New Answers fromFootyFirst/Board Challenge Updates

[saintsRrising]

So what is Ross . . . sorry Rossy Smith heading then if it's not football related?

.

Training and conditioning.



Ross is EFFECTIVELY part of the Football department along with the AIS guys.

[Brewer]

GW: no comment re Butterss 'outrage' and impending legal action

Claims RB cherry-picked results from last 6 months, not convinced

New ticket will be member's decision not AFL's

Meeting unlikely, still set for November EGM

[Eastern]

Also said that he was not into compromise !!

[savatage]

At least he answers questions & doesn't dance around topics. I am enjoying the notion of having someone in charge that can actually sound switched on & alert.

[saintsRrising]

'Supremely confident' of winning

Group will rule by consensus

Interesting turn of phrase that..

will rule....

Where those his words????

Are we meant to be serfs and subjects then.....????

[Brewer]

Also said that he was not into compromise !!

Yep it was an interesting question wasn't it - 'would you work with Butterss if it came to it' - said he would be led by consensus but that it was 'past all that' and 'time for a change'.

[saintsRrising]

Also said that he was not into compromise !!

But he also said that he will rule by consensus.




So pardon me....but if you are not into compromise....how can he rule by consensus????

The two are mutually exclusive.

[Brewer]

will rule....

Where those his words????

I think those were his words, but I could be wrong. I think it was more in relation to board issues, in as much as he would not be autocratic but would defer to the consensus of the board.

Sounds like he will not make any compromise with existing board (especially Butterss by the sound of it). Probably to be expected, his board would presumably all be pretty anti-Butterss.

[JeffDunne]

I think Westaway's comments on the drug and alcohol policy were completely reasonable too.

To suggest a policy initiative implemented at board level is a direct implication, is like suggesting asking a player to accept drug testing is an accusation he is on drugs.

IMO Rod did more to implicate himself by not answering Caro's question.

[saintly]

Q re Baker Tribunal. KB asked if lawyers on the Board were consulted. RB said Lawyers on the Board had not contacted him !!

that doesn't make sense. maybe RB should have consulted with the legal people on the board first rather than waiting for them to contact him.

[savatage]

Q re Baker Tribunal. KB asked if lawyers on the Board were consulted. RB said Lawyers on the Board had not contacted him !!

that doesn't make sense. maybe RB should have consulted with the legal people on the board first rather than waiting for them to contact him.

It also seems to indicate how "close" the current board must be if issues of contact like this are popping up.

[saintsRrising]

well Footy First now have some answers on their website...


http://stkildafootyfirst.com/answers.html

Q & A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q What will Michael Klim bring to the Football Department?
A Michael Klim is an elite athlete. He will bring diversity in high performance training to our Club in order to get the best possible results from our players who are themselves elite athletes. He is equipped with knowledge of the best possible technology available to measure player performance and manage injuries. Klim adds another dimension to a rounded group of footy specialists. Whether he has a weekly role or a guest role will be determined. We would welcome the Senior Coach as a permanent figure on that sub committee, if not a representative from the coaching department. As stated, we are also serious about recruitment and the List Manager of St Kilda will round out that group. Footy First want completely transparent lines between the business, board and football departments, therefore football representatives from the board, and a strong legal opinion in Mordy Bromberg QC will comprise the Footy First sub committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Do you intend to bring Grant Thomas back to St Kilda?
A No. This is a fresh start for St Kilda.
No one on this ticket has had a conversation with Grant Thomas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q What Changes do you intend to make to St Kilda? You’ve shown us the facts; where are the solutions?
A Greater support to Coach Ross Lyon in terms of increased budget for more personnel and recruitment
New footy sub-committee comprising former players Nathan Burke, Andrew Thompson and Mordy Bromberg QC. Michael Klim joins the group to give the best possible advice on high performance, elite athletic training. St Kilda’s senior coach and recruitment/list manager strongly urged to join the committee.
Better communication with all supporters and incentives for members
Offer better value to sponsors, especially mid-tier sponsors
Increase staff levels to support membership, marketing, merchandise and other administration areas of the club


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q How will you maintain a strong financial state if you plan on increasing spending in the Football Department?
A The only revenue streams we currently have are membership and sponsorship. In order to become a successful and viable club we need to diversify our revenue streams. We are not privy at this stage as to where the $1M profit is held. Whether it is a case of reinvesting to survive will be determined by our strong financially focused Board representatives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Where will we base our elite training facilities?
A Our preferred option is to remain at Moorabbin. We will ensure that discussions are re-ignited with Kingston City Council as soon as possible to allow the redevelopment of Moorabbin to progress forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Is everyone on the ticket a St Kilda member and when did they join?
A Yes. Greg Westaway, Simon Grant and John Gdanski are life-long members of the Club. Nathan Burke and Andrew Thompson are life members. Chris Brandt has been a member for the majority of his life, except periods spent living overseas. Dana Nelson is a first year member in 2007.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q How will you lure more sponsorship (including potentially a naming rights sponsor)?
A For years St Kilda has been talking about creating a sponsorship sub-committee. Footy First has already acted. The Saints Revenue Advisory Committee is ready to go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q How will you look after members better?
A The Footy First team hears St Kilda FC members’ concerns that other clubs offer greater incentives for those supporters willing to back their club by becoming a member . We are open to suggestions about how St Kilda FC can do better. More direct, and timely, communication is paramount. Acknowledgement for continued support is definite.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q What will you put in place to increase membership?
A Better incentives for members. Regular, quality and direct communications with members.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tassie Saint]

Also updates the 'Facts' section

http://stkildafootyfirst.com/facts.html

13 September 2007 the current President referred to the AFL’s report on all club’s finances in 2006

What he didn’t tell you was:

* That the Club’s total staff numbers dropped to the lowest staff numbers in the AFL. This lowers expenses and raises the profit, but when you are 16th in staff numbers and 16th in Revenue, it is unsustainable.
* That the 2006 Grand finalists spent $2.6M and $2.4M more in their footy departments than the Saints
* That we were last in the AFL in the number of footy department staff
* That we had 16 and 17 fewer staff respectively in our footy department, than the two Grand Finalists in 2006, and 20 footy department staff fewer than the Brisbane Lions
* That we were second bottom of all clubs in spending on recruitment, and half a million less than Collingwood
* That we have fallen to lowest of all clubs in monetary spend on benefits returned to members
* That despite the profits, our footy department spend is a lowly 11th, and that ranking would be even lower but for the fact that our coaching wages were 5th highest in the AFL.

Why Footy First is continuing to challenge the current St Kilda Board

* We find it disappointing that the current President would try and take the decision out of the member’s hands.
* Nowhere near enough of our profit has been reinvested back into the footy department
* Change is needed because profits have been made mainly by cost reduction, not revenue growth
* Despite the best player list we have had since the 60’s, we haven’t made it to a Grand Final in the current President’s eight year reign. We fell to 8th in 2006 and this year we fell further and didn’t make the finals at all
* AFL official stats for 2006 show that our revenue fell to last of all 16 clubs
* Because, while the current President has been on the Board, he has had five changes of CEO, four Chief Financial Officers and four senior Coaches, which doesn’t give the stability that is needed for success on and off the field
* Because we will be last in the AFL to have an elite training facility
* Because the injury problem that Saints fans know has existed for many years, and robbed us of our best team on the park, has not been fixed for 6 seasons
* Because the AFL 2006 stats show that we were 9th in our spending on player Fitness and Conditioning, and we suffered double the AFL average for soft tissue injury
* Because we have had the same 3 man footy sub-committee for 6 seasons
* Because that footy sub-committee has seen us fall further and further down the ladder and now out of the finals
* Because of the manner in which some Club matters have been dealt with in the media

Interesting that they agree with posters here regarding taking the decision out of the member's hands - as NB said on TFS tonight, the AFL doesn't decide who is on the St. Kilda board, the members decide who is on the St. Kilda board.

[4theluvoftheclub]

Damning facts of present board.

[aussierules0k]

[saintsRrising]

Heard a brief grab from Demitirou this morning that he thought it wasa worthwile offer for the AFL to look ata business plan.....so that the current Board could walk away and thus speed up the process...

[Twodogs]

<snip>


At presnt all we really have from FF is that trust me...we will earn more $$$ and spend more $$ with no basis for actually doin so apart from good intentions.


We the MEMBERs will still be the one that decide.

If RB is so enamoured with the AFL looking at Footy First's plan, perhaps he should be putting his own plan up to the AFL. I, for one, am not really concerned with what has happened in the past, but am much more concerned with what is going to happen in the future.

At this stage, I'm leaning much more towards the FF ticket, than the current board.

[rodgerfox]

Heard a brief grab from Demitirou this morning that he thought it wasa worthwile offer for the AFL to look ata business plan.....so that the current Board could walk away and thus speed up the process...

So you think that Butterss intends this to be a way for him to walk away whilst 'saving face'?

[rodgerfox]

The most interesting thing that Burkie said last night, was about our loss of good staff at the club.

He made reference to the fact that anyone who challenged the Board, left.

That's not good.

Challenging the Board is fine, and the Board rejecting your challenges is fine too - however it becoming a 'me or you' situation is seriously dangerous.

It reinforces to me that it was about Board, not the club.

[Brewer]

Heard a brief grab from Demitirou this morning that he thought it wasa worthwile offer for the AFL to look ata business plan.....so that the current Board could walk away and thus speed up the process...

So you think that Butterss intends this to be a way for him to walk away whilst 'saving face'?

I think there might be some truth to that RF. Perhaps RB can see the writing on the wall, but like John Howard, has to be 'seen to be strong'.

Unfortunately it came across as a surrendering of power to the AFL to decide. I don't think that was fully Butterss' intention, I think the plan was kind of honourable - let the challenger submit their plan, the board will submit theirs, and if the challenger's is better then the board will step aside.

I think, however, RB couldn't resist the opportunity to try and stack the deck in his favour. His choice of the AFL as 'impartial arbiter' was a big mistake - I suspect he was hoping that he could sell himself better on paper to other 'middle management' types than he could to a public vote.

[rodgerfox]

Heard a brief grab from Demitirou this morning that he thought it wasa worthwile offer for the AFL to look ata business plan.....so that the current Board could walk away and thus speed up the process...

So you think that Butterss intends this to be a way for him to walk away whilst 'saving face'?

I think there might be some truth to that RF. Perhaps RB can see the writing on the wall, but like John Howard, has to be 'seen to be strong'.

Unfortunately it came across as a surrendering of power to the AFL to decide. I don't think that was fully Butterss' intention, I think the plan was kind of honourable - let the challenger submit their plan, the board will submit theirs, and if the challenger's is better then the board will step aside.

I think, however, RB couldn't resist the opportunity to try and stack the deck in his favour. His choice of the AFL as 'impartial arbiter' was a big mistake - I suspect he was hoping that he could sell himself better on paper to other 'middle management' types than he could to a public vote.

Maybe. Possibly.

The flipside is that he may have called in one of the many favours the AFL must owe him for rolling over so easily on so many things - and had them agree to look at SFF's plan and reject it.

[Brewer]

His repeated catchcry of '2 months of turmoil', while it may have some truth to it, also smacks of emotional blackmail. RB would clearly prefer something swift based on paperwork (where he presumably sees himself as strong), rather than drawn out and decided by a vote (where he's clearly in some kind of trouble).

I agree that he may feel he would have Demetriou's support, and he may be right but it seems like a pretty desperate clutch at straws doesn't it?!

[ausfatcat]

I think we should together a new ticket fronted by Robert Harvey the first ever (well in the last 50 years at least) Playing president of St kilda, don't care who else is on there thou as long as Harv's is the pres. This would be about the only board that mudslinging wont effect.

[joffaboy]

Heard a brief grab from Demitirou this morning that he thought it wasa worthwile offer for the AFL to look ata business plan.....so that the current Board could walk away and thus speed up the process...

So you think that Butterss intends this to be a way for him to walk away whilst 'saving face'?

I think there might be some truth to that RF. Perhaps RB can see the writing on the wall, but like John Howard, has to be 'seen to be strong'.

Unfortunately it came across as a surrendering of power to the AFL to decide. I don't think that was fully Butterss' intention, I think the plan was kind of honourable - let the challenger submit their plan, the board will submit theirs, and if the challenger's is better then the board will step aside.

I think, however, RB couldn't resist the opportunity to try and stack the deck in his favour. His choice of the AFL as 'impartial arbiter' was a big mistake - I suspect he was hoping that he could sell himself better on paper to other 'middle management' types than he could to a public vote.

Maybe. Possibly.

The flipside is that he may have called in one of the many favours the AFL must owe him for rolling over so easily on so many things - and had them agree to look at SFF's plan and reject it.

Well both are possibilities. But a comprehensive financial plan should be presented at the earlest date, if not to the AFl then to themembers.

I for one really hope that the FFS have a plan than that would allow Butters to leave with dignity, however plans are subjective, who is to know even if everyone though it was a good plan Butters could easily say it isn't.

A bit like Thomas leaving when a better canditate came along. Was never going to happen.

[rodgerfox]

Well both are possibilities. But a comprehensive financial plan should be presented at the earlest date, if not to the AFl then to themembers.

The 'campaign' currently is making it clear that we aren't in good shape at all.

The big question that is getting repeatedly asked, and was again last night on the Footy Show, is 'Why?'.

Why when everything is going so well, do you want to oust the Pres?

SFF are, and correctly I think, making it clear that things aren't well. Things are bordering on dire.

The next step, when people are listening and taking them seriously, is to explina what they intend to do, and what they intend to address.

Then they will outline how. There's no immediate rush.

I don't know why you're so upset about this.

I for one really hope that the FFS have a plan than that would allow Butters to leave with dignity, however plans are subjective, who is to know even if everyone though it was a good plan Butters could easily say it isn't.

I don't really care how Butterss' leaves. It's up to him if he leaves with dignity. It's about the club, not his pride. That's one of the problems.

A bit like Thomas leaving when a better canditate came along. Was never going to happen.

He would have - but can you imagine GT ever thinking someone else was better than him for the job?