New Answers fromFootyFirst/Board Challenge Updates

[Oh When the Saints]

To the top, the concerns raised by the alternative ticket, as far as I understand, have nothing to do with GT.


He is not involved directly at all, and the challenge has arisen for unrelated reasons.


They are about:

- The club having an elite training facility, 4 years after it was promised
- Decline in membership in '07
- Poor presentation by the President in the media
- Loss of many quality staff from the club over the past 12 months
- Ken Sheldon's position
- Concern about alternative revenue streams
- Loss of major sponsors over the past two years
- Handling of Baker tribunal incident


Surely fair enough concerns, and issues that the current board NEEDS to come out and address -- give a statement on, provide a vision for the future and set certain benchmarks.

[Joffa Burns]

Yep. Me thinks our Rod and Andy D. are very close

Disagree, RB was close to Ron Evans (very close) but AD is not a fan of RB to my knowledge. Loves Jim Watts though

[Joffa Burns]

The true cost of Rod hanging onto his position and his dream of a seat on the AFL commission will be the deals he does in an attempt to solidify his position.

Fabricated B/S.

Pure speculation - fantasy.

Show us one piece of evidence to back up these claims

[saintm]

According to Channel 10 news challenge will be launced tomorrow morning at Telstra Dome.

Ticket includes Westaway, Burke, Thompson, a current board member , a female candidate and a QC.

EGM is expected to be called following next week's board meeting with the election to take place 60 days from then.

All the above information was from Rob Waters.

[Oh When the Saints]

Sounded very credible.

Professional launch at Telstra Dome tomorrow ...

John Gdanski is the current board member who is part of the new ticket.

A female candidate and a QC ... wonder who they are?


So far they are going about it the right way ...

In the words of Noddy, "let's see what tomorrow brings".

[Solar]

The question is, what infulence in the moorabin development has Gdinski had as part of the board.

I look forward to hearing what changes they would bring in. Must say it sounds a lot more professional then I expected. Well worth waiting a few more days for

[To the top]

I am at least gratified by any knowledge that the Fox/Thomas forces are not behind this.

In regards the agenda, the training facilities issue is linked to the issue with the Council - and poker machines at the mooted venue.

Membership would reflect the disappointing 2006 season and the poor start to 2007 when we lost 7 of the first 11 games.

Poor presentation by the President in the media is in the eye of the beholder - and impacted on by the Thomas cancer.

Loss of staff happens everywhere - opportunities present, people leave and you re-generate. Fact of life.

Sheldon? Who knows?

Alternate revenue streams - always on the agenda.

Loss of major sponsors. This will also happen, and why you look for "blue chip" sponsors.

Baker. Obviously angst and I also do not understand that baulking in front of someone can produce such a result when someone cannons into you. Where is any consistency with the rules of the road. Hit someone in the back = no defence. BUT, the AFL is after Baker and has been since the Judd publicity. No matter, he would have copped the same. And the appeal was restricted to presenting that AFL Rules had not been followed by the Tribunal.

I am not a supporter of the current Board but I do think that the reasons listed on here do not carry sufficient substance and do not drive at the fundamentals.

They are day to day management issues of an on-going nature.

The substance issues for the Board are the status of the Balance Sheet and how that is to be enhanced, cash flow and profitable trading to the benefit of putting the best side on the park with the best preparation.

Not day to day issues - which come and go in the normal course no matter who is there.

[Joffa Burns]

The question is, what infulence in the moorabin development has Gdinski had as part of the board.

I look forward to hearing what changes they would bring in. Must say it sounds a lot more professional then I expected. Well worth waiting a few more days for

I have met John Gdanski (is a Melbourne Solicitor) many times and can report he has been a hard working Board member for the saints and is a true saints man and a genuinely decent bloke.

I believe he is close to Ross Levine but thought he was a Butterss supporter.

I don't know what his actual involvement may or may not have been in regard to the development, however his involvement along with Andrew Thompson gives the ticket a strong credibility factor in my mind.

[Solar]

I am at least gratified by any knowledge that the Fox/Thomas forces are not behind this.

In regards the agenda, the training facilities issue is linked to the issue with the Council - and poker machines at the mooted venue.

Membership would reflect the disappointing 2006 season and the poor start to 2007 when we lost 7 of the first 11 games.

Poor presentation by the President in the media is in the eye of the beholder - and impacted on by the Thomas cancer.

Loss of staff happens everywhere - opportunities present, people leave and you re-generate. Fact of life.

Sheldon? Who knows?

Alternate revenue streams - always on the agenda.

Loss of major sponsors. This will also happen, and why you look for "blue chip" sponsors.

Baker. Obviously angst and I also do not understand that baulking in front of someone can produce such a result when someone cannons into you. Where is any consistency with the rules of the road. Hit someone in the back = no defence. BUT, the AFL is after Baker and has been since the Judd publicity. No matter, he would have copped the same. And the appeal was restricted to presenting that AFL Rules had not been followed by the Tribunal.

I am not a supporter of the current Board but I do think that the reasons listed on here do not carry sufficient substance and do not drive at the fundamentals.

They are day to day management issues of an on-going nature.

The substance issues for the Board are the status of the Balance Sheet and how that is to be enhanced, cash flow and profitable trading to the benefit of putting the best side on the park with the best preparation.

Not day to day issues - which come and go in the normal course no matter who is there.

The fact that they burnt bridges and overplayed their hand over the re-development after 4 years is a disgrace and needs to be looked at. They have presided over two sacked coaches. We have one of the lowest spending on the football department and have the worst facilities.

There seems to be no new streams of income coming in that will fire proof the club against bad years onfield.

Plus personally I think they need to look after the members a little better. Not showing interstate games at the social club is a disgrace.

[mischa]

To the top,
Can you please explain why the current board are split re: not united!

[JeffDunne]

Yep. Me thinks our Rod and Andy D. are very close

Disagree, RB was close to Ron Evans (very close) but AD is not a fan of RB to my knowledge. Loves Jim Watts though

lol.

Very close?

"Show us one piece of evidence to back up these claims "

That is, more of your pointless anecdotes.


Can I ask JB, why do you think a president representing the club's interests would do the AFL's bidding in a presidents meeting (on more than one occasion)?

Why would a club president argue that the AFL shouldn't . . . yes that is "shouldn't" . . . give more money to clubs as part of the new media deal?

Next time you're out meeting with the AFL powerbrokers, ask Eddie what he thinks of Rod's position on a number of issues. You sound important and connected enough to find the answer.

[saintsRrising]

The TV news I saw (Ch 9 I think...but the daughter changed channells on me!!!) said the group called themselves saints First...

and that it had 2 Board members. G & Levin.

It said the they would "launch" themselves at Doclands tomorrow.

It also said that AT and Burke were on the ticket.

[luckysaint]

What would andrew thompson's position be on the ticket? Are they looking to give him a footy dept role, or does he represent the players?

I think his involvement so soon after the season is a reflection of where the players stand.

Will be very interested to hear the news tomorrow.

[saintsRrising]

I think his involvement so soon after the season is a reflection of where the players stand.

.

To some extent perhaps...

But I think it would mainly be that he and probably Burke were targetted to add "football" and "loyal saintsmen" credibilty to a ticket which will no doubt be full of people that the average Saints fan have not heard of or at least have not heard of as saints people.



What will be of interest to me will be who the other Board members are....and what their credendentials are....and even more what their SOLUTIONS are...


A slick launch with only hot air will do little to sway me,....I want to see substance and that needs to be a lot more than two ex-players....even 2 as loyal as Burke and Thommo.....for both of them have had little "business" experience.

[JeffDunne]

This is only speculation but I would think several players got their nose out of joint when Rod implied they were being disloyal to the new coach when he made his infamous outburst on SEN earlier this year.

I remember Nathan Burke's comments on SEN following that outburst and I'm sure it was a defining moment for him and his views on the clubs leadership.

[saintsRrising]

Well if AT and NB are both part of the Saints First Group......hopefully it might make Harvey more likely to play on for one more year

[saintsRrising]

This is only speculation but I would think several players got their nose out of joint when Rod implied they were being disloyal to the new coach when he made his infamous outburst on SEN earlier this year.

I remember Nathan Burke's comments on SEN following that outburst and I'm sure it was a defining moment for him and his views on the clubs leadership.

Maybe Burkey just wants a more successful St Kilda and wants to ramp up the the support facilities etc that a club needs to be successful?????

[JeffDunne]

I'm positive that's all he wants.

[Tassie Saint]

It could be the wine, or maybe I'm just ignorant, but what was the famous Butterss outburst about not being loyal? I missed that one completely (sure there must have been a thread about it but the search function doesn't seem to work...

Also, I am not particularly fond of Butterss but would need to see a bit of substance from this new group (even with a legend like Burkie backing it) before I would vote it in... however I also see nothing wrong with the way they have handled themselves so far - get the ticket together, then lay it on the line (if that is indeed what they do)

[Joffa Burns]

Yep. Me thinks our Rod and Andy D. are very close

Disagree, RB was close to Ron Evans (very close) but AD is not a fan of RB to my knowledge. Loves Jim Watts though

lol.

Very close?

"Show us one piece of evidence to back up these claims "

Gold jeff pure Gold...how about this...

1/ Ron Evans attended at least 40% of St Kilda home games as a guest of the President and always sat with the President at his table and in his seating arrangement. He was the only Commissioner to do so on a regular basis.

2/ They could be seen chatting one on one on a regular basis well after the game and function had finished.

3/ They were also known to have regular lunches at The Melbourne club.

4/ Rod (on the record) gave a moving tribute to Ron after his death and recounted how close they were in his Presidents speech!

Source - my own eyes and ears young Jeffy!

There is a poster with whom you are quite friendly (joffaboy) who will also verify my vantage point to view these happenings.

But of course I back up my statements, you just keep on typing your anti Rod Butterss cr@pola and pass it off as fact

Tell us again how you know as fact RB dreams of a seat on the commission tell us again Jeffy bahahahaha

[saintsRrising]

Levin also confirmed on On The Couch...

[saintsRrising]

Well Footy Confidential to come....


...I think that there will be not likely be much moe fresh info till tomorrow morning.

Still they may winkle out who some of the others are....

[Teflon]

Yep. Me thinks our Rod and Andy D. are very close

Disagree, RB was close to Ron Evans (very close) but AD is not a fan of RB to my knowledge. Loves Jim Watts though

lol.

Very close?

"Show us one piece of evidence to back up these claims "

Gold jeff pure Gold...how about this...

1/ Ron Evans attended at least 40% of St Kilda home games as a guest of the President and always sat with the President at his table and in his seating arrangement. He was the only Commissioner to do so on a regular basis.

2/ They could be seen chatting one on one on a regular basis well after the game and function had finished.

3/ They were also known to have regular lunches at The Melbourne club.

4/ Rod (on the record) gave a moving tribute to Ron after his death and recounted how close they were in his Presidents speech!

Source - my own eyes and ears young Jeffy!

There is a poster with whom you are quite friendly (joffaboy) who will also verify my vantage point to view these happenings.

But of course I back up my statements, you just keep on typing your anti Rod Butterss cr@pola and pass it off as fact
Tell us again how you know as fact RB dreams of a seat on the commission tell us again Jeffy bahahahaha

Hear hear JB (another wasted post responding to this rubbish but alas....) - Jeff your working overtime (along with your bumbag Dodgypox) to ensure theres enough dribble peddled about Butters and the current Board...shame you try and pass off your rants as based on something ....other than your sad delusioned state.

Have a bex Jeff......

[Bernard Shakey]

Are board members subject to drug testing?

[crowjelly]

[quote="Dan Warna"]

"I've heard some 'interesting' things regarding sheedy"[/quote]

Dan, I too have heard some "interesting" things direct from some high profile players, who Sheedy has coached / and or has coached with. They were not complimentary and in context would explain the following -

1. Why Essendon did not renew his contract

2. Why most of the Essendon list were looking forward and will welcome the appointment of a new coach

3. Why Melbourne appointed a rookie coach with no experience in front of him

Methinks he should jump at the AFL's ambassador job in deep dark South Africa.

Dan, If you care to elaborate, I'm happy to confirm!