St Kilda - time to get your house in order

[mr bagcroft]

And is why Geelong have such a HUGE advantage.
But on top of that, multi million dollar handouts from the government to bitch up their ground till their hearts are content. Good luck to them, but its utterly ridiculous.

 

[Bluelegs]

I remember the hype around docklands opening and how it would be the saviour of both our clubs. We got shafted as did north.

Genuine question. Why did the smaller tenants agree to these deals in the first place? It's not like any of them were packing out suburban grounds on a regular basis even when it was vic vs vic. Only going to get worse when you have to host interstate sides.

 

[Sando22]

It would also help our profit and loss if we weren't screwed on the Etihad deal where it's almost impossible to make a decent profit on home games.

Easily fixed if your supporters bothered to rock up.
Didn't they play a Friday night home game last year in front of about 60 people?

 

[mr bagcroft]

Genuine question. Why did the smaller tenants agree to these deals in the first place? It's not like any of them were packing out suburban grounds on a regular basis even when it was vic vs vic. Only going to get worse when you have to host interstate sides.

No choice mate ! The AFL decided that those grounds were not fit for purpose anymore and thats it. Of course that is bullshit, but it doesn't matter. It was all about the image of the AFL...and power.Not what is best for the clubs.

 

[telsor]

Figures from Lagi on the Industry board

2017 Interest Bearing Debt both current & non current reported so far by 15 clubs is as follows:

Adelaide $1,212,891
Brisbane $7,300,000
Carlton $6,367,329
Collingwood $1,600,000
Essendon $6,900,000
Fremantle $1,000,000
Geelong $4,190,245
Gold Coast $1,590,000
Hawthorn $9,245,000 Consolidated Accounts. Football club = zero.
Melbourne $4,128,800
Port Adelaide $6,261,495
Richmond $----
St Kilda $6,302,234
West Coast $---
Western Bulldogs $---

It seems St. Kilda's level of debt isn't the issue, but their ability to pay it may be. They should play more Friday night games, it's their own fault they don't /sarcasm.

That's only part of the equation though.

The real question with debts is an organisation's ability to cover it....What is their revenue?, What assets do they have that they could sell if required? etc. (and for an AFL club, how far would the league go to keep you there? Applicable for NSW & QLD clubs)

On these measures, St Kilda really doesn't look good.


There was a thread a few months back about how important this year was for various clubs, which mainly covered flag windows ... I mentioned that St Kilda needed to fire with it's current rebuild because its very existence was on the line...People gave me shit for it, but it's still true.

 

[Brennan Huff]

Billings da Beast will sort them out.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Selling games interstate, building more interstate support, engaging with corporate and coterie groups, improving sponsorship deals, engaging with members better, playing better so members are more likely to join are other ways to make money. It's not difficult for an AFL club to make money in a country obsessed with the game.

They need to do all that to break even.

Donations, gifted fixtures and pokies are where the profits lie.


Sponsorship is far easier to sell if you're playing in good times slots.

'Playing better' is far easier if you have a home ground advantage.

 

[mr bagcroft]

That's only part of the equation though.

The real question with debts is an organisation's ability to cover it....What is their revenue?, What assets do they have that they could sell if required? etc. (and for an AFL club, how far would the league go to keep you there? Applicable for NSW & QLD clubs)

On these measures, St Kilda really doesn't look good.


There was a thread a few months back about how important this year was for various clubs, which mainly covered flag windows ... I mentioned that St Kilda needed to fire with it's current rebuild because its very existence was on the line...People gave me shit for it, but it's still true.

Aint going to happen this year mate. Why the big expectation this year? I dont see it. And dont forget you have an all timer like Nick Riewoldt not in the team for the first time. Montagna is gone...a number one draft pick that cant get on the ground, precious few A graders in the midf..well..all over the whole damn ground. This year is a consolidation year. Hence as I said before, I think the saints are 3 years off finals.

 

[Engimal v3]

Genuine question. Why did the smaller tenants agree to these deals in the first place? It's not like any of them were packing out suburban grounds on a regular basis even when it was vic vs vic. Only going to get worse when you have to host interstate sides.

I'm pretty sure the AFL shot down any alternatives. Basically, they were saying "play at Etihad or not at all".

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's only part of the equation though.

The real question with debts is an organisation's ability to cover it....What is their revenue?, What assets do they have that they could sell if required? etc. (and for an AFL club, how far would the league go to keep you there? Applicable for NSW & QLD clubs)

On these measures, St Kilda really doesn't look good.


There was a thread a few months back about how important this year was for various clubs, which mainly covered flag windows ... I mentioned that St Kilda needed to fire with it's current rebuild because its very existence was on the line...People gave me shit for it, but it's still true.

Do you think the AFL doesn't need 18 teams?

The AFL spends millions propping up all clubs in one way or another - and in return for their investment, they get back billions.


The only time a club is at risk, is when 17 teams is worth more overall in terms of what product is worth, than 18 teams is.

And I don't think that will ever happen to be honest.

 

[00Stinger]

Or if the AFL deems one of the 18 teams to be more valuable in a different market

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Relevance? The OP introduced a quoted topic, purporting to factual statements made from an AFL executive. The team he supports is irrelevant. Did the OP offer an opinion? No, he simply

Op has spent a a lot of time and energy obsessing over st kilda so anything he posts is taken with not a grain but a mountain of salt.

Op has reaped what he sowed and only his posting is to blame.

 

[demondavey]

Bingo.
Didnt help Butters was all coke'd up the whole time either. That by his own admission affected decisions made. Badly.

The thing with St Kilda though, is that they should’ve won one flag in either 09 or 10. That killed you. You get a flag and you’ll get decent treatment. Hypothetically, if you’d won both years, Lyon would’ve stayed and financially you’d be laughing. It didn’t help you went on a downhill slope from 2011 onwards, and appointing Watters was a fail. Like how we picked Neeld.

That was the point where you needed a really experienced coach to build that list up real quick and be back in contention from day last year onwards. I don’t think it’s been so much external pressures causing you to struggle, but some bad internal decisions. I’ve seen us appoint two coaches after Daniher with an administration akin to complete incompetence which led to no finals since 06. That is ****ing embarrassing.

I reckon the Saints need to cut their losses with Richo after this year and throw some cash at a big fish. You need a major shift. Your lift is actually good, there’s stacks of players there ready to break out.

 

[demondavey]

Op has spent a a lot of time and energy obsessing over st kilda so anything he posts is taken with not a grain but a mountain of salt.

Op has reaped what he sowed and only his posting is to blame.

We are over that now. Starting to get reasonable discussions happening. Old news.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Saints definitely feel like the club to have the least AFL support and have managed to stay further away from folding than Melbourne, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, North, Sydney, and Richmond.

Very unfair to single them out.

Sent from mTalk

They were near the top for money received from the Afl last year and possibly the year before too. Not about being fair.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

We are over that now. Starting to get reasonable discussions happening. Old news.

Everyone was over it but apart from op.

He lost his good will for reasonable discussion over st kilda.

His fault not big footy's.

 

[mr bagcroft]

The thing with St Kilda though, is that they should’ve won one flag in either 09 or 10. That killed you. You get a flag and you’ll get decent treatment. Hypothetically, if you’d won both years, Lyon would’ve stayed and financially you’d be laughing. It didn’t help you went on a downhill slope from 2011 onwards, and appointing Watters was a fail. Like how we picked Neeld.

That was the point where you needed a really experienced coach to build that list up real quick and be back in contention from day last year onwards. I don’t think it’s been so much external pressures causing you to struggle, but some bad internal decisions. I’ve seen us appoint two coaches after Daniher with an administration akin to complete incompetence which led to no finals since 06. That is ******* embarrassing.

I reckon the Saints need to cut their losses with Richo after this year and throw some cash at a big fish. You need a major shift. Your lift is actually good, there’s stacks of players there ready to break out.

I cant actually disagree with a word of that.
Id also add though, flags were there for the taking in 04/05 as well. A prelim lost by 6 points, another lost after being 20 odd up at 3/4 time.

 

[Power Raid]

Saint Hobart doesn't sound right. I prefer the Tasmanian Demons.

 

[Richo83]

That's only part of the equation though.

The real question with debts is an organisation's ability to cover it....What is their revenue?, What assets do they have that they could sell if required? etc. (and for an AFL club, how far would the league go to keep you there? Applicable for NSW & QLD clubs)

On these measures, St Kilda really doesn't look good.


There was a thread a few months back about how important this year was for various clubs, which mainly covered flag windows ... I mentioned that St Kilda needed to fire with it's current rebuild because its very existence was on the line...People gave me shit for it, but it's still true.

You're ignoring the fact that if the AFL got rid of St Kilda it would either a) have 17 games and one less game to sell, with one club lying dormant each week or b) find another market to put them in. The question then becomes, is St Kilda more of a financial headache than the other options? I'd say no. It's why North weren't shipped out, because the AFL was worried that having an odd number of teams, or having the Gold Coast Kangaroos wouldn't have worked

 

[edgie]

They were near the top for money received from the Afl last year and possibly the year before too. Not about being fair.

Money alone can't help certain things, like favourable draws, umpire assistance, player movements, coach and board assistance, goodwill propaganda, etc.

Sent from mTalk

 

[demondavey]

I cant actually disagree with a word of that.
Id also add though, flags were there for the taking in 04/05 as well. A prelim lost by 6 points, another lost after being 20 odd up at 3/4 time.

04 would’ve been hard i reckon. I’d tip Brisbane if you’d got through, but 05 was there for sure. Shame. You didn’t seem to build on that 05 momentum though, and maybe that’s an issue with the coaching change? I don’t know. I got this impression Butters and Thomas were just utter flogs, only out to be seen to be associated with an AFL club. Lyon is much more distinguished and has more substance.

It’s hard to tell, but if you look at Geelong post 09 and St Kilda they are polar opposites for two sides of virtually equal measure. You definitely lost years by appointing Watters, hopefully Richardson gets you in or knocking on the door of the 8 this year. You need it as much as we do for the future of our clubs.

 

[telsor]

Do you think the AFL doesn't need 18 teams?

The AFL spends millions propping up all clubs in one way or another - and in return for their investment, they get back billions.


The only time a club is at risk, is when 17 teams is worth more overall in terms of what product is worth, than 18 teams is.

And I don't think that will ever happen to be honest.

and you don't think they could add another? Or relocate St Kilda? Or merge them and used the freed up license elsewhere. I mean, it's not like all three of these havene't happened before....

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Or if the AFL deems one of the 18 teams to be more valuable in a different market

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

That's true.

But why the modern footy fan resists this is beyond me.

I know some rusted on codgers still fall for the 'club' con job that the AFL Fred's them - but they're merely AFL revenue streams in reality.

Where they are based shouldn't matter. Gold Coast, Seaford, Waverley, whatever. What's the difference?

 

[Coalface]

Op has spent a a lot of time and energy obsessing over st kilda so anything he posts is taken with not a grain but a mountain of salt.

Op has reaped what he sowed and only his posting is to blame.

eh? So people are calling out StK fans for being salty in this thread, and your defense is that you're not just a bit salty, you're taking on mountains of salt?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

and you don't think they could add another? Or relocate St Kilda? Or merge them and used the freed up license elsewhere. I mean, it's not like all three of these havene't happened before....

Seriously?

Scrap a brand with tens of thousands of customers, for a new brand with 0?