Is St Kilda in the firing line for relocation?

[Stan_Darsh72]

Bit of a difference between Port and St Kilda.

For one, Port aren't competing with nine other clubs in their own state.

Not really.

We have the same issue not truing supporters into members. We have a decent sized fan base which people tend to underestimate.

 

[Colonial]

Sydney receives around 5-6 times more in AFL handouts than all those AFL teams despite being the only side in Australia's biggest city for the last 30 years and have comparable membership numbers to North. Instead of removing this side, the AFL went and put another one in that city and pumped even more money into it. Without those AFL handouts the Swans most likely wouldn't be able to stay afloat. If the AFL decided to take better care of their traditional clubs instead of or as well as pumping tens of millions of dollars into the Sydney franchises for the sole purpose of getting one over the NRL then the status quo in Melbourne is certainly sustainable.

Ummm how much do you think the Swans get??

 

[Riccardo11]

I'm grateful to those who helped, and I've helped other clubs when they've been in need (although if you want ingrates, look no further than North supporters), but the fact remains that if you don't lift yourself out of the crap, you're just going to be in a downward cycle of 'getting by' when your team is doing well (which will become less and less frequent because $ means more on field success) and desperately needing help, and one day that help wont be there.

BTW...Look at your financial report and tell me your club isn't saying 'pretty please' to the AFL for more money. The whole episode where your CEO said you had as much support as Richmond was in a presentation to the AFL Commission...I'll give you 3 guesses that was about.

I believe the NZ adventure and our engagement in the community is a large part of our attempts to help ourselves. I don't believe you can rely only on equalization funds to survive, but I think we are not trying to do that at all. However, I don't believe the help will ever disappear completely, the AFL makes an enormous profit itself every year and is required to distribute those profits in part to it's member clubs. The VFA had trouble surviving in part because it required huge contributions from it's member clubs and offered precious little assistance when they found themselves financially strained.

I'm not denying we are relying in part on the generosity of the AFL to survive, we may need more money right now, but we might not always. It seems the "as much support as Richmond" comment really rankles with you, while I don't know if it's true or not, we are at least attempting to tap into our latent supporter base, which can only be good for the competition as a whole.

 

[kangaspurs]

Ummm how much do you think the Swans get??

Sydney receive 12 million, North 2.8, Saints 3.8, Dogs 2.8 and Melbourne 2.3.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...millions-in-aid-from-afl-20150301-13rqwm.html

 

[Riccardo11]

My point was that if the AFL remain committed to supporting traditional clubs as well as pumping money into the franchise sides then the current situation in Melbourne is certainly sustainable.

If you are referring to Storm, the current model is is no way sustainable, they are even selling a game to NZ (where the majority stakeholders reside) for the extra cash needed to complete the season. It's sadly unlikely now that Melbourne will have a full time NRL side in 5 years.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

If you look at the Saints' annual report for 2014 it becomes quite obvious that the club had an awful year off the field. A few observations:

• Made a loss of $3.9 million.
• Was given $5.3 million in extra funding on top of the base distribution (most for a Vic club).
• Made the smallest amount of revenue in 2014 ($30 million).
• Had the smallest membership base in Victoria (30k).

Now obviously finishing last is a factor here but their figures for 2013 weren't impressive either. So why isn't St Kilda thought of as a relocation team as much as another club like North Melbourne? Is there a chance there might be a push to relocate St Kilda any time soon?

They performed better than the Swans didn't they off the field? Shouldn't we relocate Sydney first?

 

[Colonial]

Sydney receive 12 million, North 2.8, Saints 3.8, Dogs 2.8 and Melbourne 2.3.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/unprofitable-clubs-get-millions-in-aid-from-afl-20150301-13rqwm.html

hmmm interesting considering the Swans were no where near the top club to get funds and were more half way back in 2013.


North Melbourne 7,196,244 3,045,000 2,535,812 12,777,056


Sydney Swans 7,196,244 1,945,609 2,181,083 11,322,936

 

[Colonial]

If you are referring to Storm, the current model is is no way sustainable, they are even selling a game to NZ (where the majority stakeholders reside) for the extra cash needed to complete the season. It's sadly unlikely now that Melbourne will have a full time NRL side in 5 years.

Will never happen. The NRL will not let their only club in the 2nd biggest city in the country fold or move.

 

[Riccardo11]

Will never happen. The NRL will not let their only club in the 2nd biggest city in the country fold or move.

The club is privately owned, I am not certain there is anything the NRL can do if the owners are determined to shift the club. The current TV rights deal specifies the number of clubs in the competition, not sure about their locations.

I know it's unlikely, but it worries me that we will fall to the wayside as so many other clubs have done. The comp hasn't been big on retention of any clubs, traditionally, regardless of who they are.

 

[Colonial]

The club is privately owned, I am not certain there is anything the NRL can do if the owners are determined to shift the club. The current TV rights deal specifies the number of clubs in the competition, not sure about their locations.

I know it's unlikely, but it worries me that we will fall to the wayside as so many other clubs have done. The comp hasn't been big on retention of any clubs, traditionally, regardless of who they are.

It was also a condition of the News Ltd sale that they stay in Melbourne and continue to be funded by the NRL if any problems arise. They aint going anywhere.

 

[Riccardo11]

It was also a condition of the News Ltd sale that they stay in Melbourne and continue to be funded by the NRL if any problems arise. They aint going anywhere.

I actually can't find that clause in any of the news articles I have just googled, the only thing I saw close to that was the contract with the Victorian Government.

I do hope that is the case though, there are 12 games in Victoria and 200+ in NSW in any given season (I'm told), so losing one of ours is a bit hard to swallow.

 

[Colonial]

I actually can't find that clause in any of the news articles I have just googled, the only thing I saw close to that was the contract with the Victorian Government.

I do hope that is the case though, there are 12 games in Victoria and 200+ in NSW in any given season (I'm told), so losing one of ours is a bit hard to swallow.

Just tried to google myself. But I do remember it being all over the news when the independent commission was coming in and News forfeited their ownership (or were bought out.)

 

[chiwigi]

There ALWAYS has to be a club at the bottom and it wont ALWAYS be the same club. Talk of moving or disbanding a club is disgusting and disrespectful to the game itself.

 

[rocket18]

Relocate them to the VFL with one of Bulldogs, North or Melbourne.

Come back to 16 teams = slightly better standard, less crappy games.

Their supporters can still watch them play in the local comp.

 

[Riccardo11]

Relocate them to the VFL with one of Bulldogs, North or Melbourne.

Come back to 16 teams = slightly better standard, less crappy games.

Their supporters can still watch them play in the local comp.

Not only is this illegal and against the AFL constitution, it would be utterly unsustainable for the VFL competition to attempt to accommodate 3 clubs who each have a membership base, operating costs and player quality far above the rest of the competition, not to mention the clubs North & St Kilda have host arrangements with.

I suspect this is a troll, but as a St Kilda supporter and member of a VFL club, I can't not reply to this. It's like automatically relegating Everton, West Ham and Southampton to the Conference North.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Their team is up now, so they look (relatively) good.

St Kilda looked good a few years back.

Don't confuse the cycle of the teams success with the trend.

Norths trend on and off the field is upwards....

 

[The_Reaper]

From what I have read St Kilda have a pretty strong association with Melbourne's South East + Frankson?

So that's a fairly sizeable population base to draw support from - probably larger than Geelong's base.

So they'll be fine.

Moving back to the Junction Oval might not be a good idea though

 

[inamedthegiants]

Not only is this illegal and against the AFL constitution, it would be utterly unsustainable for the VFL competition to attempt to accommodate 3 clubs who each have a membership base, operating costs and player quality far above the rest of the competition, not to mention the clubs North & St Kilda have host arrangements with.

I suspect this is a troll, but as a St Kilda supporter and member of a VFL club, I can't not reply to this. It's like automatically relegating Everton, West Ham and Southampton to the Conference North.

I hope you're not a Borough member.

We don't need or want elitist Stain Kilda fans on our membership numbers.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

10 Clubs in Melbourne is wayyyyyy too many. It isn't feasible in the long run and it saves other clubs spending money to save these poor clubs when they could be spending on their own team to improve the qaulity of the game.

 

[Crawb]

Next two years are critical. AFL's current deal with Tasmania ends at the end of 2016. Gil has stated and made it clear from the get-go that the AFL is moving to a one team model for Tasmania.

If NZ continues to flop for another two years, and North Melbourne refuse to take the Tasmanian deal, St. Kilda are the next team off the list. Whilst it won't be a relocation or a partial relocation at first, it could very much evolve into a partial relocation (8 games in Tas, 3 in Melb) in the future for whoever takes Tasmania on-board for 2017.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Personally, merge Kangaroos and Demons to the Melbourne Kangaroos
Introduce the Tasmanian Devils (play half in hobart, half in launceston)
Eventually move a club to NZ.
Comp stays at 18.
Though I'd be happy to cull a few Vic clubs to get to 16

 

[Kram]

Personally, merge Kangaroos and Demons to the Melbourne Kangaroos
Introduce the Tasmanian Devils (play half in hobart, half in launceston)
Eventually move a club to NZ.
Comp stays at 18.
Though I'd be happy to cull a few Vic clubs to get to 16

You are an ideas man.

 

[telsor]

Hmmm, lets see. Reducing debt each year, increasing revenue and FD support to develop a better on field product to provide a platform for attracting sponsorship/membership/revenue, further engage with existing supporters to generate a more committed membership, increasing engagement in secondary market in Hobart as well as in the Wyndham region, establishing and administering a world leading Multicultural Foundation and engaging new marketing and business strategy staff in both Melbourne and Hobart to develop the club brand and take advantage of the revenue gains leading to increase FD spend, leading to on-field performance and leading to overall improvement in the clubs ability to serve its long term interests.

Although, rather than do these things, to commit to growth based upon sound strategy and long term planning and implementation, perhaps North should just have invested in pokies and aimed to generate close to $6 million in revenue last year from gamblers, like Richmond did last year. Then we would have been only $5 million behind Richmond in revenue generated. That would pretty much make us comparable.

So nothing every other club isn't doing.

Oh, except for no pokies, which rather than being a moral stand is due to toy having to sell them off to cover a debt.

When are you going to require less funding due to these measures?

 

[GarnerSmash]

So nothing every other club isn't doing.

Oh, except for no pokies, which rather than being a moral stand is due to toy having to sell them off to cover a debt.

When are you going to require less funding due to these measures?

Oh, so we are trying. Good.

 

[telsor]

Personally, merge Kangaroos and Demons to the Melbourne Kangaroos
Introduce the Tasmanian Devils (play half in hobart, half in launceston)
Eventually move a club to NZ.
Comp stays at 18.
Though I'd be happy to cull a few Vic clubs to get to 16

Cull WCE and setup 3 clubs in WA from the remains.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind your club dying, for the good of the game, like you seem to expect of Vic fans.