Discussion 2023 Annual Report

[sunny3193]

I am pretty sure the club does not own RSEA, it is still owned by Kingston? We may have some share of capital improvements but that is not a liquid asset. It is the club's biggest issue, it owns very little. Asset's drive just about everything and is why clubs like Hawthorn have done so well.

I am not sure why you’re so focused on the Club owning the land for RSEA Park.

I guess they’d like to, but I don’t see any benefactor in the near future willing and able to drop $10 million on the table so they can buy it.
Like Hawthorn.
Or have it gifted to them, like the Bulldogs.

So what do you suggest we do?

Complain, or get on with it?

But is it really necessary to own the land?

Collingwood have won two premierships this century and they’re a tenant of the City of Melbourne.
Richmond have won three premierships this century and they’re a tenant of the City of Melbourne.
Geelong has won three premierships this century and they’re a tenant of the Kardinia Park Trust.
Hawthorn has won four premierships this century, and they’re a tenant of Mirvac.
Bulldogs won a premiership while still a tenant at the Western Oval.

Sure Hawthorn has done well, but I cannot see a connection between premierships and leasehold/freehold.

 

[gringo2011]

I am not sure why you’re so focused on the Club owning the land for RSEA Park.

I guess they’d like to, but I don’t see any benefactor in the near future willing and able to drop $10 million on the table so they can buy it.
Like Hawthorn.
Or have it gifted to them, like the Bulldogs.

So what do you suggest we do?

Complain, or get on with it?

But is it really necessary to own the land?

Collingwood have won two premierships this century and they’re a tenant of the City of Melbourne.
Richmond have won three premierships this century and they’re a tenant of the City of Melbourne.
Geelong has won three premierships this century and they’re a tenant of the Kardinia Park Trust.
Hawthorn has won four premierships this century, and they’re a tenant of Mirvac.
Bulldogs won a premiership while still a tenant at the Western Oval.

Sure Hawthorn has done well, but I cannot see a connection between premierships and leasehold/freehold.

It would be a proper asset then as you could sell to developers or the council even. At the moment we have a depreciating asset that we don't own the ground under. In 10 years the place will be requiring maintenance and repairs.

It doesn't stop you winning anything but it stops you having a true asset to sell if you fall on your arse.

 

[sunny3193]

It would be a proper asset then as you could sell to developers or the council even. At the moment we have a depreciating asset that we don't own the ground under. In 10 years the place will be requiring maintenance and repairs.

It doesn't stop you winning anything but it stops you having a true asset to sell if you fall on your arse.

But surely that argument applies equally to every other tenant in the league.
And if valid, why no rush for freehold?
As demonstrated in the post above there is little, if any, correlation between premierships and freehold rights.
So, a question back to you: are you prepared to underfund key football activities for the privilege of owning some dirt?
It’s an either/or question.
We do not have the funds for both.
We are not Hawthorn, we do not have benefactors willing to drop $10mill of their own.

 

[StFly]

It would be a proper asset then as you could sell to developers or the council even. At the moment we have a depreciating asset that we don't own the ground under. In 10 years the place will be requiring maintenance and repairs.

It doesn't stop you winning anything but it stops you having a true asset to sell if you fall on your arse.

We have a football, cricket, netball, basketball club under one building and lease the land from council, we also said "bye bye" to the RDFL as no real challenge and went to the BFL and Ballarat instead for that challenge (as Essendon wanted waaay too much money), so fair to say, we won some s**t previously.

As I've seen the financial for all, since you know board things, you be talking out your anus essentially. It's an asset regardless who owns the dirt under your feet unless they are straight arseholes doing you dirty. That is not the case in these instances.

 

[Saint Watto]

I am not sure why you’re so focused on the Club owning the land for RSEA Park.

I guess they’d like to, but I don’t see any benefactor in the near future willing and able to drop $10 million on the table so they can buy it.
Like Hawthorn.
Or have it gifted to them, like the Bulldogs.

So what do you suggest we do?

Complain, or get on with it?

A great post there sunny.

 

[gringo2011]

But surely that argument applies equally to every other tenant in the league.
And if valid, why no rush for freehold?
As demonstrated in the post above there is little, if any, correlation between premierships and freehold rights.
So, a question back to you: are you prepared to underfund key football activities for the privilege of owning some dirt?
It’s an either/or question.
We do not have the funds for both.
We are not Hawthorn, we do not have benefactors willing to drop $10mill of their own.

I didn't say anything about trying to get one. Just saying that a home ground is a negative asset not something that you can cash in. Like a luxury car is an asset, it doesn't really add to your wealth and actually costs money to maintain while it's value recedes.

It's like a cafe owner who counts their fit out on a rented property as an asset. In 5 years it will need to be renovated and the real asset is their good will and branding.

 

[Ricmel]

Yes, but what does that have to do with my observation?
What was the phrase used in The Age when describing why there has been a 12 month plus delay in the project at Dingley?
Oh, yes: “due to methane amelioration.”

The better question is what does your observation have to do with the state of St Kilda's balance sheet? You could argue Hawthorn in 1995 were in a worse financial position than St Kilda in 1995. Today they are a financial powerhouse of the AFL because they have concentrated on building an asset base. St Kilda hasn't. That was my point. What the eff has methane amelioration got to do with anything. Their $250 million dollar land bank at Dingley is a failure because they have to do some remedial work on the land? So what.

 

[Ricmel]

But is it really necessary to own the land?

It's not about the land, it is about having an asset base - that could be land, it could be a number of other instruments.

An asset base allows you to borrow which in turn allows you to build a bigger asset base. Tangible assets typically appreciate over longer term and they give you free money.

St Kilda gets no free money and as far as I can see lists no appreciating assets. If there was a commercial fire sale of the club it looks to be worth about $3m (excluding playing group value) with the purchaser taking on quite a significant debt, maintenance of RSEA and hand to mouth cashflows.

Does it hurt you season to season? Individual seasons possibly not. You can still have the two year good patch as a poor club. But to build sustainable long term success (and by that I mean regularly competing in the top 4), wealth and the ability to spend money when you get a good list together is important.

With the current balance sheet, Saints will for the foreseeable future only be able to spend what the AFL gives it with maybe a $1m per year contingency.

So what do you suggest we do?

Complain, or get on with it?

To an extent it is what it is. But these forums I think are for discussing the good and the bad. It is great to put up the annual report and say "oh cool, we had a good year, we didn't lose money" (i think in fact our cashflow was negative) but it is equally valid to comment that our balance sheet is pretty horrible and that in terms of financial goals, it would be great to see the club get a focus on actually trying to build an asset base.

Hawthorn is a very good example of a club that really focussed in on that 20 years ago. Geelong is another and they have really built $20m in retained earnings effectively by saving. Surprisingly, both have had reasonably successful 21st century campaigns onfield too.

 

[no1saint66]

The big clubs have non football related assets and revenue streams. By having a large debt, we can’t invest in our football program nor sustained growth.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It would be a proper asset then as you could sell to developers or the council even. At the moment we have a depreciating asset that we don't own the ground under. In 10 years the place will be requiring maintenance and repairs.

It doesn't stop you winning anything but it stops you having a true asset to sell if you fall on your arse.

Plenty of organisations with specialist applications have assets of no worth to anyone else.
You just pay for it, then write it down in value each year until its gone.

 

[sammm]

AGM is on tonight

AGM

Official AFL Website of the St Kilda Football Club

www.saints.com.au