rod's "betrayal" shattered me for months, says GT

[SENsei]

Since we've heard from Rod Butterss and Grant Thomas. I wonder when we'll hear from the former Mrs Evelyn Butterss?

She'd have a story to tell I'm sure. The dates might even tally up!

[saintly]

the next story will be from GT's kids, how we were victims of butterss

[Saint Mik]

Geez this is really boring stuff from a past prez and a past coach

The main difference I can see between them is that one cleared alot of debt and put the club in a better position than when he started, the other also put the club in a better position after he started but then realized that there was money to be made now that the other had cleared the path for a financial return at the cost of the club and a freindship.

In the end they both Farked up with the decisions both made at the time and are now just a waste of time and effort, an oppurtunity was lost and thats life, but why do we need it to go on and on and on

Anything for a headline to keep a profile, they both should be banned from the club and made to shut the F*** up about anything St kilda, the club has paid its dues and doesn't deserve anything that these 2 clowns throw at the media about the past.

They must be a laughing stock to the knew board

Just F*** off the both of you and go and do something else like every other board member has done in the past, its over farken move on wipe away the tears and get the F*** over yourself indulgent crap.

Anything for a headline and its getting very long in the tooth

[WayneJudson42]

He got rid of GT when he took over as coach of North.

Hence the nickname "cornflakes" by Phatpryck Smith.

Apparently 'Cornflakes' came from Butterss' infamous statement that Thomas 'ate pressure for breakfast'.

One morning a Cornflakes box was on GT's desk with 'pressure' written on it.

I thought it was becuase he'd been "tipped out of" so many coaching boxes.

[Saint Mik]

I thought it was becuase they are good value, until you find out that most of what you are paying for is filled with thin air.

A big box with good advertising but stuff all contents, but somehow is still up there on the shelf with wheatbix now there is a decent cereal.

[Mr Magic]

IIRC it was the current Board who decided to defend the Court Case that GT brought against the Club. Remember, they got rid of Butters last year?
Do you think that Butters was actually controlling the current Board's actions with his 'special Jedi mind control powers'?

But then again, why should anybody be surprized at your reticence to accept facts? Afterall, you persist in spelling Quartermain's nickname wrongly with a K in your sig even though it has been pointed out to you repeatedly!

Semantics, semantics. It's embarrassing to have to spell this out. Since the previous administration sacked Grant Thomas and failed to fulfil their payment obligation (see Court Case result),the current board defended it a/ they were in charge but also because they did not believe they were responsible. The fact Westaway holds no grudges and would like GT to come back to the club at some stage (has stated so) says it all.

PS. You can drop the cute condesending act. I'm not about to write what you or anybody else says I should.

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

Was RB a member of this Board?

Then how can you or anybody else claim that it was Butters who denied GT his 'legal rights'?

Surely if the Club felt that the previous administration had erred in not giving GT what he was demanding they would have chosen to pay instead of going to court?

What you have written as an explanation of the current Board's decision is complete nonsense.

Are you seriously suggesting that this Board went to Court because, even though they didn't make the decision which they felt was wrong, they hadn't made the original decision and therefore were not responsible for it?

Using your 'convoluted logic'

therefore they are not responsible for any of the decisions made by the previous administration and can simply sack any staff member, player, or coach and withdraw from any commercial commitment the Club has made.

As for the 'cute condesenting act', there is none.
Only a fool would continue to repeat the same mistake after having it shown to him/her.
That you choose to continue on with says an awhul lot about you.

[rodgerfox]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

[Mr Magic]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

Well, they made offers that GT decided not to accept.

They had the option to pay him what he was claiming all teh wayy up until the Court ruled in GT's favour.

But you knew that didn't you rodger?
You're just trying to be mischievous again, aren't you?

Tell me rodger, did RB, after resigning from office, have anything to do with the current Board's decision to fight the Case?

[rodgerfox]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

Well, they made offers that GT decided not to accept.

They had the option to pay him what he was claiming all teh wayy up until the Court ruled in GT's favour.

But you knew that didn't you rodger?
You're just trying to be mischievous again, aren't you?

Tell me rodger, did RB, after resigning from office, have anything to do with the current Board's decision to fight the Case?

I'm not trying to be anything.

I simply thought they offered to settle, but GT didn't want to so we had to go to court.

[Mr Magic]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

Well, they made offers that GT decided not to accept.


They had the option to pay him what he was claiming all teh wayy up until the Court ruled in GT's favour.

But you knew that didn't you rodger?
You're just trying to be mischievous again, aren't you?

Tell me rodger, did RB, after resigning from office, have anything to do with the current Board's decision to fight the Case?[/quote]

I'm not trying to be anything.

I simply thought they offered to settle, but GT didn't want to so we had to go to court.

Don't want to answer the question rodger?

[rodgerfox]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

Well, they made offers that GT decided not to accept.


They had the option to pay him what he was claiming all teh wayy up until the Court ruled in GT's favour.

But you knew that didn't you rodger?
You're just trying to be mischievous again, aren't you?

Tell me rodger, did RB, after resigning from office, have anything to do with the current Board's decision to fight the Case?[/quote]

I'm not trying to be anything.

I simply thought they offered to settle, but GT didn't want to so we had to go to court.

Don't want to answer the question rodger?

I thought I did.

As I said, I thought the Board wanted to settle, but GT didn't.

[Mr Magic]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

Well, they made offers that GT decided not to accept.


They had the option to pay him what he was claiming all teh wayy up until the Court ruled in GT's favour.

But you knew that didn't you rodger?
You're just trying to be mischievous again, aren't you?

Tell me rodger, did RB, after resigning from office, have anything to do with the current Board's decision to fight the Case?[/quote]

I'm not trying to be anything.

I simply thought they offered to settle, but GT didn't want to so we had to go to court.

Don't want to answer the question rodger?

I thought I did.



Obviously you missed it rodger?
It's the question highlighted in red.

[mischa]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

They did. GT wanted the facts to come out and 'settling' probably would have just reiterated in so many ppls minds the same old propaganda that had been espoused on websites like this and in the media about "how he wasn't entitled to anything" and had already signed documents claiming that he'd been paid "everything he was owed" etc....Can you imagine what would have been said about him had he settled-only in it for money, no priciple involved....etc etc

As for the 'cute condesenting act', there is none.
Only a fool would continue to repeat the same mistake after having it shown to him/her.
That you choose to continue on with says an awhul lot about you.

Repeat the same mistakes I'm spelling "korters" not "Quarters" as that is how Walls pronounces it. Are you really that sad? BTW check your own quote-it has at least two spelling mistakes in it.

[rodgerfox]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

Well, they made offers that GT decided not to accept.


They had the option to pay him what he was claiming all teh wayy up until the Court ruled in GT's favour.

But you knew that didn't you rodger?
You're just trying to be mischievous again, aren't you?

Tell me rodger, did RB, after resigning from office, have anything to do with the current Board's decision to fight the Case?[/quote]

I'm not trying to be anything.

I simply thought they offered to settle, but GT didn't want to so we had to go to court.

Don't want to answer the question rodger?

I thought I did.



Obviously you missed it rodger?
It's the question highlighted in red.

No, I didn't miss it.

I thought my answer covered that.

[Mr Magic]

rodger,
You'll need to help me out.

What part of your answer addresses the RB point of my question?
And how does it answer it?

[rodgerfox]

rodger,
You'll need to help me out.

What part of your answer addresses the RB point of my question?
And how does it answer it?

Are you serious? Or are you just being a smart arse?

[JeffDunne]

Rod's "betrayal" shattered Saintsational for years, says JD

[Mr Magic]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

They did. GT wanted the facts to come out and 'settling' probably would have just reiterated in so many ppls minds the same old propaganda that had been espoused on websites like this and in the media about "how he wasn't entitled to anything" and had already signed documents claiming that he'd been paid "everything he was owed" etc....Can you imagine what would have been said about him had he settled-only in it for money, no priciple involved....etc etc

As for the 'cute condesenting act', there is none.
Only a fool would continue to repeat the same mistake after having it shown to him/her.
That you choose to continue on with says an awhul lot about you.

Repeat the same mistakes I'm spelling "korters" not "Quarters" as that is how Walls pronounces it. Are you really that sad? BTW check your own quote-it has at least two spelling mistakes in it.

Miska,
That you chose to post what you did about this shows me how delusional you really are about this matter.

You truly believe that GT would risk losing a Court Case and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs so that the 'truth' would come out?

As for what Walls calls Quartemain, I reckon you actually need to watch a Ch10 broadcast with teh sound on. He calls him the same as nearly everybody else does - KWARTERS (in miska speak).

As for spelling mistakes, nearly every poster on this forum makes them.
What very few do is continue to keep them in their 'sig' when it is politely pointed out to them, as was done with you. That you chose/choose to ignore that is your choice.

Also I would humbly suggest that given the content of your posts, for you to call another poster 'that sad' is as clear an example of 'pot/kettle/black' as you could get.

[rodgerfox]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

They did. GT wanted the facts to come out and 'settling' probably would have just reiterated in so many ppls minds the same old propaganda that had been espoused on websites like this and in the media about "how he wasn't entitled to anything" and had already signed documents claiming that he'd been paid "everything he was owed" etc....Can you imagine what would have been said about him had he settled-only in it for money, no priciple involved....etc etc

As for the 'cute condesenting act', there is none.
Only a fool would continue to repeat the same mistake after having it shown to him/her.
That you choose to continue on with says an awhul lot about you.

Repeat the same mistakes I'm spelling "korters" not "Quarters" as that is how Walls pronounces it. Are you really that sad? BTW check your own quote-it has at least two spelling mistakes in it.

Miska,
That you chose to post what you did about this shows me how delusional you really are about this matter.

You truly believe that GT would risk losing a Court Case and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs so that the 'truth' would come out?

As for what Walls calls Quartemain, I reckon you actually need to watch a Ch10 broadcast with teh sound on. He calls him the same as nearly everybody else does - KWARTERS (in miska speak).

As for spelling mistakes, nearly every poster on this forum makes them.
What very few do is continue to keep them in their 'sig' when it is politely pointed out to them, as was done with you. That you chose/choose to ignore that is your choice.

Also I would humbly suggest that given the content of your posts, for you to call another poster 'that sad' is as clear an example of 'pot/kettle/black' as you could get.

What a surprise to see Mr Magic posting about other posters again.

Perhaps stay on topic for once? And actually discuss the topic?


Hijackers should be banned from this site.

[Mr Magic]

Did the current Board , after reviewing their 'facts' and 'legal advice' choose to defend the case against them by GT?

I thought the current Board chose to pay him out and settle out of court?

They did. GT wanted the facts to come out and 'settling' probably would have just reiterated in so many ppls minds the same old propaganda that had been espoused on websites like this and in the media about "how he wasn't entitled to anything" and had already signed documents claiming that he'd been paid "everything he was owed" etc....Can you imagine what would have been said about him had he settled-only in it for money, no priciple involved....etc etc

As for the 'cute condesenting act', there is none.
Only a fool would continue to repeat the same mistake after having it shown to him/her.
That you choose to continue on with says an awhul lot about you.

Repeat the same mistakes I'm spelling "korters" not "Quarters" as that is how Walls pronounces it. Are you really that sad? BTW check your own quote-it has at least two spelling mistakes in it.

Miska,
That you chose to post what you did about this shows me how delusional you really are about this matter.

You truly believe that GT would risk losing a Court Case and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs so that the 'truth' would come out?

As for what Walls calls Quartemain, I reckon you actually need to watch a Ch10 broadcast with teh sound on. He calls him the same as nearly everybody else does - KWARTERS (in miska speak).

As for spelling mistakes, nearly every poster on this forum makes them.
What very few do is continue to keep them in their 'sig' when it is politely pointed out to them, as was done with you. That you chose/choose to ignore that is your choice.

Also I would humbly suggest that given the content of your posts, for you to call another poster 'that sad' is as clear an example of 'pot/kettle/black' as you could get.

What a surprise to see Mr Magic posting about other posters again.

Perhaps stay on topic for once? And actually discuss the topic?


Hijackers should be banned from this site.

Coming from you rodger - that is a high compliment indeed.

I notice that once again you chose to ignore the direct question, on topic?

[mischa]

What a surprise to see Mr Magic posting about other posters again.

Perhaps stay on topic for once? And actually discuss the topic?


Hijackers should be banned from this site.

So true. I simply posted an opinion only to be greeted with a torrent of abuse from 'you know who'. Probably won't even get a warning as he's one of the club on here! No wonder ppl leave.

[rodgerfox]

rodger,
You'll need to help me out.

What part of your answer addresses the RB point of my question?
And how does it answer it?

Obviously you are being a smart arse. But I guess this is the only way to nip your childish games in the bud....

I thought we tried to avoid court. Therefore, no, I do not think Butterss had anything to with anything the current Board did.

I thought my first answer covered that. I thought it was quite obvious.

I also assumedm the question was so stupid, that you were clearly being a smart arse. You could not have intended it as a genuine question. Perhaps I was wrong.

There. Happy? Question (albeit a ridiculous one) answered.

Or are you once again going to try to turn yet another thread into a childish slanging match?

[Mr Magic]

rodger,
You'll need to help me out.

What part of your answer addresses the RB point of my question?
And how does it answer it?

Obviously you are being a smart arse. But I guess this is the only way to nip your childish games in the bud....

I thought we tried to avoid court. Therefore, no, I do not think Butterss had anything to with anything the current Board did.

I thought my first answer covered that. I thought it was quite obvious.

I also assumedm the question was so stupid, that you were clearly being a smart arse. You could not have intended it as a genuine question. Perhaps I was wrong.

There. Happy? Question (albeit a ridiculous one) answered.

Or are you once again going to try to turn yet another thread into a childish slanging match?

Hey rodger,
The question was genuine, because MisKa was under the impression that RB was involved in the current administration's decision to defend the action and I seriously wanted your opinion on it.
To tell the honest truth I was wondering how you were going to admit that RB had no part in it without painting the 'loathsome RB' in any light other than bad?

As for a 'childish slanging match' - it cannot be achieved by just 1 poster - it requires at least 2 and you seem more than willing to accomodate anybody until you are painted as the stirrer'hypocrite'smartar$e (take your pick) that you are so often.
'
You are a master at deflection and hijacking of threads and then 'feigning innocence' when called on it.

Many posters seem to recognize your m.o. rodger. Why not try a new one - this current one is so predictable and getting boring.

[rodgerfox]

rodger,
You'll need to help me out.

What part of your answer addresses the RB point of my question?
And how does it answer it?

Obviously you are being a smart arse. But I guess this is the only way to nip your childish games in the bud....

I thought we tried to avoid court. Therefore, no, I do not think Butterss had anything to with anything the current Board did.

I thought my first answer covered that. I thought it was quite obvious.

I also assumedm the question was so stupid, that you were clearly being a smart arse. You could not have intended it as a genuine question. Perhaps I was wrong.

There. Happy? Question (albeit a ridiculous one) answered.

Or are you once again going to try to turn yet another thread into a childish slanging match?

Hey rodger,
The question was genuine, because MisKa was under the impression that RB was involved in the current administration's decision to defend the action and I seriously wanted your opinion on it.
To tell the honest truth I was wondering how you were going to admit that RB had no part in it without painting the 'loathsome RB' in any light other than bad?

As for a 'childish slanging match' - it cannot be achieved by just 1 poster - it requires at least 2 and you seem more than willing to accomodate anybody until you are painted as the stirrer'hypocrite'smartar$e (take your pick) that you are so often.
'
You are a master at deflection and hijacking of threads and then 'feigning innocence' when called on it.

Many posters seem to recognize your m.o. rodger. Why not try a new one - this current one is so predictable and getting boring.

And yet another post just about me!!

Very flattering, but getting very boring also.

[Mr Magic]

Tell the truth rodger (all about me)

you love it, don't you?
Otherwise you wouldn't keep fuelling it would you.

As I've told you previously, it's up to you, You can stop it anytime you like.It's your choice. You 'fire' the first salvo and all I do is return 'fire'. Stop firing and i'll stop also. It's simple

But you asready knew that.