Ian Collins attack on St Kilda

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

Yup, definitely the medias fault. Damn them for reporting facts.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

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.

I'm sure you would if you had any grounds to do so.

 

[Falchoon]

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

On the advice of the AFL's boffin's, though I'm happy to admit blind freddie could have told them you're not going to get a $15 punter paying $45 for the same product.

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.

Yes, St Kilda were.

agreed though that Hawthorn made a much wiser financial decision in choosing the MCG

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.

drops in wins, a model that requires 17 wins is not sustainable, the extra revenue over the last 2 years merely masked a problem that was always there, a problem that the Dogs, Roos and even Blues have been barking about for the last few years. North Melbourne received a paltry total of $97,540 from its 11 home games at Docklands this year. Our wins kept our heads above water.

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

yes, that at an AFL average 11 wins the St Kilda model won't make money with their current stadium agreement, but would elsewhere

s 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."

$200k a game is pretty deep

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

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.

No loss no issue, as my sig indicates, I'm happy with a break even model that gives the football team every chance..

 

[Father Jack]

Yup, definitely the medias fault. Damn them for reporting facts.

they reported what now?

 

[Plugger35]

Yup, definitely the medias fault. Damn them for reporting facts.

Facts like the St Kilda players met Kim Duthie at a school clinic, she was in the hotel room taking the photos and that Sam Gilbert got her pregnant, all of which turned out to be bullshit.

Unfortunately if you throw enough mud then some of it will stick whether it's true or not. The media's desperate attempt to create scandals hurt St Kilda's brand more than anything St Kilda's players actually did. Their only crime was getting involved with a headcase groupie.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Facts like the St Kilda players met Kim Duthie at a school clinic, she was in the hotel room taking the photos and that Sam Gilbert got her pregnant, all of which turned out to be bullshit.

Unfortunately if you throw enough mud then some of it will stick whether it's true or not. The media's desperate attempt to create scandals hurt St Kilda's brand more than anything St Kilda's players actually did. Their only crime was getting involved with a headcase groupie.

Move on. Its a significant factor in StKildas demise financially and on field in 2011 and the mud stuck because the story on the whole was true. And it wasnt the only scandal/controversy at the club at the time and you know it.

It was a terrible time for the club and I cant believe you're blaming anybody but the club itself. In this context I mentioned it (ie the damage to the brand and the p&l consequences) , I'm not interested in dragging the whole sordid thing up again.

The brand can and should quickly be restored. Saints fans are resilient, if nothing else.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Unfortunately if you throw enough mud then some of it will stick whether it's true or not. The media's desperate attempt to create scandals hurt St Kilda's brand more than anything St Kilda's players actually did. Their only crime was getting involved with a headcase groupie.

^ Wow, incredibly immature and pitiful response.

Completely unfortunate circumstances - admittedly - but didn't Gilbert guarantee his skipper that these photos had been deleted?

I hope this type of view wasn't endemic at St Kilda itself, I doubt any of your supporters would share this view.

 

[Tiger2709]

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.

Maybe your admins needed too make a better deal, Essendon play there and do okay, the MCG is not going to be an option, as the AFL would move Essendon there before the Saints you would think.

IMO ever since the 80's the Saints head office has been more of a problem than the cattle on the field, they seem to shoot themselves in the foot quite often, I mean 3 GF's in 2 years and consistent finals appearances should have seen the Saints well in the black, maybe a new style of football that is actually watchable may help as well, the Saints at times were almost unbearable to watch under Lyon.

 

[Plugger35]

^ Wow, incredibly immature and pitiful response.

Completely unfortunate circumstances - admittedly - but didn't Gilbert guarantee his skipper that these photos had been deleted?

I hope this type of view wasn't endemic at St Kilda itself, I doubt any of your supporters would share this view.

Not deleting photos is hardly a crime, maybe stupid from Gilbert but not worthy of all the flack St Kilda copped as a result of it. Kim Duthie has shown herself up to be a manipulating liar and the media bought all her lies and printed them as fact without doing any research about their validity.

Maybe your admins needed too make a better deal, Essendon play there and do okay, the MCG is not going to be an option, as the AFL would move Essendon there before the Saints you would think.

IMO ever since the 80's the Saints head office has been more of a problem than the cattle on the field, they seem to shoot themselves in the foot quite often, I mean 3 GF's in 2 years and consistent finals appearances should have seen the Saints well in the black, maybe a new style of football that is actually watchable may help as well, the Saints at times were almost unbearable to watch under Lyon.

We played much better football under Lyon than Richmond played during that time, at least we won more than we lost which is what supporters want to see.

 

[telsor]

I don't see how the stadium deal and the loss are more than vaguely related.

Like all clubs, St Kilda would have created a budget at the start of the year, which presumably had them making a profit, fully factoring in the stadium deal.

The problem is, they failed, by a long way, to meet that budget.

The two obvious reasons were the off field scandals (sponsorship was way down, which probably wasn't a coincidence) and that they started the season poorly, which would have cut attendance and membership sales.

 

[SA1NTER]

Ian Collins is in denial, and if he continues with this "us against them" siege mentality then it just won't work.

Take some responsibility for once Ian, I think a full rebuild of Ethiad is what to do.

 

[agro]

Denial - someone is delusional more like it.

 

[The Finger]

Yup, definitely the medias fault. Damn them for reporting facts.

What like referring to Kim Duthies actual boyfriend as a player from a Victorian based club rather than his name Dayne Beams?

 

[Husk]

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.

What do you mean easy out?

Geelong get 20k to a game and make 400k +.

If North do the same at Etihad we write a cheque.

However, if St Kilda have not budgeted within their means thats their fault. The deal at Etihad stinks, but like Collins says its the same every year.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Not deleting photos is hardly a crime

No-one treated it like a crime. They weren't punished as if it were, either. They treated it like an act of gross disloyalty.

maybe stupid from Gilbert but not worthy of all the flack St Kilda copped as a result of it.

They would not have had to endure half of it, if the photos had never surfaced - Yes Duthie used them as leverage and fodder - But for her to have them a) they had to be taken, b) they had to retained, and c) they had to be disseminated.

The latter I say without prejudice.

Kim Duthie has shown herself up to be a manipulating liar and the media bought all her lies and printed them as fact without doing any research about their validity.

How much more manipulative than a player who assured his captain he had deleted 'incriminating' photographs (for lack of a more apt term) of members of the leadership group?

To what end did those photos need to exist?

To me, this type of response that persistently defers responsibility is emblematic of Nettlefold's current shot at Etihad.

 

[mediumsizered]

Ian Collins is in denial, and if he continues with this "us against them" siege mentality then it just won't work.

Take some responsibility for once Ian, I think a full rebuild of Ethiad is what to do.

I think the owners of Etihad Stadium would be more than satisfied with the bottom line from operations at the Stadium & therefore very happy with Ian Collins' performance, so I am not sure what Collins is supposed to be in denial about

I would suggest perhaps the St Kilda Football Club may need a full rebuild. I'm still waiting to see the punishment handed out to Sam Gilbert for the damage he did to the Saints' brand & I'm not sure the club needs someone like Jason Gram still on the list. Wherever he goes, trouble is never too far behind.

The reality is the Duthie affair, the Andrew Lovett episode & the lingering party culture at Moorabbin/Seaford (whose idea was Seaford) hurt the club last year & that is what contributed significantly more to the loss at St Kilda than any stadium deal. Let's not forget that both Carlton & Essendon made healthy profits despite also playing the majority of their home games at Etihad Stadium.

I think Michael Nettlefold needs to focus on what is happening inside the club instead of indulging in deflection to take the heat off himself & the St Kilda hierarchy.

 

[Plugger35]

Gilbert was hardly manipulating, he was stupid for not deleting those photos though.

Kim Duthie was the one who stole the photos and manipulated the media for all it was worth and tried to turn it into a scandal with the help of a gullible media.

St Kilda's players weren't blameless by any means but it was Duthie and the media that blew those scandals up to be more than they really were and ultimately tarnished St Kilda's reputation and brand. The Saints players themselves didn't do all that much wrong, certainly no worse than most other clubs players have done. We were just unlucky enough to be the ones put in the spotlight.

 

[Tas]

Collo is an incompetent thief in my opinion, we are going to make $900k from one game in Hobart in front or a modestly small crowd which has next to no corporate facilities and no third party premium memberships.

Docklands is a joke, AFL must buy out the stadium, sack that boof head and take 25% of matchday revenue to fund the actual cost of playing there and from that share repay the amount the AFL had to fork out to buy out the stadium.

Once ALL revenue is counted for matchday revenue, clubs would make over a million dollars game there which is nothing like what clubs are currently getting.

Why doesn't he answer why crowd for crowd his stadium returns the lowest and most abysmal return from playing at that stadium.

At the moment clubs are paying rent plus paying the mortgage for the owners, it is ****ing diabolical.

 

[scottwade]

Collo is an incompetent thief in my opinion,...

Why doesn't he answer why crowd for crowd his stadium returns the lowest and most abysmal return from playing at that stadium.

At the moment clubs are paying rent plus paying the mortgage for the owners, it is ****ing diabolical.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Collo is answerable to the AFL/tenants, because clubs don't achieve what they regard as an appropriate return from games at the stadium.

He is employed by Melbourne Stadiums Limited to manage Etihad.

His brief would be to maximise profit for the stadium managers/owners.

If the clubs can't make a profit, blame the AFL/club administrators for signing the deals in the first place.

As for the AFL buying out the stadium, I'm sure that the funds managers who own Etihad would be sellers at the right price. Clearly the question is at what price and from an AFL perspective how any purchase would be funded.

 

[jacko57]

Collo is an incompetent thief in my opinion,

Harsh call!

I reckon he's very competent at thieving.

 

[telsor]

Collo is an incompetent thief in my opinion, we are going to make $900k from one game in Hobart in front or a modestly small crowd which has next to no corporate facilities and no third party premium memberships.

Docklands is a joke, AFL must buy out the stadium, sack that boof head and take 25% of matchday revenue to fund the actual cost of playing there and from that share repay the amount the AFL had to fork out to buy out the stadium.

Once ALL revenue is counted for matchday revenue, clubs would make over a million dollars game there which is nothing like what clubs are currently getting.

Why doesn't he answer why crowd for crowd his stadium returns the lowest and most abysmal return from playing at that stadium.

At the moment clubs are paying rent plus paying the mortgage for the owners, it is ****ing diabolical.

Yeah, imagine those horrible owners wanting to get a return for their investment before they hand the stadium over.

 

[Kwality]

Collo is an incompetent thief in my opinion, we are going to make $900k from one game in Hobart in front or a modestly small crowd which has next to no corporate facilities and no third party premium memberships.

Docklands is a joke, AFL must buy out the stadium, sack that boof head and take 25% of matchday revenue to fund the actual cost of playing there and from that share repay the amount the AFL had to fork out to buy out the stadium.

Once ALL revenue is counted for matchday revenue, clubs would make over a million dollars game there which is nothing like what clubs are currently getting.

Why doesn't he answer why crowd for crowd his stadium returns the lowest and most abysmal return from playing at that stadium.

At the moment clubs are paying rent plus paying the mortgage for the owners, it is ****ing diabolical.

IF this is correct why did North sign the contract. Eugene gets off too light by you lot, the answers are known to North, line up the Bombons deal & the North deal.

Why should clubs subsidise North when the Bombons picked your pocket - go up the road to Windy Hill & get your money back.

 

[Tas]

Yeah, imagine those horrible owners wanting to get a return for their investment before they hand the stadium over.

He was found to be in breach of contract, if it wasn't for the good grace of the AFL their owners would have faced significant damage claims in court.

That makes him a thief in my opinion and the AFL let him get off.

 

[Tas]

IF this is correct why did North sign the contract. Eugene gets off too light by you lot, the answers are known to North, line up the Bombons deal & the North deal.

Why should clubs subsidise North when the Bombons picked your pocket - go up the road to Windy Hill & get your money back.

We didn't sign any contract with Docklands, only the original term (I believe it was for 3 years) to play games there instead of the MCG. The AFL signed the agreement before we even committed to play there.

We have asked the AFL before to move our games away from there to the MCG, last time was 2010, which is still vastly more profitable and the AFL refuse to let us move our games from Docklands to the MCG.

Interstate clubs and their dim witted supporters just do not realise how manipulative the AFL administration is here for Melbourne clubs. They set the door price, compete against the clubs for AFL and third party premium memberships that the clubs can't compete with, signed long-term agreements with third party stadiums which gives clubs no bargaining powers at all.

It is why we pursue Ballarat and Hobart games, we are allowed to move games from Docklands to these areas and we can make sound commercial deals without AFL interference and one game at one of these locations will bring in more than 11 at Docklands.

 

[telsor]

He was found to be in breach of contract, if it wasn't for the good grace of the AFL their owners would have faced significant damage claims in court.

That makes him a thief in my opinion and the AFL let him get off.

By 'the good grace of the AFL', you mean a negotiated settlement, which doubtless had several effects, such as the extra 100k/match that came in a year or two ago.

The owners, through Collo are there to make money for themselves, NOT the clubs.