Ian Collins attack on St Kilda

[Chains]

I hate Ian Collins, but I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that of all the clubs in the AFL... it is ST KILDA who is pointing fingers in the opposite direction of themselves to explain the financial problems at their own club.

Amazing.

 

[The_Wookie]

Will be interesting when Carlton and Essendon contracts with Etihad come up for renewal. Clubs arent allowed to negotiate directly with the MCG - they deal directly with the AFL apparently (an arrangement which is highly anticompetitive but no one has called them on it).

Carltons contract is due for renewal in 2014 IIRC and they are already talking about going to the G.

 

[Blues_Man]

Saints gave up a decent profit for playing games at Aurora stadium ..and now they are crying foul over another stadium deal ...who is running the show down there ?

 

[The Finger]

While the AFL use a couple of clubs as advertising tools for the AFL and give them preferential treatment nothing will change. The blatant prop up the AFL has given Collingwood has seen many clubs just fighting for scraps.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Can't people like Collins do their business behind closed doors rather than blab their disagreements all over the media? It's boring.

 

[Tas]

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.

Our CEO said we have not seen any of the extra 100k per match, what they added into the credits column they just added to the debits column as well, they aren't taking any less from games and we aren't making any more than before.

He is just a shit used car salesman and he sold his own beloved Blues into that shithole as well before fleeing.

 

[laminex]

Ian Collins is a **** and always has been. He has no right to come out and say those things.

Why is that???

 

[scottwade]

Will be interesting when Carlton and Essendon contracts with Etihad come up for renewal. Clubs arent allowed to negotiate directly with the MCG - they deal directly with the AFL apparently (an arrangement which is highly anticompetitive but no one has called them on it).

Carltons contract is due for renewal in 2014 IIRC and they are already talking about going to the G.

Surely clubs are limited to the extent that they can negotiate their home ground, simply because they cannot guarantee 'performance/delivery'.

It is the AFL that fixture matches, therefore ultimately it will be they that determine who plays where.

 

[telsor]

Surely clubs are limited to the extent that they can negotiate their home ground, simply because they cannot guarantee 'performance/delivery'.

It is the AFL that fixture matches, therefore ultimately it will be they that determine who plays where.

I think the AFL has to approve all deals, which is why Richmond had to withdraw from negotiations to play in Hobart.


Mind you, it does add a delicious piece of irony, with the same North supporters who moan about being forced into a bad deal at Etihad because it was the only place they could play and yet they boast about the great deal the got in Hobart.

Seems that when the power in the negotiations favor North, they don't mind exploiting it.

 

[Ant_]

Collins is scum, always was and always will be.

 

[TheOldXav]

Will be interesting when Carlton and Essendon contracts with Etihad come up for renewal. Clubs arent allowed to negotiate directly with the MCG -

Not really. Both Essendon and Carlton have missed the boat with the MCC. Collingwood and Melbourne directly deal with the MCC as financially, they are the 2 biggest tenants at the MCG.

In Collingwood's case, we have a 30 year plus contract with the MCC for exclusive control of the social clubs within the new stand. This is regardless of whether Collingwood are playing that particular day.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Collins is scum, always was and always will be.

We all know that but its irrelevant to whether he was right or wrong with what he said.

 

[R00StaR]

Yes, but why was North in that situation?

Because the grounds had already gone to the bigger clubs and made them attractive offers, because they were going to be the ones who brought in the crowds/profits.

They then went to the mid sized clubs, and secured them them.

They were then obligated to give the small clubs a slot, but didn't really care.

Or in other words, if you had more fans, you would have gotten a better deal.

Sorry, I just get sick of the "it's not our fault, we're victims who always get picked on for no reason" mentality a lot of North fans seem to have.

What should have happened is the AFL negotiating a deal for all clubs, but the clubs didn't want them to get involved.

You say yourself the smaller clubs got screwed, no matter what clubs do there has to be some clubs smaller than others. Just so happens my team is one of them, im not crying fowl its just the way it is with this stupid set up. Im not aware of any other sports ground in the country, or anywhere for that matter that is privately owned to exploit maximum profits for shareholders.

I agree the AFL shouldve negotiated for all clubs, but at the end of the day the larger clubs hold sway, always have and always will when it comes to votes. If only 2 or 3 clubs get bad deals that means someone has to have good deals the other end, no guessing who. Thats what happens in a commercial world, the question is do we want a purely commercial comp, get rid of salary cap ect ect?

Im satisfied where North is headed, with Tassie and (hopefully) Ballarat on the go we should be able to get make enough coin from our lower drawing games.

It doesnt change the fact its moronic to have Docklands privately owned.

Who should provide the money to pay it out, and how do *they* get paid back?

The AFL and the state gov. The AFL will own it and the Gov, well they benefit massively from AFL. Tassie pay $1m for low drawing games, Victoria gets them for free, while they build a lovely soccer stadium.

 

[redmonkeyman]

The AFL and the state gov. The AFL will own it and the Gov, well they benefit massively from AFL. Tassie pay $1m for low drawing games, Victoria gets them for free, while they build a lovely soccer stadium.

Collo would be angling for this to happen sooner rather than later as it is also rumoured that his contract with Melbourne Stadiums ends in November/December this year. If AFL own early it would be highly likely he'd be retained for a period one would think however the AFL would make some savings in admin wages ie Finance, Marketing, Membership etc. through their services.

The AFL won't budge on their offer rumoured to be about $40-$50million shy of the asking price.

Where does this leave it then?

Melbourne Stadiums may go to market to sell it off and try and call the AFL's hand or sit on it again?

If i owned it i'd be keen to off load it sooner than later as you'd have to pump a great deal of money into it over the next 14-15 years before the AFL get it for a $1.

Public and Club pressure may force the AFL into it sooner though!

Note: our management are jokers btw!!!!

 

[Ice-Wolf]

We should just demand to play Gold Coast and GWS at Frankston Oval, convert some shipping containers into corporate and media boxes, toilet blocks and find a way to fit 10,000 people in would probably make more from those games than we would playing at Docklands.

Have the game on also on live on a big screens at Moorabbin & Junction Oval and charge a small entry fee $5 for those official live venues.

 

[telsor]

The AFL and the state gov. The AFL will own it and the Gov, well they benefit massively from AFL. Tassie pay $1m for low drawing games, Victoria gets them for free, while they build a lovely soccer stadium.

The AFL will put in because they'll both make and save money from ownign the ground ( they'll still make some profits from it, and wont need to subsidise clubs so much ), but really, we're talking what, 5-6million a year? Unless they're getting it really cheap, it wotn be a very good investment.

As for the government...They get 4 games a week effectively for free. Why would they front up a significant amount of cash when they wont get anything new/more? (Certainly nothing that would translate into a noteworthy amount of votes). Paying for the MCG they'll do, because it's the big stadium, and ensures we get the big events. Rectangular stadium appeals to a broader audience so gets votes from there... Eithad...There are very few votes there (or egate), so why front up tens of millions of dollars?

 

[SA1NTER]

We all know that but its irrelevant to whether he was right or wrong with what he said.

There could have been multiple truth values with what he said, like half truths and whole lies kind of thing. The important part is to know why he made those comments.

Defending his stadium's deal with the Etihad clubs, or a cheap shot at our club? One must look at his intentions for saying what he 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.

The above quote shows that Ian was just being an arseh*le. His criticism in that quote had no constructive purpose, no baring on the Etihad deal, irrelevant to his previous comments and shows complete ignorance on his behalf. Just because you "think" moving to Seaford was something the club "would rue" does not make it a fact, Ian. That is what is called an opinion.

Also, Ian, as far as you and your opinions are concerned, if things were in my control, I would let you rot. Ya bastard.

 

[mediumsizered]

The above quote shows that Ian was just being an arseh*le. His criticism in that quote had no constructive purpose, no baring on the Etihad deal, irrelevant to his previous comments and shows complete ignorance on his behalf. Just because you "think" moving to Seaford was something the club "would rue" does not make it a fact, Ian. That is what is called an opinion.

Also, Ian, as far as you and your opinions are concerned, if things were in my control, I would let you rot. Ya bastard.

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.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There could have been multiple truth values with what he said, like half truths and whole lies kind of thing. The important part is to know why he made those comments..

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.

 

[Falchoon]

But wasn't the move to Seaford one of the contributing factors to St Kilda's big loss?

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


I'm picturing Collins with a big H.L Mencken quotation hanging behind his desk.

 

[Falchoon]

Michael Nettlefold has tried to defect 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.

The same noises were made when the Saints were generating additional revenue through winning 22 games a season.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=574550

 

[Slattery_20]

Collins is scum, always was and always will be.

Don't disagree, but as a businessman he deserves the right of reply.
Extremely disingenuous of St K's board to blame this on the stadium. Buck-passing.

 

[Falchoon]

Extremely disingenuous of St K's board to blame this on the stadium. Buck-passing.

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.

 

[Slattery_20]

If the Etihad deal was better in '11 than '10 then you can't use that as a reason for your '11 result.
Sorry.

 

[Falchoon]

If the Etihad deal was better in '11 than '10 then you can't use that as a reason for your '11 result.
Sorry.

-$971k in stadium receipts


combined with -$700k in prize money, -$264k in merchandise sales and -1600 members can all be attributable to a poorer on field result.

Using a year where you finish 2nd as a benchmark is ridiculous though, -$200k per game v the alternative stadium is -$200k per game, no matter what it was the year prior.