St Kilda - time to get your house in order

[Toump Ass]

Ship em off to Tassie I say!

Tasmania can't afford it's own team, especially given they already have Hawthorn.

Let's just save time and demote them to the VAFA.

 

[Richo83]

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.

Were they really?

In 2004, you lost to Brisbane by 80 in Brisbane, beat Sydney by 51 in Melbourne and lose to Port by six in Adelaide

In 2005, you beat Adelaide by 8 in a low scoring scrap, then lose to Sydney by 31 in Melbourne, with the swans leading at quarter time, half time and full time.

In both years, the saints were a fair bit off the best. 2004 was always going to be either the lions or power, and in 2005 the saints lost to the premiers in Melbourne. I think the non-Victorian sides were just too good.

 

[telsor]

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.

As I said, this rebuild needs to work....and while it doesn't need to be this year, you don't have many years afterwards to try again.

 

[Richo83]

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.

Feels like we're playing the man not the ball here, which is something usually frowned upon by moderators. I think ad hominem attacks are unhelpful and only derail threads. If someone wants to with reason attack the OP for being unfair to St Kilda, they can do so. But "nah nah you hate us, demons suck" is just a waste of bandwidth.

 

[demondavey]

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....

They won’t do that. I’ll use the WB as an example. On the brink of a merger with Fitzroy late eighties, but stayed tight and were solid through the nineties and over the last decade with a flag. A flag that’s come with a new coach in a very short turnaround. St Kilda will find financial success when on field success follows.

St Kilda have some very very good players, and it might take sacking Richardson and appointing the next Beverage to snap the trend. They’re probably 3-4 hard line decisions away from a coaching overhaul and regular finals.

 

[telsor]

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

If North was shipped off to GC, they wouldn't have added GWS....or if they did they'd have added another team alongside it.

I do agree that other options could be worse, but there also comes a time when you just have to give up.

Case in point, I doubt a Tas team would be noticeably better (certainly not by enough to make up for the lost fans/support kicking a team out would cause), but there is no denying that it would look good from a PR perspective, and the AFL is always aware of the PR side of things. Of course, the real problem with shipping them (or at least, their license) off to Tas is what to do when (yes, when, not if) the Tas team is in a similar financial state...killing off one of 10 Vic teams would hurt but is is doable...killing off the only Tas team however....

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Football public: "Hey Gil, we're not sure the attempt to put a team on the Gold Coast is really working out."

Gil: "Ah yeah, uhhh...uhm.... OH MY GOD LOOK OVER THERE AT ST KILDA! What a basket case, am I right guys? Guys?"

 

[telsor]

They won’t do that. I’ll use the WB as an example. On the brink of a merger with Fitzroy late eighties, but stayed tight and were solid through the nineties and over the last decade with a flag. A flag that’s come with a new coach in a very short turnaround. St Kilda will find financial success when on field success follows.

St Kilda have some very very good players, and it might take sacking Richardson and appointing the next Beverage to snap the trend. They’re probably 3-4 hard line decisions away from a coaching overhaul and regular finals.

These things tend to go in cycles as the institutional memory of the pain caused by them recedes.

South Melbourne got moved to Sydney, Fitzroy got 'merged'....

 

[demondavey]

These things tend to go in cycles as the institutional memory of the pain caused by them recedes.

South Melbourne got moved to Sydney, Fitzroy got 'merged'....

Relevance to St Kilda?

 

[hoianbulldog]

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 think we were sold a lemon. We believed is was a genuine financial saviour. At least thats what the supporters were told..

 

[telsor]

Football public: "Hey Gil, we're not sure the attempt to put a team on the Gold Coast is really working out."

Gil: "Ah yeah, uhhh...uhm.... OH MY GOD LOOK OVER THERE AT ST KILDA! What a basket case, am I right guys? Guys?"

Don't forget the media recently about Tasmania...

 

[telsor]

Relevance to St Kilda?

It's happened to clubs before, it could happen again...

Actually the St Kilda/Fitzroy comparison is apt, because they're effectively bankrupt, so if the AFL reduced their support we could have the same situation.

 

[The_Reaper]

That is basically money the AFL has loaned a club...which is usually a result of a shafting somewhere down the line.

Eagles get those timezones all the time.

 

[demondavey]

It's happened to clubs before, it could happen again...

Actually the St Kilda/Fitzroy comparison is apt, because they're effectively bankrupt, so if the AFL reduced their support we could have the same situation.

Maybe. I doubt it though, but yeah, maybe. I don’t know what went wrong at St Kilda. If you look at them and Geelong circa 04, they were the next big thing. Since then Geelong have 3 flags and 4 GF appearances and the Saints no flags from 2 GF appearances. Bad luck? Bad executive decisions? Bad culture? What exactly? Geelong have had 2 coaches in 14 years, St Kilda in to their 4th.

Why weren’t they able to rebuild post 2010 where Geelong did? That’s got nothing to do with money, training facilities or fans, that’s all internal.

Interested on Saints fans input there.

 

[#gosaintas]

It's happened to clubs before, it could happen again...

Actually the St Kilda/Fitzroy comparison is apt, because they're effectively bankrupt, so if the AFL reduced their support we could have the same situation.

Why are we bankrupt? We made a profit last year. Assets > liabilities. We just got the new deal at Etihad which lifts home revs from approx. 0 to $2m.
We should have a good year on the field. Memberships at record level for this time of the year. Sponsorships pretty much full up. Plenty of room in the salary cap. Moving back to Moorabbin. Admin is stable. No recent scandals. Tough draw but that's nothing new. Full steam ahead I'da thought.

Looks like we're in good shape. For us.

I wonder who started this thread...

 

[Kwality]

This is rich coming from a Melbourne supporter, the AFL had to virtually take over your club by appointing a CEO and a coach to stop you being a basketcase.

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.

You sure the Etihad deal is really that bad, not just an excuse?

 

[The 747]

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.

We nearly went to the wall holding on to that stadium, no doubt we have been helped considerably by grants from governments but we held on to the ground and keep putting money into it and now we are reaping the rewards - note we still have debt comparable to the Saints as a result though.

 

[demondavey]

Why are we bankrupt? We made a profit last year. Assets > liabilities. We just got the new deal at Etihad which lifts home revs from approx. 0 to $2m.
We should have a good year on the field. Memberships at record level for this time of the year. Sponsorships pretty much full up. Plenty of room in the salary cap. Moving back to Moorabbin. Admin is stable. No recent scandals. Tough draw but that's nothing new. Full steam ahead I'da thought.

Looks like we're in good shape. For us.

I wonder who started this thread...

Mate I hear you. I think things aren’t that horrible. Is Alan Richardson the man though?

 

[hoianbulldog]

You sure the Etihad deal is really that bad, not just an excuse?

The deal st kilda, bulldogs and north were on for 15 years was criminal. We had to pay the stadium on many occasions to host low crowd drawing teams.

 

[Richo83]

If North was shipped off to GC, they wouldn't have added GWS....or if they did they'd have added another team alongside it.

I do agree that other options could be worse, but there also comes a time when you just have to give up.

Case in point, I doubt a Tas team would be noticeably better (certainly not by enough to make up for the lost fans/support kicking a team out would cause), but there is no denying that it would look good from a PR perspective, and the AFL is always aware of the PR side of things. Of course, the real problem with shipping them (or at least, their license) off to Tas is what to do when (yes, when, not if) the Tas team is in a similar financial state...killing off one of 10 Vic teams would hurt but is is doable...killing off the only Tas team however....

North to the Gold Coast would have been a disaster. Their Melbournian supporter base would have withered, and I doubt the Gold Coast would have wanted some rehashed Melbournian side. The suns are struggling, and part of that is the city's footballing support is still fairly small.

As for PR, any PR gain from creating a Tasmanian side would have been neutralised by the scandal of destroying a Melbournian club, which would have been messy and protracted.

I also don't buy this idea that GWS wouldn't have been created, and I think the AFL have been eyeing off Western Sydney for a while. If North goes to the Gold Coast, you would have probably have gotten a GWS and a Tasmania. So it's either the Gold Coast roos and Tasmania v Gold Coast suns and North. The AFL aren't interested in Tasmania and think they can tap that market without putting a full team there, so I doubt that scenario is appealing to the AFL.

 

[telsor]

Why are we bankrupt? We made a profit last year. Assets > liabilities. We just got the new deal at Etihad which lifts home revs from approx. 0 to $2m.
We should have a good year on the field. Memberships at record level for this time of the year. Sponsorships pretty much full up. Plenty of room in the salary cap. Moving back to Moorabbin. Admin is stable. No recent scandals. Tough draw but that's nothing new. Full steam ahead I'da thought.

Looks like we're in good shape. For us.

I wonder who started this thread...

Effectively bankrupt.

You made a 'profit' and have positive assets due to one off items...the government grants for Moorabbin and major AFL backing.

Even with that though, your couldn't pay your debts without the AFL underwriting you....check section 1b of the financial report 'going concern'.
There is also the small matter of the almost $4M you owe to the AFL that they're just not getting around to asking for (trade payables).


Memberships and sponsorships being 'up' and at record levels is part of the problem...even with this, your club is pretty much at the bottom when it comes to revenue (you would be at the bottom if it wasn't for almost $9M in government grants). To get on a similar level to all other clubs, you need to take those record levels and double them! That's how far off the pace you are.

 

[telsor]

North to the Gold Coast would have been a disaster. Their Melbournian supporter base would have withered, and I doubt the Gold Coast would have wanted some rehashed Melbournian side. The suns are struggling, and part of that is the city's footballing support is still fairly small.

As for PR, any PR gain from creating a Tasmanian side would have been neutralised by the scandal of destroying a Melbournian club, which would have been messy and protracted.

I also don't buy this idea that GWS wouldn't have been created, and I think the AFL have been eyeing off Western Sydney for a while. If North goes to the Gold Coast, you would have probably have gotten a GWS and a Tasmania. So it's either the Gold Coast roos and Tasmania v Gold Coast suns and North. The AFL aren't interested in Tasmania and think they can tap that market without putting a full team there, so I doubt that scenario is appealing to the AFL.

I largely agree but it is what it is.

North to GC would have been it for 5-10 years, at which point GWS would have been added along with one other....Would it be Tas?...well, it depends on how big the PR factor weighs on them...I think the AFL realises that the Tas market would struggle to support a team, and that as time passes that just gets worse, so they probably figure if they can put it off for 10-20 years, that'll become obvious and the notion of having a full time team there will fade away.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

These things tend to go in cycles as the institutional memory of the pain caused by them recedes.

South Melbourne got moved to Sydney, Fitzroy got 'merged'....

You don't get it.

Both of those clubs were costing the league money.

The 18 clubs now, are making the AFL money.

 

[lewdogs]

Stop using that excuse. The AFL fixed that deal years ago.

Sorry but that is just completely wrong. They have only JUST fixed the deal, which is basically what the article is saying. We have been getting screwed financially by our own home games for years and as recently as 2016.

The article is saying that now that we can actually make money from our own games we are in a much better position. Which is true.

 

[telsor]

You don't get it.

Both of those clubs were costing the league money.

The 18 clubs now, are making the AFL money.

a) They're not.
b) Even if they were, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be earning the league more elsewhere.