Event Club Q&A - 17th June

Sep 28, 2016
6,625
21,644
AFL Club
St Kilda
He is the CEO. Prior to Lethers change in job title - they all fell under his umbrella.

You can’t just sit there and say he had no bearing on it.

As per your previous post, I also didn’t say Arden street was any better worse or indifferent to Moorabbins redevelopment. But they and the dogs are comparable to us unfortunately and whilst Moorabbin is better (commenting now) the same redevelopment did occur with less resources and they have gotten themselves financially stable. Which we aren’t. Both those clubs are also Marvel members and had a poor deal too.

I might think Finnis has done a poor job - but I also gave him credit for his part in Moorabbin, membership and sponsorship. However I also am not naive to absolve him of the Football department of which he was ENTIRELY responsible before Lethers promotion. Which by the way, came about from the board under the new president and not the old regime.

So clearly they identified an issue here too.

So you are right that Finnis my be better then his predecessors, but he hasn’t gotten this club performing to the level of those clubs around us. Whether that’s financially like the Roos or both on and off field like the dogs.
Really don’t think you should compare either North or Bulldogs to St Kilda re finances as those comparisons are fraught with problems.
You will end up looking foolish.
For example: the Bulldogs were gifted freehold to the Western Oval in 2018 which they valued at $16mill.
There is no equivalent number for Moorabbin as it is leased.
North has “bad debt” of $6mill, compared to our $12mill.
Yet we have double the assets.
About the only comparison that is fair is to pick a baseline year and measure each clubs performance over a period with respect to that baseline.
And on that basis determine whether Finnis is successful.
 
Sep 28, 2016
6,625
21,644
AFL Club
St Kilda
Just on Finnis:
We have reached agreement with the AFL that they will dollar match repayments of our debt to them.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe around half of our debt is owed to the AFL. If that's right then he has effectively negotiated away a quarter of our debt.
This puts us closer to funding the football department the way it needs to be.
Along with the ongoing facility improvements and membership increases, now that he doesn't need to (needed to due to lack of funds) run the football department as well as the off-field business, I can't see what he could be doing better.
We owe them $11mill in total, just over $4mill in two direct loans and the balance as a loan facility underwritten by the AFL.
I guess that would make a $2mill benefit being on the direct loans only.
Great news.
 
Really don’t think you should compare either North or Bulldogs to St Kilda re finances as those comparisons are fraught with problems.
You will end up looking foolish.
For example: the Bulldogs were gifted freehold to the Western Oval in 2018 which they valued at $16mill.
There is no equivalent number for Moorabbin as it is leased.
North has “bad debt” of $6mill, compared to our $12mill.
Yet we have double the assets.
About the only comparison that is fair is to pick a baseline year and measure each clubs performance over a period with respect to that baseline.
And on that basis determine whether Finnis is successful.
We owe them $11mill in total, just over $4mill in two direct loans and the balance as a loan facility underwritten by the AFL.
I guess that would make a $2mill benefit being on the direct loans only.
Great news.
Thank you :thumbsu:
 
It's just an impression but he doesn't seem urgent about on field success or have a close eye on what's going on in the footy department. I rate Moorabin, it's magnificent to have it but his role should be focussing on infield success as a way of becoming a more attractive proposition for sponsors and new members. It's obvious to me that the areas you hit first are recruiting and list management and then development and coaching. You can't coach chihuahuas to be greyhounds so get the list build going then have people in place to get the best out of them. Then let the rest take care of itself.

Sponsors and fans love a winner. We had huge membership rises built on hope. Imagine if we had real success, Scotty's juggernaut could come true.

0V4QTNp.gif
 
We owe them $11mill in total, just over $4mill in two direct loans and the balance as a loan facility underwritten by the AFL.
I guess that would make a $2mill benefit being on the direct loans only.
Great news.
Sunny, how much would it cost the club to service these loans/debts per year ?
 
Sep 28, 2016
6,625
21,644
AFL Club
St Kilda
Sunny, how much would it cost the club to service these loans/debts per year ?
Last year: $200k in Finance costs, $175k in lease repayments.
The lease repayments are most probably vehicles, and Moorabbin.

So let’s say Interest alone is $200k.
On $32mill turnover, similar amount in assets.

Bugger all actually.

Equal to two first year draftees or rookies.
 

Munga

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 2, 2003
12,630
20,259
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well I just watched the video. Maybe they've rapidly brainwashed me, but that was good and I appreciate them putting that on for us.

They seem pretty convinced that fitness isn't the issue, rather effort is. So I'll trust them on that one. As I said yesterday, we cover more kms than the opposition and blow up before them... so if fitness isn't the issue then this leads me to think that the gamestyle isn't up to scratch, and we're doing a whole lot of inefficient running.

This "effort" word has snowballed on us this year. Maybe it being drilled into the players is part of the problem? They give more and more effort to the point of thinking they have to be doing something all the time and running all over the place inefficiently, which just tires them out more and more. It's like the runaway greenhouse effect. Give more effort, get more tired, looks like no effort, told we need even more effort, give even more effort, get even more tired, looks even more like we're not trying, and so on.... Doogs last minute is case in point, hunched over, couldn't get to the goal line, you can't tell me he hasn't given enough effort... if anything he gave too much during the match. Do 22 players collectively drop off? Is it because they've worked harder than the opposition but not more efficiently?

How about improving the structures, positioning, efficiencies? Our best wins have come after the media have belted us for one way running, being forward of the contest, lack of team defense.... Whether consciously absorbing that or not, we play better after our structures are highlighted for improvement... and suddenly effort wasn't a problem because of more efficient style and running. It's no wonder we can sh*t over good teams when we set up well.

With Battle on the wing, I know what Ratts is going for, Battle's height and tank is attractive. But he moves like a mack truck, not much agility, not too effective once the ball is spoiled. King doesn't have the tank but is way more effective below his knees. Yeah it would be great to have a tall winger, but we don't have anyone suitable at the moment and probably need to shelf the idea... although Membrey has been doing well up the field, has the tank and plays tall.

Selection has been highly questionable this year. Ratts mentioned having faith in players to work through bad form, which is nice... But at what cost? Hampering the performance of the 1sts. Not promoting in-form players nor having faith in them. Form slumps spreads and suddenly there are too many players who should be dropped. The damage was done earlier in the season, that's been a big F this year. It's like they think playing at Sandy means being sacked or something.

Anyway, I'm greatful for the insights, good to hear Rath too. Hopefully they play the kids now and try not to waste precious senior games on players who won't be with us next year (unless tradable). And maybe, just maybe, structure up better too. Fingers crossed.
 
Well I just watched the video. Maybe they've rapidly brainwashed me, but that was good and I appreciate them putting that on for us.

They seem pretty convinced that fitness isn't the issue, rather effort is. So I'll trust them on that one. As I said yesterday, we cover more kms than the opposition and blow up before them... so if fitness isn't the issue then this leads me to think that the gamestyle isn't up to scratch, and we're doing a whole lot of inefficient running.

This "effort" word has snowballed on us this year. Maybe it being drilled into the players is part of the problem? They give more and more effort to the point of thinking they have to be doing something all the time and running all over the place inefficiently, which just tires them out more and more. It's like the runaway greenhouse effect. Give more effort, get more tired, looks like no effort, told we need even more effort, give even more effort, get even more tired, looks even more like we're not trying, and so on.... Doogs last minute is case in point, hunched over, couldn't get to the goal line, you can't tell me he hasn't given enough effort... if anything he gave too much during the match. Do 22 players collectively drop off? Is it because they've worked harder than the opposition but not more efficiently?

How about improving the structures, positioning, efficiencies? Our best wins have come after the media have belted us for one way running, being forward of the contest, lack of team defense.... Whether consciously absorbing that or not, we play better after our structures are highlighted for improvement... and suddenly effort wasn't a problem because of more efficient style and running. It's no wonder we can sh*t over good teams when we set up well.

With Battle on the wing, I know what Ratts is going for, Battle's height and tank is attractive. But he moves like a mack truck, not much agility, not too effective once the ball is spoiled. King doesn't have the tank but is way more effective below his knees. Yeah it would be great to have a tall winger, but we don't have anyone suitable at the moment and probably need to shelf the idea... although Membrey has been doing well up the field, has the tank and plays tall.

Selection has been highly questionable this year. Ratts mentioned having faith in players to work through bad form, which is nice... But at what cost? Hampering the performance of the 1sts. Not promoting in-form players nor having faith in them. Form slumps spreads and suddenly there are too many players who should be dropped. The damage was done earlier in the season, that's been a big F this year. It's like they think playing at Sandy means being sacked or something.

Anyway, I'm greatful for the insights, good to hear Rath too. Hopefully they play the kids now and try not to waste precious senior games on players who won't be with us next year (unless tradable). And maybe, just maybe, structure up better too. Fingers crossed.
Great post mate, my thoughts pretty much exactly aswell.
 
Well I just watched the video. Maybe they've rapidly brainwashed me, but that was good and I appreciate them putting that on for us.

They seem pretty convinced that fitness isn't the issue, rather effort is. So I'll trust them on that one. As I said yesterday, we cover more kms than the opposition and blow up before them... so if fitness isn't the issue then this leads me to think that the gamestyle isn't up to scratch, and we're doing a whole lot of inefficient running.

This "effort" word has snowballed on us this year. Maybe it being drilled into the players is part of the problem? They give more and more effort to the point of thinking they have to be doing something all the time and running all over the place inefficiently, which just tires them out more and more. It's like the runaway greenhouse effect. Give more effort, get more tired, looks like no effort, told we need even more effort, give even more effort, get even more tired, looks even more like we're not trying, and so on.... Doogs last minute is case in point, hunched over, couldn't get to the goal line, you can't tell me he hasn't given enough effort... if anything he gave too much during the match. Do 22 players collectively drop off? Is it because they've worked harder than the opposition but not more efficiently?

How about improving the structures, positioning, efficiencies? Our best wins have come after the media have belted us for one way running, being forward of the contest, lack of team defense.... Whether consciously absorbing that or not, we play better after our structures are highlighted for improvement... and suddenly effort wasn't a problem because of more efficient style and running. It's no wonder we can sh*t over good teams when we set up well.

With Battle on the wing, I know what Ratts is going for, Battle's height and tank is attractive. But he moves like a mack truck, not much agility, not too effective once the ball is spoiled. King doesn't have the tank but is way more effective below his knees. Yeah it would be great to have a tall winger, but we don't have anyone suitable at the moment and probably need to shelf the idea... although Membrey has been doing well up the field, has the tank and plays tall.

Selection has been highly questionable this year. Ratts mentioned having faith in players to work through bad form, which is nice... But at what cost? Hampering the performance of the 1sts. Not promoting in-form players nor having faith in them. Form slumps spreads and suddenly there are too many players who should be dropped. The damage was done earlier in the season, that's been a big F this year. It's like they think playing at Sandy means being sacked or something.

Anyway, I'm greatful for the insights, good to hear Rath too. Hopefully they play the kids now and try not to waste precious senior games on players who won't be with us next year (unless tradable). And maybe, just maybe, structure up better too. Fingers crossed.


Oe thing that struck me in that Sydney game was how little we offer up options for each other to kick to. Looking up the ground at the kick in players are standing around and not moving. They should be on the move to make it at least look like they might do something unpredictable. Instead they go over and over to the same spot and it's inevitably to a contest. They are either quite dumb, lazy or poorly drilled and it seemed to be across the field, no leads, no back up running, no blocking and shepherding etc. It looks like they don't like each other or don't care sometimes, what ever it is players aren't playing a team game.
 
Apr 24, 2014
2,512
8,059
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well I just watched the video. Maybe they've rapidly brainwashed me, but that was good and I appreciate them putting that on for us.

They seem pretty convinced that fitness isn't the issue, rather effort is. So I'll trust them on that one. As I said yesterday, we cover more kms than the opposition and blow up before them... so if fitness isn't the issue then this leads me to think that the gamestyle isn't up to scratch, and we're doing a whole lot of inefficient running.

This "effort" word has snowballed on us this year. Maybe it being drilled into the players is part of the problem? They give more and more effort to the point of thinking they have to be doing something all the time and running all over the place inefficiently, which just tires them out more and more. It's like the runaway greenhouse effect. Give more effort, get more tired, looks like no effort, told we need even more effort, give even more effort, get even more tired, looks even more like we're not trying, and so on.... Doogs last minute is case in point, hunched over, couldn't get to the goal line, you can't tell me he hasn't given enough effort... if anything he gave too much during the match. Do 22 players collectively drop off? Is it because they've worked harder than the opposition but not more efficiently?

How about improving the structures, positioning, efficiencies? Our best wins have come after the media have belted us for one way running, being forward of the contest, lack of team defense.... Whether consciously absorbing that or not, we play better after our structures are highlighted for improvement... and suddenly effort wasn't a problem because of more efficient style and running. It's no wonder we can sh*t over good teams when we set up well.

With Battle on the wing, I know what Ratts is going for, Battle's height and tank is attractive. But he moves like a mack truck, not much agility, not too effective once the ball is spoiled. King doesn't have the tank but is way more effective below his knees. Yeah it would be great to have a tall winger, but we don't have anyone suitable at the moment and probably need to shelf the idea... although Membrey has been doing well up the field, has the tank and plays tall.

Selection has been highly questionable this year. Ratts mentioned having faith in players to work through bad form, which is nice... But at what cost? Hampering the performance of the 1sts. Not promoting in-form players nor having faith in them. Form slumps spreads and suddenly there are too many players who should be dropped. The damage was done earlier in the season, that's been a big F this year. It's like they think playing at Sandy means being sacked or something.

Anyway, I'm greatful for the insights, good to hear Rath too. Hopefully they play the kids now and try not to waste precious senior games on players who won't be with us next year (unless tradable). And maybe, just maybe, structure up better too. Fingers crossed.
I agree with most of that. The one thing I would say is that we've probably been hampered by how little reserves footy there has been. If you drop someone how are they meant to find form or confidence if they aren't playing?
 
Last edited:
Sep 28, 2016
6,625
21,644
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well I just watched the video. Maybe they've rapidly brainwashed me, but that was good and I appreciate them putting that on for us.

They seem pretty convinced that fitness isn't the issue, rather effort is. So I'll trust them on that one. As I said yesterday, we cover more kms than the opposition and blow up before them... so if fitness isn't the issue then this leads me to think that the gamestyle isn't up to scratch, and we're doing a whole lot of inefficient running.

This "effort" word has snowballed on us this year. Maybe it being drilled into the players is part of the problem? They give more and more effort to the point of thinking they have to be doing something all the time and running all over the place inefficiently, which just tires them out more and more. It's like the runaway greenhouse effect. Give more effort, get more tired, looks like no effort, told we need even more effort, give even more effort, get even more tired, looks even more like we're not trying, and so on.... Doogs last minute is case in point, hunched over, couldn't get to the goal line, you can't tell me he hasn't given enough effort... if anything he gave too much during the match. Do 22 players collectively drop off? Is it because they've worked harder than the opposition but not more efficiently?

How about improving the structures, positioning, efficiencies? Our best wins have come after the media have belted us for one way running, being forward of the contest, lack of team defense.... Whether consciously absorbing that or not, we play better after our structures are highlighted for improvement... and suddenly effort wasn't a problem because of more efficient style and running. It's no wonder we can sh*t over good teams when we set up well.

With Battle on the wing, I know what Ratts is going for, Battle's height and tank is attractive. But he moves like a mack truck, not much agility, not too effective once the ball is spoiled. King doesn't have the tank but is way more effective below his knees. Yeah it would be great to have a tall winger, but we don't have anyone suitable at the moment and probably need to shelf the idea... although Membrey has been doing well up the field, has the tank and plays tall.

Selection has been highly questionable this year. Ratts mentioned having faith in players to work through bad form, which is nice... But at what cost? Hampering the performance of the 1sts. Not promoting in-form players nor having faith in them. Form slumps spreads and suddenly there are too many players who should be dropped. The damage was done earlier in the season, that's been a big F this year. It's like they think playing at Sandy means being sacked or something.

Anyway, I'm greatful for the insights, good to hear Rath too. Hopefully they play the kids now and try not to waste precious senior games on players who won't be with us next year (unless tradable). And maybe, just maybe, structure up better too. Fingers crossed.
I have just seen it now, and I am actually wondering if I was watching the same thing as everyone else.
I was pleased to see there is a plan.
I am pleased to see that the rest of the year will be driven by that plan.
And I am pleased to see that there is a higher and longer term strategy/goal for the team.
The responses to the questions were calm, lucid and professional.
A difficult situation well managed.
Simply demonstrates to me that no one who posts on this board has any real access to the inner sanctum.
 
I’m well aware of that - as you know.

But are they the right people in the right jobs. That’s what needs to come out.

I think Ratten is the right coach.
I think Finnis needs to go.
Lethlean I’m unsure.
I find Warner's article criminally insane.

So according to his article some senior st kilda people were questioning if Lethlean should replace Finnis.

Thats a fair question to ask. Finnis has been there since 2014.

But then the article pivots to Lethlean and maybe he shouldn't be there. But there's no mention of finnis like he's somehow evaporated into the ether.

Like in what world can anyone start questioning lethlean but completely absolve Finnis.

If lethlean isn't the right guy then surely some starts to go "hang on a second who's the person who appointed lethlean"...

"Is that the same guy who appointed Jamie Cox and extended Alan Richardson contract"

"Is that the same guy who has posted maybe 2 modest profits and 1 finals appearance in 8 seasons "

"Is that the same guy who ticked off on all the appointments we are now starting to criticise lethlean for"

I mean for crying out loud!!!!

Is anyone going to stop for a second and start looking at the bigger picture?
 
You can’t give Finnis all the credit for Moorabbin and whilst that is monumental in our history his legacy also shows….

The debt hasn’t reduced. We are AFL hand our reliant still.

He is the bloke who backed and backed Richo.

1 finals series in his 7 years.

Effectively 2 rebuilds 14-18 then the Lethers assisted 18 - 20.

Comparison to similar clubs in North and the Dogs doesn’t read great.
As great as morrabbin is there's a couple of points people need to remember:
- correct me if I am wrong but we don't own the asset we are leasing it
- it's not a significant revenue producer. Now people could argue the membership revenue is tied up in this but some people also think we don't make too much profit of the membership
- it was funded by government. The landscape there has changed. The government is not going to be throwing that kind of cash around at moorabbin moving forward in a post covid world

What would have been nice is if we had a Geelong type outcome where we got a revenue producing asset instead of just a training ground.

We are not a construction company there to build community assets that we don't own.

We are there to win a premiership and to build a business model strong enough to fund that and put our selves in the best position to win one.

The training facilities help. But we are at the point where we don't need more facilities.

We need revenue and we need onfield improvement.

Matt has no demonstrated that he can do both those things.
 
Last edited:
Tony74 posted on Monday on Saintsational "Well something has to give. I think you’ll find two of the assistants will be shown the door during the bye week with a couple more later in the year."

He also added that only two of our coaches are contracted for next year so no soft cap penalties.

Our current assistant coaches are Lade, Hamill, Skobalak, McGlynn, Batchelor and Roughead.

Lade seems to be highly rated and Batchelor and Roughead were appointed by Lethlean so you would have to think he is probably talking about Hamill, Skrobalak or McGlynn.

Danny Sexton is the Head of Football Operations iirc so I imagine he could be in the hot seat as well.

You would think that we would hear in the next 5 days.
I've got some mail on Danny Sexton. I'll inbox you Stav.
 
Dec 4, 2000
51,663
125,107
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints LUFC
As great as morrabbin is there's a couple of points people need to remember:
- correct me if I am wrong but we don't own the asset we are leasing it
- it's not a significant revenue producer. Now people could argue the membership revenue is tied up in this but some people also think we don't make too much profit of the membership
- it was funded by government. The landscape there has changed. The government is not going to be throwing that kind of cash around at moorabbin moving forward in a post covid world

What would have been nice is if we had a Geelong type outcome where we got a revenue producing asset instead of just a training ground.

We are not a construction company there to build community assets that we don't own.

We are there to win a premiership and to build a business model strong enough to fund that and put our selves in the best position to win one.

The training facilities help. But we are at the point where we don't need more facilities.

We need revenue and we need onfield improvement.

Matt has no demonstrated that he can do both those things.
Without looking at exactly the type of leasing arrangements we indeed do own the leased asset. They are classed as an asset on the BS and can therefore be depreciated.
 
Like I said in the other thread:

It'll be hilarious is a power broker asks if Lethlean should replace Finnis only for Lethlean to get sacked.

This is Melbournesque right now. Remember when Schwab was going and said as much to everyone before the Geelong game. Only for Bailey to get the knife 2 hours later.

Atleast they're rightfully questioning why we need a COO and a CEO.

Having posted that... what if both go... that certainly would shake things up.

One criticism I had of the summers presidency is that he put stability over everything. I think he persisted too long for too many.

If Bassat does move on the CEO and COO he's atleast getting proactive and not waiting forever.
 
Back