St Kilda returning to Moorabbin

[#gosaintas]

Agree, it will be great to have the Saints back at Moorabbin. Cheers Frankston.

 

[#gosaintas]

There sure are a lot of tears on here. It's making me really sad too. Looking forward to seeing what our new facilities are going to look like.
It's just a pity everyone isn't rejoicing...after all, it's the time of year to be merry.

 

[George]

God the tears in this thread taste so damn good.

 

[Boxhead_31]

It is engagement and accessibility. The bulk of the supporter base is Bayside and Seaford has been too far, not well serviced by transport and generally a headache for the fans. Even when practices matches have been played there entry to the ground from traffic congestion was a nightmare. There's no real facilities there for fans either.

How many training sessions does the average fan go to per year? 1 maybe 2 if lucky can't really see that being a driving force to increase membership

 

[#gosaintas]

How many training sessions does the average fan go to per year? 1 maybe 2 if lucky can't really see that being a driving force to increase membership

Yep - will be great for membership. What a win-win situation. It's a win for Saints fans and a win for fans of the AFL in general. A real feel good story.

 

[Periphery]

How many training sessions does the average fan go to per year? 1 maybe 2 if lucky can't really see that being a driving force to increase membership

Good thing fans will also have VFL home games and hopefully a preseason game to attend as well as open training sessions.

That's on top of the social club that is going to be there which will include a decent sized screens etc for fans to watch Saints games at during the season.

Still think that wont have any impact on memberships?

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Sigh, i'm not saying everything Hawthorn have done could be reproduced by Saint Kilda, but there are several key decisions that Saint Kilda have made that are key reasons to the way Hawthorn have turned the club around. As i said, Saint Kilda's decision to walk away from Waverley could have made a huge difference in their fortunes. Etihad is a terrible situation, but given Saint Kilda didn't seem to do the due diligence to consider whether their new training facility can last just 5 years, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't truly consider the consequences of Waverley being sold. Or how about Tassie? Saint Kilda were playing down there and decided to move games back to Melbourne, and back to Etihad. Or using Waverley as a training ground. Sure, it's not the exact facility they want, but it's been fantastic for Hawthorn, and could have really helped Saint Kilda.

Our financial position? Waverley's last game was what, 1999? We were a shadow of the club we are now. Perhaps better off than Saint Kilda, but i wonder how much Saint Kilda considered that before giving up on Waverley.

St Kilda (not Saint Kilda..who are they?) didn't make the decision to walk away from Waverley. Just as Hawthorn didn't walk away from Waverley. They had no choice as the joint was being closed as a playing venue in favour of the new Docklands stadium.

St Kilda was sold a set of very rubbery figures by the Wayne Jackson led AFL regarding the potential income generation that moving to Colonial Stadium would offer to the club. St Kilda wasn't offered the chance to become an MCG co-tenant. Hawthorn was. Does that mean Hawthorn walked away from Waverley? They certainly didn't move there for training until the land had been sold off, the development commenced & the actual facilities at the ground turned into an elite training centre.

St Kilda & Hawthorn were never going to share Waverley as a training venue... how on earth would that have worked?

St Kilda had Moorabbin as a very run down yet acceptable training venue until Archie Fraser ran foul of Kingston Council (& the belligerence of a number of certain councillors who wanted St Kilda out of Linton St).

I agree that leaving Tassie was a massive mistake. Driven mostly by Grant Thomas who hated playing there. Ridiculous and it was certainly to Hawthorn's advantage that St Kilda left.

Etihad is out of St Kilda's control, just as it is for the other clubs that play there. What other option is there? The MCG has no capacity to take on another tenant club & why would they want St Kilda, with a membership of 30 odd thousand? Etihad is an issue absolutely & totally of the AFL. HQ will continue to have to subsidise tenant clubs who have no option to deal with shocking deals there (which the AFL helps negotiate mind you) until they finally take over the stadium ownership.

Seaford was a significant mistake by a previous administration & board... egos got involved and instead of either biding their time or actually continuing with dialogue, Archie cracked the sh1ts & his Scottish temper stuffed the whole club up.

Despite the holier than thou attitude of opposition supporters on this thread, every single one of their clubs have had administrators stuff up & their club has paid the price. Oh the height of hypocrisy to have an Essendon supporter carrying on about a poor management decision!

So Prudster you really need to brush up on your knowledge of what actually happened when Waverley was shutdown.

"As i said, Saint Kilda's decision to walk away from Waverley could have made a huge difference in their fortunes. Etihad is a terrible situation, but given Saint Kilda didn't seem to do the due diligence to consider whether their new training facility can last just 5 years, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't truly consider the consequences of Waverley being sold"

You're talking about 3 totally different administration & boards here! (Plympton-1999, Butterss/Fraser-2008, Summers/Finnis-2015) that's like saying that the Hawthorn board of 1996 who almost merged the club had the same foresight as the 2015 board who are planning on building a $100m base at Dingley!).

While your club has undoubtedly become the model that all other clubs strive to replicate, the situation with Waverley was not that St Kilda walked away & Hawthorn ingeniously saw the opportunities that Waverley provided. It's re-writing history to suggest so.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

The Saints move to Seaford was a triumph of politics, ego and stupidity over logic.

It's now fixed, shame it cost so much money, all who were involved in it should be ashamed. Monumental stupidity which has cost everybody a lot of money and left a giant, unwanted white elephant that nobody wants, needs or has use for.

Hawthorn should take note, and tread carefully with their move.

We all totally agree on that one... although the White Elephant will be taken over by the formally white maggots and being actually used by the community that helped fund it now.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Good thing fans will also have VFL home games and hopefully a preseason game to attend as well as open training sessions.

That's on top of the social club that is going to be there which will include a decent sized screens etc for fans to watch Saints games at during the season.

Still think that wont have any impact on memberships?

Yep

 

[#gosaintas]

Yep

I agree with Boxhead - it will be great for memberships. Saints are coming home. Good for the us and good for the AFL.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I agree with Boxhead - it will be great for memberships. Saints are coming home. Good for the us and good for the AFL.

You're trolling skills could use some work, best use these school holidays to try to develop them

 

[#gosaintas]

You're trolling skills could use some work, best use these school holidays to try to develop them

Thanks mate - positive news all round

 

[Hawkk]

So you confirm what the freo guy was saying that St Kilda was mis-managed? St Kilda were in Tassie first and decided to leave it and the Hawks so the potential and jump in.

This lack of foresight is pretty much why St Kilda are in the mess they are in at the moment, with having to relocate back.

No they werent. This is a massive misconception..

Hawthorn started off the Launceston experiment in 2001 and the Saints followed in 2002/03

 

[The_Wookie]

No they werent. This is a massive misconception..

Hawthorn started off the Launceston experiment in 2001 and the Saints followed in 2002/03

Fitzroy played the first AFL season home games out of North Hobart Oval in the early 90s at their own expense, and with no deals.

St KIlda didnt beat Hawthorn to Tassie, but they did leave of their own volition

St Kilda didn't enjoy Launceston, believing that it didn't perform well at the ground, and vacated. St Kilda was then making healthy profits with a lean business operation and had been close to the flag in 2004-05.

Then St Kilda president Rod Butterss acknowledges that “as a club we probably didn't embrace the move”. The decision to leave was largely football-based, not financially driven. “The football department struggled to embrace it,” said Butterss, whose once-fraternal relationship with senior coach Grant Thomas had soured by this stage.

 

[#gosaintas]

As Hawkk said, Hawks started the Launceston experiment.

 

[Snoref]

No they werent. This is a massive misconception..

Hawthorn started off the Launceston experiment in 2001 and the Saints followed in 2002/03

I am not one to argue amongst my fellow Hawthorn kinds, but seeing as you fired the first shot I thought I would reply. Whilst I admit was incorrect in saying that we followed the saints, we actually started the same time, both clubs started the Tassie experiment in 2001.

The reason why St Kilda pull out and I quote from the age "St Kilda didn't enjoy Launceston, believing that it didn't perform well at the ground, and vacated. St Kilda was then making healthy profits with a lean business operation and had been close to the flag in 2004-05.

Then St Kilda president Rod Butterss acknowledges that “as a club we probably didn't embrace the move”. The decision to leave was largely football-based, not financially driven. “The football department struggled to embrace it,” said Butterss, whose once-fraternal relationship with senior coach Grant Thomas had soured by this stage.

No sooner had the Saints left Launceston, than the Hawks pounced. They would turn the stadium into a gold mine, worth several hundred thousand dollars a game, receiving a hefty sponsorship from the Tasmanian government. Jeff Kennett renegotiated the deal, in defiance of the AFL's wish to make Tassie the second (seven-game) home of North Melbourne, in late 2010."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tion-debate-20131213-2zcsl.html#ixzz3uZAdQCnk

As you can see their narrow minded administration thought they were better than Tassie and so didn't think to expand their support base or ways to capitalize on the Tassie experiment.

This is what i mean by short sighted.

The article also brings up other points- ie. moving to Eithad etc but you can read it if you want, but it does so some glaring issues with the administration at St Kilda, which is what my original point raised.

My post wasn't intended to say Hawthorn was better than St Kilda, but after reading through so many post it seems that most St Kilda supporters miss the very reason why ppl are negative about their relocation back to Moorabbin.

Again, I am not one to attack my fellow Hawk supporter but you fired first.

 

[#gosaintas]

I think Saints started in tassie in 03

 

[Hawkk]

I am not one to argue amongst my fellow Hawthorn kinds, but seeing as you fired the first shot I thought I would reply. Whilst I admit was incorrect in saying that we followed the saints, we actually started the same time, both clubs started the Tassie experiment in 2001.

The reason why St Kilda pull out and I quote from the age "St Kilda didn't enjoy Launceston, believing that it didn't perform well at the ground, and vacated. St Kilda was then making healthy profits with a lean business operation and had been close to the flag in 2004-05.

Then St Kilda president Rod Butterss acknowledges that “as a club we probably didn't embrace the move”. The decision to leave was largely football-based, not financially driven. “The football department struggled to embrace it,” said Butterss, whose once-fraternal relationship with senior coach Grant Thomas had soured by this stage.

No sooner had the Saints left Launceston, than the Hawks pounced. They would turn the stadium into a gold mine, worth several hundred thousand dollars a game, receiving a hefty sponsorship from the Tasmanian government. Jeff Kennett renegotiated the deal, in defiance of the AFL's wish to make Tassie the second (seven-game) home of North Melbourne, in late 2010."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tion-debate-20131213-2zcsl.html#ixzz3uZAdQCnk

As you can see their narrow minded administration thought they were better than Tassie and so didn't think to expand their support base or ways to capitalize on the Tassie experiment.

This is what i mean by short sighted.

The article also brings up other points- ie. moving to Eithad etc but you can read it if you want, but it does so some glaring issues with the administration at St Kilda, which is what my original point raised.

My post wasn't intended to say Hawthorn was better than St Kilda, but after reading through so many post it seems that most St Kilda supporters miss the very reason why ppl are negative about their relocation back to Moorabbin.

Again, I am not one to attack my fellow Hawk supporter but you fired first.

Well you'd be wrong.

http://afltables.com/afl/venues/york_park_gm.html

The Saints first home game in Tasmania was in round 12, 2003

http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2003/131520030614.html

Round: 12 Venue: York Park Date: Sat, 14-Jun-2003 1:10 PM Attendance: 17766
St Kilda v Port Adelaide

Hawthorn's first game was a full 2 years before St Kilda

http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2001/011020010506.html

Round: 6 Venue: York Park Date: Sun, 6-May-2001 2:10 PM Attendance: 17460
Hawthorn v Adelaide

Hawthorn was definately in Tasmania a full 2 years before St Kilda (ditto Waverley Park, where Hawthorn split home games with Princes Park in 1990 (5 home games), 1991 (5 home games) before finally moving full time in 1992 (11 home games)...St Kilda moved to Waverley part time in 1992 (4 home games) and full time in 1993 (11 home games)

 

[Gangnam Saint]

To this day I still wonder what would have happened if the Saints & Hawks both held out on not moving from Waverley.
Clearly the training facilities could not have been shared and Glenferrie was in worse shape than Moorabbin.
It is cited as a poor admin decision to leave by the Saints given the boon it turned out to be for the Hawks and the Saints were induced to leave for Colonial. So was there a genuine alternative?