2019 Season a disaster already

[rodgerfox]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

[Myron Gaines]

If our football club is run anything like this website then we are in for a long year.

[Yorkeys]

Long and/or Longer perhaps. 2018 was Longest.

[Aussie Jonestown]

Hannebery won’t be available until Round 4 at the nearest that’s the latest from my sources.
He has a 800k contract with few if any performance based clauses ie. he gets paid regardless if he plays. His hamstrings are very dodgy I know that from a few sources so Lethlean has opened himself up to an inside job between 2 old Xavier boys.

The recruiting of Hannebury at 28 years of age is a massive mistake.
I was against this from the get go and said on the day they recruited him that he will miss more games than he plays.
Then to pay him $800,000 a year for five years is totally insane.
It makes no sense unless it's a mate helping out his mates son and using the football club as a cash cow to facilitate this.
If this is true that there is no performance based clause in Hannebury's contract then Lethlean should be sacked immediately for gross incompetence.
I still maintain that Hannebury will miss more games than he plays.

[Joffa Burns]

When you say unavoidable, not entirely true.
We have a Head of Football who has never worked at club level before, this is a fact.
Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.
These are the people leading our football club.
Steven is back in the fold now and will play Round 1, his personal issues could not be helped.
Roberton is just bad luck for all involved.
Carlisle was cooked at start of the summer and club chose to wait until it got better, turns out the wrong choice.
And Paddy well despite the fact we should never have chosen him pick 1 to start with, his issues have arisen from poor football technique which is a coaching and development issue first and foremost.
As for Hannebery, this was Lethlean's call to pay him $800k a year for 5 years, and get a banged up footballer, who has been known by all to have social issues away from football.
Roberton and Steven were unavoidable, the rest the club has pulled the wrong reign, as usual.

<1 week ban for demeaning and casting dispersion on the character of Saints officials>

Really unfair banning.

The guy broke some pretty big news here last night and the above whilst non complimentary falls well short of casting ‘aspersions’ in my opinion.

Wasn't the news wrong though?

Good question rodger, one I don’t believe can be answered now.

No official news on Paddy yet and Robbo conceding 12 months at this stage.

While maybe not 100% accurate, he broke the story of Robbo here before any news outlet and was pretty close to the money, especially compared to some other posts on this site.

[rodgerfox]

Hannebery won’t be available until Round 4 at the nearest that’s the latest from my sources.
He has a 800k contract with few if any performance based clauses ie. he gets paid regardless if he plays. His hamstrings are very dodgy I know that from a few sources so Lethlean has opened himself up to an inside job between 2 old Xavier boys.

The recruiting of Hannebury at 28 years of age is a massive mistake.
I was against this from the get go and said on the day they recruited him that he will miss more games than he plays.
Then to pay him $800,000 a year for five years is totally insane.
It makes no sense unless it's a mate helping out his mates son and using the football club as a cash cow to facilitate this.
If this is true that there is no performance based clause in Hannebury's contract then Lethlean should be sacked immediately for gross incompetence.
I still maintain that Hannebury will miss more games than he plays.

Personally, I've felt for a few years that the biggest issue with our list is the imbalance in experience and maturity.

That was and is, always going to take time to correct itself (which is why the childish hand wringing about this year being a disaster is silly - we were going to ordinary this year anyway).

Given we've lost Roberton again, it's even more of a problem this year.


Therefore, I think Hannebury is an excellent decision. He won't play every game, and possibly won't even play that well in games that he does play - but that's the short sighted view on it. The key is whether he will help our young guys, and even our middle aged guys to improve.

We are so, so light on for premiership or finals players it's not funny. Adding a premiership player to Brown is very important. The only time the recruitment of Hannebury would ever be a problem, is if it prevents us from getting someone else.

[Joffa Burns]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

That was my point also Rodger/bfusa.

Accurate or inaccurate, jaxons was stating things he believes to be true or has heard.

It appears you can only comment on officials and players on this site if it is positive & fluffy.

[CQ SAINT]

Hannebery won’t be available until Round 4 at the nearest that’s the latest from my sources.
He has a 800k contract with few if any performance based clauses ie. he gets paid regardless if he plays. His hamstrings are very dodgy I know that from a few sources so Lethlean has opened himself up to an inside job between 2 old Xavier boys.

The recruiting of Hannebury at 28 years of age is a massive mistake.
I was against this from the get go and said on the day they recruited him that he will miss more games than he plays.
Then to pay him $800,000 a year for five years is totally insane.
It makes no sense unless it's a mate helping out his mates son and using the football club as a cash cow to facilitate this.
If this is true that there is no performance based clause in Hannebury's contract then Lethlean should be sacked immediately for gross incompetence.
I still maintain that Hannebury will miss more games than he plays.

What kind of comment is ... 'few if any performance based clauses'. Even Riewoldt at his peak, had clauses. It makes no sense alright and I find it very hard to believe. I also find it extremely hard to believe that Leathlean alone ok'd the deal.
Anyone who believes this stuff on the basis of football forum gossip is out of touch with reality.

[desertsaint]

A fan forum where any criticism of the club and staff has to be couched in diplomatic language? So much for open and frank discussion. Well I guess we have more in common with China than just a game there this year.
This is not what a fan forum should be.

[spert]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

Spoke to my distant relative last night about footy in general- he played senior AFL some years back(not for the Saints) and now works in sports science/ admin. I always ask him about the Saints when we do get in contact, and he thought they had a good crew now running the club- "Finnis is a good operator on the business side of things, Allen is pretty shrewd etc etc. . it's just up to the players to pull their fingers out this season, Richardson need to kick a few arses"

[rodgerfox]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

Spoke to my distant relative last night about footy in general- he played senior AFL some years back(not for the Saints) and now works in sports science/ admin. I always ask him about the Saints when we do get in contact, and he thought they had a good crew now running the club- "Finnis is a good operator on the business side of things, Allen is pretty shrewd etc etc. . it's just up to the players to pull their fingers out this season, Richardson need to kick a few arses"

You're screwed.

You just bagged the players dude.

[saynta]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

bulls*** statements mate, bulls*** statements . See BFUSA post.

[asiu]

what is a bullsh1t statement

[samoht]

Hannebery won’t be available until Round 4 at the nearest that’s the latest from my sources.
He has a 800k contract with few if any performance based clauses ie. he gets paid regardless if he plays. His hamstrings are very dodgy I know that from a few sources so Lethlean has opened himself up to an inside job between 2 old Xavier boys.

The recruiting of Hannebury at 28 years of age is a massive mistake.
I was against this from the get go and said on the day they recruited him that he will miss more games than he plays.
Then to pay him $800,000 a year for five years is totally insane.
It makes no sense unless it's a mate helping out his mates son and using the football club as a cash cow to facilitate this.
If this is true that there is no performance based clause in Hannebury's contract then Lethlean should be sacked immediately for gross incompetence.
I still maintain that Hannebury will miss more games than he plays.

What kind of comment is ... 'few if any performance based clauses'. Even Riewoldt at his peak, had clauses. It makes no sense alright and I find it very hard to believe. I also find it extremely hard to believe that Leathlean alone ok'd the deal.
Anyone who believes this stuff on the basis of football forum gossip is out of touch with reality.

This is what I want to believe .. and I trust this is the case at St Kilda.
Plenty of discussion may have occurred, and Lethlean may have suggested Hannebery, etc.. but at the end of the day it's a recruiting decision, and the ones who have signed off on it and have made the call are the recruiters themselves.
It's not the coach (never is and never should be), nor the administrators taking over the recruiting and/or pulling strings. The recruiters are always in charge and the ones doing the recruiting.They are the clearing house - it's their decision.
And how can there be no performance based clause/clauses in the hefty Hannebery contract... ? you'd think there'd be AFL provisions that would prevent this oversight/gross negligence from ever happening.
I mean, $800,000 per year for 5 years with no performance based clauses (if true) for a banged-up 28 year old on a downward trajectory? ... Hannebery better return to his AA form, and be as fit as a fiddle at that price . and play every game for the next 5 years! His "leadership in absentia" would be a high price to pay, otherwise. It would be criminal/highway robbery, in fact. Do we need his leadership that badly, that we are willing to take such extraordinary risks (assuming no performance based clauses)? - it smacks of desperation (if true).

[asiu]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96738&p=1771679#p1771679

(part of) hanners ‘conditions’ re the 5th year
were discussed in that thread

[The_Dud]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

That was my point also Rodger/bfusa.

Accurate or inaccurate, jaxons was stating things he believes to be true or has heard.

It appears you can only comment on officials and players on this site if it is positive & fluffy.

+1

[BackFromUSA]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

The way I am interpreting what is written is that these are Jaxon's opinions on how these individuals are perceived. From first hand knowledge I know that what is written about Finnis is not a reflection on how he is viewed by other AFL CEOs or AFL HQ. However like most CEOs there are some disgruntled employees for sure. This MAY have clouded my judgement as it certainly inflamed me! I have only met Matt once but i admire the way he has positioned this club for our long term future in terms of stadium deal and our heartland. I also think he has made some great and some poor appointments. Also Gubby is known by player managers to be the best recruiting results man in the business (look at the players brought in over summer to North after his year of consulting) and is very highly regarded by the player managers and he gets these results because he plays parties off against each other by putting it to the managers there is a limited pie and if they want their big slice they need to commit now before the money goes elsewhere. Has convinced more than one manager. Bottom line is that I was pissed off with the post and when the report came in (and there were some reactions that showed it inflamed others) I read the post against against the rule and felt it qualified as a breach.

The rule stated:

In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts aspersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators will issue a 1 WEEK BAN.

However what this shows is that there are degrees in this matter. The actual post wasn't deserving on a 1 week ban. It was minor.

So the rule has been adjusted to:

In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts aspersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators will issue a 1 DAY or 1 WEEK BAN depending on severity.

And Jaxons ban was reduced to 1 day.

AND as I have stated ... I may have got this wrong. Perhaps it inflamed me (and a minority) and not others.

[saynta]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

The way I am interpreting what is written is that these are Jaxon's opinions on how these individuals are perceived. From first hand knowledge I know that what is written about Finnis is not a reflection on how he is viewed by other AFL CEOs or AFL HQ. However like most CEOs there are some disgruntled employees for sure. This MAY have clouded my judgement as it certainly inflamed me! I have only met Matt once but i admire the way he has positioned this club for our long term future in terms of stadium deal and our heartland. I also think he has made some great and some poor appointments. Also Gubby is known by player managers to be the best recruiting results man in the business (look at the players brought in over summer to North after his year of consulting) and is very highly regarded by the player managers and he gets these results because he plays parties off against each other by putting it to the managers there is a limited pie and if they want their big slice they need to commit now before the money goes elsewhere. Has convinced more than one manager. Bottom line is that I was pissed off with the post and when the report came in (and there were some reactions that showed it inflamed others) I read the post against against the rule and felt it qualified as a breach.

The rule stated:

In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts aspersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators will issue a 1 WEEK BAN.

However what this shows is that there are degrees in this matter. The actual post wasn't deserving on a 1 week ban. It was minor.

So the rule has been adjusted to:

In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts aspersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators will issue a 1 DAY or 1 WEEK BAN depending on severity.

And Jaxons ban was reduced to 1 day.

AND as I have stated ... I may have got this wrong. Perhaps it inflamed me (and a minority) and not others.

I actually thought you were spot on. One week or one day, it's your decision.

[Myron Gaines]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

The way I am interpreting what is written is that these are Jaxon's opinions on how these individuals are perceived. From first hand knowledge I know that what is written about Finnis is not a reflection on how he is viewed by other AFL CEOs or AFL HQ. However like most CEOs there are some disgruntled employees for sure. This MAY have clouded my judgement as it certainly inflamed me! I have only met Matt once but i admire the way he has positioned this club for our long term future in terms of stadium deal and our heartland. I also think he has made some great and some poor appointments. Also Gubby is known by player managers to be the best recruiting results man in the business (look at the players brought in over summer to North after his year of consulting) and is very highly regarded by the player managers and he gets these results because he plays parties off against each other by putting it to the managers there is a limited pie and if they want their big slice they need to commit now before the money goes elsewhere. Has convinced more than one manager. Bottom line is that I was pissed off with the post and when the report came in (and there were some reactions that showed it inflamed others) I read the post against against the rule and felt it qualified as a breach.

The rule stated:

In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts aspersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators will issue a 1 WEEK BAN.

However what this shows is that there are degrees in this matter. The actual post wasn't deserving on a 1 week ban. It was minor.

So the rule has been adjusted to:

In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts aspersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators will issue a 1 DAY or 1 WEEK BAN depending on severity.

And Jaxons ban was reduced to 1 day.

AND as I have stated ... I may have got this wrong. Perhaps it inflamed me (and a minority) and not others.

I actually thought you were spot on. One week or one day, it's your decision.

Saynta, did you report jaxons’ post?

[shrodes]

Can’t wait til footy starts so we can start talking about tribunal reports instead of forum reports

[CQ SAINT]

Hannebery won’t be available until Round 4 at the nearest that’s the latest from my sources.
He has a 800k contract with few if any performance based clauses ie. he gets paid regardless if he plays. His hamstrings are very dodgy I know that from a few sources so Lethlean has opened himself up to an inside job between 2 old Xavier boys.

The recruiting of Hannebury at 28 years of age is a massive mistake.
I was against this from the get go and said on the day they recruited him that he will miss more games than he plays.
Then to pay him $800,000 a year for five years is totally insane.
It makes no sense unless it's a mate helping out his mates son and using the football club as a cash cow to facilitate this.
If this is true that there is no performance based clause in Hannebury's contract then Lethlean should be sacked immediately for gross incompetence.
I still maintain that Hannebury will miss more games than he plays.

What kind of comment is ... 'few if any performance based clauses'. Even Riewoldt at his peak, had clauses. It makes no sense alright and I find it very hard to believe. I also find it extremely hard to believe that Leathlean alone ok'd the deal.
Anyone who believes this stuff on the basis of football forum gossip is out of touch with reality.

This is what I want to believe .. and I trust this is the case at St Kilda.
Plenty of discussion may have occurred, and Lethlean may have suggested Hannebery, etc.. but at the end of the day it's a recruiting decision, and the ones who have signed off on it and have made the call are the recruiters themselves.
It's not the coach (never is and never should be), nor the administrators taking over the recruiting and/or pulling strings. The recruiters are always in charge and the ones doing the recruiting.They are the clearing house - it's their decision.
And how can there be no performance based clause/clauses in the hefty Hannebery contract... ? you'd think there'd be AFL provisions that would prevent this oversight/gross negligence from ever happening.
I mean, $800,000 per year for 5 years with no performance based clauses (if true) for a banged-up 28 year old on a downward trajectory? ... Hannebery better return to his AA form, and be as fit as a fiddle at that price . and play every game for the next 5 years! His "leadership in absentia" would be a high price to pay, otherwise. It would be criminal/highway robbery, in fact. Do we need his leadership that badly, that we are willing to take such extraordinary risks (assuming no performance based clauses)? - it smacks of desperation (if true).

http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/1 ... gotiations

Here is an insight to contract negotiations from one of our greatest ever club servants. I hope it puts to rest some of the conjecture getting around about AFL player contracts and in particular Dan Hannerbery, who had the advantage in his original contract with Sydney with 3 AA's, team leadership and to that point, very impressive durability. That certainly changed over the course and injury had taken its toll.

In our negotiations with Hannerbery, we extended his existing contract by one year and made clauses to trigger a 5th. Both parties would have considered recovery time in those negotiations and I doubt Hannerbery would have considered less overall but I would imagine the fourth and fifth years were negotiated on a lesser base rate and higher potential match payment % with the hope of finals being a big bargaining tool.

My guess would have to be that we were prepared to risk the 2.4m he had on offer at the Swans, but over 4 years and he gets time to heal in the deal. His bonus is the 5th which doesnt look likely but is really a mutual risk.

So $800k total contract. 75% base and 25% performance based match payments. Im happy with that. Im happy he came. Compared to what Roo discussed and from Dan's position with nothing to lose if he came or stayed Id say its a very likely scenario. My greatest hope is that he earns every dollar.

Perhaps we did Sydney and Dan a favour but we have had good negotiations with them over the years. With their development program being so successful, their salary cap issues have been well documented. They will risk losing quality contracted players. Im guessing they wont want to trade with top 8 clubs and we may still have some wriggle room.

2019 looks bad for us, but we have a cheap young list who are developing ok, there may be some arguments there but thats another discussion. We are likely to gain a top 4 draft pick this year, we may stake a claim for salary cap relief on the basis of Roberton's non football related illness, should he find himself in a similar position next year, and we have just secured Gresham and are negotiating with Billings. That might drag out. I'm really looking forward to 2020-24 but I haven't given up hope this year yet. In fact, it is all about hope.

We need continued strong development on players like Pierce, Marshall, Clark, Coffield, Phillips, Long, Paton, Joyce, Battle, Clavarino and of course there is King and Bytel.

We need commitment from Bruce, Steven, Steele, Ross, Webster, Membrey, Sinclair, Kent, Billings and Gresham. We could use some luck in terms of our recycled players like, Parker, Hind, Young, Wilkie and Marsh. 2019, as bad as it has begun, offers up so many opportunities. Roberton, McCartin, Hannerbery and Carlisle must wait in the winds.

Contractually this is all going ptretty well and on field, there is a huge potential. The pieces are waiting to come together and if we make the most of this year development wise, we may just land our big fish in 2020.

As supporters we were blindsided by the loss of Fisher, Dempster, Riewoldt and Montagna. We have been mislead with promises of glory by 2020. We have had high hopes and have pushed membership records despite all the confusion.

We are almost a decade passed our most recent glory days and really only 2 of those years have shown glimpses of hope but I for one, am still hopeful.

[saintspremiers]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

Jaxons gets a one week ban because Herr SS ist the boss!!

It’s a total joke - agree what you’ve said RF

[SaintPav]

A fan forum where any criticism of the club and staff has to be couched in diplomatic language? So much for open and frank discussion. Well I guess we have more in common with China than just a game there this year.
This is not what a fan forum should be.

This might give Simon a few more ideas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

[magnifisaint]

The sources on here are as authentic and reliable as Trump

[magnifisaint]

“Gubby Allen has a horrible name inside the industry for double dealing.
Finnis is regarded inside the industry as a joke of a CEO.”

Both of these statements breached the rule.

How?

He didn't say he thinks Allen is horrible, or that he thinks Finnis is a joke. He just said that it's an industry opinion.

Jaxons gets a one week ban because Herr SS ist the boss!!

It’s a total joke - agree what you’ve said RF

Very poor moderating