Patrick Smith weighs in on the debate ....

[Oh When the Saints]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html

St Kilda may face some board turmoil. But this would seem more mischievous than well-placed. As of yesterday, the coup leaders remained nameless and their concerns nebulous. While St Kilda slipped out of the finals this year it had a wretched run of injuries under new coach Ross Lyon but won seven of its last 11 matches.

Under the board of president Rod Butterss the club has returned four consecutive profits of more than $1 million and is yet to knock back an expenditure request from the football department. Debt has been retired. The football spend will be increased again next season.

Butterss commissioned an AIS review to find the reasons for its debilitating run of injuries and already problems have been identified and remedied. All this off an historically small revenue base.

Butterss momentarily lost focus when the club felt former coach Grant Thomas was a destabilising factor but it was an issue that nonetheless had to be addressed - though in less spectacular fashion. The main problem confronting the club now is to build depth around its small collection of very good players. Fraser Gehrig must be replaced but Rob Harvey's high regard for Lyon might see him play on next year.

If there are people concerned about St Kilda they should relax. The hardest marker is the AFL and the heavies there seem to think the club is in good hands and with a bright future. Thomas needed to be moved on for the club to be rebuilt. Butterss needs to stay on to complete the reconstruction.

[mischa]

It says everything you need to know when Butterss' greatest supporters are Robert Scumbag, Fatpryck and Demetriou. Let's all jump for joy. Butterss has sold out big time. Time for a change.

[Stephen Theodore]

A positive post, thank God for that, and from all people, the negative Patrick Smith.
I also believe R.B. has handled some issues poorly, but by and large the last four or so years have been extremely successful, especially by St Kilda standards. No we didnt have that little bit of luck we needed in 04-05 to reach a grander, but shyte its been better than the majority of the last 30 odd years.
Yes, our million dollar profits are largely due to AFL handouts, but the club have been frugal enough to use it for the right reasons, such as paying off a huge debt that has hung over our head for years.
If not for injuries we would have played finals footy again this year. We may not have made it to the last Saturday in September, but I am sure we would have been there. With a decent run with injuries I am sure we'll be there or abouts again next year.
There are some issues on and off the ground, but tell me a club that doesnt have issues. The ongoing problem with St Kilda (and it always has been a problem ) is the dirty laundry always seems to make its way to the back page of the daily newspapers, unlike some of the other clubs.
In my humble opinion lets leave things alone for next season and see where we are then. Call me over optimistic but I believe with a little bit of overdue luck on the injury side we will be a lot happier campers this time next year.

[JeffDunne]

Is this the same Patrick Smith that's been pushing the barrow of Essendon supporters wanting a spill of the board?

The same Essendon board that has been publicly endorsed by the AFL?

Seriously, why would anyone give a toss what this sack of s*** has to say? He's personally been responsible for more anti-St Kilda press than all his media mates combined.

Talk about clutching at straws for support.

[Teflon]

Smith has it spot on in this instance.

All the trigger happy nancies wanting change cause they dont like Butters hair style (see Jeff) have lost the plot.

NOW is the time for club stability and NOT the time for backroom boardmember cut lunch commandoes who wanna play AFL heavy for a while.

We have a new coach who can coach
We are profitable
We are rectifying our injury worries
We are pushing extra funds into footy dept
We are seeking a major sponsor
We are seeking a long term viable option to provide elite training services.

Not the time to panick and bring in a half@ssed bedlam, Denis or Lindsay and his mate from Carlton NOR is it the time to demonstrate to the footy world that St Kilda will do once again what it always has......implode.

This is the time to show some strength.........you can already see the squibs who dont have the stomach for it.....

[Dis Believer]

Yes, our million dollar profits are largely due to AFL handouts, but the club have been frugal enough to use it for the right reasons, such as paying off a huge debt that has hung over our head for years.

Excuse me - this is a troll right? What hand-outs are we supposed to have received????

[BringBackMadDog]

Yes, our million dollar profits are largely due to AFL handouts

Lets get this straight. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN A HANDOUT BY THE AFL!!! Handouts are given as part of the equilisation fund and has to be requested by clubs and approved after review of financials by the AFL. We have never asked for and therefore never received this. Yes we have benefited from an increase in television rights but so we should since we have been one of the highest tv ratings sides in the comp.
So lets put an end to some of the bull dust written on here once and for all.

[Shaggy]

Smith has it spot on in this instance.

All the trigger happy nancies wanting change cause they dont like Butters hair style (see Jeff) have lost the plot.

NOW is the time for club stability and NOT the time for backroom boardmember cut lunch commandoes who wanna play AFL heavy for a while.

We have a new coach who can coach
We are profitable
We are rectifying our injury worries
We are pushing extra funds into footy dept
We are seeking a major sponsor
We are seeking a long term viable option to provide elite training services.

Not the time to panick and bring in a half@ssed bedlam, Denis or Lindsay and his mate from Carlton NOR is it the time to demonstrate to the footy world that St Kilda will do once again what it always has......implode.

This is the time to show some strength.........you can already see the squibs who dont have the stomach for it.....

We have a new coach who has taken us from the finals to out of the finals. The last 7 premiership coaches Worsfold, Roos, Williams, Matthews, Sheedy, Pagan & Blight achieved exactly the opposite for their respective clubs in their first full year of coaching.

We had the worst injury run any club has had to endure earlier this year.

We are in the bottom quartile for footy operation expenditure including injury management (how many consultants reviews will it take before the Board will actually spend the money on our operations rather than advice).

We lost our major sponsor after getting involved in their corporate politics and don’t have a replacement.

By Feb, 2008 even the Doggies will have their elite training services in place. We are still years off.

But we do have a million profit each year … at the expense of the footy department. FFS spending $200,000 on recruitment compared to Pies $750,000 is a joke. We are the only ones not to have talked to Rance (AA U/18 this year). When we are not even interviewing all likely top 10 drafts I seriously doubt our due diligence on rookies (other than locals) is going to be much good.

RL deserves a fair crack and that requires getting rid of the cheap charlies at Board level.

The football department should not be expected to operate in the top quartile with hopes of a premiership whilst the Board continually operates the Saints in the bottom quartile.

RL, like GT, has not been good enough to make up for the Board's deficiencies.

We need a Chairman who can raise revenue in good times … not cut costs.

[Stephen Theodore]

I am not suggesting "handouts" re; Bulldogs, etc. I am talking about the annual distribution of funds to all clubs, re: T.V rights monies etc. Sorry, a poor description on my behalf.

[joffaboy]

Under the board of president Rod Butterss the club has returned four consecutive profits of more than $1 million and is yet to knock back an expenditure request from the football department.

Can somebody explain to me what Smith means here?

My understanding is that one of the main beefs about Butters is that he didn't spend enough on the football dept.

Smith is implying that the cluib has been forthcoming financially with every request from the football depts. He goes on to say that the spending will be increased.

Of course this is rose coloured. Just because a board has agreed to every request doesn't mean that it hasn't underspent on the football operations side of things.

I am more interested on the posters here who allude to this as a major failing of the board and their response to what Smith has written.

[meher baba]

Under the board of president Rod Butterss the club has returned four consecutive profits of more than $1 million and is yet to knock back an expenditure request from the football department.

Can somebody explain to me what Smith means here?

My understanding is that one of the main beefs about Butters is that he didn't spend enough on the football dept.

Smith is implying that the cluib has been forthcoming financially with every request from the football depts. He goes on to say that the spending will be increased.

Of course this is rose coloured. Just because a board has agreed to every request doesn't mean that it hasn't underspent on the football operations side of things.

I am more interested on the posters here who allude to this as a major failing of the board and their response to what Smith has written.

I have worked in places where you are given an inadequate budget and know that there is zero chance of getting any extra money for anything, but where the CEO has the hide to say things like "I have never knocked back any serious spending proposals that have been submitted to me" (the operative word being, of course, "serious').

Having looked at Peanut's list of club officials, I think we can get some idea of where the money is going.

[Dan Warna]

i saw the name patrick smith and ignored it as he is a joke of a columnist.

I am just entering the thread to point out he is a snivelling hated pathetic sniper who just goto a newspaper which no one reads and has no sporting credibility.

like the australian.

he has no friends at any club, he has little credibility as a sports journalist and the only story he has broken was the 4rth floor of the news limited because he fat ass cracked the concrete.

why anyone takes anything he says as inciteful, factual or useful is beyond me.

he is nothing more than an editorial writer and the only reason he is employed at teh Australian is because they don't give a rats about AFL

employing Smith at the Australian is like using your no.1 draft pick for recruiting a player delisted by Richmond.

[redwhite&blackblood]

Anyone else find it funny that our potential board challenge is "more mischievous than well-placed"in Fatpryk's eyes. Yet he thinks the Essendon board challenge is a good idea?

Has he looked at the Essendon's performances on field in the last 3 years? We sacked a coach who got us to the Finals 3 years in a row whilst Sheedy ( who is a great of the game) has failed 3 years in a row. Why isn't Sheedy expendable for poor performances particularly with the budget he has to work with?

And if the way they sacked Sheedy as the reason why the board should go. What would have happened had they waited till the end of the year and they did miss the boat on Voss as coach. Obviously they thought Voss was the best coach available and with so many clubs looking for a new coach they had to act on Sheeds. They were in a no win situation.

Fatpryk merely has his Red and Black glasses on in this one. He is very happy to beat the Saints again and again but when something far worse happens at his club it is totally acceptable.

[JeffDunne]

Under the board of president Rod Butterss the club has returned four consecutive profits of more than $1 million and is yet to knock back an expenditure request from the football department.

Can somebody explain to me what Smith means here?

Can somebody explain to me how Smith would know what expenditure requests have been made from the football department?

redwhite&blackblood, yes I have made mention of that. But don't tell Rod's lemmings - they don't respond well to those sorts of questions.

[rodgerfox]

We have a new coach who has taken us from the finals to out of the finals. The last 7 premiership coaches Worsfold, Roos, Williams, Matthews, Sheedy, Pagan & Blight achieved exactly the opposite for their respective clubs in their first full year of coaching.

We had the worst injury run any club has had to endure earlier this year.

We are in the bottom quartile for footy operation expenditure including injury management (how many consultants reviews will it take before the Board will actually spend the money on our operations rather than advice).

We lost our major sponsor after getting involved in their corporate politics and don’t have a replacement.

By Feb, 2008 even the Doggies will have their elite training services in place. We are still years off.

But we do have a million profit each year … at the expense of the footy department. FFS spending $200,000 on recruitment compared to Pies $750,000 is a joke. We are the only ones not to have talked to Rance (AA U/18 this year). When we are not even interviewing all likely top 10 drafts I seriously doubt our due diligence on rookies (other than locals) is going to be much good.

RL deserves a fair crack and that requires getting rid of the cheap charlies at Board level.

The football department should not be expected to operate in the top quartile with hopes of a premiership whilst the Board continually operates the Saints in the bottom quartile.

RL, like GT, has not been good enough to make up for the Board's deficiencies.

We need a Chairman who can raise revenue in good times … not cut costs.

Great post.

As I've said, this Board is more concerned with themselves and have lost sight of what the footy club's core business is - winning flags.

[rodgerfox]

The funniest thing about all of this, is that some people agree with Smith.

That's rich.

[joffaboy]

The funniest thing about all of this, is that some people agree with Smith.

That's rich.

Smith always has an agenda.

As for Smith knowing that the Saints admin had met all requests for expenditure from the football dept, well he is a journo, even if he is a s.hite one, I suppose he gets his info where most journo's do, from sources. Thats how journalism works apparently.

Still i see him hoeing into the debate as just another go at Thomas. He mercilessly attacked Thomas during the time Butters opened his mouth, mercillessly attacked Bedwell for even considering a challenge ( probably deserved) and was suddenly the white knight for Rod and Co.

See this as nothing more than self serving and an attack on people Smith has a grudge against.

In his eyes the enemy of my enemy (Thomas) is my friend. Supporting Butters just backs up his earlier support of him. Nothing more. All self serving.

[joffaboy]

Under the board of president Rod Butterss the club has returned four consecutive profits of more than $1 million and is yet to knock back an expenditure request from the football department.

Can somebody explain to me what Smith means here?

Can somebody explain to me how Smith would know what expenditure requests have been made from the football department?

Why avoid the question though JD? All i asked was what he meant here. Mabye a total fabrication, mabye that the requests were so small financially that it was still not possible for the footy dept to compete properly.

Only reason iasked is that I have read on here for months that this admin had not properly funded the footy dept. Here is a report that contradicts (or seems to) this assertion.

It is not a trick question, or am I out to trap somebody, I dont trust Smith or what he writes, but it just raised an interesting question.

Is what Smith writes true or not?

Anyone care to answer?

[JeffDunne]

I wasn't avoiding it jb, I simply don't know so I can't answer it.

Not sure if we should know it TBH.

[joffaboy]

We are in the bottom quartile for footy operation expenditure including injury management (how many consultants reviews will it take before the Board will actually spend the money on our operations rather than advice).

If this is the case, and the board has met every financial football dept request as reported, who then is responsible for the above?

Is football operations and injury management a board activity or function, or is it the responsibility of the football dept?

[Dan Warna]

WTF? we are discussing the relative merits of the value and accuracy of a Patrick Smith article?



might as well discuss tactics and strategy of lucy and charlie brown and their application to AFL for all the value Patrick brings to the table.

[joffaboy]

I wasn't avoiding it jb, I simply don't know so I can't answer it.

Not sure if we should know it TBH.

Fair enough. Still wouldn't trust Pat Smith as far as I could throw him. As for meeting every request, well if the requsts were poor or underfunded still doesn't help the club to be competitive.

And under what circumstances where these requests granted? Easy for Smith to use weasel words to support his argument.

Facts are we came 9th with a terrible injury run.

Seems as though we complain every year about our injuries. Only thing that changes is our position on the ladder which has been going backwards since 2004.

[rodgerfox]

Why is Butterss commissioning an AIS review?

[always tomorrow]

the fact that Smith is supporting Butterss should be enough proof he needs to go!

AT

[stinger]

It says everything you need to know when Butterss' greatest supporters are Robert Scumbag, Fatpryck and Demetriou. Let's all jump for joy. Butterss has sold out big time. Time for a change.

amen brother, amen.........at least some posters ...and hopefully a few hundred more supporters can see through the crap to the real problems.........