Ian Collins attack on St Kilda

[The_Wookie]

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.

it bothered the AFL to take Etihad to court over it, claiming there was no way they were being offered the same terms the AFL tenants were.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-wants-etihad-deal-details-20091124-j8ap.html

Connock also sought documents on any agreement with soccer club Melbourne Victory, which he said may have received favourable treatment breaching the AFL's user agreement with the stadium.
Chief Justice Marilyn Warren will rule on whether to order release of the documents at a later date.

And failed to get

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnew...th-court-action/2009/06/25/1245522936397.html

The stadium operator must also provide to the AFL details of its agreements with Coca Cola and Carlton and United Breweries, which have access to the stadium to provide beverages, to investigate any breaches of the league's pouring rights.

The AFL failed, however, in a bid to obtain details of the stadium's agreement with soccer club Melbourne Victory, which it argued might have received favourable terms at the stadium in breach of the AFL's user agreement.

 

[Falchoon]

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,

Why would they?

1. The Etihad deal is irrelevant when comparing 2011 with 2010.

2. The Etihad deal is the number 1 issue in the $1.5m loss.

 

[SuburbanMe]

2. The Etihad deal is the number 1 issue in the $1.5m loss.

Uhhh no. The main reason is all the money you paid for seaford.

And question, did you have to pay out lovetts Contract?

How much of the clubs money went into the school girl saga?

It's alot more indepth than you lot think.

 

[L_W_P]

Any money paid to Lovett was to be included in our salary cap. This is why the media were having a field day with all of the out of contract players who were going to leave the club because we were broke.

The move to Seaford has cost the club alot BUT it will be for the long term good. There are a pile of Saints fans all within walking distance of the new ground. The facility is top notch AND it was all alot cheaper than staying and upgrading Moorabbin with the shitty deal the Kingsford council were offering.

Our stadium deal sucks but it's not the sole reason we lost money in 2011. I have no doubt though that when the deal is up we will look long and hard at a move to the MCG. If the AFL don't like it then they will need to go into bat against the Etihad management.

I still maintain though that the AFl is happy to prob clubs up for the next decade and wait until they get ownserdhip of Etihad. Once that happens the Saints, Roos and Dogs will all be much better off.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Uhhh no. The main reason is all the money you paid for seaford.

And question, did you have to pay out lovetts Contract?

How much of the clubs money went into the school girl saga?

It's alot more indepth than you lot think.

If you really need to know the answers to those questions I suggest you read the report. Its freely available.
The player salary's ( where Lovett would need to go) are not a lot different from the previous year. But maybe its in there elesewhere.

Its also unlikely that the so called school girl saga ( did she ever go to school after the story broke )? cost the kind of big bucks we are looking at.
The Seaford move was an expendature. I think the drop in Stadium revenue represents the biggest loss of income.

 

[Falchoon]

Uhhh no. The main reason is all the money you paid for seaford.

Accounting 101


Capital spending does not form part of the P&L statement.

 

[SuburbanMe]

Any money paid to Lovett was to be included in our salary cap. This is why the media were having a field day with all of the out of contract players who were going to leave the club because we were broke.

The move to Seaford has cost the club alot BUT it will be for the long term good. There are a pile of Saints fans all within walking distance of the new ground. The facility is top notch AND it was all alot cheaper than staying and upgrading Moorabbin with the shitty deal the Kingsford council were offering.

Our stadium deal sucks but it's not the sole reason we lost money in 2011. I have no doubt though that when the deal is up we will look long and hard at a move to the MCG. If the AFL don't like it then they will need to go into bat against the Etihad management.

I still maintain though that the AFl is happy to prob clubs up for the next decade and wait until they get ownserdhip of Etihad. Once that happens the Saints, Roos and Dogs will all be much better off.

So you think that paying out a players contract and getting nothing back helps the club financially? I'm not questioning your intelligence, just pointing out that there are lots of other factors other than Etihad.

The seaford Base WILL end up paying itself off, I've said that in another post, What I'm getting at - is why go on and on about it? It's a small debt that the club will pay off in no time. Don't just constantly complain about the etihad deal - As you said - when the deal is over the club would have to look at getting a better deal no matter where they go. It'll be fine.

 

[scottwade]

I think the drop in Stadium revenue represents the biggest loss of income.

Not according to newspaper reports.

Stadium revenue down $970k.
Sponsorship & events down $1.4 mill.

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.

 

[L_W_P]

@ SuburbanMe

Yeah... I pretty much agree with you.

I'm sure the Lovett saga had a negative effect on our finances (lawyers aren't free) but the money the Lovett was actually payed out (about 1 million over the last 3 years) was included in our cap.

Etihad is an easy target. We know they rip teams off and I think this is why out of everything that has come through in our accounting reports, the Etihad deal gets the most air time.

 

[SuburbanMe]

Yeah... I pretty much agree with you.

I'm sure the Lovett saga had a negative effect on our finances (lawyers aren't free) but the money the Lovett was actually payed out (about 1 million over the last 3 years) was included in our cap.

Etihad is an easy target. We know they rip teams off and I think this is why out of everything that has come through in our accounting reports, the Etihad deal gets the most air time.

Ok - let's rewind and change my comments on lovett to the lawyers and we're good!

I just find it really piss poor that so many people are copping out to this etihad deal and getting really offended when other people comment on it.

My Team was a massive Basket case regarding it's finances, over $8 Million!!! We paid it all off, and have posted a profit since. The Saints have a little over $2million in debt - that'll be paid off in no time.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

2. The Etihad deal is the number 1 issue in the $1.5m loss.

Its a 3.2 mil turnaround, and to date nobody has itemised this. How much of this massive swing is due to the Etihad deal?

10%? 50%? 100%?

Somebody must know

Perhaps its 150% and the rest of the StKilda franchise actually had a great year? Who can tell us?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Accounting 101


Capital spending does not form part of the P&L statement.

True, bigger deprectiation writedowns are yet to come.

 

[Falchoon]

Its a 3.2 mil turnaround, and to date nobody has itemised this. How much of this massive swing is due to the Etihad deal?

Rather than repeat myself

1. The Etihad deal is irrelevant when comparing 2011 with 2010.

2. The Etihad deal is the number 1 issue in the $1.5m loss.

 

[Falchoon]

True, bigger deprectiation writedowns are yet to come.

untrue

Accounting 102 - Depreciation


The Diminishing Value Method is where the claim is calculated as a percentage of its residual value after writing down it's previous value, in short you can claim a larger amount initially but as the years pass the claimable amount diminishes.

The Prime Cost Method is a fixed value calculated as a percentage of the items original value, there for your claim amount is less initially but does not reduce for the life of the item.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

untrue

Accounting 102 - Depreciation


The Diminishing Value Method is where the claim is calculated as a percentage of its residual value after writing down it's previous value, in short you can claim a larger amount initially but as the years pass the claimable amount diminishes.

The Prime Cost Method is a fixed value calculated as a percentage of the items original value, there for your claim amount is less initially but does not reduce for the life of the item.

So Seaford IS a big contributor to last year or not?

I wish you'd make your mind up rather than Google Accounting standards and pretend they answer the question.

 

[Falchoon]

So Seaford IS a big contributor to last year or not?

I wish you'd make your mind up rather than Google Accounting standards and pretend they answer the question.

It wasn't a question, it was an incorrect statement - corrected.

In answer to this question, (it's even got a question mark), the depreciation on Seaford was $400k. In answer to your next question (or statement), that is less than the Moorabbin write down of the previous year.

 

[MarkT2]

Collo clearly has an ahgenda as he always does. I wouldn't trust the the Carlton mongrel as far as I could throw him. He's been bent forever. He fitted perfectly into Carlton and then the AFL and then back at Carlton.

Saints are a very poorly run club. They've barely put a foot right for a few years now. A couple of presidents haven't helped.

So why does St Kilda lose so much money in 2011? All of the above.