Ian Collins attack on St Kilda

[Timmy from Thomastown]

the $1.5m pre depreciation loss was due to Seaford? How do you work that out? petrol allowances?

Writing off Moorabbin?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

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.

The Saints lost one major sponsor ( Jeld Wen ), and there was then a bit of a gap before they secured Betfair.
JeldWen stated that the off field stuff was not the reason, ( if we believe them ).
However the Hun have worded the recent release " StKilda's sponsorship plummetted after the schoolgirl sex scandal " or therabouts.

Well shit Hun, it also plummeted after my wife's birthday.

The HUN are crap.

The trouble is that the simpler people ( like T from T ) go with their initial impressions, and the muck does stick.

 

[Falchoon]

.

writing off moorabbin?

.

2010

 

[Kwality]

For sure, the $200k net difference between an MCG & Docklands game should be ignored entirely.

Particularly in light of the Crown Removals bill incurred in moving training addresses.

Does the $200k claimed (but unsubstantiated) reflect the taxpayers contribution (direct & indirect) at the MCG?

& why should the price at Docklands have any relevance to the MCG?

Does the AFL deal to buy Docklands have any influence on the price of events/games?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The Saints lost one major sponsor ( Jeld Wen ), and there was then a bit of a gap before they secured Betfair.
JeldWen stated that the off field stuff was not the reason, ( if we believe them ).
However the Hun have worded the recent release " StKilda's sponsorship plummetted after the schoolgirl sex scandal " or therabouts.

Well shit Hun, it also plummeted after my wife's birthday.

The HUN are crap.

The trouble is that the simpler people ( like T from T ) go with their initial impressions, and the muck does stick.

Yet by your own admission youre not sure if you believe the sponsors public reasons for leaving. Go figure.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

1600 members can all be attributable to a poorer on field result..

Absolute bollocks. Are you telling me that 1600 members fled the club after successive GF near misses because they had a poor start to the season?

Thats an unbeliveable proposition. I cant imagine any clubs membership is that fickle than to wait two months into a season to decide whether a team that had lost just a handful of games in the previous two years was worthy of support. And if Saints fans are that fickle...which I dont believe they are....then their club deserves to be in this position.

There has to be other factors that have come into play. I wonder what they could be...

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yet by your own admission youre not sure if you believe the sponsors public reasons for leaving. Go figure.

Of course I'm not sure, all I can go by is their media release.
If I was to testify in court I'd have to say I dont know.
Thats not to say I dont take them at face value.
But the HUN are insinuating that JenWeld lied. ( insinuating means they are too gutless to say so ).
Maybe the HUN have evidence to support that Jen Weld are liers ( maybe a phone tap or something ) but I doubt it.

You're sure though arent you Timmy?

 

[shintemaster]

why should the price at Docklands have any relevance to the MCG?

Really?

It has relevance because none of the clubs are able to choose to play at one or the other. The AFL is deciding who plays where so obviously the price matters.

 

[telsor]

The Saints lost one major sponsor ( Jeld Wen ), and there was then a bit of a gap before they secured Betfair.
JeldWen stated that the off field stuff was not the reason, ( if we believe them ).
However the Hun have worded the recent release " StKilda's sponsorship plummetted after the schoolgirl sex scandal " or therabouts.

Well shit Hun, it also plummeted after my wife's birthday.

The HUN are crap.

The trouble is that the simpler people ( like T from T ) go with their initial impressions, and the muck does stick.

What did they budget for?
Did they miss those budgeted figures?
Why?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Of course I'm not sure, all I can go by is their media release.
If I was to testify in court I'd have to say I dont know.
Thats not to say I dont take them at face value.
But the HUN are insinuating that JenWeld lied. ( insinuating means they are too gutless to say so ).
Maybe the HUN have evidence to support that Jen Weld are liers ( maybe a phone tap or something ) but I doubt it.

You're sure though arent you Timmy?

And if you were to testify in court you could prove that? You're drawing a long bow.

This trend of blaming the media for ones own shortcomings is becoming tiresome.

 

[Kimbo]

...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.

As far as the stadium deal, completely agree.

Fact or fiction, the St Kilda scandals this year and not playing finals footy also come into play.

A bit of column A, a bit of column B?

 

[Falchoon]

As far as the stadium deal, completely agree.

Fact or fiction, the St Kilda scandals this year and not playing finals footy also come into play.

A bit of column A, a bit of column B?

-$700k in prize money alone

 

[Falchoon]

Absolute bollocks. Are you telling me that 1600 members fled the club after successive GF near misses because they had a poor start to the season?

There are 2 ways to answer this question, ignoring your usual nth degree line of questioning.


1. absolutely (well actually I was telling Slattery, but other than that absolutely):

Total revenue from memberships rose, total memberships declined, the average value of a membership rose from $85 to $95. The major decline was in the 3-5 game category, a significant portion of which are purchased in season.

1 win in the first 8 weeks most definitely had an impact. 20% of the Saints 2010 membership tally was bought post 31/3.


2. (nth degree Timmyspeak) 'absolute bollocks are you telling me that one win in the first 8 weeks of the year would not have an impact on membership '

 

[SA1NTER]

But wasn't the move to Seaford one of the contributing factors to St Kilda's big loss? It is very relevant to the discussion.

What has happened is, for various reasons, the St Kilda Football Club saw a significant fall in revenue in 2011, but rather than accept responsibility for this, Michael Nettlefold has tried to deflect blame elsewhere & Etihad stadium was seen as fair game, even though the agreement didn't change between making a profit in 2009 & 2010 & making a loss in 2011.

St Kilda Football Club members need to start asking some tough questions of Nettlefold & the St Kilda board, rather than venting their frustrations at Ian Collins, who had nothing to do with St Kilda's big loss for 2011.

Fair point. But when you read that comment in the context of the rest of the artical, you can tell he either has bitterness against us, was offended by the clubs comments or being an arseh*le just comes naturally to him.

As I said earlier, he didnt throw the first punch. There was a 3.2 mil p&l turnaround last year and that is not entirely due to the stadium deal. Its the Saints administration who are as equally guilty of lies and half truths.

Moving to Seaford costed money. A lot of it, obviously. The board has not denied that fact, but the terrible deal we have at arseh*le Collins' stadium puts us in a worse position then we would have been otherwise. Same as last year, although we made a profit, it could have been a lot more if our deal wasn't so poor.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

And if you were to testify in court you could prove that? You're drawing a long bow.

This trend of blaming the media for ones own shortcomings is becoming tiresome.

Proving an insinuation is a pretty long bow in itself.

But If you think there is no insinuation in " the saints lost sponsorship after the schoolgirl photo scandal " then I could wonder whether you were smart enough to pass year 8.

You do know what insinuation means dont you?

 

[Slattery_20]

How can you keep blaming Collins when his deal has been the same (or worse) for 10+ years???
It's like saying "I've had this credit card debt for 10 years, but the price of fuel going up $0.10 that's sent me bankrupt" - rubbish.

They knew their deal they didn't budget within it - which is their job!!

 

[Kildonan]

Why is this thread still continuing?

Collins attacked the SKFC because mutely accepting what has been publicly stated by the club against his company puts him in a poorer position to negotiate in the future (to further rip off the AFL).

In any thread of this nature a few frantic idiots will always seek to inflame the under siege club posters by sticking to their illogical viewpoint. For whatever reason but it boils down to the fact that they don't want the truth - they want to paint the club in a bad light.

Falchoon and others have patiently answered every question fully and have stated the club's position well.

If they can't see the truth by now, they are not open to it and never will be.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm not sure why people are attacking the move to Seaford.

1. Remaining at Moorabbin indefinately was not viable.
2. Only a simpleton would consider that a move involving new facilities to ANYWHERE ELSE would cost money.

Therefore, from a budget point of view its pretty irrelevent whether Collins goes that far on his holidays or not or what people's individual perception of Seaford as a location are.

 

[SA1NTER]

I'm not sure why people are attacking the move to Seaford.

Because Ian Collins wouldn't go that far for his holidays. Too busy doing shady business deals and being an arseh*le to pass geography 101.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Because Ian Collins wouldn't go that far for his holidays. Too busy doing shady business deals and being an arseh*le to pass geography 101.

Its just a crazy comment. If StKilda moved to the basement of Etihad it would still cost a fortune ( even ignoring the ripoff lease we would have to pay ).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why is this thread still continuing?

Because the post immediately above yours hasnt really be answered.

There are a host of reasons why StKilda had a 3.2 mil profit turnaround last year, and nobody has been able to establish that Etihad deal is a major contributor to this 3.2 mil, especially when you take into account SKildas home and away crowds were down by only 5% (2000 per gam) on the previous season....unless of course these 2000 people per game were expected to bring in an extra $160 each...

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Because the post immediately above yours hasnt really be answered.

There are a host of reasons why StKilda had a 3.2 mil profit turnaround last year, and nobody has been able to establish that Etihad deal is a major contributor to this 3.2 mil, especially when you take into account SKildas home and away crowds were down by only 5% (2000 per gam) on the previous season....unless of course these 2000 people per game were expected to bring in an extra $160 each...

Cmon Timmy, you know that the way the Stadium works its not average crowd numbers that matter its the total on a game. There is a threshold.
If 50 000 turn up for a game there will be a reasonable amount of earnings. If $25 000 turn up its a loss.

The financial report states
"Stadium Revenue [FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]was down $971,333 in 2011 compared to prior year"[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]It has been independently audited. Now you can bluster and fluster and rave and ramble but in the end the stadium revenue was down $971,333 in 2011 compared to the prior years.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue][FONT=Helvetica Neue,Helvetica Neue]
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Kildonan]

... and factor in the degree of participation in the final series of 2011 versus 2010 including revenue from two GF's - that alone makes up for most of the profit StKilda derived from 2010. The Etihad stadium deal was an impediment in making a profit, despite how well the club fared on-field. It was just fortunate for the club that we played finals.

No-one is arguing that the stadium deal is the only factor, but it is unlikely that any club will be able to compete financially with clubs based at MCG.

Essendon fare best of the Etihad tennants. They do have a larger supporter base than the other Etihad based clubs and this has allowed them to negotiate a better deal.

The problem is that the clubs that need it least get the better deals and profit the most. This widens the gap.

We just want to fix the deals up so that it becomes fairer and thus avoid the need for equalisation funds etc.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its probably a bit like being pissed off when you can buy a Commodore in the USA cheaper than you can get one in Australia, but It pisses me off a bit that they use the ground for A League.
I cannot believe that Victory would be using the ground if they have a similar deal to North, StKilda etc.

 

[SuburbanMe]

What I can't understand is why this is still being spoken about. St Kilda shot themselves in the foot a few times last year and this is the result. Sure you have a raw deal with Etihad - but it's been that way for how long now? Maybe your Club needs to re-think how it makes money rather than how to spend it???

Melbourne figured this one out, I'm sure St Kilda will too, but to start saying people have a vendetta with your club is getting ridiculous. The more and more you lot blame everything on everyone and everything else other than yourselves, the more and more people will dislike your club and continue bashing it due to it's poor culture.

I don't mean to be offensive - just realistic - get over it, stop blaming everyone else but yourselves, cop it on the chin and chip in. Atleast you're not $6.5Million in debt like North.