St Kilda: the blueprint
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- SaintWodonga
- Club Player
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007 12:01am
- Location: Wodonga
- Contact:
St Kilda: the blueprint
Reading this sounds like doom & gloom, IMO I think it's not going to be as bad as people say. Thoughts?
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 1kf9c.html
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 1kf9c.html
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
- hungry for a premiership
- Club Player
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Fri 08 Oct 2010 2:01am
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu 17 Apr 2008 2:30am
Someone or some people are Defintely not doing their job properly.
Wouldn't mind an independant Audit of some sort, cos a 1.5mill loss in one year is an extraordinarily bad result after playing in 3 grannies in a row.
Whatever is going on at the club at the moment, it aint producing acceptable results on OR off the field.
Can we even Afford a decent coach?
Wouldn't mind an independant Audit of some sort, cos a 1.5mill loss in one year is an extraordinarily bad result after playing in 3 grannies in a row.
Whatever is going on at the club at the moment, it aint producing acceptable results on OR off the field.
Can we even Afford a decent coach?
The argument is flawed.
The board must of been torn about it's position moving forward, surely?
Nearly winning premierships, sustained success, and not capitalising (profit, sponsors) is one of the criticisms.
Dour defensive football that people switch off and/or don't even bother turning up to see is another criticism continually levelled at the club.
It's becoming pretty obvious to me that the two issues are very much related?
The board must of been torn about it's position moving forward, surely?
Nearly winning premierships, sustained success, and not capitalising (profit, sponsors) is one of the criticisms.
Dour defensive football that people switch off and/or don't even bother turning up to see is another criticism continually levelled at the club.
It's becoming pretty obvious to me that the two issues are very much related?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2004 5:44pm
- Has thanked: 93 times
- Been thanked: 117 times
You would've thought so, maybe actually building it cost a little bit of cash as it doesn't grow naturally.Leo.J wrote:We just moved surely that costs money?
There's the reason.
So what is going to happen in regards to the unfair ground costs associated with playing at Etihad? We're not going to the MCG so can the current deal going to be changed, or will it just be further 20 years of bleeding cash?
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13268
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 649 times
- Been thanked: 1918 times
- PaytonPlace
- Club Player
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Thu 23 Jun 2011 8:31pm
Absolute deluded drivel. What difference does having a good relationship with the press make to anything? The richest sporting club in the entire world - Manchester United - have a manager who tells any pressman he likes where to go and has banned the BBC from talking to him for about 7 years! It hardly makes a dent in their finances...From a media/public vantage point, the Saints have had something of a siege mentality, the team having forged an us-and-them mindset - perhaps a coping mechanism - known as ''the bubble''. Access to players has been extremely limited, with the key players feeling burned by the off-season schoolgirl shenanigans and the other off-field traumas. Lyon was accessible and forthright, but the load was not shared.
Having ground the game into a daily, repetitive docu-soap of mis-informed facts and lowest common denominator opinion that has actually driven sponsors from the game, not to mention adopting as their "credible source" a deluded teenage - well I won't say the word I was thinking of - and quoting her every word as factual and accurate, to turn around and say "we help gain you sponsors if you talk to us" I find incredible.
And by the way - Nicky Dal is a regular on the Footy Show, Goddard was on the SFS today, Leigh Montagna is a big part of Channel 7s coverage, Roo is a regular on that Hamish whatever his name is show, Milney sat down for a Footy Show interview, Ross Lyon had Robbo in the box for an article, we made the Challenge, after the nude photos Roo did a press conference...that's a lot of access, but of course that's not what newspapers want. You want gossip clarified, "how do you feel when"...
In truth, the secret is we don't need them. Old media is dying out. They need us. Any "burst the bubble" reference is for them, not us. A Nick Riewoldt interview helps them, not us. I hope clubs realise this. Clubs can keep as much as they want in house. They can put interviews on their website (which their utopian Collingwood did when Alan Didak returned to football), there's Twitter, there's Facebook, there's commercial work behind the scenes players and officials can do to get sponsors. No one ever got a sponsor from a Mike Sheahan interview. And when was the last time you learned something from a football article in a newspaper article anyway? Something tactical, maybe even something interesting? Something that wasn't re-heated gossip or an obvious statement of fact?
And how many expansive, interesting people get shot down in flames by the Herald Sun and Age anyway for having the cheek to say something interesting? Exactly.
Our club has many issues to face, many many issues, but a good relationship with the press is not a pressing concern. An expansive winning brand of football gets you noticed, not how many times you can provide quote of the week.
Last edited by PaytonPlace on Mon 19 Sep 2011 8:06am, edited 3 times in total.
You can listen to Bristle tell you Carlton are still a massive chance at 28 points down with two minutes to go, you can listen to him tell you all about Lorne, or you can watch a monkey on a pushbike...I know which I prefer...
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23218
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1778 times
Great post, my only concern lies in the fact that the mum/dad readers of the Hun turn out to be our members and we need members.PaytonPlace wrote:Absolute deluded drivel. What difference does having a good relationship with the press make to anything? The richest sporting club in the entire world - Manchester United - have a manager who tells any pressman he likes where to go and has banned the BBC from talking to him for about 7 years! It hardly makes a dent in their finances...From a media/public vantage point, the Saints have had something of a siege mentality, the team having forged an us-and-them mindset - perhaps a coping mechanism - known as ''the bubble''. Access to players has been extremely limited, with the key players feeling burned by the off-season schoolgirl shenanigans and the other off-field traumas. Lyon was accessible and forthright, but the load was not shared.
Having ground the game into a daily, repetitive docu-soap of mis-informed facts and lowest common denominator opinion that has actually driven sponsors from the game, not to mention adopting as their "credible source" a deluded teenage...well I won't say the word I was thinking of and quoting her every word as factual and accurate, to turn around and say "we help gain you sponsors if you talk to us" I find incredible.
And by the way - Nicky Dal is a regular on the Footy Show, Goddard was on the SFS today, Leigh Montagna is a big part of Channel 7s coverage, Roo is a regular on that Hamish whatever his name is show, Milney sat down for a Footy Show interview, Ross Lyon had Robbo in the box for an article, we made the Challenge, after the nude photos Roo did a press conference...that's a lot of access, but of course that's not what you want. You want gossip clarified, "how do you feel when"...
In truth, the secret is we don't need them. Old media is dying out. They need us. Any "burst the bubble" reference is for them, not us. A Nick Riewoldt interview helps them, not us. I hope clubs realise this. Clubs can keep as much as they want in house. They can put interviews on their website (which their utopian Collingwood did when Alan Didak returned to football), there's Twitter, there's Facebook, there's commercial work behind the scenes players and officials can do to get sponsors. No one ever got a sponsor from a Mike Sheahan interview. And when was the last time you learned something from a football article in a newspaper article anyway? Something tactical, maybe even something interesting? Something that wasn't re-heated gossip or an obvious statement of fact?
And how many expansive, interesting people get shot down in flames by the Herald Sun and Age anyway for having the cheek to say something interesting? Exactly.
Our club has many issues to face, many many issues, but a good relationship with the press is not a pressing concern. An expansive winning brand of football gets you noticed, not how many times you can provide quote of the week.
I too have utter contempt for the football media but reality is they shape perceptions right or wrong........and good perceptions translate to better member/sponsor relationships.
We wont win them all - we havent, Mike jumps on/off us quicker than a bikie in a hookers shop, but we must do what we can.
“Yeah….nah””
- PaytonPlace
- Club Player
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Thu 23 Jun 2011 8:31pm
I don't necessarily disagree, but to play devils advocate for a moment, how do clubs actually go about building these good perceptions? A good relationship with the press? It doesn't translate. We had Mark Robinson in the box for a NAB Cup game and it got us nowhere. A nice article and then its gone the next day. Bad press takes up its own momentum, and facts are completely irrelevant. An entire summer of lies and mis-information and we've lost sponsors and face. They've turned their football coverage into a race to the bottom: I don't think clubs benefit from a good relationship with the press at all. One minor incident and it's exaggerated and distorted so much that everything ends up ruined no matter how much you "lift the bubble"....Great post, my only concern lies in the fact that the mum/dad readers of the Hun turn out to be our members and we need members.
I too have utter contempt for the football media but reality is they shape perceptions right or wrong........and good perceptions translate to better member/sponsor relationships.
We wont win them all - we havent, Mike jumps on/off us quicker than a bikie in a hookers shop, but we must do what we can.
And by the way - most of this "bubble" talk is because we didn't open all areas up to the media in Grand Final week? Again, a reactive opinion. If we'd won, we'd have been professional and clincial. We lost, so we're tense and tight. If The Filth lose, they are big headed and got ahead of themselves for letting everyone in. I would have thought most of our players are regular media participants, but because they don't get involved in gossip it's a bubble? As far as I could see, Roo did a press conference after you know what, Heath Shaw did the same, and only one of us got praised for it...
And to strictly take newspapers on their own - this Ross Lyon story is a classic example of them overhyping their importance. The story broke on Twitter, carried on on Fox News and League Teams. Riewoldts opinion was given on Gameday, Goddards on the Footy Show. Starsky broke the news about the Craig Kelly angle (to the masses) on the Footy Showafter ESP put out its press release. Both St Kilda and Fremantle held press conferences to put their side out. The fan anger was on Facebook and Twitter. The "fourth estate" was left to profer up half baked opinion pieces from Walls and Sheahan as their take on the subject. They contributed nothing to the debate.
I would argue that if a club treats its sponsors and members well, and plays attractive football, they don't need the Herald Sun to generate sponsorship or membership. We benefit nothing from making our players available. The "we grow the game" line is nonsense. They contract the game with their coverage, cost teams sponsorship and are left to wonder why interesting opinion and co-operation is in short supply.
To play ultimate devils advocate: If St Kilda broke their co-operation fully with the Herald Sun, do you think we would suffer?
You can listen to Bristle tell you Carlton are still a massive chance at 28 points down with two minutes to go, you can listen to him tell you all about Lorne, or you can watch a monkey on a pushbike...I know which I prefer...