Very, very interesting....

[rodgerfox]

I'd still prefer not.

Nothing to do with preference rogerfox, the reason you wont come clean is you are a full of it.

Next time put up or shut up!

Is that personal abuse?

There's just no need for that sort of thing.

Keep it clean.

This site has been a good place to be lately, let's try to keep it that way.

[luckysaint]

In an unrelated question, now that Archie now seems to be favored by the 'rebels' (is he helping them as well?), does this mean that he will be given the flick by Rod if he wins???

That would absolutely seal my vote

[Joffa Burns]

I'd still prefer not.

Nothing to do with preference rogerfox, the reason you wont come clean is you are a full of it.

Next time put up or shut up!

Is that personal abuse?

Not personal abuse, just tellling it like it is!

Put up or shut up rogerfox!

[rodgerfox]

I'd still prefer not.

Nothing to do with preference rogerfox, the reason you wont come clean is you are a full of it.

Next time put up or shut up!

Is that personal abuse?

Not personal abuse, just tellling it like it is!

Put up or shut up rogerfox!

I'd prefer to keep doing exactly what I'm doing.

But thanks for the advice.

[Joffa Burns]

I'd prefer to keep doing exactly what I'm doing.

But thanks for the advice.

Well if 'that thing you do' is spin sh!t and innuendo you are an acomplished performer.

[rodgerfox]

I'd prefer to keep doing exactly what I'm doing.

But thanks for the advice.

Well if 'that thing you do' is spin sh!t and innuendo you are an acomplished performer.

What is it you do exactly?

Apart from drop names and be an internet bully?

[Joffa Burns]

I'd prefer to keep doing exactly what I'm doing.

But thanks for the advice.

Well if 'that thing you do' is spin sh!t and innuendo you are an acomplished performer.

What is it you do exactly?

Apart from drop names and be an internet bully?

If being open about the origin of information is dropping names I guess I am guilty as charged.

The alternate is to pretend I know something, write on a fan forum that I know something but when questioned retort with I have been told in confidence and can not share - sound familiar rogerfox?

Why mention anything in the first instance rogerfox if you refuse to tell the information or the source? I'll answer for you, because you spin innuendo and cr@p!

As for internet bullying, if you feel you are being bullied by me you need to grow another layer of hide.

[rodgerfox]

I'd prefer to keep doing exactly what I'm doing.

But thanks for the advice.

Well if 'that thing you do' is spin sh!t and innuendo you are an acomplished performer.

What is it you do exactly?

Apart from drop names and be an internet bully?

If being open about the origin of information is dropping names I guess I am guilty as charged.

The alternate is to pretend I know something, write on a fan forum that I know something but when questioned retort with I have been told in confidence and can not share - sound familiar rogerfox?

Why mention anything in the first instance rogerfox if you refuse to tell the information or the source? I'll answer for you, because you spin innuendo and cr@p!

As for internet bullying, if you feel you are being bullied by me you need to grow another layer of hide.

This thread is a prime example of internet bullying.

It is text book internet bullying. You are notorious for it.


As for growing another layer of hide - I never said it bothered me.

Being hassled by an old man on the internet isn't one of my biggest concerns.

[Joffa Burns]

This thread is a prime example of internet bullying.

It is text book internet bullying. You are notorious for it.

Being hassled by an old man on the internet isn't one of my biggest concerns.

Boo hoo rogerfox, doesn't remove the FACT you are notorious for sprouting your knowledge of fabricated information that you don't share or refuse to elaborate on the origin.

Still, it puts you in a position to at any time enlighten us to your own little chuckle when the previously stated but non provided information comes to light.

Better to be an old man and an internet bully than lives in ones own world of fabricated delusions of grandeur

Still reckon this old man could teach you a good old fashioned lesson in ettiquette.

[Oh When the Saints]

In an unrelated question, now that Archie now seems to be favored by the 'rebels' (is he helping them as well?), does this mean that he will be given the flick by Rod if he wins???

That would absolutely seal my vote

Archie apparently has said he will resign (giving us our fifth CEO in seven years) if Butterss stays.

[rodgerfox]

Still reckon this old man could teach you a good old fashioned lesson in ettiquette.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

[Joffa Burns]

Still reckon this old man could teach you a good old fashioned lesson in ettiquette.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

It means exactly what is written – not reading what you want to read are you rogerfox?

You fabricate innuendo and rumour to suit your own agenda to smear the administration of this club.

When you are asked to elaborate on your broad swipe at the administration of the club (you supposedly support) you duck and weave.

Your mud slinging is pathetic and you require a lesson in etiquette, clear enough for you young fella?

[Oh When the Saints]

Leave the personal attacks out please guys.

Or take it to PM's.

Not blaming either of you, but it's not something everyone wants to read.

Common courtesy - and ettiquette - from both of you.

[Teflon]

Is that personal abuse?

Nup JoffaBurns is talking fact.....and he CAN back up what he says......unlike dear old dodg..

[plugger66]

So a lot of people are unhappy with RB and the board which is fair enough as they have certainly done a few things wrong in the last year but I dont see why we would just go and vote for SFF without any really plans apart from saying they will spend more. Logic says if you spend more you need to make more and they havent given us anty detail on how that will happen.

Also people seem to be excited about great players on the board. I am not sure what experience these guys have or what they provide. How would it be if a person who is a great businessman said I may play for the Saints they need me as they have done a few things wrong on the field this year. We would have none of that because he isnt quailfied to play footy. Well I see this as the same that is happening with NB and AT. As much as I loved them as players what are the quailifications.

What happens next year if we get the new board and we again finish out the finals. Do we do want some have done this year and blame GT for this. Next year intead of blaming him it will be because RB did a rotton job the year before. What happens if we again miss out the following year after that. Do we get another new board. That seems to be what we do best, sack people replace them and if they get close to the flag and dont win it quickly sack them again and go around in circles.

Please lets punish the current board if you must but pick an alternative board that gives us plans to make money as well as spend it and dont get sucked in by 2 great players on the board unless they can provide more that just their name to the board.

All I ask its lets wait for more substance.

[rodgerfox]

It means exactly what is written – not reading what you want to read are you rogerfox?

No, that's why I asked for clarification.

Are you reading what you want to read when you read my question and asked if I read what I wanted to read?

[rodgerfox]

Leave the personal attacks out please guys.

Or take it to PM's.

Not blaming either of you, but it's not something everyone wants to read.

Common courtesy - and ettiquette - from both of you.

You'll find that I haven't abused anyone, and haven't been involved in any online 'stoushs' for a good 6 months.

A few others have done the same - and this site is better for it.

There's still a couple who don't comply, but I doubt they ever will.

It's a shame.

[Teflon]

So a lot of people are unhappy with RB and the board which is fair enough as they have certainly done a few things wrong in the last year but I dont see why we would just go and vote for SFF without any really plans apart from saying they will spend more. Logic says if you spend more you need to make more and they havent given us anty detail on how that will happen.

Also people seem to be excited about great players on the board. I am not sure what experience these guys have or what they provide. How would it be if a person who is a great businessman said I may play for the Saints they need me as they have done a few things wrong on the field this year. We would have none of that because he isnt quailfied to play footy. Well I see this as the same that is happening with NB and AT. As much as I loved them as players what are the quailifications.

What happens next year if we get the new board and we again finish out the finals. Do we do want some have done this year and blame GT for this. Next year intead of blaming him it will be because RB did a rotton job the year before. What happens if we again miss out the following year after that. Do we get another new board. That seems to be what we do best, sack people replace them and if they get close to the flag and dont win it quickly sack them again and go around in circles.

Please lets punish the current board if you must but pick an alternative board that gives us plans to make money as well as spend it and dont get sucked in by 2 great players on the board unless they can provide more that just their name to the board.

All I ask its lets wait for more substance.

Great post Plugger.

I have NO problems with change - but it has to be for the better or why bother? and right now there is nothing from SFF that gives any confidence they have a plan at all.

[evertonfc]

Teflon, where can I freely and easily get a copy of the plans of RB?

I've not seen one document - made available to members - in his tenure that would resemble a plan.

[plugger66]

Teflon, where can I freely and easily get a copy of the plans of RB?

I've not seen one document - made available to members - in his tenure that would resemble a plan.

The board have to submit one to the AFL in advance every year for approvel. Havent seen any of the Saints knocked back yet. Also the difference is apart from that is they have made 4 million dollar profits in a row so we know what to expect from them. What do expect from SFF no one knows. I think that is the difference.

[JeffDunne]

Can I ask, if all clubs have to submit a 'plan' to the AFL, then why wouldn't the club headed by Westaway have to do the same?

It's a nonsense to suggest that the current board have a plan because they submit forward estimates to the AFL but the challengers have no plan because they don't. If SFF win control of the club they would have the exact same obligations as the current board.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the incumbent board or the proposed alternative have laid out their forecasts for the next 12 months to anyone let alone the AFL.

[joffaboy]

Can I ask, if all clubs have to submit a 'plan' to the AFL, then why wouldn't the club headed by Westaway have to do the same?

But what happens if they have no plan, or worse, ont that is so bad that it can be seen by the financially savvy football industry rejects it our of hand?

Are we going to elect a new board just on faith and just hope for the best?

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the incumbent board or the proposed alternative have laid out their forecasts for the next 12 months to anyone let alone the AFL.

Come now JD, there have been toe pro FFS people on here countering the argument of mine and others that the FFS has shown no detail plan financially, or strategically, since the glitzy unvieling of their challenge, with, well show us what the incumbants have.

Well the incumbants have had to give their financial plans and forecast to the AFL every year (dont know how long this practice has been going for), and as plugger66 stated, not one has been publicly questioned or critisised by the AFL.

The incumbants have had four one million dollar profits and retired 3.7 million in debt. All on the back of fiscially responsible forecast, and all of their financial dealings hav been independantly audited unqualified.

Is it too much to ask a group of obviously well educated and successful business people to spell out in detail their fiancial forecasts, straegic plan, and have it tested by a) the members, b) an independant accouting body c) the ruling body of Australian Football?

What is the problem with this? Why are the pro Westaway members here spinning and smokescreening and deflecting?

Until the FFS come up with these comprehensive financial plans these questions will be asked?

And I think as a financial member of the STKFC I have a right to be properly informed of what this new group intends.

Or is that just too much to ask?

[Mr Magic]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the incumbent board or the proposed alternative have laid out their forecasts for the next 12 months to anyone let alone the AFL.

I would think you are correct on this Jeffrey.

[plugger66]

Can I ask, if all clubs have to submit a 'plan' to the AFL, then why wouldn't the club headed by Westaway have to do the same?

It's a nonsense to suggest that the current board have a plan because they submit forward estimates to the AFL but the challengers have no plan because they don't. If SFF win control of the club they would have the exact same obligations as the current board.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the incumbent board or the proposed alternative have laid out their forecasts for the next 12 months to anyone let alone the AFL.

The current board I think would have already sent it to the AFL from my understanding as they have to do it in advance. It is obviouly projections based on what they usually get for sponsorships and so on.

[JeffDunne]

jb, you know as well as I do that the incumbents can only forecast membership numbers and income from things like sponsorship.

If the AFL already have these forecasts, then why don't the incumbents share them with the members.

BTW, can you name me one club where the AFL have publicly declared their financial forecast unacceptable?

Actually, I'll answer that for you - they haven't and they aren't permitted to do so (confidentiality would prevent them).