St Kilda returning to Moorabbin

[The_Wookie]

The new board identified this as a target early on. They've been making good decisions all the way along. Some seem to think this has come out of nowhere, but it's been in the pipeline for a couple of years.

And seriously people whinging about their taxes; build a bloody bridge.

People are entitled to feel aggrieved 5 years after paying for your last move. Deal with it.

 

[FootyJunkie]

should get some NAB challenge games there

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Be funny if people were this up in arms about every dollar the government wasted.

 

[lewdogs]

Be funny if people were this up in arms about every dollar the government wasted.

Exactly. A cool billion over a road that wasn't built for example.

 

[Defacto]

Be funny if people were this up in arms about every dollar the government wasted.

Couldnt agree more

Exactly. A cool billion over a road that wasn't built for example.

 

[Greg1853]

I don't think people claiming that it is a bad business decision based on past events have any training in business.

The Seaford facilities are a sunk cost. For those who don't know what that means: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp

Claiming that the move to Seaford was a poor move is probably a fair statement (it is hard to be sure given how little information we have). However, it is not correct to claim that because St. Kilda moved to Seaford they shouldn't move back.

Spot on. In my view this decision has many similarities to the decision to move on Scott Watters. We were roundly criticised at the time, but I was delighted in making the decision, and that St Kilda had the balls to make that decision.

The decision to reverse an earlier decision brings attention to the fact that the original decision was probably a mistake, but is not a mistake itself, and likely the opposite.

Also bear in mind that I think we have been at Seaford for 6 seasons now, and that will amount to 8 by the time we leave. We absolutely needed something as an alternative to Moorabbin back when the Seaford option was taken, and with what we could have achieved with Moorabbin back then when experiencing issues with the council, it may well be that the joint cost of the Seaford and proposed Moorabbin development will achieve a better result for everyone (Saints at Moorabbin and community at Seaford) than if a once off development was done at Moorabbin a handful of years ago.

We all make mistakes, best things is to wear it and move on. I have lived around people all my life who go out of their way to avoid accepting past mistakes, and so magnify the problem over time. Saints are doing by far the best thing now, and the reality is that the flak we are copping comes from people who do not matter. So that is as big as a bite back I will make to those who don't really matter.

By the way, I am looking forward to making my small contribution to whatever funding requests may be made of members, and if there is nothing formal, maybe I just buy an extra membership. I wonder if something like a special membership category has merit for the next few years.??

 

[Gangnam Saint]

People are entitled to feel aggrieved 5 years after paying for your last move. Deal with it.

FYI- the funding of Linen House was a combined effort of STKFC, AFL & the council - not only the taxpayer. Frankston Council contributed $4m to the build and last I looked it is still there and will continued to be used.
So perhaps a little perspective might help while you're trotting along on that high horse.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

FYI- the funding of Linen House was a combined effort of STKFC, AFL & the council - not only the taxpayer. Frankston Council contributed $4m to the build and last I looked it is still there and will continued to be used.
So perhaps a little perspective might help while you're trotting along on that high horse.

But they will have to fully fund its ongoing operating costs and maintenance once you leave

The big question is whether the cost of the venue for the community value it will provide will work out

 

[Gangnam Saint]

But they will have to fully fund its ongoing operating costs and maintenance once you leave

The big question is whether the cost of the venue for the community value it will provide will work out

No. The ongoing costs are part of the negotiation with the council.

 

[Crippa]

Spot on. In my view this decision has many similarities to the decision to move on Scott Watters. We were roundly criticised at the time, but I was delighted in making the decision, and that St Kilda had the balls to make that decision.

Balls? St Kilda didn't have balls. What it had was millions in AFL handouts. Without those millions you would never have dared in the first place to indulge your cultural preference for oily second-hand car salesmen flattering you with tales about how he would turn St Kilda into a juggernaut, how s**t the previous coach was, and how he had media buddies in powerful places who would spread the word to make St Kilda look good. Instead you'd have noticed what a cretin he was as soon as he opened his mouth.

The decision to reverse an earlier decision brings attention to the fact that the original decision was probably a mistake, but is not a mistake itself, and likely the opposite.

OK Prufrock. So this is St Kilda's mantra when doing business

In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

and we're supposed to applaud that?

 

[Gangnam Saint]

Balls? St Kilda didn't have balls. What it had was millions in AFL handouts. Without those millions you would never have dared in the first place to indulge your cultural preference for oily second-hand car salesmen flattering you with tales about how he would turn St Kilda into a juggernaut, how s**t the previous coach was, and how he had media buddies in powerful places who would spread the word to make St Kilda look good. Instead you'd have noticed what a cretin he was as soon as he opened his mouth.



OK Prufrock. So this is St Kilda's mantra when doing business

and we're supposed to applaud that?

So Freo have fully funded their move to Cockburn without AFL or State Govt handouts?
Serious question.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No. The ongoing costs are part of the negotiation with the council.

Reality is you guys won't pick up the bill forever (nor should you

Council will need to find alternate funding sources, or bulldoze

 

[Ian Dunross]

If the club can't fund or find community groups to help fund the seaford facility, they've got bigger problems than the seaford facility.

What do ppl think the annual maintenance cost would be, $50,000 including water rates?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

If the club can't fund or find community groups to help fund the seaford facility, they've got bigger problems than the seaford facility.

What do ppl think the annual maintenance cost would be, $50,000 including water rates?

Do you think it will be unstaffed?

 

[Gangnam Saint]

Do you think it will be unstaffed?

Listen the AFL landscape is changing. Academies and/or zones will be brought in for Melbourne based clubs before long - it's already on the agenda.
Although it has not been explicitly stated as yet, I see Seaford as being used as a talent pathway/development facility going forward.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Do you think it will be unstaffed?

Since when is council in the business of running gymnasiums? Private enterprise will step in if a community organisation doesn't.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Since when is council in the business of running gymnasiums? Private enterprise will step in if a community organisation doesn't.

Plenty do

Monash council runs three just as an example

Also if you have multiple groups using it privately at a minimum you need to bring in facilities management expertise

 

[The_Wookie]

FYI- the funding of Linen House was a combined effort of STKFC, AFL & the council - not only the taxpayer. Frankston Council contributed $4m to the build and last I looked it is still there and will continued to be used.
So perhaps a little perspective might help while you're trotting along on that high horse.

Semantics. Taxpayers, ratepayers, the AFL already paid once - and just 5 years ago. Why should they (dfifferent ratepayers this time) pay again just 5 years later - during which they already tried to move somewhere else? And how the hell is St Kilda funding their share - they have no resources as it is, which means the league will be paying for it. again.

As for persepective - I find government funding of professional sporting facilities to be appalling - particularly "community" facilities. I dont care what team or sport it is.

 

[Ricmel]

Plenty do

Monash council runs three just as an example

Also if you have multiple groups using it privately at a minimum you need to bring in facilities management expertise

I don't understand why anyone is losing any sleep over this because quite frankly, no one on this thread (on either side ) has demonstrated they know anything about either the future plans for Seaford, how a business is run or the financial arrangements between Saints, State government or local council.

Local council was advised in November 2014 that Saints were moving. All parties have been working together since to put in alternative arrangements. Seaford complex will not be Chernobyl after Saints leave.

Saints are a club. A club is owned by members. A club cannot ignore members. Members have been telling Saints they want them back closer to the centre. A club that ignores its' members will not be a club for long. Moving from Seaford is not something Saints have a lot of choice about.

 

[Ian Dunross]

The AFL is rightfully compensating the club for the ridiculous Etihad Stadium deal that has cost the club millions.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't understand why anyone is losing any sleep over this because quite frankly, no one on this thread (on either side ) has demonstrated they know anything about either the future plans for Seaford, how a business is run or the financial arrangements between Saints, State government or local council.

Local council was advised in November 2014 that Saints were moving. All parties have been working together since to put in alternative arrangements. Seaford complex will not be Chernobyl after Saints leave.

Saints are a club. A club is owned by members. A club cannot ignore members. Members have been telling Saints they want them back closer to the centre. A club that ignores its' members will not be a club for long. Moving from Seaford is not something Saints have a lot of choice about.

Mainly because after sinking $4m into a facility they thought the saints would be at long term, they now have to find alternate use arrangements that will be cost effective after less than a decade

You see nothing unusual about asking a council to fund infrastructure for your club, and walking away from that investment after just 5 years???

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL is rightfully compensating the club for the ridiculous Etihad Stadium deal that has cost the club millions.

For which they have been getting paid annually - and also received money from the AFLs disequal budget for - to the point that the money the Saints received in 2015 from the AFL ($16,245,840) is Gold Coast Suns level (2014: $16,506,277) - a team which wasnt even competing in the AFL when the Saints moved to Seaford.

 

[#gosaintas]

Mainly because after sinking $4m into a facility they thought the saints would be at long term, they now have to find alternate use arrangements that will be cost effective after less than a decade

You see nothing unusual about asking a council to fund infrastructure for your club, and walking away from that investment after just 5 years???

No wonder you have so many posts...you won't let anything go. I think all saints fan realise we stuffed up choosing Seaford. Kingston Council have now come to their senses, as have our club, and we are moving back home. Franga council can GAGF as far as I'm concerned. They did their bit, paid for a new home until a few local Kingston council members were moved on. Onwards and upward I say. See ya later Seaford.

 

[The_Wookie]

No wonder you have so many posts...you won't let anything go. I think all saints fan realise we stuffed up choosing Seaford. Kingston Council have now come to their senses, as have our club, and we are moving back home. Franga council can GAGF as far as I'm concerned. They did their bit, paid for a new home until a few local Kingston council members were moved on. Onwards and upward I say. See ya later Seaford.

thats the attitude that wins support for the move.

 

[#gosaintas]

For which they have been getting paid annually - and also received money from the AFLs disequal budget for - to the point that the money the Saints received in 2015 from the AFL ($16,245,840) is Gold Coast Suns level (2014: $16,506,277) - a team which wasnt even competing in the AFL when the Saints moved to Seaford.

Quoted for its' complete irrelevance to anything to do with the topic