Ross Lyon- Hate Thread.

[phantom13]

How can a club in possession of a coach who has just taken them to a grand final and coached a near-perfect season in 2009 reward and honour that coach with a contract that threatens to sack him at any time without paying off his contract?

Everyone is moaning in agony and outrage for Mark Harvey (a crap coach if ever I've seen one) but at least he's getting paid $600,000 for doing nothing and getting his family relocated to Melbourne for free.

None of that security for Rossy. Oh no. Not good enough. Obviously.

The club in its wisdom decided that the right to sack Ross at any time was so vital for the welfare of our club that in exchange it placed Ross on the market by allowing him to walk at any time without being in breach of his contract.

No doubt this was due to his questionable character and commitment. You can't be too cautious with a coach with the best win-loss ratio in the competition who most other clubs would kill to get.

Ross has been coaching with one foot out the door because that is the position we placed him in. There was no term in his contract that bound him to our club.

That is how much he valued him. That is the respect we showed him.

And then we have the cheek to point the finger at Ross shrieking words like "loyalty" and "decency" and "integrity" - values of which our club knows nothing. The greatest living coach in our history who loved and brought out the best in his players has walked because we pushed him. We treated him like dirt.

On Thursday, when Freo dropped their contract on his table, he saw for the first time what it felt like to be treated with the professional respect he deserved. And of course it became intolerable for him to continue.

In all my 45 years of barracking for this club this is the most monumental botch-up I have witnessed and if I didn't love the colours so much or Lenny and Milney and Kosi I'd walk myself.

Oh yes, and can I say, if we as members of the St Kilda Big Footy Board had any sense of dignity or self-worth we'd be clamouring for the removal of this disgusting thread and pronto.

Again, not having a crack at you, but you still didn't answer my question, what would you have liked the club to do with regard to Lyon and when should they have done it, in your opinion? I wanna stress im not having a go at you, im just curious as your position is vastly different from 90% of other peoples and im trying to understand what you think we should have done as a club.

 

[Crippa2Sipa]

Except the part where he was still contracted for 2012.

Mark Harvey was "still contracted for 2012" too.

But that phrase had some meaning in his case.

The club could not dismiss him on a whim without penalty. They had to pay him the full term of his contract. Why? Because he was "contracted for 2012", to use your language.

Ross was not "contracted for 2012" in that sense. The club could have dumped him in 2010 or 2011 for no reason. And Ross would have had no recourse to the contract to demand a payout to the end of 2012.

Essendon faced a 2-year payout of $1 million for sacking Knights before the end of his term, just as Freo faced a 1-year payout of $600,000 for sacking Harvey before the end of his term.

Ross had no such security. He was not employed for a term in that sense. And he had himself, his wife, and a young family of three children to think of.

Phrases like "Ross was still contracted for 2012", employed in the anti-Lyon witch hunt, are meaningless rhetoric designed to whip up the masses who can't understand the significance of the actual terms.

This was not a normal contract.

We are not a normal club.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Mark Harvey was "still contracted for 2012" too.

But that phrase had some meaning in his case.

The club could not dismiss him on a whim without penalty. They had to pay him the full term of his contract. Why? Because he was "contracted for 2012", to use your language.

Ross was not "contracted for 2012" in that sense. The club could have dumped him in 2010 or 2011 for no reason. And Ross would have had no recourse to the contract to demand a payout to the end of 2012.

Essendon faced a 2-year payout of $1 million for sacking Knights before the end of his term, just as Freo faced a 1-year payout of $600,000 for sacking Harvey before the end of his term.

Ross had no such security. He was not employed for a term in that sense. And he had himself, his wife, and a young family of three children to think of.

Phrases like "Ross was still contracted for 2012", employed in the anti-Lyon witch hunt, are meaningless rhetoric designed to whip up the masses who can't understand the significance of the actual terms.

This was not a normal contract.

We are not a normal club.

I agree with you on the inclusion of that clause. It makes no sense to me. However he was fully aware that the club had no intent of exercising this clause in regards to the 2012 season, so he was contracted for that term.

Also finding the looking after the wife and children a little hard to swallow. That's BS. Merely spin for the real reasoning behind his departure which according to Paul Roos in the Age today was because his position had become untenable.

 

[Crippa2Sipa]

I agree with you on the inclusion of that clause. It makes no sense to me. However he was fully aware that the club had no intent of exercising this clause in regards to the 2012 season, so he was contracted for that term.

Also finding the looking after the wife and children a little hard to swallow. That's BS.

Lucky for me I'm not you're wife or child - given your cavalier attitude to being a party to a contract containing clauses that "make no sense".

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Lucky for me I'm not you're wife or child - given your cavalier attitude to being a party to a contract containing clauses that "make no sense".

So you'd agree that Ross has a similar attitude given he agreed to the original contract in the first place?

 

[Cardio Carl]

Mark Harvey was "still contracted for 2012" too.

But that phrase had some meaning in his case.

The club could not dismiss him on a whim without penalty. They had to pay him the full term of his contract. Why? Because he was "contracted for 2012", to use your language.

Ross was not "contracted for 2012" in that sense. The club could have dumped him in 2010 or 2011 for no reason. And Ross would have had no recourse to the contract to demand a payout to the end of 2012.

Essendon faced a 2-year payout of $1 million for sacking Knights before the end of his term, just as Freo faced a 1-year payout of $600,000 for sacking Harvey before the end of his term.

Ross had no such security. He was not employed for a term in that sense. And he had himself, his wife, and a young family of three children to think of.

Phrases like "Ross was still contracted for 2012", employed in the anti-Lyon witch hunt, are meaningless rhetoric designed to whip up the masses who can't understand the significance of the actual terms.

This was not a normal contract.

We are not a normal club.

GREAT POST

 

[Crippa2Sipa]

Again, not having a crack at you, but you still didn't answer my question, what would you have liked the club to do with regard to Lyon and when should they have done it, in your opinion? I wanna stress im not having a go at you, im just curious as your position is vastly different from 90% of other peoples and im trying to understand what you think we should have done as a club.

Thank you phantom. In the simplest of terms, here's what I think.

If the club was of the opinion that Ross was a first-class coach likely to be in demand by other clubs, and we wanted him to be a part of our future, then the club should have:

(a) backed its position by making a legal commitment to pay Ross the full term of his contract;
(b) made it hard in law for Ross to leave (as Rooey put it, we should have "locked him away" early); and
(c) placed legal obstacles in the way of potential poachers.

Having failed to do this at the end of 2009, we should have done it at the end of 2010.

Having failed to do this at the end of 2010, we should have done it in April 2011 (when Ross approached the CEO about it).

Having failed to do this in April 2011, we should have done it as soon as other clubs started sacking their coaches.

Having failed to do it then, we should have done it as soon as rumours surfaced that Melbourne were after him.

True, Ross said he was not open to further discussion when finals were approaching, but further discussions were not necessary. The CEO, acting professionally, could have simply dropped on Ross's desk the satisfactory contract he was ultimately prepared to produce, knowing full well what Ross had asked for.

For a cash-strapped club incapable of matching other potential offers in dollar terms to spend months quibbling over a 1 or 2 or 3 year extension for a coach it is desperate to retain smacks to me of gross incompetence.

Ether that, or the club did not really want Ross, in which case it secured the right outcome by questionable means and acting in bad faith.

 

[Simple Jack]

Ether that, or the club did not really want Ross, in which case it secured the right outcome by questionable means and acting in bad faith.

I'd say after seeing the footage of Nettlefold on his phone on thursday night, the club wanted him.

 

[West Vic Saint]

[FONT=&quot]Media Release. Tuesday September 20
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Lyon docks at Fremantle[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Ross Lyon arrived in Perth today to officially commence his duties as the fifth senior coach of the Fremantle Dockers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After flying in from Melbourne, Lyon will spend the next few days meeting football department staff and other key club personnel.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I’m really excited about being here at Freo and I want to get across as much as possible as soon as possible,” Lyon said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I’m looking forward to meeting everyone, but in the short-term, in particular, with all of the football department staff and other key personnel at the club (the players are on leave).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“What I can say at this early stage is that it is clear that planning for the 2012 pre-season is already well advanced.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lyon said he was also keen for his wife, Kirsten, and their three children to set up home and be settled in Perth as soon as possible.[/FONT]

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I was at the first game Ross Lyon coached for StKilda in Melbourne.
Can't remember what it was or anything, but the guy I went with just reminded me that I said "Sack the coach" half way through.

I hope the Freo fans arent expecting to hit the ground running.

 

[Crippa2Sipa]

So you'd agree that Ross has a similar attitude given he agreed to the original contract in the first place?

At the end of 2009, I'd say Ross trusted the club and was not the type to drive a hard bargain.

By April 2011, the situation had changed. He did not feel secure. And he felt his position at the club was becoming increasingly untenable.

Professionally, and in accordance with his wish to stay at St Kilda, Ross voiced his concerns to the CEO. He requested a 3 years extension. I understand (I think from Ross's presser) that at that time the CEO was only prepared to offer 1. Nor did he offer Ross the security of tenure he was seeking.

The CEO's prolonged, bumbling incompetence from that point forward well illustrates the dictum coined by Conan Doyle that: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

That would be my signature if I could be bothered working out how to create one. That is my view of the whole fiasco.

 

[mysainters]

Untenable, has a somehow familiar ring to it?

 

[Crippa2Sipa]

Untenable, has a somehow familiar ring to it?

Yeah. That's because it appears in the post by Look2Me4Guidance, which I was responding to:

I agree with you on the inclusion of that clause. It makes no sense to me. However he was fully aware that the club had no intent of exercising this clause in regards to the 2012 season, so he was contracted for that term.

Also finding the looking after the wife and children a little hard to swallow. That's BS. Merely spin for the real reasoning behind his departure which ... was because his position had become untenable.

Though I was happy to go along with the supposition made by Look2Me4Guidance, my position does not depend on it. I was being asked to engage in guesswork.

 

[mysainters]

Yeah. That's because it appears in the post by Look2Me4Guidance, which I was responding to:



Though I was happy to go along with the supposition made by Look2Me4Guidance, my position does not depend on it. I was being asked to engage in guesswork.

I was referring to Ball.

 

[Cardio Carl]

I'd say after seeing the footage of Nettlefold on his phone on thursday night, the club wanted him.

or someone was trying to cover their a&$..

Nettlefold is not a CEO's clacker!

 

[phantom13]

Thank you phantom. In the simplest of terms, here's what I think.

If the club was of the opinion that Ross was a first-class coach likely to be in demand by other clubs, and we wanted him to be a part of our future, then the club should have:

(a) backed its position by making a legal commitment to pay Ross the full term of his contract;
(b) made it hard in law for Ross to leave (as Rooey put it, we should have "locked him away" early); and
(c) placed legal obstacles in the way of potential poachers.

Having failed to do this at the end of 2009, we should have done it at the end of 2010.

Having failed to do this at the end of 2010, we should have done it in April 2011 (when Ross approached the CEO about it).

Having failed to do this in April 2011, we should have done it as soon as other clubs started sacking their coaches.

Having failed to do it then, we should have done it as soon as rumours surfaced that Melbourne were after him.

True, Ross said he was not open to further discussion when finals were approaching, but further discussions were not necessary. The CEO, acting professionally, could have simply dropped on Ross's desk the satisfactory contract he was ultimately prepared to produce, knowing full well what Ross had asked for.

For a cash-strapped club incapable of matching other potential offers in dollar terms to spend months quibbling over a 1 or 2 or 3 year extension for a coach it is desperate to retain smacks to me of gross incompetence.

Ether that, or the club did not really want Ross, in which case it secured the right outcome by questionable means and acting in bad faith.

Fair enough, i dont necessarily agree with you but it is interesting to see it from a different view. For what its worth, i don't blame Ross, in much the same way that if Goddard leaves next year because GWS throws money at him on a long term deal i wouldn't blame him either, football is these mens livelyhoods not just a hobby. I think alot of people are put off by Ross' shall we say, prickly nature, his lack of empathy for Mark Harvey and saying he never used the word loyalty to his players makes alot of people (myself included) view him as a mercenary, a gun for hire, but if you have the skill set to earn more elsewhere, then more power to you, and more fool to those who dont. In the end i think the result will probably be in the best interests of Ross and the St.Kilda football club.

 

[SAINTsincebirth]

I think Ross was smart enough to realise he was not going too go much further. His changes to the game plan had become to transparent to the opposition teams. He either believed he did not possess the ability or the players to do any better going forward.

 

[SA1NTER]

6 days on, he's still a jacka$$.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

At the end of 2009, I'd say Ross trusted the club and was not the type to drive a hard bargain.

By April 2011, the situation had changed. He did not feel secure. And he felt his position at the club was becoming increasingly untenable.

Professionally, and in accordance with his wish to stay at St Kilda, Ross voiced his concerns to the CEO. He requested a 3 years extension. I understand (I think from Ross's presser) that at that time the CEO was only prepared to offer 1. Nor did he offer Ross the security of tenure he was seeking.

The CEO's prolonged, bumbling incompetence from that point forward well illustrates the dictum coined by Conan Doyle that: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

That would be my signature if I could be bothered working out how to create one. That is my view of the whole fiasco.

How were we tracking in April 2011? I think fairly ordinary sums it up. Not really the best time to indulge an extension, given there was already a term for 2012 on the table. At no stage did the club say we will not be entertaining this term for 2012. You see it one way, I see it another.

 

[cartwright]

Thank you phantom. In the simplest of terms, here's what I think.

If the club was of the opinion that Ross was a first-class coach likely to be in demand by other clubs, and we wanted him to be a part of our future, then the club should have:

(a) backed its position by making a legal commitment to pay Ross the full term of his contract;
(b) made it hard in law for Ross to leave (as Rooey put it, we should have "locked him away" early); and
(c) placed legal obstacles in the way of potential poachers.

Having failed to do this at the end of 2009, we should have done it at the end of 2010.

Having failed to do this at the end of 2010, we should have done it in April 2011 (when Ross approached the CEO about it).

Having failed to do this in April 2011, we should have done it as soon as other clubs started sacking their coaches.

Having failed to do it then, we should have done it as soon as rumours surfaced that Melbourne were after him.

True, Ross said he was not open to further discussion when finals were approaching, but further discussions were not necessary. The CEO, acting professionally, could have simply dropped on Ross's desk the satisfactory contract he was ultimately prepared to produce, knowing full well what Ross had asked for.

For a cash-strapped club incapable of matching other potential offers in dollar terms to spend months quibbling over a 1 or 2 or 3 year extension for a coach it is desperate to retain smacks to me of gross incompetence.

Ether that, or the club did not really want Ross, in which case it secured the right outcome by questionable means and acting in bad faith.

Crippa. Asking for an unconditional contact in April 2011 - was fine. Expecting an answer in April 2011, after our start? No. I am happy that the club didn't rush to put together something at that time.

Rumours circulate all the time in football. Particularly about coaches, when others have been sacked. You want the club to act responsibly and professionally, but you also want them to listen to rumour and innuendo.
So which is it?

Why would they do so? They spoke to his management and were negotiating contracts.

Cash strapped is right. Which is why we should not, and will not be held over a barrel.

Its simple. If he wanted to stay, he would have. A deal would have been struck.

Some questions need to be asked of the board, but they felt they offered a fair deal. His management also felt this deal was fair, as they presented it to him, expecting a signature on the day he quit.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

One of the employees where I work was disgruntled back a bit. Had bought a house, wanted his wife to be a stay at home mum, couldnt afford it.

The boss here described the issue as "some people think that their personal circumstances should dictate what they get paid "

I wouldnt have advocated sacking Lyon by any means, but at the same time a long term unconditional contract would have been pretty scary off the back of 2011.
Time will tell whether Freo are wise or foolish.
Want to buy a second hand car, the common advice is just play it safe and get a Toyota.
But when you look at the prices and do some research you might find that you get a lot more bang for your buck from a Mazda. ( But FFS keep away from the Daewoo and dont be fooled by the Holden badges ).

 

[mysainters]

I think Ross was smart enough to realise he was not going too go much further. His changes to the game plan had become to transparent to the opposition teams. He either believed he did not possess the ability or the players to do any better going forward.

It was the end of an era, if we couldn't win against an interstate team at our home groud...

Or was it?

Make up your mind Ross.

SB: Do you say that Fremantle are now at a more advanced development stage to St Kilda?

RL: I want to be really clear here, it wasn't the motivation. There was an assertion that I left because they were closer to a premiership, that wasn't the decision. I don't think they (St Kilda) are going anywhere for a little while, if it's done correctly.

 

[saintsrfreak]

I just chucked this together

 

[Squizz]

http://thewhitemaggot.com/2011/09/1...h-what-he-started-at-st-kilda-with-fremantle/

Ross Lyon vows to finish what he started at St Kilda with Fremantle

Ross Lyon: exercised his "no d!ckheads" policy by duly excusing himself from the St Kilda Football Club yesterday


Ross Lyon has revealed exclusively to The White Maggot that a desire to replicate his still unfinished business with St Kilda at Fremantle was a driving force behind his shock decision to join the Dockers yesterday.

“Not many people get the opportunity to transform a list filled with raw talent and unbridled enthusiasm into a tedious, poorly-skilled and overly-defensive trainwreck” Lyon said. “So I’m lucky to be able to do it twice.”

Lyon said he was also looking forward to dashing the hopes and dreams of another group of deserving, long-suffering fans.

“I’ve got it all mapped out” Lyon said. “When we’re in a winning position at three-quarter-time of a grand final I’ll make sure our best defensive-midfielder and inside-player doesn’t see any more game time.”

“To further disenchant our loyal supporter-base, I’ll probably dig my heels in and refuse to negotiate to the point where we get no compensation when that much-loved and universally-respected club leader, whose integrity is infinitely greater than mine, requests a trade to an up-and-coming competitor.”

The St Kilda Football Club refused to comment on the matter other than that they “probably should’ve seen that Ross wasn’t fully committed to the cause when he selected Dean Polo for an elimination final.”

 

[sammm]

ross lyon spoke today and said he could not care if the fans liked him , he could not care if the players liked him. I wonder if thats the right way to go for any coach?


what does he care about? obviously coaching is just a job for him. He is now coming accross as a very unfeeling and uncaring type of person.


we will see in due course. i hope he fails!