ungodly reason...

yeah, I should have said took over rather than bought. my bad.

no worries mate...

[SainterK]

I thought we could pay him but chose not to...

[sunsaint]

I thought we could pay him but chose not to...

that's the truth

[Dave McNamara]

I get the concept but all clubs have the same amount to spend in the salary cap - so it's not like anyone can create an extra $750k.

It is the role of the president to speak on club equalisation as a concept but I don't get the corrrelation.

Anyone explain it?

It's not neccessarily about having an "extra $750K" in the salary cap, it's that the richer clubs can take calculate gambles with that type of money because they are so financially strong. Paying that amount of money to a player in his 30s is a risk, and the poorer clubs can't just take $750K risks.

But basically everyone pays very close to the salary cap anyway. The minimum you can pay is 95%. If a rich clubs stuffs up their salary cap by paying players more than they are worth it is still stuffed. i dont the correlation either.

Fair points.

Prob' though is that the likes of the Swines with an extra $900K in their celery capsules...

Can buy a flag..., have no senior players leave/retire..., yet somehow still manage to outbid everyone to buy that mercenary, system-rorting, crash-test dummy Kurt Muppett.

Ay-and... still have plenty left in the petty cash tin to pay for the Tominator's Aussie holiday...

[Dave McNamara]

...to discuss their views on the club and footy.

A lively exchange of views on the footy between two fans. I knew you guys could do it!

Next I'm predicting peace between North and South Korea.

India and Pakistan.



Then the north and south of Italy... ok, maybe now I'm getting ahead of myself...?

[fingers]

I get the concept but all clubs have the same amount to spend in the salary cap - so it's not like anyone can create an extra $750k.

It is the role of the president to speak on club equalisation as a concept but I don't get the corrrelation.

Anyone explain it?

It's not neccessarily about having an "extra $750K" in the salary cap, it's that the richer clubs can take calculate gambles with that type of money because they are so financially strong. Paying that amount of money to a player in his 30s is a risk, and the poorer clubs can't just take $750K risks.

But basically everyone pays very close to the salary cap anyway. The minimum you can pay is 95%. If a rich clubs stuffs up their salary cap by paying players more than they are worth it is still stuffed. i dont the correlation either.

Agree plugger. It's a flawed argument - argue about football dept spending - that I get.

But when clubs are tied to the salary cap the gamble is the same for everyone.

[fingers]

I think getting up and challenging for a premiership is a lot better than being a non contender. We were broke in the late 70's, nearly folded, until Lindsay Fox bought us. Unfortunately not before Melbourne took Ditterich and the Elliots.

that's another urban myth.....fox himself never put a dollar of his own money into the saints, apart from the odd raffle ticket...never claimed too either...it was his business acumen that saved us.....he did however put plenty of money into carscum for some ungodly reason...

He did poor money into the club as well as contribute with his nouse.

[fingers]

I thought we could pay him but chose not to...

that's the truth

We chose not to give him a 4th year at an exorbitant price for a 32yo - sounds smart to me.

[Moorabbin Man]

Can you imagine what Eddie, or Jeff would have done after the whole KD affair was proved to be a complete fabrication.
Think they would have come down hard on a few so called journos in this town and demand a public apology to not only the club, but to a few players whose names we're dragged thru the mud.
I still believe that whole torrid affair probably cost this club 100's of 1,000's of dollars in legal fees, lost revenue and sponsorship.

Riewoldt should have sued Duthie for defamation, financially crippling her for the next decade and also compelling her to sign a Deed to keep her mouth shut for good. Whoever advised Riewoldt not to, or failed to advise him to do so, was a weak and supreme fool.

[linz]

Yes everyone does have the same cap...

What he's saying is rich clubs can afford to take risks, and he had to take a conservative approach...

What I'm interested in, is why the board is making list decisions, why doe we have a list manager and team..... To make recommendations....

What is Greg Westaways experience in footy matters in the last 10 years... That's what you employ and empower people for?!

They overruled incorrectly in 2009 and probably again last year......

At what age exactly does a player lose worth Greg?? When your predicting 4. Years out??
We had two prime examples in 2012
the 2 x 32 year olds in 2012..... One won the B&F and one was all Australian
Dean Cox will be 32 this year, Brent Harvey 35, Dustin Fletcher 38, Barry Hall 34, A
Alastair Lynch 36, Peckett 33, Thompson 34, Adam Goodes 33... Loads of players have played good footy well into their 30's.... What a stupid comment.... Why could we predict he would be worth it at 31.... But not at 32???

If the sticking point was money, fair enough... You can't afford it.... Bit if we decided it on length of contract 3/4 years.... Seriously.... Loyalty runs two ways, players inside an organisation understand this....
He deserved a 4 year commitment IMO as he had given us ten year of service and had never entertained leaving although 3 clubs have had a crack at him

Some players are finished at 27? Depends ion factors... Cooney, Hamill......

Your last word hit the nail right on the head. Hamill.....

It's a brutal game. HawtHorn today lost Ladson for a season as a result of an uneventful twist. Whilst I don't want this to happen to Goddard
it may well happen. The deal with Hamill did cost us heaps and possibly a flag. Essendon reckon they're on the cusp of a flag and that's why they've gone for Goddard now.
If they win the flag in the next 2 or 3 years they don't care if he breaks down in the 4th year of his contract. Fact is they've won a flag. How many have they won now? 16, 17, 20?
And us?

The Saints however probably reckon we're another 3 years off so why sign up Goddard on a 4 year contract? It's not rocket science.
Westaway is also right. All things being even why would a player join a club like Port for 4$ mill ( on the bottom) when Collingwood also offers 4$ miil ( on the top) + plus brown
paper bags with lots of money inside. Again t's not rocket science. We need our President to be a real rabblerowser and fight for our rights and tell the league: "WE'RE ANGRY AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE".

[samuraisaint]

Ladson? I knew Suckling went down. Is Ladson gone too?

And they won't by the way. Win a Flag (Essendon, I mean).

[Jakes]

Hawks came good in the 90's

The Hawks nearly went under in the late 90's turn of the century. A few smart decisions were crucial - Like basing themselves at Waverley and managing to secure an MCG deal. I would argue that we were in roughly the same boat as the hawks, but instead went to Etihad, and continued to be based at Moorabbin. Neither decision in hindsight, was very good. In fairness the hawks supporter base is mainly in the east, so they are probably better suited to the G, but I wonder whether our fans would have grizzled so much about the G if we were based there from the outset, rather than Colonial Stadium, or whatever it was called back then. Hard to know if the club could/should have forseen the problems with the Council in Kingston. But without proper development we were never going to have first class facilities.

Not sure winning flags suddenly makes you a superpower either. North never became one despite winning a couple of flags in the 90's. The cats are securing their future, but their membership is hardly through the roof as a result of winning flags - their future is tied to their stadium. Another smart decision. If we'd won 2-3 flags in the last 10 years, we would be a much more respected club, but I don't know if we'd be a 'power' club.

Disagree on the impact on winning a flag on supporter base. Most kids pick their teams between 6 and 10 - and those that aren't forced into supporting the team supported their parents (think migrants) tend to pick a team that is on top so they can brag about their team's success to their friends. So given most people buy memberships when out of school and often after tertiary education is completed (if said person has chosen that career path), the effect can take 10-15 years before it flows through to membership numbers. So the impact of the Carey years will only be able to be measured now.

As for Hawthorn - their 8 flags from 71 to 91 is the reason why they have such a huge supporter base. Why it took until the merger in 96 to kick this supporter base into putting $ where their mouth was is a big mystery but their membership base tripled in 3 years in the late 90s (and they weren't even playing finals footy then). But make no mistake, Hawthorn's support base is as big as Richmond's (dwindled significantly or Carlton's and only marginally behind Essendon with Collingwood further ahead still.

[Enrico_Misso]

Right!

[BigMart]

Suckling did a knee.... Did not end his career??

Doesn't end careers.....

Lenny did a knee at 31, Harvey at 29, Gwilt,Dempster, Goddard himself has done on.... Rodan 3, Saw him play yesterday...Malceski 3, he played in a premiership and kicked the goal that sparked the team???


Hamill played a ver different game to BJ... He got a 5 year deal, was a brutal player and a hip injury ended his career... But even so, it was still bad luck, not bad management.
If Hamill didn't smash into Steve Johnson in 2006 he would have played in the 2009 premiership as the missing link.

Watts, Allen, Maguire, X ..... Can't predict future injuries as a reason to not sign someone..... What if Goddard plays 150 games at Essendon and becomes a club great??? How will that sit, well I suppose we have plenty of practise watching our stars become greats and achieve elsewhere