The Big Lie Theory

[Mr Magic]

I am amazed at some of the absolute furphy's that are accepted as fact on here.

You know the Big Lie Theory? The more often you tell the lie the more believable it becomes. The bigger the lie the better.

Some examples

RB appointed GT as Coach on $500,000 p.a. because he owed him 1 million.
When was the loan made? Before or after GT was appointed Coach?

RB sacked GT for personal reasons because he was owed 1 million by him.
It makes no sense to sack the bloke who owes you over 1 million and curtail his ability to repay you.

RB is doing everything he can to stop the members from having a vote.
DIdn't he announce that the AGM will be on Nov 26 and that all postitions will be 'spilled'. Doesn't that mean that all members will be entitled to vote for whoever they want on the Board?

RB wants to keep the Presidency because of his ego.
Would someone please point to any factual evidence of this.


Now I understand that RB may not be the best option for President going forward but it would be nice to actually remove him for valid reasons rather than trumped up BS that has been proffered up so many times that people think that it is fact when it has never been proven.

Maybe the people challenging RB are better prospects and that should be enough for members.

[Sun Ra]

No, GT had not "borrowed" the $1,000,000 when he was appointed coach, or did RB "invest" $1,000,000 in a company his brother & GT were putting together ? = Who knows/cares, BUT, this "deal" was done when GT was reappointed, and you wonder if the rest of the board were aware of the deal when this decision was made. Did RB exclude himself from that particular decision due to a small ($1,000,000) "conflict of interest" ???? No, GT had to go for the same reasons he was originally appointed (?) and therefore RB, it's time for you to be off too. Not saying they both didn't do a lot of good and had some good faith along the way, just the whole thing looks a bit compromised, and that is being polite.

[Mr Magic]

No, GT had not "borrowed" the $1,000,000 when he was appointed coach, or did RB "invest" $1,000,000 in a company his brother & GT were putting together ? = Who knows/cares, BUT, this "deal" was done when GT was reappointed, and you wonder if the rest of the board were aware of the deal when this decision was made. Did RB exclude himself from that particular decision due to a small ($1,000,000) "conflict of interest" ???? No, GT had to go for the same reasons he was originally appointed (?) and therefore RB, it's time for you to be off too. Not saying they both didn't do a lot of good and had some good faith along the way, just the whole thing looks a bit compromised, and that is being polite.

Sun Ra
Even your answers point to 'the big lie theory'.

None of us know it to be true but it is accepted by many as fact on here.

Why do we need to denigrate RB's candidacy with this BS? Why can't we just say that his rivals are better for the job and leave it at that?

I suspect that the answer is that we don't know if his rivals are better and lots of us just want RB to go so we use whatever we can find to use to support our view - whether it is factual or not.

[Sun Ra]

Sorry "Mr Magic", or can I call you Rod ?, can I ask you a simple and straightforward question then ? -> Is it a conflict of interest to (re)appoint your "mate" as coach on more money and NOT disclose to the board, let alone the members, the minor fact that he owes you $1,000,000 ????
Sorry, did I miss something ? The case went to court you know. Are you including the $1,000,000 transaction in your "big lie theory" ? Are you saying that maybe that never happened either ? If so, jeez, I wish you well and keep taking your medication, for goodness sake.

[Mr Magic]

Sorry "Mr Magic", or can I call you Rod ?, can I ask you a simple and straightforward question then ? -> Is it a conflict of interest to (re)appoint your "mate" as coach on more money and NOT disclose to the board, let alone the members, the minor fact that he owes you $1,000,000 ????
Sorry, did I miss something ? The case went to court you know. Are you including the $1,000,000 transaction in your "big lie theory" ? Are you saying that maybe that never happened either ? If so, jeez, I wish you well and keep taking your medication, for goodness sake.

Sun Ra, I'm not Rod, just as I'm pretty certain you're not Greg.

There is no dispute that RB handed to GT the million - only whether it was a loan or not was disputed by GT.

What is in dispute is the 'facts' that are thrown around on here that
a) GT was appointed by RB because of the loan
b) GT was sacked by RB because of the loan.

Why are you so obviously happy to believe this bs? Is it because you want RB removed so badly you are prepared to accept any thing that is thrown in his direction?

If you feel that RB had a 'conflict of interest' regarding his 'loan' to GT than that's fine. But do you have the same problems with all the other directors as well? Where do you draw the line on their obligation to go public in their deals? Should we the members know which players are in business together with which directors? Would you call that a similar 'conflict of interest' if a player was in partnership with a director in a deal and that player's contract comes up for renegotiation?

I assume that because this is such a big deal for you, you will be asking for full disclosure of all connections between the members of SFF as well?

[JeffDunne]

RB appointed GT as Coach on $500,000 p.a. because he owed him 1 million.
When was the loan made? Before or after GT was appointed Coach?

The loan was agreed to DAYS before he was appointed coach.

The first of the payments to GT was just before he was appointed coach and the 2nd and 3rd payment made not long after.

RB sacked GT for personal reasons because he was owed 1 million by him.
It makes no sense to sack the bloke who owes you over 1 million and curtail his ability to repay you.

Was never about ability to pay - it was willingness to repay.

Rod needed to take it to court to force him to pay - would have looked pretty stupid having a president sueing a current coach.

RB is doing everything he can to stop the members from having a vote.
DIdn't he announce that the AGM will be on Nov 26 and that all postitions will be 'spilled'. Doesn't that mean that all members will be entitled to vote for whoever they want on the Board?

That's his position now. Had he done this earlier then it would be a valid point.

The tactic now is spill all positions, but then have NB & AT stand unoppossed for positions. Clearly they think if the two most popular members of the challengers are appointed, member will then not need to vote for the rest of the SFF ticket.

RB wants to keep the Presidency because of his ego.
Would someone please point to any factual evidence of this.

You want factual evidence that RB has an ego?

[rodgerfox]

RB sacked GT for personal reasons because he was owed 1 million by him.
It makes no sense to sack the bloke who owes you over 1 million and curtail his ability to repay you.

It wouldn't look good to sue your coach for that money though, would it.

[Mr Magic]

RB sacked GT for personal reasons because he was owed 1 million by him.
It makes no sense to sack the bloke who owes you over 1 million and curtail his ability to repay you.

It wouldn't look good to sue your coach for that money though, would it.

No it wouldn't but are you suggesting that RB personally sacked him or had him sacked?
That the Board had no input?
If it wasn't all above board why didn't Gdanski/Levine do something about it then?
That the consultancy group that was hired to investigate 'best paractice' and make a recommendation as to how the Football Dept didn't suggest a different model than what GT was running or would agree to run?

Gdanski and Levine were on the Board back then. Why not just ask them if GT was sacked by RB for personal reasons? They (primarily Gdanski publicly) seem happy enough to bag RB and the rest of the Board now, why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity to confirm your suspicions? Afterall it would only be a positive thing for them in their challenge.
Just send a question in to SFF via email - maybe they will answer you?

[rodgerfox]

No it wouldn't but are you suggesting that RB personally sacked him or had him sacked?
That the Board had no input?
If it wasn't all above board why didn't Gdanski/Levine do something about it then?

Ross Levin never really rated GT as a coach. Didn't 'not' rate him, but was never overly convinced that he was that great.

My mail at the time of the sacking, was that the entire board did not agree with it, and it was a decision made for personal reasons more than anything else.

The way our board works, is that if you don't agree - you agree or leave.

This is another of SFF's concerns. The good people we've lost because they spoke up about various things.

The board at some point, began to protect themselves and their own positions.

Thomas threatened that, big time.

So did Alves back in the late 90s. He was marched for exactly the same reasons.

[stinger]

I am amazed at some of the absolute furphy's that are accepted as fact on here.

You know the Big Lie Theory? The more often you tell the lie the more believable it becomes. The bigger the lie the better.

Some examples

RB appointed GT as Coach on $500,000 p.a. because he owed him 1 million.
When was the loan made? Before or after GT was appointed Coach?

RB sacked GT for personal reasons because he was owed 1 million by him.
It makes no sense to sack the bloke who owes you over 1 million and curtail his ability to repay you.

RB is doing everything he can to stop the members from having a vote.
DIdn't he announce that the AGM will be on Nov 26 and that all postitions will be 'spilled'. Doesn't that mean that all members will be entitled to vote for whoever they want on the Board?

RB wants to keep the Presidency because of his ego.
Would someone please point to any factual evidence of this.


Now I understand that RB may not be the best option for President going forward but it would be nice to actually remove him for valid reasons rather than trumped up BS that has been proffered up so many times that people think that it is fact when it has never been proven.

Maybe the people challenging RB are better prospects and that should be enough for members.

i don't know about the dates...but there is more than a bit of truth in these issues...ffs..... just who is peddling "the big lie"........you ffs....

[Mr Magic]

Rodger, with due respect to Levine, what would he know about who is/isn't a good coach? His area of expertise on the Borad would have been in a totally different area than FOotball, I would have thought.

My guess is, and like everyone else on here it is only a guess, that those involved in the Football side of things would have made a submission to the full Board on the termination of GT.
The rest of the Board would have chosen to vote for or against that resolution.

[stinger]

glad you started this thread mm.....the truth is out there.....

[Mr Magic]

glad you started this thread mm.....the truth is out there.....

Yep, Stinger

That's all I want - the truth to come out.
All of it.

[bungiton]

Rodger, with due respect to Levine, what would he know about who is/isn't a good coach? His area of expertise on the Borad would have been in a totally different area than FOotball, I would have thought.

My guess is, and like everyone else on here it is only a guess, that those involved in the Football side of things would have made a submission to the full Board on the termination of GT.
The rest of the Board would have chosen to vote for or against that resolution.

using your argument, how is butterss gifted with the same knowledge??

Would be interesting to see how the vote was passed, numbers for and against and put names to the votes.

With two outsiders voting against a majority cliche of business partners and affiliates, seems any decision rod makes would instantly be majority rules.

[rodgerfox]

Rodger, with due respect to Levine, what would he know about who is/isn't a good coach? His area of expertise on the Borad would have been in a totally different area than FOotball, I would have thought.

Agree totally.

I tell you right now, he has less footy knowledge than most - although he doesn't think so.

He's a barracker.

Another reason the decision bothered me.

My guess is, and like everyone else on here it is only a guess, that those involved in the Football side of things would have made a submission to the full Board on the termination of GT.
The rest of the Board would have chosen to vote for or against that resolution.

To my understanding, that isn't what happened.

The Board's position was threatened, and they didn't like it.

I was shattered by the sacking for those reasons. I genuinely believd that our club was being led brilliantly and had changed from the dark old days.

Whether the decision was correct or not, I didn't care, the reasons were wrong. And incredibly 'St.Kilda'esque'.

[Mr Magic]

Rodger, with due respect to Levine, what would he know about who is/isn't a good coach? His area of expertise on the Borad would have been in a totally different area than FOotball, I would have thought.

My guess is, and like everyone else on here it is only a guess, that those involved in the Football side of things would have made a submission to the full Board on the termination of GT.
The rest of the Board would have chosen to vote for or against that resolution.

using your argument, how is butterss gifted with the same knowledge??

Would be interesting to see how the vote was passed, numbers for and against and put names to the votes.

With two outsiders voting against a majority cliche of business partners and affiliates, seems any decision rod makes would instantly be majority rules.

]

You might be 100% correct Bungiton.
Why don't you ask the SFF via email? They could definitively tell you via Gdanski and Levin who were at the meeting when the decision was made.
At least then we'd know the truth of the matter wouldn't we?

[bungiton]

Rodger, with due respect to Levine, what would he know about who is/isn't a good coach? His area of expertise on the Borad would have been in a totally different area than FOotball, I would have thought.

My guess is, and like everyone else on here it is only a guess, that those involved in the Football side of things would have made a submission to the full Board on the termination of GT.
The rest of the Board would have chosen to vote for or against that resolution.

using your argument, how is butterss gifted with the same knowledge??

Would be interesting to see how the vote was passed, numbers for and against and put names to the votes.

With two outsiders voting against a majority cliche of business partners and affiliates, seems any decision rod makes would instantly be majority rules.

]

You might be 100% correct Bungiton.
Why don't you ask the SFF via email? They could definitively tell you via Gdanski and Levin who were at the meeting when the decision was made.
At least then we'd know the truth of the matter wouldn't we?

will do

[stinger]

glad you started this thread mm.....the truth is out there.....

Yep, Stinger

That's all I want - the truth to come out.
All of it.

you have misread me....the truth about your big lie theory is that it is not a big lie at all....the real reason thomas got the sack was over personal issues...nothing to do with football at all.....the facts are contained in replies to your post......read them all.....with an open mind...

[SENsei]

Another entry into the Big Lie Theory:


"Size doesn't matter."

[barks4eva]

[quote="JeffDunne"] Was never about ability to pay - it was willingness to repay.

[quote]


Thomas had no issue with borrowing the money, just repaying it

Also has no issue with suing the club he says he loves and wouldn't do anything to hurt, which includes a sum of $167,000 for holiday pay even though he already signed a statutory declaration stating that he'd been paid all holiday pay and annual leave entitlements

It seems Thomas thinks the more than 2.5 million dollars he's already been paid is not enough

I would have thought he was paid rather well considering he was on $500,000 a year, straight up from the get go, with no previous AFL coaching experience


Ahh no wonder he's a little Johnnie man

[Shaggy]

BE4eva ... you seem to have a big problem with GT getting paid his dollars.

It has become perfectly clear that GT did many different jobs because he didn't have the personel support as a result of the Board's "budgets".

I would ask extra dollars for doing 10 mens jobs.

Hard to have a go at GT at cost when it is now public knowledge that the Saints were the lowest cost under him in the AFL and yet we were finalists 3 years running.

On a cost/benefit analysis it is amazing results ... pity RL has not been able to achieve the same. But most supporters have now woken up and rather than blaming the coach operating in a miserly environment they want a change of Board because we do not need to be misers.

[Mr Magic]

glad you started this thread mm.....the truth is out there.....

Yep, Stinger

That's all I want - the truth to come out.
All of it.

you have misread me....the truth about your big lie theory is that it is not a big lie at all....the real reason thomas got the sack was over personal issues...nothing to do with football at all.....the facts are contained in replies to your post......read them all.....with an open mind...

Stinger, I didn't misread you and my response is still the same. All I want is for the whole truth to come out, not the selective bits that are being twisted by some to further their own agendas.

SO far I haven't seen any 'facts' quoted which say that GT was sacked by RB (or arranged to be sacked, or any other version of the same notion) for personal reasons.
I have read supposition from some posters but no facts.

Bungiton said he will email SFF and ask Gdanski/Levine who were there at the time to tell us definitively. They will certainly have a better knowledge of what went on than anybody on this forum.

[mischa]

glad you started this thread mm.....the truth is out there.....

Yep, Stinger

That's all I want - the truth to come out.
All of it.

you have misread me....the truth about your big lie theory is that it is not a big lie at all....the real reason thomas got the sack was over personal issues...nothing to do with football at all.....the facts are contained in replies to your post......read them all.....with an open mind...

Exactly. It staggers me that ppl can accept any other interpretation. Does anybody honestly think if they were still friends that GT wouldn't still be there Started with Butterss' marriage break-up and then the loan, anger, sueing kicked in. When a President and Coach won't look at each other let alone speak-what is going to give?

[JeffDunne]

MM, you must be pretty naive to believe anyone is going to admit that publicly if it is true.

I'm in no doubt the personal issues had and effect of Rod's view of GT. I am also in no doubt that when you hire consultants to come to a conclusion, those consultants are simply going to come to a conclusion that satisfies the bloke writing the cheque to pay them. Even more so when those consultants are in the business of head hunting replacements.

Not sure what more proof you need than a writ being served weeks after GT was sacked. Do you seriously think that RB would have done so if GT was still coach?

Interesting also you've dropped the 'proof' claim on the issues around when the loan was made and when GT was hired. RB's legal action against GT puts on the public record when the loan was made and when the money was paid.

[Mr Magic]

glad you started this thread mm.....the truth is out there.....

Yep, Stinger

That's all I want - the truth to come out.
All of it.

you have misread me....the truth about your big lie theory is that it is not a big lie at all....the real reason thomas got the sack was over personal issues...nothing to do with football at all.....the facts are contained in replies to your post......read them all.....with an open mind...

Exactly. It staggers me that ppl can accept any other interpretation. Does anybody honestly think if they were still friends that GT wouldn't still be there Started with Butterss' marriage break-up and then the loan, anger, sueing kicked in. When a President and Coach won't look at each other let alone speak-what is going to give?

Well Mischa, I for one tend to believe the publicly stated reasons for GT's sacking.
If the Club did nothing other than sack GT then there would be more credence to the 'GT was sacked because of personal reasons' theory.

But the facts are that not only was GT sacked and replaced, but a Football Manager was hired and some of the roles that were GT's were split up amongst a number of people. All of this was 'flagged' by the consultancy group (I think the same ones used by Essendon and Melbourne recently?) as 'best practice' for an AFL CLub.

To me that indicates that the reasons for GT's sacking had more to do with him not accepting the changes that the Club wanted to make.

Of course all of those who have 'issues' with RB will claim that the terms of reference for the consultants were designed to give RB the opportunity to sack GT, but again, where is the proof of that? With all these disaffected and sacked people running around how come nobody has actually produced any proof of this?

Mischa,
Did RB and GT have personal issues - of course they did.
Did they dislike each other at the end -I'm sure they hated each other.
Did RB choose to sue GT for his money after he was sacked - yes he did.

You may believe it, but can you categorically say that the reason GT was sacked was the personal issue between himself and RB?