club employee "threatened by director"

bigcarl · Post: # 455869Post **bigcarl** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 3:15am

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 22,00.html

Damian Barrett

ST KILDA members will retain the right to vote on the club's future after a plan to empower the AFL with the decision was rejected.

As the Saints remained headed for a November 12 election - after president Rod Butterss announced he would fight to retain control - an unsavoury incident between club officials took place at Moorabbin.

A club employee was verbally threatened by a Saints director in the car park, after being accused of being involved with the rival ticket challenging Butterss.

The incident left the employee extremely distressed and it was reported to club management.

It is expected a lawyer independent to the club's runnings will be asked to investigate.

Butterss yesterday challenged his board rivals - the Footy First ticket - to present to the AFL its business plan for the future of the club.

Butterss said his board would be prepared to stand aside if it was proven the Footy First plan was superior.

But Greg Westaway, the head of Footy First, laughed off the proposal.

"They said, 'If you put it up to the AFL and they tick off on it and we think it's better than ours, then we'll step down'," Westaway said.

"Well, give us a break. That's a bit of joke isn't it?

"I've spoken to (AFL chief executive) Andrew Demetriou and said, 'Would you take away the right of the members of St Kilda to call the shots themselves and vote'?

"He said, 'No, I certainly wouldn't do that'."

Demetriou could not be contacted yesterday.

Butterss defended his board's performance, claiming to have removed a $3.7 million deficit in the past seven years despite recently losing their joint major sponsors, Bill Express and Vodafone.

Butterss also questioned the conscience of two directors who have sided with Footy First.

John Gdanski has joined the rival ticket, while vice-president Ross Levin has been in a long-running feud with Butterss.

"Whether or not the two current members of the board, who are acting in concert with the rebel group, should remain on the board in these circumstances, this will be a matter for their conscience and ultimately our members," Butterss said.

"We do find it difficult to understand how the rebel group would propose including two dissident directors who have been on the current board for a combined period of 12 years."

Gdanski yesterday rejected the claim by Butterss.

"My conscience is very clear. At all times I have complied with my directors' duties and I have moved on this because of a number of issues," Gdanski said.

"It takes courage under fire to move.

"I indicated to the board months ago that I was reviewing my position."

Butterss said individual members of the Saints' board were exploring legal options against Westaway, who in the Herald Sun on Wednesday said Footy First members would commit to banning drug-taking and excessive alcohol consumption at club functions.

chook23 · Post: # 455881Post **chook23** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:05am

Why would you believe this Journo

Westaway and crew certainly did not think his article on Grog and drugs claim was accurate in what Westaway actually said...

an exchange (not known how severe) may have occured

but Barrett IMO often "strectches" the story

So typical of today's media

riccardo · Post: # 455885Post **riccardo** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:33am

I'm very concerned the current board whinged to the AFL to help them keep thier jobs.

They tried to take the power of choice away from the members, who have every right to it, and hand it to the AFL, who have no right interfering in club matters.

Is this the final nail in Butterss and Cos coffin?

chook23 · Post: # 455889Post **chook23** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:41am

riccardo wrote:I'm very concerned the current board whinged to the AFL to help them keep thier jobs.

They tried to take the power of choice away from the members, who have every right to it, and hand it to the AFL, who have no right interfering in club matters.

Is this the final nail in Butterss and Cos coffin?

RIC whilst I am not necessarily supporting the current board I think clarification of what actually was said is needed....

the version of SFF is different to what was actually said by butterss

JeffDunne · Post: # 455893Post **JeffDunne** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:44am

chook23, if the story is a fabrication then I'm sure we'll hear the standard reply "we are seaking legal advice".

riccardo · Post: # 455895Post **riccardo** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:46am

They can say what they want about each others characters, that dosen't phase me.

I am worried about the fact the current board sought AFL intervention (which is an reported fact) in order to take the decision on the clubs future away from the people it will likley affect the most - the members.

chook23 · Post: # 455896Post **chook23** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:48am

JeffDunne wrote:chook23, if the story is a fabrication then I'm sure we'll hear the standard reply "we are seaking legal advice".

Jeff

Where did I say that

Listen to the interviews of both butterss and burkie in relation to the topics

they views of some in relation to what was actually said varies

that is all I referring to

you keep wanting to read other things into what I am saying.

SENsei · Post: # 455899Post **SENsei** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 9:52am

The article doesn't beat around the bush. It said it happened. Normally if it is rumoured or suspected, it would say "it is believed....."

My belief is that this exchange did indeed occur and I have a fair idea who the two are.

joffaboy · Post: # 455910Post **joffaboy** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:12am

Why wont the mudslinging gorilla submit his financial plans for evaluation?

Why wont he front footy shows like TFS?

What has this clown got to hide?

Replacing a spiv with a foot in mouth moron.

Typical St.Kilda.

What a joke of a club.

4theluvoftheclub · Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:14am

Please stick to the thread . NOt distract attention away from the debate on the thread, which is a director threatening an employee .

SENsei · Post: # 455922Post **SENsei** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 10:24am

joffaboy wrote:Why wont the mudslinging gorilla submit his financial plans for evaluation?

Why wont he front footy shows like TFS?

What has this clown got to hide?

Replacing a spiv with a foot in mouth moron.

Typical St.Kilda.

What a joke of a club.

Are you saying the incumbent doesn't have foot in mouth disease either? I don't think that's an exclusive condition!!

As I have read elsewhere, why is this policy a problem? What has the current board got to hide?

And why, as part of both camps, do Gdanski & Levin not seem to be taking it 'to the courts'?

Get the answer to those questions and then you'll have a clearer understanding of what is actually going on.

I do agree though. Typical St Kilda. Yearly turmoil. Off field, this has been the year from hell. Started last September.

bob__71 · Post: # 456116Post **bob__71** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 1:29pm

It seems that the more things come out of closed rooms the more we are seeing thing how they are....lets just get the whole mess sorted and start moving ahead again

Behind Play · Fri 14 Sep 2007 1:40pm

joffaboy wrote:Why wont the mudslinging gorilla submit his financial plans for evaluation?

Why wont he front footy shows like TFS?

What has this clown got to hide?

Replacing a spiv with a foot in mouth moron.

Typical St.Kilda.

What a joke of a club.

Joffa, the AGM is not till November, why would they shoot off all their bullets now?

He fronted the media on Tuesday and other radio programs, may not have been possible for him to be on TFS last night.

Don't think he has anything to hide, his not the one hiding behind some assumed name on an internet chat forum.

As for being a moron, not that much of a moron built a transport/logistics business over 20 years.

I will say though you are correct about the club however, FF may bring the stability we need to the club

The Peanut · Post: # 456131Post **The Peanut** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:03pm

The incident may or may not have happened exactly as explained in the hun but I for one have been wondering how difficult it must be for our staff through all this - Many of them are overworked and under-resourced and are watching first hand the memberships, functions and sponsors performing in a way that causes sleepless nights. Add the board dispute and allegances to the mix - I'm glad I am not a senior staff member with the press breathing heavily down my neck. The current board would be extremely upset and are very much in crisis mode as well - sparks are certain to fly. As someone mentioned the quicker this can be resolved the better.

Just make up your mind which way you want to go with your vote and get it in quick - I reckon. A quick outcome either way will stop the negative press in its tracks.

To the top · Post: # 456139Post **To the top** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:13pm

The employee should have been approached with the question, an answer obtained, that answer considered and, if the answer was in the affirmative and the employee had been leaking information or acting in a manner damaging to St Kilda FC, dismissed.

The employee's obligation is to the management which has responsibility to the board.

If you had a business, making whatever, and an employee of yours provided information about your business to an opposition business over and above what is disclosed in Statutory lodgements, and to a business you were in direct competition with, what would you do?

And if the alternate ticket solicited for the information from the employee, then that opens another can of worms.

The Balance Sheet, the P&L, the Auditor's Report and the Director Statements along with other information relative to the operation of the St Kilda FC are all in the public domain in a Document titled Annual Report.

The Directors have a statutory obligation to report any material changes to the information which is in the public domain.

And this is where the battle lines should be drawn.

Unfortunately, with a lack of substance and a lack of preparation in the alternate ticket's presentations, this is what these events turn into.

Mr Magic · Post: # 456143Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:22pm

Anybody know who the 'employee' referred to is?

Someone from the Membership Dept?

I'm still curious how SFF got hold of the Membership List?

Once they have lodged teh necesssary documents to call fro a spill at an EGM I am sure they would be entitled to a Membership List, but they seemed to have had it well before they announced their intention to challenge. Early enough to have had their 'campaign' material all ready to be sent out on the day of their announced challenge.

Joffa Burns · Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:38pm

Mr Magic wrote:Anybody know who the 'employee' referred to is?

rogerfox knows, but he has been told in confidence so all he can do is let us know that he knows

But later on when the names come out he'll have a quiet chuckle because he knew all along

saintlee · Post: # 456158Post **saintlee** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:39pm

Threatening employees in the carpark is not a good look....

rodgerfox · Post: # 456161Post **rodgerfox** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:42pm

Joffa Burns wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:Anybody know who the 'employee' referred to is?
rogerfox knows, but he has been told in confidence so all he can do is let us know that he knows

But later on when the names come out he'll have a quiet chuckle because he knew all along

I don't actually. I wouldn't have a clue.

In regards to having a chuckle about things that I read - it's not because I knew all along, it's because suddenly I felt there may have been some truth to the rumours I heard some time ago.

Don't get so touchy old fella, you seem a bit upset that other people get a bit of inside knowledge too.

Relax.

Bernard Shakey · Fri 14 Sep 2007 2:56pm

Where did the membership list come from?

Don't forget a member of the current board is aligned with SFF.

JeffDunne · Post: # 456188Post **JeffDunne** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 3:02pm

To the top wrote:If you had a business, making whatever, and an employee of yours provided information about your business to an opposition business over and above what is disclosed in Statutory lodgements, and to a business you were in direct competition with, what would you do?

Opposition business?

Are you serious?

You did say you were a Merchant Banker didn't you?

FWIW, I agree.

Mr Magic · Post: # 456200Post **Mr Magic** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 3:13pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:Where did the membership list come from?

Don't forget a member of the current board is aligned with SFF.

oO what, he just waltzes into the Membership Dept and casually asks for a copy of the list?

Eastern · Post: # 456210Post **Eastern** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 3:22pm

joffaboy wrote:Why wont the mudslinging gorilla submit his financial plans for evaluation?

Why wont he front footy shows like TFS?

What has this clown got to hide?

joffaboy, joffaboy, joffaboy !!

It appears that you have been out in the sun for too long in that flouro pink mankini that b4e told me about

Westaway has Nathan Burke on his ticket for exactly that reason. At least Burkie fronted up, unlike RB who did his interview with his mate Hutchy in a controlled one on one environment.

Look, I think both sides have both positives & negatives at this point. It is the number of boxes that can be ticked off that really matters. At the moment neither side is delivering very much at all !!

chook23 · Post: # 456224Post **chook23** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 3:41pm

Eastern wrote:
joffaboy wrote:Why wont the mudslinging gorilla submit his financial plans for evaluation?

Why wont he front footy shows like TFS?

What has this clown got to hide?

joffaboy, joffaboy, joffaboy !!

It appears that you have been out in the sun for too long in that flouro pink mankini that b4e told me about

Westaway has Nathan Burke on his ticket for exactly that reason. At least Burkie fronted up, unlike RB who did his interview with his mate Hutchy in a controlled one on one environment.

Look, I think both sides have both positives & negatives at this point. It is the number of boxes that can be ticked off that really matters. At the moment neither side is delivering very much at all !!

The number of boxes that can be ticked etc..............

Now you are sounding like monkey boy with his tribunal system

stinger · Post: # 456381Post **stinger** » Fri 14 Sep 2007 6:55pm

To the top wrote:The employee should have been approached with the question, an answer obtained, that answer considered and, if the answer was in the affirmative and the employee had been leaking information or acting in a manner damaging to St Kilda FC, dismissed.

\

maybe approached by management...not threatened by a director in the car park ffs.....