Is St Kilda in the firing line for relocation?

[walhawk]

It would be better if St Kilda were playing four games in Tas instead of Hawthorn.
Saints would be rock solid with an extra 10K members (they were probably more popular there than us originally) and although the Hawks might lose 5K members, we could increase reserved seat revenue with 10/11 Melbourne games.
And we could take the one NZ game (we have been investing in NZ footy for years).
Saints will always be an up and down club.
Their latent support is mid tier, but unlike Hawks/Tiger/North/Pies/Bombers fans, they seem to come and go.
It took Hawthorn 15 years of consistently doing everything 100% right off field to become a 'strong' club. Saints have the potential to do the same but cannot make any mistakes.

 

[JackFlash]

I am incredibly tired of hearing this argument from you, I have asked multiple times for you to clarify your position on why a rebrand is imperative to prevent the club folding, and point out in has not worked in other cases of Melbourne based clubs (two of whom you mention in this post) but each time I am ignored or provided with unsupportable arguments (training base, poor culture, etc).

If you cannot clarify your claim, please stop beating the drum.

The thread reads "Is St.Kilda in line for re-location" You have my view on it and you disagree, that is fine, i certainly don't expect any St.Kilda fan to fully agree, but i didn't start the thread. We have witnessed one team go under in the past 20 years, the Bulldogs had a name change and are looking into Ballarat, Fremantle re- launched themselves a few years ago and IMO it is time the Saints did the same thing. You tell me what plan is in place to keep St.Kilda alive in the next 10 years? In business you must be prepared for change at the drop of a hat. The AFL is now a highly competitive market place not just within itself, but also from other codes. Take the emotion out of it for a second and think seriously as to where your club will be in 2025? I don't want them out, i don't want their colours to change, the Saints have one of the best strips in the game, probably the best theme song and a good strong nickname. I'm advocating for "St.Kilda" to be changed. Everything else can be re-tweeked and re-launched, failure to change could see the Saints gone altogether and nobody wants that.

 

[cartel]

Won't relocate. Stood the test of time for decades, we have almost perpetually had off-field dramas in one shape or form. Still here.

Even if you hate St Kilda, the AFL would be much much poorer without St Kilda.

While our on-field performance will be dismal for a few more years yet, Finnis and Summers have been making good moves off-field so far.

If we did relocate, the AFL can GAGF.

 

[Murraj1966]

St Kilda had 40,000 members in 2010 with little to no fan interaction due to that accursed "bubble".

Given that the current administration knows what it's doing in terms of fan retention and commitment (28,000 members to this day and 25,000 before Xmas, a feat last reached after the 2009 Grand Final) so when the time comes that we start moving back up the ladder our membership should easily reach that 40,000 mark again with the possibility for a push towards 50,000 if the current administration continues improving the club's image and direction at the rate they're going now.

We'll be fine, and once again despite the people who want to shove fingers in their ears regarding this issue, St Kilda the Dogs and North are footing the bill for Etihad Stadium and getting a big dent in their profits because of it. If the AFL buys Etihad, the resulting financial changes for traditional "smaller" clubs will be another kick to the head to the "kill VFL tradition" brigade.

 

[Riccardo11]

The thread reads "Is St.Kilda in line for re-location" You have my view on it and you disagree, that is fine, i certainly don't expect any St.Kilda fan to fully agree, but i didn't start the thread. We have witnessed one team go under in the past 20 years, the Bulldogs had a name change and are looking into Ballarat, Fremantle re- launched themselves a few years ago and IMO it is time the Saints did the same thing. You tell me what plan is in place to keep St.Kilda alive in the next 10 years? In business you must be prepared for change at the drop of a hat. The AFL is now a highly competitive market place not just within itself, but also from other codes. Take the emotion out of it for a second and think seriously as to where your club will be in 2025? I don't want them out, i don't want their colours to change, the Saints have one of the best strips in the game, probably the best theme song and a good strong nickname. I'm advocating for "St.Kilda" to be changed. Everything else can be re-tweeked and re-launched, failure to change could see the Saints gone altogether and nobody wants that.

I did not ask for your opinion on whether we should relocate or not, but your opinion that St Kilda can only survive by rebranding to the "Southern Saints" is my issue with you.
Fitzroy (the team you indicate "went under") had numerous problems that I have already related to you in the past (lack of money, no permanent home, small supporter base, lack of sponsorship, poor playing stocks, bad management and the AFL wanted a Melbourne team to go for Port Adelaide) none of which would have been averted by a name change.

The Bulldogs did change to the Western Bulldogs with a more "modern" look in 1997, however they have very slowly begun to revive the elements of their traditional identity (guernsey, logo, playing at Western Oval, reserves being called Footscray) to great success thus far. Their playing name not being Footscray did not revived their fortunes or, as you point out, assured their future in any way.

Fremantle changed their guernsey and logo. Many clubs do this on a regular basis as a marketing exercise. It has little to nothing to do with club survive, unless you are inferring Freo were in imminent peril, which clearly they were not. And they are still "Fremantle", they are not the "Wharfside Dockers".

We are down to your common and highly unsupportable point: that St Kilda are in immediate danger of folding, and the only thing that will avoid this is a name change to "Southern Saints", despite absolutely zero coherant reason why this is necessary or will ensure the clubs survival. Do you think a clubs financial position can immediately be revived by ditching their name and adopting a "modern" superfluous moniker? The historical examples of Western Bulldogs and Kangaroos indicate otherwise.

I am not being emotional about this, I honestly feel your suggestion that a name change is absolutely vital to survival is not only utterly superfluous, inane and unsupportable, but is not backed up by the evidence provided above. In fact, it is my contention that a name change would further endanger the club, as it would be expensive to implement, further weakening our financial position and would not have any impact on on-field performance. In fact, given the nature of St Kilda supporters, many are likely to abandon the club completely if it "rebranded", so I for see a neagtive outcome rather than the miraculous pot of gold you are clearly assuming the "Southern Saints" would stumble upon.

You are correct that in business we need to be adaptable, but we also need to avoid change for the sake of change, especially if that change would be costly and have no reasonable expectation to improve the current position of the company.

 

[cartel]

Not sure what you are talking about Riccardo, Footscray have become a financial powerhouse since they changed their name. Worked brilliantly for the Kangaroos as well.

Since they changed their name back to North Melbourne, things have just got worse and worse for the Roos.

 

[Riccardo11]

"We are the boys from old Fitzroy we wear the colours maroon and blue, we will always fight for victory, we will always see it through, win or lose we do or die"
Well how did that go?
I can perfectly understand the undying loyalty of the fans, but reality set in pretty fast for Fitzroy and just after the Lions final game Footscray became the Western Bulldogs and are currently still scrapping around all over the place looking for some home base to build upon again. Ballarat sound like a good idea and maybe 2 or 3 games at Whitten Oval isn't out of the question down the track. They might be better suited in becoming the 'Ballarat Bulldogs' along with the 'Southern Saints'? The next 10 years will be tumultuous in the AFL and i predict some clubs will under go radical change in that time.

You admit the "Western" Bulldogs are no more successful at "Footscray" was, yet still advocate St Kilda changes to the "Southern" Saints?

Really?

 

[Murraj1966]

The idea that a name change can be the difference between a sustainable club and a failing one is ludicrous.

North lost the North Melbourne moniker for a few years, realised it was idiotic and changed back. The Dogs are trying to realign with Footscray in many ways and look at even Brisbane, change the jumper away from tradition to outroar, try to force the jumper on the fans who hate it and want the traditional look back before the club sheepishly reverts to what worked.

Change for the sake of change is idiotic, change when something HAS to be changed.

 

[Hawkk]

"We are the boys from old Fitzroy we wear the colours maroon and blue, we will always fight for victory, we will always see it through, win or lose we do or die"
Well how did that go?
I can perfectly understand the undying loyalty of the fans, but reality set in pretty fast for Fitzroy and just after the Lions final game Footscray became the Western Bulldogs and are currently still scrapping around all over the place looking for some home base to build upon again. Ballarat sound like a good idea and maybe 2 or 3 games at Whitten Oval isn't out of the question down the track. They might be better suited in becoming the 'Ballarat Bulldogs' along with the 'Southern Saints'? The next 10 years will be tumultuous in the AFL and i predict some clubs will under go radical change in that time.

I would argue that the St Kilda name is the only reason why the Saints didn't go down the same path as Fitzroy and South Melbourne...

St Kilda is an iconic precinct, possibly one of the most understood and widely recognisable precincts in the country and the Saints had the Peninsula to themselves for over 40 years (put the two together and with a competent management there is absolutely no reason why the Saints can't be viable)

A rebrand to the Southern Saints would be an absolute disaster, it would remove the only real strategic advantage the Saints have over every other Victorian club

 

[Power Raid]

The Saints will be fine

Give this thread three years and it will look a little silly

 

[bresker]

Changing your name is a desperate trick invoked by PR agents and snake oil salesmen, forced on desperate supporters when your club is at its weakest. Resist at all costs.

 

[Hawkk]

It would be better if St Kilda were playing four games in Tas instead of Hawthorn.
Saints would be rock solid with an extra 10K members (they were probably more popular there than us originally) and although the Hawks might lose 5K members, we could increase reserved seat revenue with 10/11 Melbourne games.
And we could take the one NZ game (we have been investing in NZ footy for years).
Saints will always be an up and down club.
Their latent support is mid tier, but unlike Hawks/Tiger/North/Pies/Bombers fans, they seem to come and go.
It took Hawthorn 15 years of consistently doing everything 100% right off field to become a 'strong' club. Saints have the potential to do the same but cannot make any mistakes.

To this end, 18 of Tasmania's 22 TOTC players ended up in the VFL in one way or another (this was decided in 2004). Of those players, the following VFL/AFL clubs had 3 or more representatives in that team:

St Kilda - Verdun Howell, Barry Lawerence, Ian Stewart, Darrel Baldock (4)
Richmond - Royce Hart, Ian Stewart, Matthew Richardson, Michael Roach (4)
Hawthorn - Peter Hudson, Darren Pritchard, Rodney Eade (3)
Melbourne - Ivor Warner-Smith, Brent Crosswell, Tassie Johnson (3)

The Saints have made a few poor calls over the years, playing at Docklands in Melbourne's west (when they were / are the club of the peninsula) and opting out of Tasmania headline those poor calls.

7 MCG games / 4 Tasmanian games would have been the ideal agreement for the Saints, had they achieved this (and had some luck in 2009/10) they would be a top 4-6 club in the competition now

 

[Defacto]

It would be better if St Kilda were playing four games in Tas instead of Hawthorn.
Saints would be rock solid with an extra 10K members (they were probably more popular there than us originally) and although the Hawks might lose 5K members, we could increase reserved seat revenue with 10/11 Melbourne games.
And we could take the one NZ game (we have been investing in NZ footy for years).
Saints will always be an up and down club.
Their latent support is mid tier, but unlike Hawks/Tiger/North/Pies/Bombers fans, they seem to come and go.
It took Hawthorn 15 years of consistently doing everything 100% right off field to become a 'strong' club. Saints have the potential to do the same but cannot make any mistakes.

One club spent 15 years at the bottom of the ladder the other won several flags, no surprise solid support grew. I mean their supporter base knows a flag will come inside a decade.

Watch what happens when that starts to not occur

 

[Riccardo11]

To this end, 18 of Tasmania's 22 TOTC players ended up in the VFL in one way or another (this was decided in 2004). Of those players, the following VFL/AFL clubs had 3 or more representatives in that team:

St Kilda - Verdun Howell, Barry Lawerence, Ian Stewart, Darrel Baldock (4)
Richmond - Royce Hart, Ian Stewart, Matthew Richardson, Michael Roach (4)
Hawthorn - Peter Hudson, Darren Pritchard, Rodney Eade (3)
Melbourne - Ivor Warner-Smith, Brent Crosswell, Tassie Johnson (3)

The Saints have made a few poor calls over the years, playing at Docklands in Melbourne's west (when they were / are the club of the peninsula) and opting out of Tasmania headline those poor calls.

7 MCG games / 4 Tasmanian games would have been the ideal agreement for the Saints, had they achieved this (and had some luck in 2009/10) they would be a top 4-6 club in the competition now

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...f-the-equalisation-debate-20131213-2zcsl.html

This article states that we did make a grave error in abandoning Tasmania, we had made a (small) profit in 04/05, had successful seasons and a larger membership base than the Hawks, and therefore felt that our poor record in Launceston and failure to fully embrace the community gave us reason to end the deal. It is to Hawthorns credit that they did the exact opposite and have benefited greatly from it.

However, we were given virtually no choice but to move to Docklands in 2000, Waverly was closed down and we were offered a poor deal at a stadium we couldn't ever hope to fill, and an improved offer at the new, much smaller, stadium, though it was nowhere near as good as Essendons, it was superior to the Bulldogs offer.

We have had great success at Etihad during our "up" years, but our deal has worsened considerably in the 15 years we have called it home. Playing at the MCG, or even splitting our games, is not an option, they will never agree to upgrade Moorabbin (nor is it supportable to play there) and we are frozen out of the soon-to-be-improved Junction Oval, so we have almost no choice but to play at Docklands and continue to agitate for a better deal.

 

[Falchoon]

This is the issue we used to have though, the notion that we would pay the bills when we are in finals again

If the saints are looking at ten years out of the finals, what is the clubs plan for profitability?

Clubs should be budgeting to be viable at all times, not just when the shit is good.

no argument, shouldn't be budgeting off peaks was my call.

 

[Hawkk]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...f-the-equalisation-debate-20131213-2zcsl.html

This article states that we did make a grave error in abandoning Tasmania, we had made a (small) profit in 04/05, had successful seasons and a larger membership base than the Hawks, and therefore felt that our poor record in Launceston and failure to fully embrace the community gave us reason to end the deal. It is to Hawthorns credit that they did the exact opposite and have benefited greatly from it.

However, we were given virtually no choice but to move to Docklands in 2000, Waverly was closed down and we were offered a poor deal at a stadium we couldn't ever hope to fill, and an improved offer at the new, much smaller, stadium, though it was nowhere near as good as Essendons, it was superior to the Bulldogs offer.

We have had great success at Etihad during our "up" years, but our deal has worsened considerably in the 15 years we have called it home. Playing at the MCG, or even splitting our games, is not an option, they will never agree to upgrade Moorabbin (nor is it supportable to play there) and we are frozen out of the soon-to-be-improved Junction Oval, so we have almost no choice but to play at Docklands and continue to agitate for a better deal.

The Saints were offered the same deal to move to Docklands that Hawthorn was offered. The Saints should have held out (like Hawthorn) and done a deal with the MCG

 

[Falchoon]

I would argue that the St Kilda name is the only reason why the Saints didn't go down the same path as Fitzroy and South Melbourne...

Moving to Moorabbin saved St Kilda, it offered a point of difference to the me 2 inner suburban clubs and captured the baby boomers building houses in the new suburbs.

Support historically was built on accessibility, the Saints owned the Frankston train line and inner bayside.

Accessibility is now changing, how do the Saints avoid being a me 2 club, what now is the point of difference?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

A lot of supporters in this thread have short memories. The Cats, Hawks, Pies and Port have all been close to merging/folding/relocating in the last 30 years. The AFL won't let anyone die.

 

[Confuscius]

Why are so many "fans" seemingly obsessed and determined to see another club merged or folded?

I would never want that to happen to another club: seeing so many fans alienated from the game and history completely abandoned in the quest for corporate dollars... How could anyone say that's a good thing?

 

[GeorgeMullins]

The Junction Oval, Moorabin, Seaford ... knows as much about relocating as any, the Grace Bros of footy.

I never thought of that one, friend - and I am a fan of "Are You Being Served?" - thanks.

 

[Riccardo11]

The Saints were offered the same deal to move to Docklands that Hawthorn was offered. The Saints should have held out (like Hawthorn) and done a deal with the MCG

That is not what the article says. It indicates were were offered the second best deal (to Essendon).

I remember at the time we were pretty much told we were moving to Etihad and were not inclined to fight city hall to keep Waverly or ignore the boss and work out a contract with the 'G. Our deal at Docklands is $2million worse off than an MCG tenant, but we didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't foresee our position at the Docklands would worsen considerably over the next dozen years.

 

[Hawkk]

That is not what the article says. It indicates were were offered the second best deal (to Essendon).

I remember at the time we were pretty much told we were moving to Etihad and were not inclined to fight city hall to keep Waverly or ignore the boss and work out a contract with the 'G. Our deal at Docklands is $2million worse off than an MCG tenant, but we didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't foresee our position at the Docklands would worsen considerably over the next dozen years.

Both clubs had the option to negotiate movements to the MCG or Docklands (Andrew Plympton made this very point in his own article)

The Saints opted for Docklands, the Hawks held out for the MCG

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hawks-win-big-in-docklands-dodge/story-e6frf9jf-1225710302127

Dicker said the choice between the MCG and Docklands had come down to the number of general admission seats at the grounds.

"When we were negotiating with them (Docklands), we could only get about 12,000 seats at normal costs, whereas we could get 35,000 at the MCG," he said.

"It meant we could transfer those people who went from Waverley at the basic entrance price to the MCG for the same deal, and give them a smooth and cost-effective transition.

"I'm sure that we would not have got the development (in crowd support and members) if we had gone to Docklands

 

[LordLucifer]

Our deal at Docklands is $2million worse off than an MCG tenant, but we didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't foresee our position at the Docklands would worsen considerably over the next dozen years.

This is true but if you had decent administrators at the club back then things may have been better. Right now, you have ex-President Plympton sprouting that the club doesn't need to do anything different whilst new CEO Finnis is trying to reinvigorate & revamp the place, I know who I'd be listening to.

The Saints have struggled with good management over the journey and this has also contributed to the overall position they are in. The Bulldogs & Kangas haven't been much better in this regard and if we are being fair, the Demons should be thrown into that group as well.

In all organisations, you reap what you sow and the Saints have burnt themselves time & time again. A lot of their coaching appointments have been short-sighted and/or misguided, their ongoing ad-hoc approach to player discipline would test even the most ardent fan and the merry-go-round of training bases is confusing and destabilising.

All clubs have an inbuilt culture that pervades their boardroom & leadership group, it is extremely difficult to change this overnight as it has been built up over many generations.

The Saints are one of 3 or 4 Melbourne-based clubs who are continually walking a tightrope both on & off the field.

Whilst the passion shown by their fans in this thread is not only acknowledged, it is extremely admirable, the big question that keeps being asked is "how much longer do you want to keep banging your head against a brick wall"??

If my club was in this position, I'd be changing walls or getting a new head !!

 

[JeffDunne]

The stupidity of this thread is that no team will be relocated unless they merge with an established non-Vic team. The cost of replacing any team is far more than what's gained.

Have people not noticed that the AFL have already effectively moved a team out of Melbourne without relocating a team?

Really?

Non-profitable home games are already being played outside of Victoria and that trend will continue (even with "big" clubs like Richmond). The net effect on the league is the same as relocation without the cost & pain.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Penalised eh. Without the vic clubs the tv deal would be **** all and u wouldn't be so rich. There should be a 3rd WA team. The AFL distribution to norf, dogs, godees and saints was circa 3m each last season. Revenue generated from tv $$ would be more than 10x that figure for each club. So westcoke need norf and the like to remain wealthy

For starters that would be increasing the number of clubs so thats silly as the standard would drop as we have seen in the last few years.

So you're telling me that the TV deal is worth all of its millions because of North, Bulldogs & Melbourne? How many free to air games do these clubs actually get. I bet it would be zero if channel 7 had its way.