St Kilda returning to Moorabbin

Gangnam Saint

Club Legend
Oct 16, 2015
1,535
3,352
AFL Club
St Kilda
I hope they do

Contrary to the GAGF post one of your supporters made, I think there is strong commercial reasons for the saints to leave on good terms

The peninsula has always had a strong amount of support for the saints, heck I remember when every kid at our school aspired to run out onto a vfl ground at half time wearing the saints kit in the big m little league. There is a lot of goodwill and support for the club down there, and I genuinely don't want to see that tarnished by this exit

As said before, I grew up walking distance from the ground, and spent half my life in the area. The council and its residents have been treated like s**t for decades "because it's franga", and I'm just concerned this will be another kick in the guts for a poor community

Can understand your concern as a local. I certainly don't want us walking away from Seaford in totality. I think it could become a very important piece in the overall STKFC strategy of talent development into the long term.
 

Gangnam Saint

Club Legend
Oct 16, 2015
1,535
3,352
AFL Club
St Kilda
Do and try and stop deflecting by pretending to strike up causal conversation about Freo.
It goes to the question of your credibility (which you have none) and hypocrisy (which your view reeks of).
We are totally entitled to question that considering how vocal you are about this subject.
 

Snoref

Club Legend
Nov 26, 2009
1,033
824
AFL Club
Hawthorn
This sort of post just reeks ignorance.

The Saints moving to Moorabbin is a positive one that is part of a strategic direction that also includes sponsorship and increased membership. Saints may not be in the same league as the Pies and Hawks (who were broke but received $$$$ from Tasmania that assisted them in recovering) but this move is a professional one.

The move to Seaford was out of necessity this move is an improvement something I am proud of. I would be disappointed if the club kept doing nothing instead of being proactive

Freeo as a club have received hand outs and will do so with their current move do not be a hypocrite

So you confirm what the freo guy was saying that St Kilda was mis-managed? St Kilda were in Tassie first and decided to leave it and the Hawks so the potential and jump in.

This lack of foresight is pretty much why St Kilda are in the mess they are in at the moment, with having to relocate back.
 

#gosaintas

Cancelled
Veteran Reimagine Moorabbin
Nov 11, 2013
4,794
10,292
AFL Club
St Kilda
So you confirm what the freo guy was saying that St Kilda was mis-managed? St Kilda were in Tassie first and decided to leave it and the Hawks so the potential and jump in.

This lack of foresight is pretty much why St Kilda are in the mess they are in at the moment, with having to relocate back.

You do realise you only follow Hawthorn don't you? Their success doesn't shine on you, you had nothing to do with it. It's as easy as saying, "I will follow Hawthorn." That's all you've done.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Quoting that without comparing it to every other team is about as pointless as you could possibly imagine.

Theres a whole thread on it.

AFL Income (2015)
  • St Kilda - $16,245,840
  • Brisbane - $15,474,641 (Net)
  • W.Bulldogs - $13,370,840
  • Melbourne - $12,231,103
  • Hawthorn - $10,415,840
  • Carlton - $9,938,232
  • Essendon - $9,090,840
  • Collingwood - $8,590,848

Pump your brakes. How the hell do you know a) STKFC won't find the money for the Moorabbin development and b) what the ongoing use of Linen House will be in the future? And in pure dollar terms what is St.Kilda's level of assistance relative to every other club?

I can read. Thats how.

1) The Saints have no money and negative assets to trade off. Making a loss of nearly 900k this year, with negative assets approaching 2 million and more than 5 million in negative current assets. You've got room for 1.2 million left on your 6.75m AFL guaranteed loan. From next season, you dont have the NZ income to include (710k in 2015)

2) Im sure theres a massive call amongst local footy clubs in Seaford and Frankston that will need AFL class facilities - and be able to afford to run them.

3) St Kilda are one of the top clubs for total AFL distributions (as shown above for 2015). Thats $3 million more than the Western Bulldogs this year and 250k shy of what Gold Coast received last year.

The re-developed Moorabbin is a "shared facility" you know that right?

Shared facilities are a joke of a phrase when it comes to the AFL clubs they are purpose built for.

The term "local" in local council might give you a clue as to who they are there to serve. So if you have an issue with that I suggest your beef is not with STKFC but the government so perhaps take it up with them.

My beef is with St Kildas management, and the fact that other clubs will have to contribute millions to whatever cockamime plan your club hatches to rip off taxpayers, ratepayers and other AFL clubs, not because the previous facility was bad, but because your club decided its just a little bit too far away. You can have the second coming of the board, it shouldnt mean the club gets away with no conequences for its past decisions.

Most of the funding wont come from the local council. It will come in state, federal and AFL handouts, and this is only 5 years after they already paid for a facility for you. Its a joke.

Obviously all pure rhetoric based on unfounded assumption.

You tell yourself that. Five years ago the Saints moved to Seaford. Three years ago, the Saints were adamant they could keep both facilities at Moorabin and Seaford. Two years ago the Saints were desperately trying to get into the Junction Oval development. Who knows what will happen in the next two years.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
We don't need your support or the support of Frankston. We need the support of our members, the AFL, the State Govt and the Kingston Council. Lucky it's a marginal seat. Your whining and wailing is really pretty irrelevant, as much as that might surprise a Carlton supporter. Your days of influence in the AFL are well gone.

My club has nothing to do with this. Nice deflection though. Same goes with all the freo baiting. Try to keep the thread on topic, or we'll have to kick some moderation in.
 

Periphery

Cancelled
Jul 25, 2013
6,688
9,911
AFL Club
St Kilda
not because the previous facility was bad, but because your club decided its just a little bit too far away. You can have the second coming of the board, it shouldnt mean the club gets away with no conequences for its past decisions.
And with these words all credibility was lost. Just another angry person talking s**t about s**t they don't know.
 
Theres a whole thread on it.

AFL Income (2015)
  • St Kilda - $16,245,840
  • Brisbane - $15,474,641 (Net)
  • W.Bulldogs - $13,370,840
  • Melbourne - $12,231,103
  • Hawthorn - $10,415,840
  • Carlton - $9,938,232
  • Essendon - $9,090,840
  • Collingwood - $8,590,848



I can read. Thats how.

1) The Saints have no money and negative assets to trade off. Making a loss of nearly 900k this year, with negative assets approaching 2 million and more than 5 million in negative current assets. You've got room for 1.2 million left on your 6.75m AFL guaranteed loan. From next season, you dont have the NZ income to include (710k in 2015)

2) Im sure theres a massive call amongst local footy clubs in Seaford and Frankston that will need AFL class facilities - and be able to afford to run them.

3) St Kilda are one of the top clubs for total AFL distributions (as shown above for 2015). Thats $3 million more than the Western Bulldogs this year and 250k shy of what Gold Coast received last year.



Shared facilities are a joke of a phrase when it comes to the AFL clubs they are purpose built for.



My beef is with St Kildas management, and the fact that other clubs will have to contribute millions to whatever cockamime plan your club hatches to rip off taxpayers, ratepayers and other AFL clubs, not because the previous facility was bad, but because your club decided its just a little bit too far away. You can have the second coming of the board, it shouldnt mean the club gets away with no conequences for its past decisions.

Most of the funding wont come from the local council. It will come in state, federal and AFL handouts, and this is only 5 years after they already paid for a facility for you. Its a joke.



You tell yourself that. Five years ago the Saints moved to Seaford. Three years ago, the Saints were adamant they could keep both facilities at Moorabin and Seaford. Two years ago the Saints were desperately trying to get into the Junction Oval development. Who knows what will happen in the next two years.

where did you get those numbers from?
 

Gangnam Saint

Club Legend
Oct 16, 2015
1,535
3,352
AFL Club
St Kilda
Theres a whole thread on it.

AFL Income (2015)
  • St Kilda - $16,245,840
  • Brisbane - $15,474,641 (Net)
  • W.Bulldogs - $13,370,840
  • Melbourne - $12,231,103
  • Hawthorn - $10,415,840
  • Carlton - $9,938,232
  • Essendon - $9,090,840
  • Collingwood - $8,590,848



I can read. Thats how.

1) The Saints have no money and negative assets to trade off. Making a loss of nearly 900k this year, with negative assets approaching 2 million and more than 5 million in negative current assets. You've got room for 1.2 million left on your 6.75m AFL guaranteed loan. From next season, you dont have the NZ income to include (710k in 2015)

2) Im sure theres a massive call amongst local footy clubs in Seaford and Frankston that will need AFL class facilities - and be able to afford to run them.

3) St Kilda are one of the top clubs for total AFL distributions (as shown above for 2015). Thats $3 million more than the Western Bulldogs this year and 250k shy of what Gold Coast received last year.



Shared facilities are a joke of a phrase when it comes to the AFL clubs they are purpose built for.



My beef is with St Kildas management, and the fact that other clubs will have to contribute millions to whatever cockamime plan your club hatches to rip off taxpayers, ratepayers and other AFL clubs, not because the previous facility was bad, but because your club decided its just a little bit too far away. You can have the second coming of the board, it shouldnt mean the club gets away with no conequences for its past decisions.

Most of the funding wont come from the local council. It will come in state, federal and AFL handouts, and this is only 5 years after they already paid for a facility for you. Its a joke.



You tell yourself that. Five years ago the Saints moved to Seaford. Three years ago, the Saints were adamant they could keep both facilities at Moorabin and Seaford. Two years ago the Saints were desperately trying to get into the Junction Oval development. Who knows what will happen in the next two years.

Well will somebody give this guy a banana?!
Firstly, you're not necessarily comparing apples with apples bc quite simply there isn't that level of detail in the financial statements and when you look at assistance try it over a five year horizon and be sure to add in all the contributions for facilities across the board.
And no sh** Sherlock, bombshell, the STKFC is not a big club like CFC which despite having revenues nearly twice the size of STKFC still made a loss of 2.7m! You want to talk about financial incompetence?
If we ripped as much money out of grannys and desparates as you did in pokies over one year we'd pay off our debt, pay for the re-development of Moorabbin and still have money left over.

You don't know what Linen House will be used for which was, as previously stated, STKFC part funded so you are in no position to make a definitive statement. And the reason Moorabbin re-dev is going ahead is bc it is shared - no other reason. But not one Saints supporter is saying the club has done a good job with some the decsions that have been made and part of correcting that is the move back to Moorabbin to build revenues and reduce future reliance on the league. I wouldn't expect you to get that coz clearly you're hell bent on having an all-out whinge. Keep in mind though, if that's possible, the totality of the cost on taxpayers is nowhere near some of the money shelled out for other clubs.
SO GET OFF OUR BACK.
 

SpannaMan

Senior List
Oct 8, 2014
260
346
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.

The argument that no one should spend money on St. Kilda's new facility because they did it 'just 5 years ago' is simply an invalid argument. The Seaford training facilities is a sunk cost and should not be used in determining if the new development is worth investing in to. The only way it could be negatively impact the AFL and respective governments opinion is if they think that there is a risk St. Kilda will move again.

Now if it is appropriate for the respective governments to invest in sports developments is a completely different discussion. However, St. Kilda moving 'just 5 years ago' should have no impact on that discussion.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Well will somebody give this guy a banana?!
Firstly, you're not necessarily comparing apples with apples bc quite simply there isn't that level of detail in the financial statements and when you look at assistance try it over a five year horizon and be sure to add in all the contributions for facilities across the board.

Im sorry whats that? We arent comparing apples with apples? We absolutely are. We know what the base income is for each club, we know what other clubs are receiving. The AFL annual report will go into more detail than this when its released in march, and in the end it will say the same thing - Your club is receiving 16 million from the AFL - 3 million more than a club in a comparable position in the Western Bulldogs - both Etihad tenants, both selling a game or two outside Victoria.

And no sh** Sherlock, bombshell, the STKFC is not a big club like CFC which despite having revenues nearly twice the size of STKFC still made a loss of 2.7m! You want to talk about financial incompetence?

My club has nothing to do with this discussion, but when we start getting handed an extra 7 million for being incompetent, getting a facility built for us, leaving it five years later, and asking for more money to build another one, then you can compare.

If we ripped as much money out of grannys and desparates as you did in pokies over one year we'd pay off our debt, pay for the re-development of Moorabbin and still have money left over.

And its not that you wouldnt, its that you cant.

You don't know what Linen House will be used for which was, as previously stated, STKFC part funded so you are in no position to make a definitive statement.

Of course I can make a definitive statement. Most of the money came from non St Kilda sources. They now would like to tap those sources again for another facility 5 years later.

And the reason Moorabbin re-dev is going ahead is bc it is shared - no other reason. But not one Saints supporter is saying the club has done a good job with some the decsions that have been made and part of correcting that is the move back to Moorabbin to build revenues and reduce future reliance on the league.

Isnt that nice. I cant wait to see how much debt the saints have to take on for their share, given they had no funds or assets as it is at the moment.

I wouldn't expect you to get that coz clearly you're hell bent on having an all-out whinge.

Your absolute support of St Kilda is admirable, your penchant for playing the man less so. We're all entitled to opinions, even ones you disagree with.

Keep in mind though, if that's possible, the totality of the cost on taxpayers is nowhere near some of the money shelled out for other clubs.

Maybe, but we arent talking about them, and even if we were, we arent talking about any other instance where a club has had new facilities built, and then walked away from them 5 years later.

SO GET OFF OUR BACK.

Im not on your back, Im against what your club is doing.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
The argument that no one should spend money on St. Kilda's new facility because they did it 'just 5 years ago' is simply an invalid argument. The Seaford training facilities is a sunk cost and should not be used in determining if the new development is worth investing in to. The only way it could be negatively impact the AFL and respective governments opinion is if they think that there is a risk St. Kilda will move again.

We should just ignore the fact that you had a facility built for you at the expense of the league, the state and the ratepayer, and five years later you want a new one. while the government might throw money to the wind, it doesnt mean its not a decision that cant be criticised. The facility exists, its not exactly in an alternate universe.

Now if it is appropriate for the respective governments to invest in sports developments is a completely different discussion. However, St. Kilda moving 'just 5 years ago' should have no impact on that discussion.

Your entitled to your opinion, but two facilities in the space of 5 years at taxpayer expense should definitely be part of the discussion. I cant recall a similar situation in such a short period of time.
 

SpannaMan

Senior List
Oct 8, 2014
260
346
AFL Club
St Kilda
We should just ignore the fact that you had a facility built for you at the expense of the league, the state and the ratepayer, and five years later you want a new one. while the government might throw money to the wind, it doesnt mean its not a decision that cant be criticised. The facility exists, its not exactly in an alternate universe.

Your entitled to your opinion, but two facilities in the space of 5 years at taxpayer expense should definitely be part of the discussion. I cant recall a similar situation in such a short period of time.

Yes. It is not an opinion either, its economic theory. The following link explains it pretty well: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp

You can dismiss it if you want, but that the government and the AFL (and I would argue any rational entity) will be considering Seaford as a sunk cost.

From your comments I think you are more against about the respective governments putting money into the project than you are against the move.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes. It is not an opinion either, its economic theory. The following link explains it pretty well: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp

You can dismiss it if you want, but that the government and the AFL (and I would argue any rational entity) will be considering Seaford as a sunk cost.

From your comments I think you are more against about the respective governments putting money into the project than you are against the move.

Im absolutely against governments putting money into any project - be it "shared" facilites or sports stadiums - that is for professional sporting organisations. Ive said that from the start - and I guess that may be colouring my approach to this a little. that said, i still think its ridiculous to expect funding 5 years after the last one.
 

SpannaMan

Senior List
Oct 8, 2014
260
346
AFL Club
St Kilda
Im absolutely against governments putting money into any project - be it "shared" facilites or sports stadiums - that is for professional sporting organisations. Ive said that from the start - and I guess that may be colouring my approach to this a little. that said, i still think its ridiculous to expect funding 5 years after the last one.

That is fair enough. The conversation now becomes a political debate about ideology more than facts or sound theory. I personally have no interest in discussing that one!
 

bombersfan4000

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 30, 2014
10,169
5,512
AFL Club
Essendon
So you confirm what the freo guy was saying that St Kilda was mis-managed? St Kilda were in Tassie first and decided to leave it and the Hawks so the potential and jump in.

This lack of foresight is pretty much why St Kilda are in the mess they are in at the moment, with having to relocate back.
No Tasmania worked out well for the hawks was thanks to Jeff and co using their political pull for extra money
 

blktreacle

Club Legend
May 14, 2013
1,794
1,468
UK
AFL Club
St Kilda
I'm pretty certain that the AFL Umpires were pretty keen to get their hands on Seaford once St. Kilda moves out.
 

Periphery

Cancelled
Jul 25, 2013
6,688
9,911
AFL Club
St Kilda
Lots of people here that have a problem with the decision and use the Saints financial position as a reason why we shouldn't do it seem to conveniently ignore that Moorabbin could have massive potential to generate money for the Saints.

I see two key opportunities:
  • The social club/merch store. Increased food,drink and merch sales should = more $$$ for the club. But perhaps more importantly, there are 83 pokies at Moorabbin but we make significantly less off ours than any other team does (source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a...bs-starting-with-carlton-20151127-gl9vrg.html ) - largely because the club there is horrible. The redevelopment will hopefully turn that around and bring more people and more money in (as much as I hate pokies and prefer we got rid of them they can be serious money creators).
  • VFL games. How much did the Dogs make from their VFL games (I can't find the figures atm but if I recall correctly it was a decent amount)? I don't think it's too hard to imagine that something similar is possible at Moorabbin.
So with this view the AFL/Saints funding of around $11m can be seen as not only providing the Saints with better admin and training facilities but with a significant financial reward as well. This will hopefully go a long way to making the Saints less dependent on the AFL for handouts in the long term.

As for justifying the $17m Sate govt (12m) and council (5m, 1m of which is being use on landscaping for the whole park) funding: The development will include "Dedicated facilities to accommodate local football leagues and other community activities". So while we will be sharing the ground and playing facilities with the Dragons, there will be separate admin for the 3 other organisations that will be based at Moorabbin. Furthermore, the precinct between Linton St, South Rd and Nepean Hwy is being targeted for significant urban renewal (http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Outd...ban-Shopping-Village/Moorabbin-Structure-Plan). Redeveloping Moorabbin will feed into that and contribute to the improvement of the whole precinct. I think that makes the spending of public money on this project a fairly reasonable proposition.
 

Periphery

Cancelled
Jul 25, 2013
6,688
9,911
AFL Club
St Kilda
Also, assuming that the decision to move back to Moorabbin is a bad one because the Saints have made bad decisions in the past is stupid. Hope that helps.
 

JD Tomahawk

Cancelled
SFA Good Friday Appeal Zombie Lover A Star Wars Fan
Feb 17, 2015
4,051
3,769
Wimmera
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Boro
The AFL will find an organisation/s to move into Seaford. If we have learnt anything over the past few years it's that they will try save face at all costs. Not sure about saint supporters on this thread talking down Frankston like you don't give a toss. You've in part used taxpayer money only to leave again. Not only that but a lot of your own supporters are from this area.
I'd like to think the saints will show their faces at seaford a few times a year.
 

Nutsngum

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 14, 2013
5,521
11,061
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Hampton Rovers FC
Im absolutely against governments putting money into any project - be it "shared" facilites or sports stadiums - that is for professional sporting organisations. Ive said that from the start - and I guess that may be colouring my approach to this a little. that said, i still think its ridiculous to expect funding 5 years after the last one.
You do realize that just about every industry has some form of subsidization occur right? I think your opinion is pretty damn biased, not just a little.

My question to you is do you want to see St Kilda fold as a club? It seems we cant turn a profit overall right at the moment and a good reason for that might very well be being hidden away at the back of seaford. Do you deny that focusing on Moorabbin, a place where a VFL team can be run out of and other potential endeavours and money making enterprises can actually be run out of realisticy, is impossible? We can potentially have naming sponsorship rights on a new facility that could generate very real income and provide a solid base for the next 50 years.

People bring up your club because it itself has a very real history of mismanagement but has remained viable due to a long history of strength and success. Why is our mistake unforgivable yet those of other clubs not?

The issue is you see it as just about dollars when its not as simple as that. Football is an emotive sport, its why any of us give a damn. To us its about correcting a mistake and ensuring the literal survival of our club long term and not seeing what happened to Fitzroy happen again.
 
Last edited:
I understand Moorabbin being the spiritual home of St Kilda but just how will a new training base there lead to an increase in memberships as some here have alluded to?
 
Back