Rumour The St Kilda debt situation - no more tick

[Lavender Bushranger]

1 flag in 140 years and being consistently sh*t would make it hard for their supports to be anything other than "just aren't that into it".

Maybe.

I think it's more of a demographic thing personally.

 

[StCicatriz]

Maybe.

I think it's more of a demographic thing personally.

lol what

so by that admission you think GC struggle behind GWS just because of demographics? despite there being a stronger football connection there.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

lol what

so by that admission you think GC struggle behind GWS just because of demographics? despite there being a stronger football connection there.

I didn't say that. Nothing of the sort.

 

[StCicatriz]

I didn't say that. Nothing of the sort.

i'd love to hear the specific reasoning behind thinking its a demographic issue for st kilda but not for GC...

sports participation in the whole bayside area is performing well compared to other LGAs. it also doesn't explain how clubs in the same zones are doing fine. for example hawthorn have had a presence in that bayside area and are doing fine. melbourne is surrounded by clubs and they've traditionally struggled for membership in the modern era.

you also have the issue of clubs memberships spiking off of success compared to waning during periods of no success.

 

[Sainter3and7]

I can remember Allan Jeans saying that success on field can't happen without the off-field administration of a club being in good shape. St Kilda only won one premiership since 1873 and still defaulted on the payments to those players. Says it all.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

i'd love to hear the specific reasoning behind thinking its a demographic issue for st kilda but not for GC...

sports participation in the whole bayside area is performing well compared to other LGAs. it also doesn't explain how clubs in the same zones are doing fine. for example hawthorn have had a presence in that bayside area and are doing fine. melbourne is surrounded by clubs and they've traditionally struggled for membership in the modern era.

you also have the issue of clubs memberships spiking off of success compared to waning during periods of no success.

It's not science. It's just my opinion, based on my own experiences.

The Saints supporters I know seem to enjoy the footy, but value other things in their lives more.

Same with the Dees fans I know.

But the Richmond, Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood fans I've personally known over the years, generally speaking, are ****ing weird. It's like a cult to them.

FWIW, the Hawthorn fans Ive known, and there are plenty of them, are the biggest bandwagoners of the lot. They're rabid when they're winning, but would rather play golf when they're losing.


I actually did some homework on this a while ago, and looked at crowd numbers when teams are bottom 4, versus when they're top 4. When you line the numbers up against Roy Morgan's annual supporter survey, it's clear that although St. Kilda have enough supporters, they just don't show up. Even when they're winning, like in 04/05, and 09/10, big clubs like Essendon and Richmond were still pulling comparable crowds when they were bottom 4.

 

[sosos]

It's not science. It's just my opinion, based on my own experiences.

The Saints supporters I know seem to enjoy the footy, but value other things in their lives more.

Same with the Dees fans I know.

But the Richmond, Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood fans I've personally known over the years, generally speaking, are ******* weird. It's like a cult to them.

FWIW, the Hawthorn fans Ive known, and there are plenty of them, are the biggest bandwagoners of the lot. They're rabid when they're winning, but would rather play golf when they're losing.


I actually did some homework on this a while ago, and looked at crowd numbers when teams are bottom 4, versus when they're top 4. When you line the numbers up against Roy Morgan's annual supporter survey, it's clear that although St. Kilda have enough supporters, they just don't show up. Even when they're winning, like in 04/05, and 09/10, big clubs like Essendon and Richmond were still pulling comparable crowds when they were bottom 4.

Did you balance for fixture inequality?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Did you balance for fixture inequality?

No, I didn't.

To be honest, I did it a while ago so I'm not sure was factored in, other than average attendances for H&A games, and a breakdown of how games and away games. Figured Home games were more likely to attract home team fans.


And FWIW, I'm sensing that some Saints fans are bristling at the suggestion that their average supporter isn't a rabid, footy loving lunatic. It's actually a compliment, not an insult.

 

[WillHayward]

Saints move to Seaford was really a major **** up. A decade down the gurgler.

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

I can tell you one thing for certain. Fewer St Kilda supporters die each year than many other AFL clubs.

That may be true, but based on last years Roy Morgan polling perhaps more fan deaths than, Melb, Port, Nth, GC, GWS, WB and Freo.

Support is there, which is perhaps highlighted also by the fact we have the largest GF attendance average of all clubs - even if we haven't gotten to the big dance that often.

 

[VinnieB]

That may be true, but based on last years Roy Morgan polling perhaps more fan deaths than, Melb, Port, Nth, GC, GWS, WB and Freo.

Support is there, which is perhaps highlighted also by the fact we have the largest GF attendance average of all clubs - even if we haven't gotten to the big dance that often.

A combination of not playing in many GF (8) and most of them prior to 1980 when capacity was higher skews these numbers.

 

[VinnieB]

Saints move to Seaford was really a major fu** up. A decade down the burglar.

They should have moved to Carrum like Melbourne City. City of Dandenong has higher GDP than Adelaide (possibly whole of SA), and that whole region out through the Mornington peninsula is growing.

No reason why St Kilda, even based where they are at Moorabbin, can’t take advantage of it. Maybe Hawthorn moving out to Dingley gives them the advantage now after St Kilda neglected that whole region all these years. I doubt Hawthorn will make that mistake. The difference is and has been who has led the club.

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

A combination of not playing in many GF (8) and most of them prior to 1980 when capacity was higher skews these numbers.

Interesting use of the word 'most'.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They should have moved to Carrum like Melbourne City. City of Dandenong has higher GDP than Adelaide (possibly whole of SA), and that whole region out through the Mornington peninsula is growing.

No reason why St Kilda, even based where they are at Moorabbin, can’t take advantage of it. Maybe Hawthorn moving out to Dingley gives them the advantage now after St Kilda neglected that whole region all these years. I doubt Hawthorn will make that mistake. The difference is and has been who has led the club.

But what does 'take advantage of it' actually mean?

Does that mean they'll flip existing supporters from other clubs?? How often that does happen? And if they're the type of supporter that swaps clubs, surely they'll change again at some point in the future.

Or does it mean they'll find people that don't follow AFL footy and get them into it? And then get them to immediately start buying memberships and going to games? How long will they buy memberships for anyway?

Or are there heaps of AFL fans out there that just haven't picked a club to throw money at yet?


And, when this happens, how many people are we actually talking about? 100? 5000? 10000?

Even, as absurd as it sounds, they were to find 10000 people to start magically barracking for them and buying merch and memberships and going to games - how long would it take to bridge the existing gap between them and the big clubs? Due to the blockbusters and primetime exposure they get, they are growing more than anyone.

This notion of small clubs just suddenly finding new fans and getting big, is just void of logic.

 

[VinnieB]

But what does 'take advantage of it' actually mean?

Does that mean they'll flip existing supporters from other clubs?? How often that does happen? And if they're the type of supporter that swaps clubs, surely they'll change again at some point in the future.

Or does it mean they'll find people that don't follow AFL footy and get them into it? And then get them to immediately start buying memberships and going to games? How long will they buy memberships for anyway?

Or are there heaps of AFL fans out there that just haven't picked a club to throw money at yet?


And, when this happens, how many people are we actually talking about? 100? 5000? 10000?

Even, as absurd as it sounds, they were to find 10000 people to start magically barracking for them and buying merch and memberships and going to games - how long would it take to bridge the existing gap between them and the big clubs? Due to the blockbusters and primetime exposure they get, they are growing more than anyone.

This notion of small clubs just suddenly finding new fans and getting big, is just void of logic.

Seriously I think it's a waste of time conversing with you.

 

[Tetley Tigers]

You are making plenty of assumptions here, of which many are very questionable.

Not every kid follows their parent's team. They have a mother and a father, to begin with and it may be their both follow different teams.
My wife is a Carlton supporter, my kids are Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton. Why Essendon? Because her closest friends are Essendon.

I'll give you another example of how kids are influenced.

St Kilda players went a a primary school in their prime catchment area. They promised the kids certain things. They never delivered and treated it as a joke. I can tell you for a fact that those kids felt so let down by the St Kilda football club that it had an affect on who they support. My friend (St Kilda) had his son (and his mate) switch team on the back of that experience.

In soccer, it's hardly surprising there are many kids who follow Melbourne City while their parent follows Melbourne Victory. Why? Again, because Melbourne City put the time in to the junior soccer clubs while Victory don't. Brighton Soccer Club (largest members in Victoria) replaced Victory with Melbourne City as their official partner for that very reason.

If supporter bases of clubs were decided 100 years ago, how do you explain St Kilda having a much lower member/supporter base than a 'new' club like Hawthorn?

Immigration continues and just like in the 50s/60s where many Italians and Greeks came to Australia they adopted teams like Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood etc. This continues and is an opportunity. Which clubs are going down to the local schools where they have a large group of Sudanese, Vietnamese etc?? There's an opportunity right there.

I'm not disputing some form of equalisation for the betterment of the game. However, it comes a time when clubs that have been around 100+ years need to accept they have failed to do enough to close the gap, and there's no excuse for their liabilities to continue to blow out

From first hand experience, St Kilda’s engagement with local clubs in the Bayside area is poor.

For a Club that has one solitary premiership they need to be doing a lot more.


Tetley Tiger

 

[WillHayward]

I can remember Allan Jeans saying that success on field can't happen without the off-field administration of a club being in good shape. St Kilda only won one premiership since 1873 and still defaulted on the payments to those players. Says it all.

Archie Fraser was a dead set disgrace.
One single man set the joint back decades.. Can't be underestimated.

By the same token I don't think Lethlean has been much help either. He's no Archie to be sure, but I don't think he's helped

 

[WillHayward]

But what does 'take advantage of it' actually mean?

Does that mean they'll flip existing supporters from other clubs?? How often that does happen? And if they're the type of supporter that swaps clubs, surely they'll change again at some point in the future.

Or does it mean they'll find people that don't follow AFL footy and get them into it? And then get them to immediately start buying memberships and going to games? How long will they buy memberships for anyway?

Or are there heaps of AFL fans out there that just haven't picked a club to throw money at yet?


And, when this happens, how many people are we actually talking about? 100? 5000? 10000?

Even, as absurd as it sounds, they were to find 10000 people to start magically barracking for them and buying merch and memberships and going to games - how long would it take to bridge the existing gap between them and the big clubs? Due to the blockbusters and primetime exposure they get, they are growing more than anyone.

This notion of small clubs just suddenly finding new fans and getting big, is just void of logic.

You just have to win.

The people you need to get as fans are aged 5 to 15.
Same for all clubs.
Get enough in that age group who get rusted on and fanatical and then they brain wash their own kids and away you go.

Using saints just as an example. Any Saints dad born after 1970 probably isn't that fanatical and then they arent spreading the gospel.

In contrast, a bombers dad (or mum) born after 1970 has had a heap of good times and is likely to spread the gospel to their kids with passion.

Carlton are interesting because we now have a new cohort of young dads born after 1990 who aren't so passionate (for obvious reasons). They have five years to win a flag if they want to remain a big club with a heap of passionate fans

Plenty of time and I think they will get one soonish. If not, then it might become interesting.

I think this pretty much sums up the AFL equalisation policy and why they hope all clubs win one flag every 30 years (or generation).

AFL would love nothing more than Saints, Blues, Bombers, North and Dockers to snag one soonish. Purely to keep another generation of fanatics and not lose them to other sports.

 

[Lampers]

You just have to win.

The people you need to get as fans are aged 5 to 15.
Same for all clubs.
Get enough in that age group who get rusted on and fanatical and then they brain wash their own kids and away you go.

100% this.

I’m involved administering a couple of Auskick clinics, and the buzz around Melbourne in 2021 amongst the kids was really apparent.

Most kids at Auskick are already affiliated with a team and generally it’s one of their parent’s team, and they were the ones inadvertently pumping up the Demons when they were talking about footy. Several of the kids that didn’t have a team started to gravitate to Melbourne through the year because of how they other kids were revering and talking about Melbourne.

The area has relatively high recent Chinese and Indian immigration, and most of those kids in the 10+ age group who have a team are Hawthorn or Richmond - again because of the recent success when those kids were 5-10 years’ old given their parents likely didn’t have a team.

If I was running a membership department of an AFL club, I’d be hammering the high immigration areas with school and Auskick visits and doing giveaways (scarves, beanies, caps, t-shirts) in an attempt to “own” those communities. Free clothing is never knocked back. And if my AFL club won a premiership I’d be doubling down on that approach. I’d be pressuring my gun players to do school visits as often as I could as the buzz of meeting a star creates amongst kids can’t be underestimated.

That approach won’t pay off in membership or revenue increase in any big way immediately, but it will start to in 10-15 years’ time. You’ll also likely get some parents of kids becoming casual fans if their kids are really into it.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

100% this.

I’m involved administering a couple of Auskick clinics, and the buzz around Melbourne in 2021 amongst the kids was really apparent.

Most kids at Auskick are already affiliated with a team and generally it’s one of their parent’s team, and they were the ones inadvertently pumping up the Demons when they were talking about footy. Several of the kids that didn’t have a team started to gravitate to Melbourne through the year because of how they other kids were revering and talking about Melbourne.

The area has relatively high recent Chinese and Indian immigration, and most of those kids in the 10+ age group who have a team are Hawthorn or Richmond - again because of the recent success when those kids were 5-10 years’ old given their parents likely didn’t have a team.

If I was running a membership department of an AFL club, I’d be hammering the high immigration areas with school and Auskick visits and doing giveaways (scarves, beanies, caps, t-shirts) in an attempt to “own” those communities. Free clothing is never knocked back. And if my AFL club won a premiership I’d be doubling down on that approach. I’d be pressuring my gun players to do school visits as often as I could as the buzz of meeting a star creates amongst kids can’t be underestimated.

That approach won’t pay off in membership or revenue increase in any big way immediately, but it will start to in 10-15 years’ time. You’ll also likely get some parents of kids becoming casual fans if their kids are really into it.

So you're basically saying that any significant increase in support, relative to other clubs, would take about 100 years?

 

[Lampers]

So you're basically saying that any significant increase in support, relative to other clubs, would take about 100 years?

No, about 10-15 years in the right conditions.

But those conditions are onfield success and leveraging that in a growth market (potential fans with limited existing affiliation).

I’d say it’s near impossible for an existing club to get a significant bump in relative support without a sustained period of onfield success.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

No, that's just the typical ignorant view of it.

When St. Kilda were a top 4 team, and Richmond were a bottom 4 team, their attendances were much the same.

When St. Kilda were a bottom 4 team and Richmond were top 4 - the difference was astronomical.

So these lunatics that support the big clubs - are battlers with nothing else in their life. Footy is number 1. They rock up in huge numbers even if their team is sh*t. Whereas the small clubs' fans still don't really even rock up when their team is doing really well. They just have better things to do than go to the footy on a weekend.

Some clubs' supporters just don't really care that much.

It's probably proprtional, Richmond have more supporters overall than St Kilda so they have more hardcore supporters as well. Just because people have better things to do on the weekend doesn't make them any less crazy about their team though. I know a lot of hardcore supporters of all club's (Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon primarily) who hardly go to games at all anymore. They still love their club's though.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No, about 10-15 years in the right conditions.

But those conditions are onfield success and leveraging that in a growth market (potential fans with limited existing affiliation).

I’d say it’s near impossible for an existing club to get a significant bump in relative support without a sustained period of onfield success.

But this where it just doesn't make sense.

Based on the annual Roy Morgan polls, the average 'supporter to member ratio' is about 15%.

So a club needs to find 100000 new supporters to get 15000 more members.

100000 FFS!!

Given in last year's poll, Essendon for example, has 650000 supporters - how the **** can anyone, let alone a small club, find 100000 new supporters??!

And this is while 10 other AFL clubs are squabbling over new supporters at the same time! Not to mention soccer, basketball and other sports.

And even if you do find 100000 new supporters hiding in a bush somewhere, is the modern footy fan that dedicated? Are we all more fickle these days? Will we remain a supporter? Will we show up when our team sucks? Will we not stay home and and watch it on TV in the comfort of our loungerooms on big screen high definition TVs instead if our team is rubbish for a few years?

And that's the other thing, only 8 teams make the 8 each year. So no matter what, most of the clubs in the league are losers every year.

I just can't see how clubs can ever really grow substantially. I think it's a myth.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I'll say it again

The Commission was formed to ensure the financial sustainability of the VFL competition.

This is a very different purpose that it was formed to "make money".

How do you ensure the financial sustainability without making money?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

But this where it just doesn't make sense.

Based on the annual Roy Morgan polls, the average 'supporter to member ratio' is about 15%.

So a club needs to find 100000 new supporters to get 15000 more members.

100000 FFS!!

Given in last year's poll, Essendon for example, has 650000 supporters - how the fu** can anyone, let alone a small club, find 100000 new supporters??!

And this is while 10 other AFL clubs are squabbling over new supporters at the same time! Not to mention soccer, basketball and other sports.

And even if you do find 100000 new supporters hiding in a bush somewhere, is the modern footy fan that dedicated? Are we all more fickle these days? Will we remain a supporter? Will we show up when our team sucks? Will we not stay home and click between the Storm and the AFL instead if our team is rubbish for a few years?

And that's the other thing, only 8 teams make the 8 each year. So no matter what, most of the clubs in the league are losers every year.

I just can't see how clubs can ever really grow substantially. I think it's a myth.

The key is not simply finding new supporters. It's converting your existing supporters into members/attendees. St. Kilda had 55k members last year (even given there were probably a lot of freebies in there) but only averaged 25k per home game in 2019 (last unaffected year). They have the support they just need them to attend. The difference between the small and big Melbourne club's in attendances isn't that massive when you consider other issues like fixturing, onfield performance etc. Essendon had 92k+ against Collingwood on Anzac Day in 2019 where we're all those supporters when they got 25k+ against GWS later that year? Assuming a 50/50 split of Anzac Day that's half the attendees who went to the game against Collingwood.