For people that have decided on their vote

[noddy]

Do directors and presidents get paid for being on the board?

[rodgerfox]

Als form what I understand they did really care about the clubas they had to morgage their houses to secure loans when they first look over. I think that really shows they care using their own houses as collateral.

It shows that they really did care.

[plugger66]

Als form what I understand they did really care about the clubas they had to morgage their houses to secure loans when they first look over. I think that really shows they care using their own houses as collateral.

It shows that they really did care.

I have spoken to one of them recently before the challenge and I can tell you he really still cares. Cant say about the rest but I wouls they still care or they would just call it quits.

[4theluvoftheclub]

hardly surprisng...

It would be more surprisng if they did not contact all the key coiterie groups etc.[/quote]

I was not surprised at them contacting them - excited to gear what inside info we can get from Peanut.

Peanut, did any groups say they are supporting SFF?

[saintbrat]

Als form what I understand they did really care about the clubas they had to morgage their houses to secure loans when they first look over. I think that really shows they care using their own houses as collateral.

It shows that they really did care.

I have spoken to one of them recently before the challenge and I can tell you he really still cares. Cant say about the rest but I wouls they still care or they would just call it quits.

they care- but maybe have lost touch- need refreshing, more questions or suggestions asked to re-ignite the passion needed to make tthings happen- to overcome the distractions? regular changes to board members? new members every couple of years.

[The Peanut]

No groups said outright that they will be supporting the ticket - but the feel was generally very positive - They had stories that I cannot post here though. There was at least couple that I reckon are undecided - they were good becuase they asked the tough questions.

[saintsRrising]

- they were good becuase they asked the tough questions.

Good...hopefully they will develop well thought through good solutions...

[Animal Enclosure]

Of course they care... I don't think that is amongst the issues in dispute, RB & his board have done a great job financially but have dropped the ball in other areas.

My main issues with the current board involved the unprofessional and very public disputes that Rod has waged, the drop off in respect for members, the loss of high quality staff (Friend, Waldron, etc) and more worrying, the accusations of 'jobs for mates'.

I supported the re-vamp of the footy department 12 months ago on the belief that we were getting 'world's best practice' (or whatever that meant). Now it appears clear that our set up is quite dysfunctional and severely hampers what Ross is trying to achieve on field. Now Butterss may be ready to pump more $ into the footy dept but I ask why our 12 month old set up is already in need of a re-build???

Did the comprehensive review really find that Sheldon was the best Footy Dept Manager available? If the pies can poach Geoff Walsh from the Kangas, surely we could have poached another top exec ? Was Sheldon appointed based on his relationship with board members??? If so Footy First will have my proxy pronto.

People are asking for details from both sides, personally I don't think the members will get much more than spin from the current board (members have been treated purely as a cash cow over the last 2 years) and some vague grand statements from FF.

I know that I would put my faith in Burkey & Thommo before Butterss at present.

[The Peanut]

Greg Westaway said that the only person who isn’t a passionate footy follower on his ticket is Dana. He said the reason why she was chosen for the ticket is because of her strong business skills and her knowledge of the hospitality and venue management industries – which are currently trrimmed because they are expensive for the club to run. She believes that she can halve the expenses on functions and they are well planned without losing quality. Burkie spoke passionately about having lots of functions that are well planned, run properly, bring the supporters and players together and make profits. Only $2000 was made on Harves Testimonal. Burkie believes the players will be more forthcoming in attending functions if someone just sits down and explains the importance of them - then put them on a roster system.

[The Peanut]

Oh, Greg Westaway did not say that the staff were incompetant in regards to function costs - but they are understaffed and don't have the resources available to them to cut costs.

Apparently they can't even have raffles in the victory room because the dome charges for cleaning up tickets - things like that need to be sorted.

[saintsRrising]

pity about Dana...it was my opinion from Day 1...that she was the most competent (in terms of what I would like on the Board) person on the ticket..

Just have to hope that she can aquire the passion.....

[saintspremiers]

WTF only $2000 made of Harvs Testimonial? Weren't there about 500 people there @ $100 odd per ticket??? Plus auctioning off stuff also?

Would love to know what other clubs have made on testimonials of top line players as a comparison.....

Thanks for the info Peanut.....it's starting to piece together.....

[plugger66]

WTF only $2000 made of Harvs Testimonial? Weren't there about 500 people there @ $100 odd per ticket??? Plus auctioning off stuff also?

Would love to know what other clubs have made on testimonials of top line players as a comparison.....

Thanks for the info Peanut.....it's starting to piece together.....

The auctioning would not be counted in the $ 2000. A hundred a head is cheap thats why they wouldnt have made money there and I know that because I have just organised a function and it cost us $ 105 a head for 300 people.

[The Peanut]

only $140 made at Burkie's farewell too . . .

The meeting was an ‘us’ thing with Everone sitting around in a circle – The ‘ticket’ members said that they want it to be a passionate supporters club that is successful. On the larger functions Burkie said that he is embarrassed that there are three tiers and wants these types of functions to be shared equally by all supporters.

After someone mentioned something about how many people attend Collingwood functions. A staffer divulged that GW did go to the same school as Eddy Maguire – and as it turned out at the meeting - his school headmasters secretary was there representing one of the groups.

There was a fair bit of talk about Caro at one stage – they will try and put things in place to stop press leaks. Burkie said that she is amazing at finding out facts and that she has the ability of befriending 5 opposing people and get them to give her info. At the end of that discussion GW said ‘but we must realise it’s a footy club – there is always someone around’.

More on . . .
Business development and profits
Moorabbin
Staff
Drugs and alcohol
Memberships
. . . and other subjects will be covered – but I am a slow typist – so I will post more either later tonight or tomorrow,

[saintwill66]

Your commitment and service to members is outstanding "Peanut"! Can well believe that the fresh approach by the so-called "rebel group" was infectious because any long-suffering Saints supporter is surely fed up with the massive disappointments of the past 4 seasons.

My support for a new Board of Directors is based on the following issues:

1. Serious under-achievement by the team in seasons 2004-2007. By any measure, the St Kilda playing list was among the best 2 or 3 in the AFL - save for a quality specialist ruckman - and the failure of the club (i.e. the Board) to effectively address the soft-tissue injuryproblems had a major bearing on the team's finals prospects.

2. Putting aside personal prejudices about the quality of Thomas as senior coach, quite obviously the Board had misgivings long before they terminated him 12 months ago. The Board's failure to make Thomas fully accountable for the operations of the football department (i.e. his refusal to take advice, as has been reported) until it was far past the point when the team peaked (2004-2006) raises questions about the close personal relationships between the Board and the Coach, dating back to 2001.

3. The open and acrimonious "blue" between the Club President and Thomas over private financial transactions brought the Club into disrepute. Butterss should have been advised by the Board to either resign or stand aside on the grounds of conflict of interests. Furthermore, the substance of this conflict should never have been tolerated by the Board in the first place, right back when it was transacted. How can a Club President be completely objective and impartial about the servant of his Club (the senior coach, no less!) who owes him $1 Million - that's absurd!!

I have given very careful consideration to the challenge by Greg Westaway and his team and am convinced that this is the only way that St Kilda FC can finally clean the slate, put the sorry past aside and do what is necessary to get the Ckub back on its feet.

One final point - with all the praise that has been given to the current Board over the profits of the St Kilda FC in recent years, it has never been made clear to me what part, if any, the annual financial contributions from the AFL have had on the bottom line. In any event, financial recovery would have occurred no matter who was in charge because this has been a directive by the AFL to all clubs, and St Kilda's performance compared to other clubs has not been anything out of the ordinary.

[plugger66]

Your commitment and service to members is outstanding "Peanut"! Can well believe that the fresh approach by the so-called "rebel group" was infectious because any long-suffering Saints supporter is surely fed up with the massive disappointments of the past 4 seasons.

My support for a new Board of Directors is based on the following issues:

1. Serious under-achievement by the team in seasons 2004-2007. By any measure, the St Kilda playing list was among the best 2 or 3 in the AFL - save for a quality specialist ruckman - and the failure of the club (i.e. the Board) to effectively address the soft-tissue injuryproblems had a major bearing on the team's finals prospects.

2. Putting aside personal prejudices about the quality of Thomas as senior coach, quite obviously the Board had misgivings long before they terminated him 12 months ago. The Board's failure to make Thomas fully accountable for the operations of the football department (i.e. his refusal to take advice, as has been reported) until it was far past the point when the team peaked (2004-2006) raises questions about the close personal relationships between the Board and the Coach, dating back to 2001.

3. The open and acrimonious "blue" between the Club President and Thomas over private financial transactions brought the Club into disrepute. Butterss should have been advised by the Board to either resign or stand aside on the grounds of conflict of interests. Furthermore, the substance of this conflict should never have been tolerated by the Board in the first place, right back when it was transacted. How can a Club President be completely objective and impartial about the servant of his Club (the senior coach, no less!) who owes him $1 Million - that's absurd!!

I have given very careful consideration to the challenge by Greg Westaway and his team and am convinced that this is the only way that St Kilda FC can finally clean the slate, put the sorry past aside and do what is necessary to get the Ckub back on its feet.

One final point - with all the praise that has been given to the current Board over the profits of the St Kilda FC in recent years, it has never been made clear to me what part, if any, the annual financial contributions from the AFL have had on the bottom line. In any event, financial recovery would have occurred no matter who was in charge because this has been a directive by the AFL to all clubs, and St Kilda's performance compared to other clubs has not been anything out of the ordinary.

We may have over achieved and anyway it is one of the most successful periods in our sad history and the bit about anyone could have had financial recovery is not true as Melbourne, Dogs and Roos cannot make profits still with financial help which we do not get.

By the way you are not voting for the current board even though you do not know how anything will be funded under SFF.

[The Peanut]

what are- 'enough'- proxy votes? - have they had reaction from coach/players

Just before I sign out I will answer this question for you 'brat' but the questions at the meeting didn't go to the footy department - they were mainly to do with as detailed in my previous post.

Burkie did say that when he was a coach a supporter walked in and handed him a cheque for $100,000 to be spend on improving the footy department. They didn't want to part with it because they knew it would end up in general revenue - they left it in a draw for a couple of days then they passed it in - and that was the end of that.

Oh and there was another question about proxy votes - I am not sure how many proxy votes are needed but it can't be too many - it is not a compulsary vote so they don't usually get a real lot - I had the feeling that a few thousand would call for RB to stand down.

'noddy' directors and presidents can be paid - depends - in the case of St Kilda the job is done for love. Top of the pay list is CEO - of-course there is rumours of sweetheart deals with friends of a current board member or two - but that's all they are - rumours.

[saintbrat]

thanks the peanut- I guess advantages and disadvantages to having either combined or seperate accounts for sections.

[mcadam05]

Greg Westaway said that the only person who isn’t a passionate footy follower on his ticket is Dana. He said the reason why she was chosen for the ticket is because of her strong business skills and her knowledge of the hospitality and venue management industries – which are currently trrimmed because they are expensive for the club to run. She believes that she can halve the expenses on functions and they are well planned without losing quality. Burkie spoke passionately about having lots of functions that are well planned, run properly, bring the supporters and players together and make profits. Only $2000 was made on Harves Testimonal. Burkie believes the players will be more forthcoming in attending functions if someone just sits down and explains the importance of them - then put them on a roster system.

2000!!!!! you have too be kidding me

[The Peanut]

The SFF have put an update on their website that makes their stance on their issues clearer than I could from just one meeting with them but I will write the heading down and see if there is anything I can add:

http://stkildafootyfirst.com/

Business developments and profits
My understanding of what Greg Westaway (GW) was saying is that his main point of difference is that he will be spending for growth and servicing the sponsors and supporters. He believes that the club is currently making too much of its overall profits by cost reduction, not revenue growth. He appears to believe that a positive approach will be more successful in building our profits and continuing the development of the club. They have selected a proposed board member that has the skills and resources to help the staff reduce costs and make much bigger profits at events and functions as well. He said that if he didn’t invest he would be still sitting around with six trucks. They cannot provide a lot of detail until they have reviewed the clubs books.

Moorabbin
I am sorry but I didn’t take notes and my memory is fading on detail but GW made it quite clear that he would prefer to stay at Moorabbin and said that RB stuffed up the negotiations with the City of Kingston when he came out publicly and said that they would stay at Moorabbin right at the time when Archie Fraser CEO was calling the councils bluff and things were looking positive for the club.

He wants to open up new negotiations with the council.

Staff
The morale of staff is low, they are under-resourced and don’t appear to get enough support from the board. He said that he wouldn’t have the business that he has at Gregory’s Transport if he didn’t have the best marketing and sales people on good salaries and worthwhile commissions. He said that he believes that you don’t have a healthy business unless you look after your staff and don't have enough good staff to do the jobs properly.

Drugs and Alcohol
I think that this has been well covered – but just in case the reader is not up-to-date. GW was just trying to make a point that you can't expect the players to tow the line on drugs if there is no an example set by the board. He said that the board members should be available for drug testing if they expect the payers to tow the line. He said that he was generally referring to the drug problem in the coomunity and that he believes all AFL club boards need to set the standard. He said that in hindsight that he should not have bought this issue up now.

Memberships
GW said that that St Kilda members are not getting value for money and are seen as money-making numbers rather than ‘members’ contributing to the club. He also wants to provide value for money and provide an attractive package. He said that the club currently spends just a few measly dollars on each membership package and that it doesn’t attract new members.

Any questions are best dealt with through their website – one thing that I noticed at the meeting is that each comment or question is actually noticed.

This was written with good intentions so I hope I have portrayed the essence of what GW and Burkie were saying.

[Mr Magic]

Thanks Peanut, I am sure everybody on here is thankful for your reports.

On the question of Training Ground/Facilities
Was he saying that Archie Frazer was correct in his handlingand Rb was wrong?

If so, that is IMO quite an amazing admission.
At the time, IIRC, there was universal condemnation of AF for his public outburst and posters were clamouring for RB to 'rein him in' over this. Now we have SFF endorsing AF's 'tactic' and I believe Gdanski made an oblique reference to this when interviewed by KB on Wednesday morning.

It would appear that AF is being supported by the SFF group and may explain where/how some/much of the information they have has come from?

[The Peanut]

He didn't actually say whether he supports Archie Fraser specifically - just that the staff have been having problems as mentioned in my post above. But he did infer that AF was getting somewhere with the council through his 'bluff' and the whole thing was undermined by RB.

I remember at the time that RB just got back from a holiday in Hawaii the day before he made the statement at a pre-match lunch and I will speculate that he didn't talk to Archie first - there were a few people annoyed about what they read in the papers regarding the club looking at other venues - AF was doing that - but apparently he was also using it as a bluff re Kingston, from my understanding.


On the finances - GW also said that if they provide too much detail it will only allow RB and co amunition to throw at the 'ticket' because the SFF are not privy to the information that the baord are.

[Oh When the Saints]

He said that if he didn’t invest he would be still sitting around with six trucks. They cannot provide a lot of detail until they have reviewed the clubs books.

On the finances - GW also said that if they provide too much detail it will only allow RB and co amunition to throw at the 'ticket' because the SFF are not privy to the information that the baord are.

Hey joffaboy !!