Ian Collins attack on St Kilda

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So if I run a business and then start slamming my clients who make me money in a public forum, you think that's okay to do? Seriously lol.

If the client has slammed me in a public forum first then I'd consider it an acceptable response.

Its what he said that matters, not whether or not he should have kept it in house. And what he said has a lot of merit.

 

[Kwality]

Do it yourself.

I'll give you a start. There were 47 home and away games last year at the MCG, so thats 94 times a team appeared at the MCG during a year. Collingwood, is only 14 out of that 94.

I dont disagree Timothy, its just so many are in denial & appear to lack the gumption to do such a simple exercise - you needed to draw a picture mate !

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

1-8 start and 4 less weeks of finals

under the current stadium agreement the saints won't make money with an average 11 win season, but will if they win 15+

the model needs to be profitable on a 7 win season but can't be with the current stadium agreement.

StKildas home attendances were down 22,000 in total in season 2011 from the previous year. About 2500 per game. That is hardly going to add up to a 3 mil swing in profitability, especially when many of those 2500 per week might be members who were fully paid regardless of turning up.

We'll never know the true breakdown of the numbers, but to blame it on Etihad seems to be a cop out.

 

[Falchoon]

Finals dont make a 3 mil difference.

yawn, that's the second time you've taken that tack tonight

the obvious counter to that is they don't make $0 difference either

The poor onfield start was largely due to StKildas terrible off field.

if you say so

Nothing to do with Etihad.

but the wins are

In fact your first two Etihad home games pulled very good crowds.

and the next 6 didn't




back to your best Timmy

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

back to your best Timmy

Come back to me when you can prove that a home and away crowd downturn of just 22,000 out of 400,000 annually can result in a 3 mil negative effect on profitability. It sounds a stretch to me.

 

[BLue_Bloys]

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.

We actually have a pretty shitty deal with Etihad, we took a large lump sum as incentive to change our home ground from Princes Park. At the time we were almost bankrupt and had little alternative.

As the stadium is a business they don't give money for no reason... the money they gave us up front meant the rest of the term our gate receipts are pretty horrible.

As it turns out now we're probably consistently pulling in the highest crowds for Etihad, so they're trying to keep us on. I imagine the next contract will be better for us.

 

[Falchoon]

StKildas home attendances were down 22,000 in total in season 2011 from the previous year. About 2500 per game. That is hardly going to add up to a 3 mil swing in profitability, especially when many of those 2500 per week might be members who were fully paid regardless of turning up.

simplistic, any crowd under 32,000ish is made up predominantly of walk ups and members, any crowd over 40,000 brings in a lot of pre bookings that attract the larger $

40,000 + 20,000 will bring in greater revenue than 30,000 + 30,000 despite the averages being even

the saints had 4 32,000+ games this season, 9 last season.

We'll never know the true breakdown of the numbers, but to blame it on Etihad seems to be a cop out.

it can't be a cop out before the fact

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/etihad-stadium-returns-batter-saints-kangaroos-and-bulldogs/story-e6frf9jf-1226170142737

St Kilda estimates it would be $2.3 million better off if it played all its home games at the MCG.

 

[Falchoon]

Come back to me when you can prove that a home and away crowd downturn of just 22,000 out of 400,000 annually can result in a 3 mil negative effect on profitability. It sounds a stretch to me.

You're definitely trying to stretch one point

for one I can guarantee Jeld Wen has a bonus clause based on finals performances


as I said, back to your best

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

It can't be a cop out before the fact

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/etihad-stadium-returns-batter-saints-kangaroos-and-bulldogs/story-e6frf9jf-1226170142737

St Kilda estimates it would be $2.3 million better off if it played all its home games at the MCG.

^ Responding to that, the MCC refuted that they could see how it were 'possible' to better their Etihad deal by such an amount.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

simplistic, any crowd under 32,000ish is made up predominantly of walk ups and members, any crowd over 40,000 brings in a lot of pre bookings that attract the larger $

40,000 + 20,000 will bring in greater revenue than 30,000 + 30,000 despite the averages being even

the saints had 4 32,000+ games this year, 9 last year.

Wasnt that hard was it? It was a simple question. Took a bit to extract the answer but we got there. Still not convinced but none of us are privy to StKildas books so I will take it at face value.

I have no doubt some of their loss would be due to a significant fall in sponsorship revenue.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You're definitely trying to stretch one point

for one I can guarantee Jeld Wen has a bonus clause based on finals performances


as I said, back to your best

I asked you about sponsorship right at the start and you chose to not respond. Finally you admit I may have been right, sponsorship was a major reason for the decline.

 

[Falchoon]

More fact based, pre result cop out

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/hopping-mad-kangaroos-add-up-cost-of-playing-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492


Two years ago against the Cats, the Saints made $156,264 at Etihad in front of a crowd of 54,444. A year later at the MCG, the match attracted 58,208 and the Saints received $497,868.

St Kilda chief executive Michael Nettlefold yesterday said the Saints were about $210,000 worse off on average every time they played at Etihad and not the MCG.

"The club would bring in approximately $4.19m if we played all 11 home games at the MCG compared to about $1.89m at Etihad," Nettlefold said. "The club is on a program of growth and improvement, but the stadium economics are a major impediment."

 

[scottwade]

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

I don't see anything wrong with what Collo has said.

He is employed by Melbourne Stadiums Limited to manage Etihad.
Seems to me he is perfectly entitled to defend the integrity of deals that were signed between Etihad, the AFL & the tenant clubs.

If you enter into an agreement and then publicly whinge about it later, IMO the other party is well within their rights to give you a whack back.

He is also correct of course that the reasons for St Kilda's financial loss in 2011 go far deeper than any unfavourable deal at Etihad.

 

[kosifantutti]

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.

Are you making it up as you go? There were more home and away games at Etihad than the MCG last year.

And St Kilda's record away from Etihad was better that it was at home for those two years.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

More fact based, pre result cop out

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/hopping-mad-kangaroos-add-up-cost-of-playing-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492


Two years ago against the Cats, the Saints made $156,264 at Etihad in front of a crowd of 54,444. A year later at the MCG, the match attracted 58,208 and the Saints received $497,868.

St Kilda chief executive Michael Nettlefold yesterday said the Saints were about $210,000 worse off on average every time they played at Etihad and not the MCG.

"The club would bring in approximately $4.19m if we played all 11 home games at the MCG compared to about $1.89m at Etihad," Nettlefold said. "The club is on a program of growth and improvement, but the stadium economics are a major impediment."

None of that explains why the income fell so dramatically when the stadium deal was basically unchanged from one year to the next. Its a cop-out. They know the contract they are in and its not the main reason for their p&l disaster.

 

[Falchoon]

I asked you about sponsorship right at the start and you chose to not respond.
Finally you admit I may have been right, sponsorship was a major reason for the decline.

None of that explains why the income fell so dramatically when the stadium deal was basically unchanged from one year to the next.

As already mentioned our revenues going from back to back 22 & 17 win seasons to a 12 win season will naturally decline, memberships, attendance, sponsorship et al.

However the issue is not the turnaround the issue is the loss.

The same season at the MCG would have been a profitable season whatever red herring conspiracy theory you wish to jump on this week, Duthie, Riewoldt, Nixon, Seaford, Lovett, Hayes, Baker, Lyon, whatever - move to the MCG and the Saints make money, the issue here is the stadium deal.

 

[Falchoon]

He is also correct of course that the reasons for St Kilda's financial loss in 2011 go far deeper than any unfavourable deal at Etihad.

incorrect

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/torrid-2011-for-st-kilda-ends-with-15m-loss/story-e6frg7mf-1226247688102

$1.5 million loss

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/hopping-mad-kangaroos-add-up-cost-of-playing-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492

"The club would bring in approximately $4.19m if we played all 11 home games at the MCG compared to about $1.89m at Etihad,"

$4.19m - $1.89m = $2.30m


$2.3m - $1.5m or even $2.2m = profit

 

[Gavin Excell]

I don't see anything wrong with what Collo has said.

He is employed by Melbourne Stadiums Limited to manage Etihad.
Seems to me he is perfectly entitled to defend the integrity of deals that were signed between Etihad, the AFL & the tenant clubs.

If you enter into an agreement and then publicly whinge about it later, IMO the other party is well within their rights to give you a whack back.

He is also correct of course that the reasons for St Kilda's financial loss in 2011 go far deeper than any unfavourable deal at Etihad.

I guess its more the the observation of a supplier attacking its customer publicly.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I guess its more the the observation of a supplier attacking its customer publicly.

Yeah but who threw the first punch?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

However the issue is not the turnaround the issue is the loss.

Because you say so?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

StKilda walked from a lucrative stadium deal a few years back and gifted it to Hawthorn.

 

[Plugger35]

I don't see anything wrong with what Collo has said.

He is employed by Melbourne Stadiums Limited to manage Etihad.
Seems to me he is perfectly entitled to defend the integrity of deals that were signed between Etihad, the AFL & the tenant clubs.

If you enter into an agreement and then publicly whinge about it later, IMO the other party is well within their rights to give you a whack back.

He is also correct of course that the reasons for St Kilda's financial loss in 2011 go far deeper than any unfavourable deal at Etihad.

I don't think the Etihad based clubs had much choice when it came to entering those deals, not every club could be based at the MCG which is the only other venue in Melbourne. Generally it was the less well off clubs with smaller supporter bases that were based at Etihad, clubs that were already reliant on AFL assistance so they could hardly tell the AFL to get stuffed when they were forced into the Etihad deals. It probably wasn't totally evident how poor those deals were either until clubs started playing games there.

To say that the Etihad deal doesn't have an effect on profits is ridiculous, clubs are basically writing cheques to play there for crowds less than around 28k. No other clubs based at other grounds have to put up with that.

 

[scottwade]

incorrect

Firstly St Kilda willingly entered into an agreement to play at Etihad.

Your co-tenants at Waverley (Hawthorn) chose to relocate to the MCG and on top were handsomely compensated for ending their lease at Waverley. St Kilda from memory were not.

http://m.news.com.au/AFL/fi948612.htm

The Saints announced a loss before depreciation of $1,500,722 for the 2011 financial year, blaming, in the main, a $970,000 fall in stadium revenue.
After the nude photo scandal, the Saints had a 17 per cent drop in revenue from sponsorship and events, totalling $1.4 million.
The club's membership fell by 4 per cent.
The result is a massive turnaround after the Saints posted a $1.7 million profit in 2010.

Did/does the Etihad deal impact upon St Kilda's potential profitability.
Of course it does.
But the reasons for a $1.5 mill loss (before depreciation) for your club in 2011 go deeper.
Drops in sponsorship, attendances, revenue, gate receipts and membership all contributed to the loss.

To constantly highlight the stadium deal fails to acknowledge a greater malaise.

As I said above "(Collins) is also correct of course that the reasons for St Kilda's financial loss in 2011 go far deeper than any unfavourable deal at Etihad."

Finally the article I quoted above also says this;

But (St Kilda's) annual report said funding outcomes agreed with the AFL for the next three years were in excess of $2 million a year and would go some way to bridging the large advantage non-Etihad Stadium clubs had with their stadium returns.

The inequitable deals at Etihad have now been recognised and your club will be financially recompensed , but IMO St Kilda must also address it's own off field issues.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The inequitable deals at Etihad have now been recognised and your club will be financially recompensed , but IMO St Kilda must also address it's own off field issues.

Exactly, its not Etihads repsonsibility to compensate for inequitable deals....they have contracts and are entitled to have those contracts adhered to. Its the AFL's responsibility and under their socialist agenda they will redistribute wealth to poorer or distadvantaged clubs from wealthier clubs and from the general pool if they deem it important enough.

In the meantime teams like StKilda need to get their own house in order to ensure their brand is appealing and their team is winning.

 

[Plugger35]

Exactly, its not Etihads repsonsibility to compensate for inequitable deals....they have contracts and are entitled to have those contracts adhered to. Its the AFL's responsibility and under their socialist agenda they will redistribute wealth to poorer or distadvantaged clubs from wealthier clubs and from the general pool if they deem it important enough.

In the meantime teams like StKilda need to get their own house in order to ensure their brand is appealing and their team is winning.

Maybe we should also get compensation from media outlets like the HUN for their disgraceful and inaccurate muckracking last summer which damaged St Kilda's brand.