Saints to march in at MCG next year - article

[St Chris]

did i hear nettlefold (actually SEN news) right? we lost 1.5 m this year because of our docklands deal? or that includes the cost of the move to seaford?

im confuzzled

$1.5m was our total loss for the year, including the whole club (player payments, sponsorship, admin costs, membership, the whole lot.)

I believe Nettlefold said the Docklands deal costs us $2.5m per year.

Meaning we would have a total profit of $1m had we played at the MCG (or any other ground)

[plugger66]

Hawthorn became a big club and if we constantly had sell outs or close to sell outs at Etihad those games would not be at that venue the next year. And if you are not playing as many at Etihad then they will deal with you to try and keep some bigger games there.

So who is forced to play at Ethiad to honour the AFL's contract with them is games are moved?

Other clubs. There are no real home grounds now. Some clubs probably have to play a certain amount of games at each venue but there could be games moved. The MCG has to hold 10 out of 12 of the best drawing games in their opinion, each year.

[Johnny Member]

Hawthorn became a big club and if we constantly had sell outs or close to sell outs at Etihad those games would not be at that venue the next year. And if you are not playing as many at Etihad then they will deal with you to try and keep some bigger games there.

So who is forced to play at Ethiad to honour the AFL's contract with them is games are moved?

Other clubs. There are no real home grounds now. Some clubs probably have to play a certain amount of games at each venue but there could be games moved. The MCG has to hold 10 out of 12 of the best drawing games in their opinion, each year.

So the 'other clubs' cop the losses?

I can't see how that helps the situation.

[dragit]

Hawthorn became a big club and if we constantly had sell outs or close to sell outs at Etihad those games would not be at that venue the next year.

I don't remember Hawthorn ever not being a 'Big Club', plus they went to MCG instead of the dome,

And if you are not playing as many at Etihad then they will deal with you to try and keep some bigger games there.

I don't understand what you're saying here sorry…

Surely if the AFL forces clubs to play at a particular venue then it is their duty to get involved and ensure that the club is not getting completely ripped off? We have no choice, we are fixtured there, we can't magically grow our supporter base, if the cats can make $500K from a 25K turn out, there is something very wrong with the financial modelling of etihad where we would average crowds well over 35K… yet pay a bill every time play there. The AFL might as well send us to the moon and not worry about how we'll get there or pay for it - would be good for tellie…

[dragit]

did i hear nettlefold (actually SEN news) right? we lost 1.5 m this year because of our docklands deal? or that includes the cost of the move to seaford?

im confuzzled

$1.5m was our total loss for the year, including the whole club (player payments, sponsorship, admin costs, membership, the whole lot.)

I believe Nettlefold said the Docklands deal costs us $2.5m per year.

Meaning we would have a total profit of $1m had we played at the MCG (or any other ground)

Also meaning we would have made millions the year before…

[plugger66]

Hawthorn became a big club and if we constantly had sell outs or close to sell outs at Etihad those games would not be at that venue the next year.

I don't remember Hawthorn ever not being a 'Big Club', plus they went to MCG instead of the dome,

And if you are not playing as many at Etihad then they will deal with you to try and keep some bigger games there.

I don't understand what you're saying here sorry…

Surely if the AFL forces clubs to play at a particular venue then it is their duty to get involved and ensure that the club is not getting completely ripped off? We have no choice, we are fixtured there, we can't magically grow our supporter base, if the cats can make $500K from a 25K turn out, there is something very wrong with the financial modelling of etihad where we would average crowds well over 35K… yet pay a bill every time play there. The AFL might as well send us to the moon and not worry about how we'll get there or pay for it - would be good for tellie…

Hawthorn nearly merged. I reckon that means they werent a big club. They had a small member base. Smaller than ours by a fair way.

And we wouldnt be fixured at Etihad all the time if we could become a bigger club. It may sound impossible but Hawthorn proved it isnt impossible. We didnt help ourselves with the fixture next year by getting only 41k and 39k to our 2 home MCG games. And Nettlefold said to make really big money at the G you need to get over 50k.

[Johnny Member]

So how do clubs like North, the Saints, the Bulldogs etc. get 50k people to every one of their games?

Is it feasible? Is it even possible?


And is it a good way to run a business? I think it's farcical to have a situation where you're telling clubs to get bigger and get 50k to each game otherwise you're f***ed.

I know that's your answer to the problem plugger66, but surely that can't be the AFL's stance on it.

[degruch]

Hawthorn nearly merged. I reckon that means they werent a big club.

Sure they did, one survival drive brought out their supporters who remembered their successful finals campaigns throughout the 70's and 80's, and the poor ol' Demons were left looking for another club to sleep with. They've rarely struggled over the last 40 years, only a rough 8 years or so in the 90's and early 00's.

[maverick]

I wonder if this is a broadside...the mere threat of us going would give Collo heart pulpertations, surely? I can't see everyone stampeding over to the MCG as a long term solution. Besides, we have been subject to these conditions for many years, but it raises it's head as an issue when we make a loss. Perhaps we need to sell a few home games whilst we're rebuilding.

Of course it is a threat. Our home ground next year will be Etihad. Firstly for some reason our supporters dont go to the G and secondly we dont have a contract with the G and will not get one as the AFL have to play so many games at both grounds. We may get a couple more at the G but not 6-8 home games as they would want. If we are such a big club as some people here think then we should be strong enough to organise a good contract. The pies, Blues, Hawthorn, Geelong and the Dons would all have good contracts at both grounds. Either we are a minnow or are a weak club.

have you seen their contracts?
What are their deals?

No I havent. I dont see them complaining though so common sense suggests the deals may be ok.

The Cats have one home game there and the Hawks have none.
It might be common sense also that they don't worry about it.

I wasnt talking about contract at Etihad, i was talking about contract involving home games at either ground.

Are you tring to sound like the rest of Saintsational?
We want to play at the G because it is a better deal, why don't the Hawks play 3 more games at Etihad the Cats 2 and we can play 6 and 5 like the Blues

I would think the G is a better deal for clubs that negotiate a better deal. Every club at the G has different deals. If went there we dont automatically get the same deal as the pies or Hawks or Melbourne for that matter. They need to be negotiated.

Isn't this what MN is saying?
He CAN negotiate a better deal but the AFL won't fixture us there?

[dragit]

The fact is that we were forced to leave a home ground which was economically viable, the ground which we have been forced to adopt instead is not economically viable.

40,000 Members whilst not the biggest, is enough to run a financially successful football team. 3 years ago we only had 30,000 members, so we've grown by 25% in that time which is pretty decent.

Losing $2.5M per year from an enforced stadium deal is much more of a problem than membership numbers.

If we have no say as to where we play our home games then it is upto the AFL to ensure that we get a reasonable deal. You can't just fixture games where you have contracts and then not be involved in the deals for the relevant clubs.

The Saints are doing everything in their power to build a successful club on and off the ground, but right at the moment they are being held back by a contract that the AFL has with Etihad, which means we are held to ransom…

[dragit]

WCE only have 44K which is their maximum number, they also happen to be one of the richest clubs.

I dare say their stadium deal could be a little better than ours…

[joffaboy]

We could have a couple of games at Skilled Stadium and get the 25k attendance easily.

Play homers against Port and Freo there. A couple of extra's at the G, sell one or two to FNQ and Darwin, and give Collo 1 Friday night game against Essendon where we could get 50k and make a profit.

Problem solved.

[Johnny Member]

Who works out the cost of a ticket? The Saints should just bump the price up by $2.

But the AFL work out the pricing, don't they?


So the AFL tell the clubs how much it costs to let someone in, tell the clubs where they're playing, tell them who they're playing, tell them what they're wearing, tell them what signs they're allowed to have up at the ground, tell them pretty much everything to the letter of what they can and can't do - yet the biggest part (the deals with the stadiums) they don't get involved in at all.



Extraordinary.


What's even more extraordinary about it, is that they then give cash handouts to clubs that struggle!

[plugger66]

Who works out the cost of a ticket? The Saints should just bump the price up by $2.

But the AFL work out the pricing, don't they?


So the AFL tell the clubs how much it costs to let someone in, tell the clubs where they're playing, tell them who they're playing, tell them what they're wearing, tell them what signs they're allowed to have up at the ground, tell them pretty much everything to the letter of what they can and can't do - yet the biggest part (the deals with the stadiums) they don't get involved in at all.



Extraordinary.


What's even more extraordinary about it, is that they then give cash handouts to clubs that struggle!

Yep better to let them fold. I would love to hear your idea on how the AFL should be run. It would be fascinating.

Another issue that hasnt been brought up and should be is how the hell did we lose 1.5 million. Surely we didnt budget for that much of a loss or surely our figures arent as bad as they budgeted for. Me thinks we need to look at what the hell happened this year. And before everyone mentions the stadium deal, I have a feeling the club knew about their deal so they should have budgeted for that. What the hell happened this year. 3 Million turn around with the same stadium deals in place. makes no sense.

[dragit]

makes no sense.

You're right about that, considering we had 2 of our home games at the MCG this year where supposedly we don't lose as much money and nearly the same membership numbers, that is one catastrophic financial turnaround…

[degruch]

Another issue that hasnt been brought up and should be is how the hell did we lose 1.5 million. Surely we didnt budget for that much of a loss or surely our figures arent as bad as they budgeted for. Me thinks we need to look at what the hell happened this year.

Some fountain of knowledge alluded to that here:

Besides, we have been subject to these conditions for many years, but it raises it's head as an issue when we make a loss.

We're blaming a situation that we were well aware of prior...have our numbers been down that badly? Have conditions changed at Etihad dramatically? I wouldn't have thought so. So where's the money going?

[plugger66]

Another issue that hasnt been brought up and should be is how the hell did we lose 1.5 million. Surely we didnt budget for that much of a loss or surely our figures arent as bad as they budgeted for. Me thinks we need to look at what the hell happened this year.

Some fountain of knowledge alluded to that here:

Besides, we have been subject to these conditions for many years, but it raises it's head as an issue when we make a loss.

We're blaming a situation that we were well aware of prior...have our numbers been down that badly? Have conditions changed at Etihad dramatically? I wouldn't have thought so. So where's the money going?

I always knew you were quicker than me. Your wife mentioned it last week.

[degruch]

Another issue that hasnt been brought up and should be is how the hell did we lose 1.5 million. Surely we didnt budget for that much of a loss or surely our figures arent as bad as they budgeted for. Me thinks we need to look at what the hell happened this year.

Some fountain of knowledge alluded to that here:

Besides, we have been subject to these conditions for many years, but it raises it's head as an issue when we make a loss.

We're blaming a situation that we were well aware of prior...have our numbers been down that badly? Have conditions changed at Etihad dramatically? I wouldn't have thought so. So where's the money going?

I always knew you were quicker than me. Your wife mentioned it last week.

Boom tish!

It is strange though, I agree...it appears we are airing a gripe, without revealing the whole story. Someone else did mention whether Seaford had something to do with this years bottom line...or perhaps it's RL's new contract.

[Johnny Member]

Yep better to let them fold. I would love to hear your idea on how the AFL should be run. It would be fascinating.

Why should they fold?


Why wouldn't you actually ensure their financial viability, or at least assist with it, in situations like stadium deals and gate revenue - rather than waiting until they're battling then give them cash?

[plugger66]

Another issue that hasnt been brought up and should be is how the hell did we lose 1.5 million. Surely we didnt budget for that much of a loss or surely our figures arent as bad as they budgeted for. Me thinks we need to look at what the hell happened this year.

Some fountain of knowledge alluded to that here:

Besides, we have been subject to these conditions for many years, but it raises it's head as an issue when we make a loss.

We're blaming a situation that we were well aware of prior...have our numbers been down that badly? Have conditions changed at Etihad dramatically? I wouldn't have thought so. So where's the money going?

I always knew you were quicker than me. Your wife mentioned it last week.

Boom tish!

It is strange though, I agree...it appears we are airing a gripe, without revealing the whole story. Someone else did mention whether Seaford had something to do with this years bottom line...or perhaps it's RL's new contract.

I hope Seaford has plenty to do with it otherwise why would we improve next year. It could even be worse. I think we spent about 2 million on Seaford so if that is all included we actually made 500 grand.

[Animal Enclosure]

A few points;

Hawthorn grew their membership significantly through a combination of
*promoting themselves as the family club for the South East of Melbourne (by relocating their training base to Waverley).
*servicing their members especially well (through the poaching of David Friend from St Kilda).
*Developing their Tasmanian market (which we ignored at the request of GT as he couldn't get the team playing reasonably footy there).

The MCG Trust saw Hawthorn as a better long term tenant than St Kilda in 1999- they finished 9th, we finished 10th but were on a spiral downwards.

Wayne Jackson fraudulently sucked the St K board led by Andrew Plympton (who did a fantastic job of rebuilding the club) into thinking Docklands was a golden goose... an answer to all our years of not having a pot to p1ss into.

The figures that they based revenues on was a flawed model (basically using the staffing figures of Waverley -which was a skeleton crew at best- on the projections of regular full houses of reserved seat holders at Docklands. Docklands has so many corridors, access doors, etc that all needed to be staffed (the Medallion Club has more staff alone than Waverley needed in total!). Combine that with all the problems of getting into Docklands in its first few years & the figures Plympton & co signed on for where never going to be achieved.

If our membership & attendance were not underwritten by the AFL for the first few years, we quite likely would have gone belly up.

Re: Nettlefold's comments today, I think they are purely ambit claims designed to get the footy world talking about the disgraceful & restrictive deals that the AFL has tied Docklands tenant clubs (excluding Essendon) into.

Nothing will change until the league takes over the stadium in 2025. Most of us actually have a vested interest in Collo gouging $$$ fron clubs as the stadium owners are actually large superannuation funds.

[jays]

be good to play on the g for home games and grand final is played there so why not

[Armoooo]

Another issue that hasnt been brought up and should be is how the hell did we lose 1.5 million. Surely we didnt budget for that much of a loss or surely our figures arent as bad as they budgeted for. Me thinks we need to look at what the hell happened this year.

Some fountain of knowledge alluded to that here:

Besides, we have been subject to these conditions for many years, but it raises it's head as an issue when we make a loss.

We're blaming a situation that we were well aware of prior...have our numbers been down that badly? Have conditions changed at Etihad dramatically? I wouldn't have thought so. So where's the money going?

I always knew you were quicker than me. Your wife mentioned it last week.

Boom tish!

It is strange though, I agree...it appears we are airing a gripe, without revealing the whole story. Someone else did mention whether Seaford had something to do with this years bottom line...or perhaps it's RL's new contract.

I hope Seaford has plenty to do with it otherwise why would we improve next year. It could even be worse. I think we spent about 2 million on Seaford so if that is all included we actually made 500 grand.

Yup, I would think that Seaford would have a massive role to play in our numbers...

[Johnny Member]

*servicing their members especially well (through the poaching of David Friend from St Kilda).

I thought we pinched Friend from them.

*Developing their Tasmanian market (which we ignored at the request of GT as he couldn't get the team playing reasonably footy there).

But how many people attend Melbourne games from their Tassie market?

[goddardisgod]

Simple solution. Build our own stadium, big f*** you to the AFL, and play all the games there.

Lol.

Seriously, though, if the deals are so s***, why can't the AFL just buy out Jihad arena and start printing money?