Our Admin are gutless

[Teflon]

Now see this to me is where the proof the club and its "seen not heard" President are gutless.

You're a fine one to talk about being gutless.

Also, it's a bit rich to attribute the club's actions to the "seen and not heard" form of presidency given the song-and-dance-man we had would get down on all fours before negotiating with the AFL.

The AFL is far too corrupt to fight city hall.

Who the **** are you to attack me personally? With 40 odd posts your obviously a Collingwood suporter???if so **** off back to where you come from.

Im a paid up member who expects their club to defend their players when their name is dragged through the mud effin oath Im a fine one to call that as gutless.

Dont like that? who gives a shyte?

As for the "invisible prez" while all this goes down - like it or not dopey hes our chosen LEADER - sometimes leadership requires more than the congratulatory luncheon with well wisher all around.

Its clear you enjoy our club having no balls and once again getting kicked around by the "facist AFL" - I dont. I dont like bullies and the only way to send a message is to stand up and on this issue so they should.

You must enjoy being "told' what do all your life - well done.....

[desertsaint]

More of our admin need to show the same outrage over this stitch up job. the club needs to do more than 'suggest' the implications or precedence set by this case. The mrp doesn't follow precedence anyway, so it's a mute point. More importantly we're letting Bakes take a bullet on behalf of the team - again!
Like you i want this admin to stand up - live up to our bloody motto, like bakes does weekly.
Piss weak effort - and to those arguing it might derail our focus - let's lay over and die then. That's a piss weak approach they shows a lack of confidence in the club - and unfortunately it appears our admin have the same lack of confidence.
There are two battles to be fought:
one by the players - out in the field of combat.
one by the club - in the offices, the media, and the courtrooms.

The entire afl community know it was a stitch up job and the pedantic citing of every possible charge on the field has never been done before.
We don't argue the case on point-by-point issue. we argue it along greater lines of consistency and justice and effect on an employee's career - and do so outside of the afl, where precedence does matter.

I agree with JB - if st kilda was my employer i would be looking for a new club. Lucky for us Baker is bigger than any of us and will remain true.

but JB - i'd remove your post to baker in the site thread - that one's for support not anger.

[saintbrat]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... -zmsr.html

Saints query panel decisions JAKE NIALL
July 1, 2010
.ST KILDA will raise with the AFL what it believes are inconsistencies in the match review panel's verdicts in the wake of Steven Baker's nine-match suspension, but otherwise take no further action.

The Saints, whose board met yesterday to discuss the Baker situation and consider its options, have ruled out any further action - including legal avenues - and have accepted the suspension of Baker, whom club president Greg Westaway acknowledged had gone too far in his confrontation with Geelong star Steven Johnson and that his actions were unacceptable.
.......>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The St Kilda president added, however, that the club felt the Baker decision was inconsistent with other recent verdicts under the AFL's judicial system.

''It's inconsistent with what's happened before. Unfortunately, he's got a track record and that's caught up with him in the end.''

Westaway said of the club's plans to talk to the AFL: ''We can just express our concern in relation to the inconsistencies … that's one of the things we'd like to discuss [with the AFL], seek clarification of what means what.''

He said the Saints ''find it hard to understand'' some of the workings of the match review panel.

Westaway's comments followed a statement from club chief executive Michael Nettlefold, who said the Saints were disappointed with the sanctions, ''which, in effect, left Steven with an extreme penalty for what were deemed low-impact incidents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Face]

Who the **** are you to attack me personally? With 40 odd posts your obviously a Collingwood suporter???if so **** off back to where you come from.

Does it matter who I am?

Guess it does to the small minded who cannot discuss a topic on it's merits.

Im a paid up member who expects their club to defend their players when their name is dragged through the mud effin oath Im a fine one to call that as gutless.

Don't flatter yourself.

There's an AGM you can attend if you're not happy or better yet, write a letter.

Labelling the administration as "gutless" because you don't like a decision they made is, might I say, "gutless"?

Dont like that? who gives a shyte?

Me.

As for the "invisible prez" while all this goes down - like it or not dopey hes our chosen LEADER - sometimes leadership requires more than the congratulatory luncheon with well wisher all around.
"Dopey"?

How old are you?

Its clear you enjoy our club having no balls and once again getting kicked around by the "facist AFL" - I dont. I dont like bullies and the only way to send a message is to stand up and on this issue so they should.

You must enjoy being "told' what do all your life - well done.....

So now it's "your club"? Thought you had me down as a Collingwood supporter?

Now if you accept the AFL as "facist" (I'd be surprised you'd know the meaning TBH), what good is there in challenging?

What sense is there in that?

[Teflon]

Who the **** are you to attack me personally? With 40 odd posts your obviously a Collingwood suporter???if so **** off back to where you come from.

Does it matter who I am?

It matters if your suddenly appearing on a saints football forum hurling personal abuse.....or does that question unsettle you.......gutless???...clearly your a Collingwood supporter/troll...

Guess it does to the small minded who cannot discuss a topic on it's merits.

I raised my views on our Board/Clubs stance - YOU started with the personal name calling.......then suggest I cant discuss the topic on its merits.....are you confused or normally that dumb?

Im a paid up member who expects their club to defend their players when their name is dragged through the mud effin oath Im a fine one to call that as gutless.

Don't flatter yourself.

There's an AGM you can attend if you're not happy or better yet, write a letter.

Labelling the administration as "gutless" because you don't like a decision they made is, might I say, "gutless"?

Well now theres some respite for Baker......standing up to gutless Board members at an AGM 10 months after Bakers name has been dragged through the mud and after the club has once again rolled over......WOW what a "tough" course of action that is.....

Besides......why is it left to supporters to fly the flag??? - if GUTLESS Board Members, Presidents and Administrators did their job and stood up like other clubs would we wouldnt be having this chat would we dopey?

Dont like that? who gives a shyte?

Me.

lol who the frk are you "face" ??? or is that just another multiple sig for the "gutless" ones to hide behind?......pffft....

As for the "invisible prez" while all this goes down - like it or not dopey hes our chosen LEADER - sometimes leadership requires more than the congratulatory luncheon with well wisher all around.
"Dopey"?

How old are you?

Im 10. Your losing an argument wth a 10yr old how does it feel?

Its clear you enjoy our club having no balls and once again getting kicked around by the "facist AFL" - I dont. I dont like bullies and the only way to send a message is to stand up and on this issue so they should.

You must enjoy being "told' what do all your life - well done.....

So now it's "your club"? Thought you had me down as a Collingwood supporter?

Now if you accept the AFL as "facist" (I'd be surprised you'd know the meaning TBH), what good is there in challenging?

What sense is there in that?

I'm not the one hiding behind lame excuses like "oh it city hall....theyre just to nasty to say anything"......thats you gutless....lets not get our wires crossed. YOUR the pathetic squib whose logic suggests the club takes whatever it gets and just pray the "nasty AFL" dont look our way.

Why not crawl up under your bed you pretencious flog- its "safe" there....

No doubt a Collingwood troll....

[IcanKickit]

don't know if i'm going blind or not , but that 'light blue' is unreadable ... can't even highlight it and read it.

[Teflon]

don't know if i'm going blind or not , but that 'light blue' is unreadable ... can't even highlight it and read it.

Its not the color - its the shining of truth from the text...you get used to it...."farce" doesnt.

[IcanKickit]

seriously teff , i'm on saintsational3 ...it's unreadable

[Face]

Am I reading this correctly, some anonymous poster that is labelling public officials "gutless" is calling out others for hiding behind a forum nic?

FWIW, if I was a Collingwood supporter wouldn't I agree with you?

Hey here's a good idea Mr "I suck Rob Butters for breakfast", lets have a board challenge. Surely that's exactly what the club needs right now?

[matrix]

ffs shut up

[markp]

Would people really prefer an all p!ss and wind Eddie or Jeff??

Do people think we somehow just arrived at the fantastic position we now find ourselves in?

For all anyone knows we dodged a bullet with the recent salary cap/Waldron thing with a quiet word, a nod and a wink... and may do so with other bullets in the future.

I for one think they are doing a great job... and Ross' words on behalf of the Club was enough.

[Dr Spaceman]

Would people really prefer an all p!ss and wind Eddie or Jeff??

Do people think we somehow just arrived at the fantastic position we now find ourselves in?

For all anyone knows we dodged a bullet with the recent salary cap/Waldron thing with a quiet word, a nod and a wink... and may do so with other bullets in the future.

I for one think they are doing a great job... and Ross' words on behalf of the Club was enough.

Totally agree with your comments markp.

There's been a hell of a lot going on this year and the Saints have managed to stay on course. While Ross, his staff & the players deserve the majority of the credit for this, let's also accept that the Prez & the board have probably also performed their roles magnificently.

And if people didn't have a problem with Westaway before the Baker flare up, then you are really hanging the bloke on some sort of perceived failure to jump up and down on a matter where it probably wouldn't have changed a thing.

Changing adminstartors is no different to changing coaches in that it can greatly affect a club's momentum. Do people seriously want to change the Prez coz he apparently let Steven Baker down?

Some people need to take a deep breath..................








..............and enjoy a Latte (as I am doing now )

[gringo]

Eddie thinks he is personally powerful but is his conflict of interest in having a strong media presence and the collingwood presidency that gives it to him. He has a louder voice because of channel 9 not because he is out spoken or a superior orator. He gets a sympathetic ear from the afl because a huge percentage of the afls supporter base are collingwood fans.

Unfortunately that's not our position. You don't want a petty dictatorship dishing out vindictive "justice" to our club to prove a point. We all get emotional and want a quick retribution for the farce that has occurred, but under Ross and the Westaway board we are a controlled and disciplined outfit that knows the landscape and works with in it.

I'm actually glad I am not on the board because I'd do my nut in frustration and have us blacklisted for eternity. I sympathize with Grant thomas, he paid for standing up to an arrogant organization with whispers in the sky. He actually became a liability in that the umpires wanted him to pay. That is something that has taken a long time to repair and we don't want to have to spill boards and coaches to prove an unwinnable point.

[sunsaint]

Would people really prefer an all p!ss and wind Eddie or Jeff??

Do people think we somehow just arrived at the fantastic position we now find ourselves in?

For all anyone knows we dodged a bullet with the recent salary cap/Waldron thing with a quiet word, a nod and a wink... and may do so with other bullets in the future.

I for one think they are doing a great job... and Ross' words on behalf of the Club was enough.

Is that what you believe, that the club has corruptly cheated and "talked" its way out of the penalty?
As I said in the brayshaw thread, whatever makes you sleep at night.
Stkilda, the new Carlton/Storm. That's nice

[Teflon]

Would people really prefer an all p!ss and wind Eddie or Jeff??

Do people think we somehow just arrived at the fantastic position we now find ourselves in?

Is anyone advovacting that in this thread? Ive not read it.

We've gone from asking our Board to have some balls. To somehow wanting Eddie as Prez?

Thats not the topic of the thread/discussion for mine.

[markp]

Would people really prefer an all p!ss and wind Eddie or Jeff??

Do people think we somehow just arrived at the fantastic position we now find ourselves in?

For all anyone knows we dodged a bullet with the recent salary cap/Waldron thing with a quiet word, a nod and a wink... and may do so with other bullets in the future.

I for one think they are doing a great job... and Ross' words on behalf of the Club was enough.

Is that what you believe, that the club has corruptly cheated and "talked" its way out of the penalty?
As I said in the brayshaw thread, whatever makes you sleep at night.
Stkilda, the new Carlton/Storm. That's nice

Firstly, read what I've actually written.

Secondly, if you dont think most/all teams have had borderline schemes to get around the salary cap, then good luck to you.

[SainterK]

The irony is that everyone was so cross because that Tinney guy called Baker unmanly, yet they are perfectly fine calling someone gutless on a forum?

Same deal for mine, they don't exactly have the right of reply.

[Teflon]

Am I reading this correctly, some anonymous poster that is labelling public officials "gutless" is calling out others for hiding behind a forum nic?

FWIW, if I was a Collingwood supporter wouldn't I agree with you?

Hey here's a good idea Mr "I suck Rob Butters for breakfast", lets have a board challenge. Surely that's exactly what the club needs right now?

Why dont you crawl back up the bum of Greg...."the invisible Prez".....what does he let you go on top while shaggin???

Some newbie troll with 40 posts comes on here the first mention of anyone daring to criticise his darling gutless admin for failing to stand up????......hhmmm....if you are not a troll.....could you be "son of Greg"!!

Whose advocating Board challenges?- are you that stupid? What does it matter about anyone on this forum standing up - its the responsibility of those elected to represent this club......to not cow-tow to the AFL and run scared shyteless into the night at any sight of confrontation.

HAD our club stood up historically whose to say Bakers loading wouldnt have been a lot less?

Regardless, a flimsy tribunal lawyer attacks Baker personally.....and where is Gregory????? fkn nowhere......to scared to step up to the microphone.....you want the job Greg....well it comes with the territory.

No wonder you call yourself "farce"....what a complete knob.

[Teflon]

The irony is that everyone was so cross because that Tinney guy called Baker unmanly, yet they are perfectly fine calling someone gutless on a forum?

Same deal for mine, they don't exactly have the right of reply.

Gpt absolutely NOTHING to do with those charged with representing our club.

Im more than happy to trade insults...you mean squat to me...but you wont and cant escape the facts that THE people charged with the responsibility for standing up for Baker are those in our current Admin and again theyve failed.

You can play the man all you like - Ive no problem with that, but lets not use semantics to hide your flimsy arguments behind.

You'll need to do better than that.

[Teflon]

Eddie thinks he is personally powerful but is his conflict of interest in having a strong media presence and the collingwood presidency that gives it to him. He has a louder voice because of channel 9 not because he is out spoken or a superior orator. He gets a sympathetic ear from the afl because a huge percentage of the afls supporter base are collingwood fans.

Unfortunately that's not our position. You don't want a petty dictatorship dishing out vindictive "justice" to our club to prove a point. We all get emotional and want a quick retribution for the farce that has occurred, but under Ross and the Westaway board we are a controlled and disciplined outfit that knows the landscape and works with in it.

I'm actually glad I am not on the board because I'd do my nut in frustration and have us blacklisted for eternity. I sympathize with Grant thomas, he paid for standing up to an arrogant organization with whispers in the sky. He actually became a liability in that the umpires wanted him to pay. That is something that has taken a long time to repair and we don't want to have to spill boards and coaches to prove an unwinnable point.

Ok ....so how which TV Station does Jeff Kennett run? How come he can stand up for Hawthorm when required?

What about David Smorgan????.......he's no problems standing up when needed??? (see his comments over Halls treatment)

Face it - we are weak as p!Ss. We had to wait till the AFLPA FINALLY came out and called Tinneys pathetic remarks into question to even get a response on Bakers behalf.

But never fear...we are always "disspointed".....thats hard hitting...

[SainterK]

The irony is that everyone was so cross because that Tinney guy called Baker unmanly, yet they are perfectly fine calling someone gutless on a forum?

Same deal for mine, they don't exactly have the right of reply.

Gpt absolutely NOTHING to do with those charged with representing our club.

Im more than happy to trade insults...you mean squat to me...but you wont and cant escape the facts that THE people charged with the responsibility for standing up for Baker are those in our current Admin and again theyve failed.

You can play the man all you like - Ive no problem with that, but lets not use semantics to hide your flimsy arguments behind.

You'll need to do better than that.

Not sure why you replied to me, given I didn't reply to you?

General opinion, else I would of directed it at you.

[Teflon]

The irony is that everyone was so cross because that Tinney guy called Baker unmanly, yet they are perfectly fine calling someone gutless on a forum?

Same deal for mine, they don't exactly have the right of reply.

Gpt absolutely NOTHING to do with those charged with representing our club.

Im more than happy to trade insults...you mean squat to me...but you wont and cant escape the facts that THE people charged with the responsibility for standing up for Baker are those in our current Admin and again theyve failed.

You can play the man all you like - Ive no problem with that, but lets not use semantics to hide your flimsy arguments behind.

You'll need to do better than that.

Not sure why you replied to me, given I didn't reply to you?

General opinion, else I would of directed it at you.

Just cant believe you would taking the "oh look how gutless people are on a forum....."... line......ofcourse, cause its this forum that runs the club....right???

Dont get that logic at all.

[SainterK]

The irony is that everyone was so cross because that Tinney guy called Baker unmanly, yet they are perfectly fine calling someone gutless on a forum?

Same deal for mine, they don't exactly have the right of reply.

Gpt absolutely NOTHING to do with those charged with representing our club.

Im more than happy to trade insults...you mean squat to me...but you wont and cant escape the facts that THE people charged with the responsibility for standing up for Baker are those in our current Admin and again theyve failed.

You can play the man all you like - Ive no problem with that, but lets not use semantics to hide your flimsy arguments behind.

You'll need to do better than that.

Not sure why you replied to me, given I didn't reply to you?

General opinion, else I would of directed it at you.

Just cant believe you would taking the "oh look how gutless people are on a forum....."... line......ofcourse, cause its this forum that runs the club....right???

Dont get that logic at all.

I was saying there is a similarity between calling someone gutless and unmanly.

What's it matter what I think though, I mean squat...

[Teflon]

The irony is that everyone was so cross because that Tinney guy called Baker unmanly, yet they are perfectly fine calling someone gutless on a forum?

Same deal for mine, they don't exactly have the right of reply.

Gpt absolutely NOTHING to do with those charged with representing our club.

Im more than happy to trade insults...you mean squat to me...but you wont and cant escape the facts that THE people charged with the responsibility for standing up for Baker are those in our current Admin and again theyve failed.

You can play the man all you like - Ive no problem with that, but lets not use semantics to hide your flimsy arguments behind.

You'll need to do better than that.

Not sure why you replied to me, given I didn't reply to you?

General opinion, else I would of directed it at you.

Just cant believe you would taking the "oh look how gutless people are on a forum....."... line......ofcourse, cause its this forum that runs the club....right???

Dont get that logic at all.

I was saying there is a similarity between calling someone gutless and unmanly.

What's it matter what I think though, I mean squat...

Dont confuse someone repsonding to a topic on a forum with them actually having regard for your view. There's a difference.

Still, at least us tough Saints maintained the rage behind closed doors.......ready and willing the NEXT time the AFL want a club to use and to make an example of.....cause our logic is :

" we can never stand up to city hall"

WTF is that type of thinking?....Cant beat em.....may as well grovel type stuff.....

And all these posters shouting "yeah but when we win the flag.,..THEN we'll have the last laugh...." gonna be upset if that doesnt happen......

[Moods]

Eddie thinks he is personally powerful but is his conflict of interest in having a strong media presence and the collingwood presidency that gives it to him. He has a louder voice because of channel 9 not because he is out spoken or a superior orator. He gets a sympathetic ear from the afl because a huge percentage of the afls supporter base are collingwood fans.

Unfortunately that's not our position. You don't want a petty dictatorship dishing out vindictive "justice" to our club to prove a point. We all get emotional and want a quick retribution for the farce that has occurred, but under Ross and the Westaway board we are a controlled and disciplined outfit that knows the landscape and works with in it.

I'm actually glad I am not on the board because I'd do my nut in frustration and have us blacklisted for eternity. I sympathize with Grant thomas, he paid for standing up to an arrogant organization with whispers in the sky. He actually became a liability in that the umpires wanted him to pay. That is something that has taken a long time to repair and we don't want to have to spill boards and coaches to prove an unwinnable point.

Ok ....so how which TV Station does Jeff Kennett run? How come he can stand up for Hawthorm when required?

What about David Smorgan????.......he's no problems standing up when needed??? (see his comments over Halls treatment)

Face it - we are weak as p!Ss. We had to wait till the AFLPA FINALLY came out and called Tinneys pathetic remarks into question to even get a response on Bakers behalf.

But never fear...we are always "disspointed".....thats hard hitting...

Teflon I admire your passion, however from my relatively short time on here, presidents like Eddie and Kennett etc are mostly held up to derision by posters around here because of all their bluster and commotion as soon as their team is attacked.

What exactly do you want from our pres? Call the AFL a pack of corrupt imbeciles and sue the arse off them in the supreme crt? The club appeared to have come out of this whole mess with a quiet dignity. Lyons comments were measured but not over the top.

To be honest most pres' don't have a clue about footy - that's not why we vote them in. I'm happy to let Nettlefold and Lyon speak for the footy club rather than have an Eddie type rant, realise he's made a fool of himself, and then back track. Using Kennett as an example, he may stick up for the hawks but in my humble opinion makes a dam fool of himself more times than not in the process. Do you really think that Kennett's rants have ever really helped the hawks.

P.S. - How is someone a troll who supports the current admin? I guess a large % of us on here are trolls then.

Sometimes I would like to hear more from our pres, and my initial reaction too was, 'let's fight this all the way' Calmer heads have prevailed though. From what I hear the presisn't all that footy savvy, or charismatic in front of a large group. I don't care, his 'pathetic' admin have overseen a golden era in st kildas history. He must be doing something right.