Saints News SKFC out of pocket due to unfair fixtures

[Kildonan]

St Kilda president Greg Westaway will raise the club's concerns about fixturing and stadium inequities with the AFL.

The AFL is seeking to equalise the competition via annual distributions and are ready to hand out wads of cash to the struggling clubs but have failed to consider fixturing and stadium inequities that beleaguer clubs like St Kilda.

The Saints declared they would be more than $2 million a year better off if they played all their home games at the MCG instead of Etihad Stadium.

Saints count cost of unfair fixtures
Jake Niall
The Age
August 11, 2011

Westaway said the Saints would make $300,000 to $400,000 more tomorrow night if the match at Collingwood was played at the MCG, instead of Etihad.

[W]hile Geelong could make $600,000-$700,000 for a home game against Gold Coast. ''[If] we play the Gold Coast Suns at Etihad and got 20,000 [people there], we would have to write out a cheque for the privilege of playing them. Now tell me that's fair?''

The Saints argue that, as an Etihad tenant which does not receive a huge return compared with the deals that other clubs have at different venues, they are, in effect, making a donation to the competition because the AFL will end up owning the stadium in 2025.

 

[SA1NTER]

Reading through some of the comments made by idiots under the article, going on about our priority picks from 10 years ago and sharing their offended stories. HTFU or STFU you pathetic know nothing losers.

/End of rant.

Yeah it's unfair that the AFL makes clubs actually pay to play there.

 

[hayes]

The club having to pay money to Jihad stadium is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. How did it come to this?

 

[Present Not Past]

My feeling about this is if the team can continue to win games at Ethiad and get the 4 points each week against even the best opposition, then I think that is more important in a season of football than any extra money they could make playing at the MCG. I mean, we don't have the best record there do we?

 

[Hornberger]

Why does the media never call out clubs when they spin this bullshit.
Geelong make $700,000 per game if you include membership revenue.
St Kilda only has to pay to use Eithad if you exclude membership revenue.
It’s not a valid comparison. If you include membership revenue which you should as it most significant match day revenue then St Kilda will makes a significant profit regardless of the crowd.

 

[Kildonan]

Its called spin. And its used to emphasize a legitimate point.

 

[Hornberger]

Its called spin. And its used to emphasize a legitimate point.

It may or may not be legitimate point but because they have never published the real numbers its impossible to know if they have a point. If its a legitimate point then why do they need to lie about the magnitude of problem?

It also doesn't address whether the any imbalance is caused by higher costs of playing at Eithad or Geelong just generate higher revenue per seat by having more reserved seating. Then there is signage which is paid to the AFL who then distributes it to Eithad's tenants which form part of match returns but doesn't affect the match day outcomes.

 

[Hornberger]

Last year St Kilda made $4,285,087 from Membership and $2,299,402 from Match Returns. Thats a total of $6,584,489 or just under $600,000 per game.

I know that some of the 2010 Match Returns relate to 2009 but as they where recieved after November 1st had to be included in the 2010 annual report and there are things like Non-Match day membership which shouldn't be counted as part of match day income so they actually return would be slightly less. The disparity is no where near as bad they are trying to make it to be.

 

[Kildonan]

How much of those $2,299,402 Match Returns came from Etihad and how much came from MCG matches? This is the problem.

 

[bluejay]

If its a legitimate point then why do they need to lie about the magnitude of problem?

He's got a valid point there, though.

 

[nufan]

The club having to pay money to Jihad stadium is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. How did it come to this?

ask brayshaw

 

[The Punter]

It's just a negotiation tactic. I don't worry about this stuff.

 

[Persevering Saint]

... Am I missing something?

Yup, that it's not your board, and it's not a thread directly about our game against you tonight.

So, toodeloo...

 

[jd1991]

When Saints had to choose a ground - either Eitahad or MCG they choose Eitahad (When Waverley was going). So unless the MCG offerring has changed significantly since that decision - apart from crowds that would get over 60k (such as tonght) - what would the difference be?
Also do you know when the Saints contract with Eitahad is up for renewal - I couldnt see any self respecting club would sign for more than 10 years - it should be soon, shouldnt it?

 

[Kildonan]

I was tempted to simply delete the above post as there is just too much wrong in it.

 

[Papa Juggs]

How many teams have won a flag based out of Etihad?

Makes you wonder hey. Hawks, Pies MCG teams and Geelong the special stadium mob.

Is it none?

 

[StFly]

How many teams have won a flag based out of Etihad?

Makes you wonder hey. Hawks, Pies MCG teams and Geelong the special stadium mob.

Is it none?

Depends how you class Essendon at the time. Stadium opened march 2000, Essendon won the flag in 2000 before the lions 3peat and Essendon have been signed on since inception of the stadium along with us and the Dogs.

 

[conodie05]

How many teams have won a flag based out of Etihad?

Makes you wonder hey. Hawks, Pies MCG teams and Geelong the special stadium mob.

Is it none?

Fair point.

Is that due to the issue of paying off the crooks that run jihad stadium, or is it more due to not familiarising themselves with a totally different surface? Let's be honest, playing at the MCG is akin to playing interstate and vice-versa due to the difference in playing surface and ambience.

The biggest mistake in the history of VFL/AFL was to build a new stadium and let Waverley die a sad, display home kinda death.

 

[redmonkeyman]

Why does the media never call out clubs when they spin this bullshit.
Geelong make $700,000 per game if you include membership revenue.
St Kilda only has to pay to use Eithad if you exclude membership revenue.
It’s not a valid comparison. If you include membership revenue which you should as it most significant match day revenue then St Kilda will makes a significant profit regardless of the crowd.

No club and not just ours ever pay to play at Etihad. Fact!

Clubs are full of sh*t and push and agenda to increase yields and drive revenues and try and keep up with others.

 

[StFly]

No club and not just ours ever pay to play at Etihad. Fact!

Clubs are full of sh*t and push and agenda to increase yields and drive revenues and try and keep up with others.

Incorrect, the stadium is still privately owned and as such clubs effectively incur the operating costs for opening the stadium for them to use and per contracts once a target is achieved the clubs then draw a profit from its opening. The problem arises with the contracts and if the cut off towards profit is not met then of course the money is recouped, it's a cyclical situation in which the stadium seeks to grab its profits from the clubs who in turn seek to recoup losses from the AFL who in turn seek to recoup losses from broadcasting rights and the media who in turn attempt to draw a profit from the AFL & stadiums.