Ian Collins comments ...

[Kildonan]

Firstly - let's get to know the man:
When The SKFC announced it was in serious financial trouble and may even fold, Ian Collins is the man quoted on the back page of the paper in 1984 as saying
"LET THEM ROT"
Ian Collins and John Elliot presided over the era when Carlton repeatedly and unashamedly cheated the AFL salary cap.
Together their actions cost Carlton draft picks, a huge amount of money and considerable honour.
After John Elliott was forced out of the presidency, Collins took over and in time built up the greatest debt of any AFL club president.
Under his mismanagement Carlton were forced to seek AFL assistance and were given interest free loans which were never repaid.
Every other club was paying for his mismanagement.
Collins was forced to hand the presidency of the club over to Graeme Smorgon who quickly got the club back on track.
Collins is CEO of Etihad stadium (and people wonder why it isn't doing well financially?) From what I can gather Etihad Stadium deals screws everyone bar Essendon . The deal that St Kilda had was a disgrace and the AFL acknowledged this when they agreed to compensate us.
The AFL are investigating buying out the stadium early. Such an action will cost a lot more than what is currently contracted. The AFL may save money by minimising the losses that Collins is bringing upon the AFL through most of the Etihad stadium contracted clubs.


That said the media frenzies that attacked and derrogated the St Kilda Football Club mainly in the preseasons of 2010 and 2011 were very damaging and the club did little to improve the situation towards sponsors and fans alike.

The Seaford location has been implicated as contributory for some players and the media. It appears that some find it too remote and Collins alludes to this saying "I think they've made some decisions that they would rue, haven't they? I reckon Moorabbin to Seaford wouldn't be the best deal ever, would it? I don't go that far for my holiday."

The move was necessary. It provides the players with first class facilities. In time it will become a home to those who were happier with the more central location. In the meantime there is a whole generation of kids coming through who will only know Seaford (and TBBO) as home.

The most damage to the club was done with incidents such as
- Andrew Lovett's violation of trust (if not body),
- Kim Duthie and the stolen photo scandal - a thief and a liar, she has cost the club dearly and has done so with impugnity due to a quirk of age,
- Some player misbehavior - relatively minor in the scheme of things,
- Ross Lyons game plan made the brand unattractive and undesired and the bubble gave the media a target to take swipes at.
- An extremely poor start to 2011 (probably as a result of the disappointment of three consecutive GFs and nothing to show for it and the fatigue of two years of playing at the highest level under a demanding coach known to burn out assistant coaches at a rapid rate) on top of the bad press.

Collins is a cheat - that is an historical fact. We know the type of person he is - pompous, arogant and without ethics.
He HATES the St Kilda FC as is attested to by his dealings with the club, his press releases involving the club and is probably relected in the stadium deal with the club as well.

Here is the article:

Etihad Stadium chief executive Ian Collins slams Saints over $1.5m loss
by: Michael Warner
From:Herald Sun
January 20, 2012 12:00AM

 

[mysainters]

The off field dramas didn't exactly have people turning off the footy games featuring St Kilda, the shutdown, low scoring, dire footy did that.

Stadium signage must be difficult to sell when you can't assure companies that people are watching?

No open training, no PR opportunities, no sponsors backdrops.

St Kilda was an island.

It no longer is an island though, quite the opposite, so no excuses when it comes to the corporate $

 

[Flyingsaint]

The off field dramas didn't exactly have people turning off the footy games featuring St Kilda, the shutdown, low scoring, dire footy did that.

Stadium signage must be difficult to sell when you can't assure companies that people are watching?

No open training, no PR opportunities, no sponsors backdrops.

St Kilda was an island.

It no longer is an island though, quite the opposite, so no excuses when it comes to the corporate $

Problems being the financial sector/ business has contracted and is busy staying afloat
and it will take time and GAMES for the rest of the competition and football world to see it.

 

[Squizz]

Maybe Collins thinks that people won't remember - anything he says about St Kilda is laced with bias - and omissions of fact and insults haven't received the derision they deserve. Thanks for taking the time to ensure there is some background disclosure, K.

 

[SA1NTER]

Great post Kildonan.

Ian Collins is a prime example of the scum culture at Carlton, and his opinions mean as much to me as the dirty water I flush after using the toilet.

 

[karmafree]

Collins will be remembered just as Pratt will be, a cheat, liar, & ****. I remember somewhere Big K you posted an old article by Joffa and his feelings towards Collins, Elliot and the Carlton Footy club, one of the great effective rants I have read here.

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

Great article Kildonan, Its crystal clear that his comments were just a cheap shot at StKilda. He tries to make us sound bad by bringing up old garbage press but in the end it just makes him sound desperate and like a complete idiot.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I read the article at the time it was in the paper and while I really don't like Collins one little bit, I found it hard to disagree with anything he was quoted as saying in there and thought he was reasonably restrained (for him) with what he said.
It does seem to be awfully dodgy for the club to be trying to make out as if it's our stadium deal with Etihad that is the cause of all our problems when, as Collins pointed out, it was the same deal (if not better, by as much as $77,000 per game) last year, as it was the year before, when we made a juicy profit.
So obviously a LOT of other things have gone south from one year to the next and it would appear that the club are trying to deflect attention away from those things and onto our deal with Etihad.
I think we would be much better off just accepting responsibility for any other areas that need improving, rather than making out as if we're in this position mostly because of our stadium deal.
Sure we would be in a better position if we had a better deal, but we would also be in a better position if we had our shit together in a lot of other areas as well.

 

[Kildonan]

The club is making the point that when everything was going our way on field and off field, that our profits were hiding the bad stadium deal. Then when we had a less successful season, the true nature of the stadium deal is revealed. If we have this sort of result when we make the finals - how will we fare if we have a poor year?

The club is trying to ensure its own long term viability. They are being responsible by telling it as it is.

Collins is looking after the owners of Etihad.

Essendon has a large supporter base and was able to negotiate a much better stadium deal than the other tennants. I suspect that Carlton got a good deal as well, but Saints, Doggies and the Roos have all been bent over.

Etihad have a deal with Melbourne Victory that has caused a few problems as well because it is suspected that they were given a much better deal than any of the AFL clubs.

As it stands, the Saints are going backwards - they cant compete financially with Essendon, let alone the clubs based at the MCG, Geelong and most of the interstate clubs.

Sure there are other factors that have influenced this year's result, but the major step here is acknowledging the importance of having a fair stadium deal - one which allows us to compete on "a level playing field" with our opponents.

Collins outburst was a direct response to the Saints weakening his bargaining position. The AFL are now acutely aware of the disparity of the deals on offer - and will support our case. His was an appeal through the media - where facts are nebulous things - he attacked the club and the decisions made by it - in philosophy this is called "Poisoning the well". He systematically reduces the credibility of our club through ridicule. If you look closely they are all irrelevant rants having nothing to do with the stadium deal itself except this statement "The stadium deal hasn't changed from 2010 to 2011, so it's the same deal.." He fails to acknowledge that the SKFC complained about the deal last year as well. If it wasn't for the successful finals series and two Grand Finals in 2010 we would have barely broken even.

Collins is ripping the AFL off. The AFL are looking into ways to minimise the financial burden he is placing on the league.

1-8 start and 4 less weeks of finals

under the current stadium agreement the saints won't make money with an average 11 win season, but will if they win 15+

the model needs to be profitable on a 7 win season but can't be with the current stadium agreement.

simplistic, any crowd under 32,000ish is made up predominantly of walk ups and members, any crowd over 40,000 brings in a lot of pre bookings that attract the larger $

40,000 + 20,000 will bring in greater revenue than 30,000 + 30,000 despite the averages being even

the saints had 4 32,000+ games this season, 9 last season.




it can't be a cop out before the fact

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/etihad-stadium-returns-batter-saints-kangaroos-and-bulldogs/story-e6frf9jf-1226170142737

St Kilda estimates it would be $2.3 million better off if it played all its home games at the MCG.

More fact based, pre result cop out

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/hopping-mad-kangaroos-add-up-cost-of-playing-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492


Two years ago against the Cats, the Saints made $156,264 at Etihad in front of a crowd of 54,444. A year later at the MCG, the match attracted 58,208 and the Saints received $497,868.

St Kilda chief executive Michael Nettlefold yesterday said the Saints were about $210,000 worse off on average every time they played at Etihad and not the MCG.

"The club would bring in approximately $4.19m if we played all 11 home games at the MCG compared to about $1.89m at Etihad," Nettlefold said. "The club is on a program of growth and improvement, but the stadium economics are a major impediment."

Firstly St Kilda willingly entered into an agreement to play at Etihad.

Your co-tenants at Waverley (Hawthorn) chose to relocate to the MCG and on top were handsomely compensated for ending their lease at Waverley. St Kilda from memory were not.

http://m.news.com.au/AFL/fi948612.htm


Did/does the Etihad deal impact upon St Kilda's potential profitability.
Of course it does.
But the reasons for a $1.5 mill loss (before depreciation) for your club in 2011 go deeper.
Drops in sponsorship, attendances, revenue, gate receipts and membership all contributed to the loss.

To constantly highlight the stadium deal fails to acknowledge a greater malaise.

As I said above "(Collins) is also correct of course that the reasons for St Kilda's financial loss in 2011 go far deeper than any unfavourable deal at Etihad."

Finally the article I quoted above also says this;


The inequitable deals at Etihad have now been recognised and your club will be financially recompensed , but IMO St Kilda must also address it's own off field issues.

The same noises were made when the Saints were generating additional revenue through winning 22 games a season.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=574550

-$971k in stadium receipts


combined with -$700k in prize money, -$264k in merchandise sales and -1600 members can all be attributable to a poorer on field result.

Using a year where you finish 2nd as a benchmark is ridiculous though, -$200k per game v the alternative stadium is -$200k per game, no matter what it was the year prior.

 

[SamFisher25]

Kildo, great OP and your point that the AFL are getting ripped off is spot on.

collins is cooking the books. he has been falsifying crowd numbers at docklands for ages in order to pay lower commissions.

unfortunately for the saints, dogs and kangas there hasn't been an independent regulator to verify crowd numbers so collins has been running a flyscreen tuckshop for the entire time that he's been there.

 

[Squizz]

The club is making the point that when everything was going our way on field and off field, that our profits were hiding the bad stadium deal.

I'm surprised this is not obvious to all. If we had a decent stadium deal there would still be work to do on membership and sponsorship (and our strained relationship with the media) - but we'd be addressing it from a base of very substantial profits in 2009 and 2010 followed by a much more modest loss in 2011.

Not sure how Collins slagging Seaford (noting the move doesn't suit me but seemed absolutely necessary then and now) is defendable.

Nor saying "And they've probably lost a lot of sponsors along the way."

Probably? "I just think they're looking for what I would call a red herring."

Who is fishing with inaccurate supposition?

 

[sainter35]

Seriously club simply needs to push to relocate.

This fat, cheating pig can say what he likes but he destroyed Carlton for 10 yrs or more along with his mate John Elliott....that history will NEVER be re written.

Saints need to get on the front foot here - fck Etihad (love playing there and I prefer watching footy there over G also as for me its easy to get to) but facts are we need the coin.

 

[Defacto]

Seriously club simply needs to push to relocate.

This fat, cheating pig can say what he likes but he destroyed Carlton for 10 yrs or more along with his mate John Elliott....that history will NEVER be re written.

Saints need to get on the front foot here - fck Etihad (love playing there and I prefer watching footy there over G also as for me its easy to get to) but facts are we need the coin.

this. st kilda, north melbourne and the doggies need to push to play their games against interstate clubs at a smaller venue. etihad just isnt the answer. mcg for interstate games either. play them at vissy park, tassie, ballarat what ever ground gives us more $$$. will put some pressure on etihad to cut us a better deal.

 

[Squizz]

st kilda, north melbourne and the doggies need to push to play their games against interstate clubs at a smaller venue. etihad just isnt the answer.

Not possible unfortunately.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...laying-at-etihad/story-e6frg7mf-1226130915492

North Melbourne, which last year posted its third consecutive annual profit ($234,000), will make a loss this year.

Both North Melbourne and the Bulldogs have conservatively estimated losses of up to $12m each since they started playing home games at Etihad Stadium 11 years ago, compared with potential returns had those games been played at the MCG.

St Kilda's plight can best be described by its takings from home matches against Geelong in 2009 and last year.

Two years ago against the Cats, the Saints made $156,264 at Etihad in front of a crowd of 54,444. A year later at the MCG, the match attracted 58,208 and the Saints received $497,868.

AFL chief operating officer Gillon McLachlin, who oversees stadiums and fixtures as part of his role, yesterday said the league recognised the inequities and admitted it was a major challenge for the AFL. "We will deal with that through the broader club funding model," McLachlin said.

Carlton, which received an upfront $2.5m cash payment six years ago to play home games at Etihad for 10 years, is also looking to reduce its games at the ground by playing more matches at the MCG.

Under a revised deal between Etihad and the AFL, a minimum of 46 home-and-away games must be played there each year until 2013, when the minimum requirement decreases to 40 matches.

 

[SamFisher25]

http://www.etihadstadium.com.au/history

A major challenge for the stadium was the March 6 hail storm, which caused millions of dollars damage to some parts of the venue. The damage was isolated allowing events to continue uninterrupted.

the game on march 6 was delayed and thereby interrupted. to suggest otherwise is just blatantly untruthful.