Ian Collins attack on St Kilda

[Gavin Excell]

While Collin's has an obvious role in promoting his stadium, the language addressed to one of the grounds tenants is remarkable.


ETIHAD Stadium chief executive Ian Collins says the blame for St Kilda's disastrous $1.5 million operating loss lies squarely at the feet of the club's directors.
The Saints claimed a dodgy deal at the Docklands stadium was the major reason for the revenue shortfall - a massive turnaround from a profit of $1.7 million in their Grand Final year 2010.
"How can they blame us?" Collins asked. "I would have thought that they've got a lot of problems down there.
"The stadium deal hasn't changed from 2010 to 2011, so it's the same deal.
"I would think their performances on and off the field haven't been all that attractive - and the move from Moorabbin to Seaford has probably cost them an arm and a leg, as well.
"And they've probably lost a lot of sponsors along the way. I don't know where they are coming from. I just think they're looking for what I would call a red herring."

Collins said St Kilda's average gate take jumped from $83,000 to $100,000 per match last year, plus $60,000 a game in signage rights.

"To me it sounds like they expected a lot after finishing in the Grand Final for the second year running and they haven't been able to deliver that through their marketing by generating the revenue," Collins said.
"I think they've made some decisions that they would rue, haven't they? I reckon Moorabbin to Seaford wouldn't be the best deal ever, would it? I don't go that far for my holiday."

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Fair point, Collo.

If you look at what has changed from 2010 its not the stadium deal.

 

[HFF]

A fair few clubs blame poor stadium deals as the reason for not performing financially well which is an easy out for mine . Fair return of serve from Collo I would've thought.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Just find it amazing that he would belittle one of the stadiums tenants like that. Hardly makes for a good working relationship does it.

 

[Murraj1966]

Of course things change in a year after you make 2 Grand Finals then just an elimination final, but the fact of the matter still is that if we had a better stadium deal in 2009/2010 we would've made a far bigger profit than we did in those years.

Then you also have to consider the extra $700,000 we made in prize money for making the Grand Final in 2010 so when you tally it all up yes we obviously had better years in 2009 and 2010 and made more money in those years but they would've been average years if we played at the MCG, and when we aren't making Grand Finals it's still alot harder to earn a profit than if we played at the G' instead of Etihad.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Of course things change in a year after you make 2 Grand Finals then just an elimination final, but the fact of the matter still is that if we had a better stadium deal in 2009/2010 we would've made a far bigger profit than we did in those years.

Then you also have to consider the extra $700,000 we made in prize money for making the Grand Final in 2010 so when you tally it all up yes we obviously had better years in 2009 and 2010 and made more money in those years but they would've been average years if we played at the MCG, and when we aren't making Grand Finals it's still alot harder to earn a profit than if we played at the G' instead of Etihad.

Well absolutely, you need to drill down and look at the numbers in detail (is revenue down, are costs up, etc etc) and exclude one-offs like the GF prizemoney, but even with all that excluded its a massive turnaround and it hard to pin the blame all on the stadium deal.

No doubt StKildas bitter divorce from Kingston City Council and its off field issues with the schoolgirl and with Andrew Lovett had a lot to do with their poor financial return this year. Not sure of their sponsorship status but I would expect income from that source was a lot lower because of the damage the club has done to the brand over the past few years.

 

[brad]

Of course things change in a year after you make 2 Grand Finals then just an elimination final, but the fact of the matter still is that if we had a better stadium deal in 2009/2010 we would've made a far bigger profit than we did in those years.

Then you also have to consider the extra $700,000 we made in prize money for making the Grand Final in 2010 so when you tally it all up yes we obviously had better years in 2009 and 2010 and made more money in those years but they would've been average years if we played at the MCG, and when we aren't making Grand Finals it's still alot harder to earn a profit than if we played at the G' instead of Etihad.

St Kilda fans don't like the G (they say so themselves) and rarely turn up in huge numbers.

You realise you have to get a crowd of 30K+ at the MCG to even think about making a profit?

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Didn't St Kilda (and Collingwood) also pocket massive amounts from the replay?

It's a massive turnaround whatever the reasons are.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

St Kilda fans don't like the G (they say so themselves) and rarely turn up in huge numbers.

The home ground advantage they have managed to create at Etihad has actually helped them make Grand Finals two years running.

 

[Murraj1966]

If the G' was our home game St Kilda fans would obviously show up in greater numbers than when it's not our home ground it's exactly the same as MCG tenant's fan's showing up at Etihad.

Also it was said in this article that playing at Etihad Stadium is costing us 2.5 million a year so there is definitely some validity in criticising the stadium deal.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

If it was costing you $2.5 million a year extra, wouldn't you just break the lease?

I sometimes think that these figures are massively exaggerated, and that the supporters' frustration at Etihad as a sub-standard football venue that's difficult to access, etc. leads to the excessive complaints of how expensive it is to play their, how bad it is for crowd figures and members, etc.

With that said, the clubs all run within similar budgets so the difference that a small amount can make might be massive.

 

[Old Skool]

Didn't St Kilda (and Collingwood) also pocket massive amounts from the replay?

It's a massive turnaround whatever the reasons are.

As I understand it, finals revenue goes to the AFL.

 

[Defacto]

ex carlton man taking a swipe at the saints. hardly surprising. i wish we had the deal carlton had with the stadium. my guess is collins wont go there.

 

[bombermick]

It's odd of Collo to attack one of Etihad's tenants, but I assume he feels the need to defend the ground against unfair attacks, and here he is right.

The Saints may not get a great deal at Etihad, but they managed to make a profit in 09/10. Their terrible PR has more to do with it than their ground deal.

 

[Graffy4242]

Nail, head.

 

[GarnerSmash]

If the Saints have the same deal as North then they need to get around 28k through the gate before they start making money. They had home games against Ess, Carl and Coll at Etihad but the rest were against traditionally lower drawing teams. Not sure of the attendance figures but this would certainly have an impact on bottom line. The board would have budgeted for this though.

What they couldn't have budgeted for was the impact off field indiscretions would have on on field performance and how that effected attendances/sponsorship etc. It is obvious that this has had an impact on the bottom line, as has their shift to Seaford. It is a bit rich of the Saints to lay the blame solely at the feet of their stadium deal. Sure, it's a shit deal, but there is obviously more to their poor returns than that deal.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

As I understand it, finals revenue goes to the AFL.

Apparently not!

The AFL felt charitable and gave away 10% of the extra earnings from the replay.

The AFL has paid out an additional $1.7 million for the grand final replay [to the two clubs]...
[Of that] the Saints received $600,000 as runners-up on Saturday, half of which went to the players.

 

[DTRAIN87]

The home ground advantage they have managed to create at Etihad has actually helped them make Grand Finals two years running.

Can we apply this logic to Collingwood and the MCG deal they possess then ?

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Further to the above, and found in the same link;

St Kilda recorded a profit of just $177,335 in 2009, but that included an $800,000 compensation payment from the AFL to cover poor returns from its Etihad Stadium deal

So did Nettlefold suggest that, on top of the $800,000 compensation, the deal is still costing them $2.5 million per annum?

 

[Old Skool]

Apparently not!

The AFL felt charitable and gave away 10% of the extra earnings from the replay.

This is grand final prize money, I'm pretty sure the AFL keep all the finals gate takings etc.

I remember in 2007 during the "Roosistence", that it was calculated that North related finals matches had contributed over $60,000,000 in finals revenue but North had never seen a cent.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Can we apply this logic to Collingwood and the MCG deal they possess then ?

Most clubs play a lot of football at the MCG and are genuine co-tenants to Collingwood. The MCG hosts twice as many games as Etihad so many clubs get the opportunity to play a lot of games there, not just Collingwood.

Etihad is a boutique stadium and as such the major tenants have the opportunity to make it a genuine home ground against certain teams who dont play there very often. StKilda did that to great advantage in 09 and 10.

 

[TheOldXav]

Nettefold is the highest paid CEO in the AFL. Maybe they should cut his salary.

 

[Murraj1966]

Nettefold is the highest paid CEO in the AFL. Maybe they should cut his salary.

Can we get a link? I've never seen that discussed anywhere.

 

[brad]

Most clubs play a lot of football at the MCG and are genuine co-tenants to Collingwood. The MCG hosts twice as many games as Etihad so many clubs get the opportunity to play a lot of games there, not just Collingwood.

Etihad is a boutique stadium and as such the major tenants have the opportunity to make it a genuine home ground against certain teams who dont play there very often. StKilda did that to great advantage in 09 and 10.

TRUE!

Essendon played at Etihad 9 times in 2011 and only lost the once.

Wins came against Geelong (eventual Premiers), West Coast (top 4) and St Kilda and Sydney (both finalists).

We only won 11 games for the year with one win coming at the MCG and two interstate.

 

[Boxhead_31]

If it was costing you $2.5 million a year extra, wouldn't you just break the lease?

I sometimes think that these figures are massively exaggerated, and that the supporters' frustration at Etihad as a sub-standard football venue that's difficult to access, etc. leads to the excessive complaints of how expensive it is to play their, how bad it is for crowd figures and members, etc.

With that said, the clubs all run within similar budgets so the difference that a small amount can make might be massive.

If Etihad is a stadium that is difficult to access I would love to see one the is easy to access. I mean the train station to Etihad is 100m away from the ground .
As for being sub standard I take it you are talking about the playing surface because the stadium itself offers great views from everywhere and when the game is close and the roof is closed you get a really great atmosphere in there