We need to embrace New Zealand.

[WinnersOnly]

Totally agree CityWest! The Kiwis are a proud parocial lot and when they see a couple of their young players coming thru and commitment from the club they will adapt us and get behind the Saints....

[plugger66]

Are you aware that Kiwi Kick has over 30,000 youngsters enrolled and playing Aussie rules? Who gives 2 hoots about the attendance and besides we have had more people attend our 2 games than the average rugby game in NZ. Please try and look at the positives and the reasons why NZ may work rather than the reasons why NZ may not work. Plus you still haven't proposed an alternative that will enable St Kilda pay off their $9Million debt. And the reason for this is that there is no alternative.

North Melbourne are making profits and are firmly entrenched in Hobart. Footscray are making profits and now have sewn up Ballarat with Government funding. Melbourne are making profits and are entrenched in the top end of Australia. St Kilda have NZ and are still making million dollar losses. If we abandon NZ like we did Tassie we are finished.

Yes again im aware of that. Still doesn't equate to members of our club. And attendances are important because you are attending surely you are buying a membership considering its a sport that hardly anyone knows about in NZ. All you have said is pie in the sky rubbish that wont happen. And yep those sides you mentioned are playing in Australia where the sport is known not overseas where it is hardly known at all. If we are relying on NZ then we are truly stuffed. Anyway you seem to know a bit about memberhip so can you tell us how many NZ members we have now after 2 full years. Surely based on getting 10k in 10 years it would have to be at least 4 or 5k already. Im guessing 400.

[citywest]

I don't know how many kiwi members we have. Does anyone know what the total was for 2014? It will be interesting to see if and when we increase to 2 games per year how many sign up.

[plugger66]

I don't know how many kiwi members we have. Does anyone know what the total was for 2014? It will be interesting to see if and when we increase to 2 games per year how many sign up.

Again you do realise to increase to 2 games Wellington would have to come up with another 500k or it wouldn't be worth doing. Its easy to say play 2 games but it probably isn't easy to organise.

[skeptic]

I think in essence, this is the right idea.

NZ is a safety net for $500k, something we can't turn away. The goal of working towards two games and say 10k members seems like a realistic long term goal with a great pay off. It's not easy but the NZ scholarship players, some good form, clinics etc are all a good start. The aim is to find a niche in the market that is ours and ours alone

I think what we need to do though is work out a similar type deal to the one we had at the GC which is sell 2 home games for 2 away games at the dome/MCG

[plugger66]

I think in essence, this is the right idea.

NZ is a safety net for $500k, something we can't turn away. The goal of working towards two games and say 10k members seems like a realistic long term goal with a great pay off. It's not easy but the NZ scholarship players, some good form, clinics etc are all a good start. The aim is to find a niche in the market that is ours and ours alone

I think what we need to do though is work out a similar type deal to the one we had at the GC which is sell 2 home games for 2 away games at the dome/MCG

If we could get a million and 10k members of course it would be great. The chances of 10k members is nil. The chances of a million for 2 games is at best a maybe. We really need to work on other ways of making money.

[citywest]

I think in essence, this is the right idea.

NZ is a safety net for $500k, something we can't turn away. The goal of working towards two games and say 10k members seems like a realistic long term goal with a great pay off. It's not easy but the NZ scholarship players, some good form, clinics etc are all a good start. The aim is to find a niche in the market that is ours and ours alone

I think what we need to do though is work out a similar type deal to the one we had at the GC which is sell 2 home games for 2 away games at the dome/MCG

If we could get a million and 10k members of course it would be great. The chances of 10k members is nil. The chances of a million for 2 games is at best a maybe. We really need to work on other ways of making money.

And as I asked earlier, what is that other way????? Answer There is no other way. That's the problem. When we are a top side we will make $1Million to maybe even $2Million profit per year. But when we a the bottom side we will make $2Million to as much as $3Million+ losses per year. It is not sustainable and if we don't embrace NZ and more importantly, make it work for us then we will be at the mercy of the AFL.

Personally, I think it is a no brainer. My 6 point blueprint to becoming a viable footy club in the AFL......

1. Play 2 home games per year in NZ.
2. Play 1 NAB cup game per year in NZ.
3. Play 4 home games per year at the MCG.
4. Play 5 home games per year at the Docklands.
5. Relocate our training base to the Junction Oval.
6. Have our own VFL team based at a redeveloped Moorabbin.

[plugger66]

I think in essence, this is the right idea.

NZ is a safety net for $500k, something we can't turn away. The goal of working towards two games and say 10k members seems like a realistic long term goal with a great pay off. It's not easy but the NZ scholarship players, some good form, clinics etc are all a good start. The aim is to find a niche in the market that is ours and ours alone

I think what we need to do though is work out a similar type deal to the one we had at the GC which is sell 2 home games for 2 away games at the dome/MCG

If we could get a million and 10k members of course it would be great. The chances of 10k members is nil. The chances of a million for 2 games is at best a maybe. We really need to work on other ways of making money.

And as I asked earlier, what is that other way????? Answer There is no other way. That's the problem. When we are a top side we will make $1Million to maybe even $2Million profit per year. But when we a the bottom side we will make $2Million to as much as $3Million+ losses per year. It is not sustainable and if we don't embrace NZ and more importantly, make it work for us then we will be at the mercy of the AFL.

Personally, I think it is a no brainer. My 6 point blueprint to becoming a viable footy club in the AFL......

1. Play 2 home games per year in NZ.
2. Play 1 NAB cup game per year in NZ.
3. Play 4 home games per year at the MCG.
4. Play 5 home games per year at the Docklands.
5. Relocate our training base to the Junction Oval.
6. Have our own VFL team based at a redeveloped Moorabbin.

All pie in the sky stuff again. Firstly I doubt Wellington will pay for 2 games unless you know otherwise. Secondly how do we play 4 homes games at the G. Do we just tell we are playing there. Yep I have no idea how we make extra money but just making things up like you have wont get us extra money either.

[remboy]

I think we should aim to have a base on the moon before the end of the century. Not for any reason but it makes as much sense as a lot of other ideas on this thread.

[Bunk_Moreland]

Fortunately the people at St Kilda have a lot more vision than some people at SAINTSATIONAL. I'm really hoping that the current agreement is extended to 2 games per year in NZ + 1 pre-season game as well. It is early days yet but I honestly believe that 10,000 members is achievable.

I agree. The NZ push should be really focused on. Not two games at the moment, we need to blood y start winning them to get an interest going with the Kiwi's especially in Wellington.

Anecdotaly, the Kiwi at work has started following the Saints as he is from Wellington.I know, only one guy, but still.

Right at this point in time St Kilda have a debt of $9Million, and this is only 4 years after playing in 2 consecutive GF's (3 if you include the replay). If that isn't enough to set off the alarm bells then I'm not sure what is. I fear the Saints are at the point of no return, even worse than the 1980's when we were bankrupt and if it was up to Carlton, we would have folded. Thirty years down the track after since having 3 periods of relative success we find ourselves in the same position again.

I think you are a bit too concerned here. We are worth more to the AFL in the League for TV rights. We have a League boss who is a true Saints man and who has put HQ's man in the CEO job at the Saints. The League will look after the Saints as we are valuable. Funnily enough I am less concerned about our finances than I was last decade. Demitriou was a vindictive basrard and the League made sure we got three fifths of FA from them.

If the Saints are going to survive then NZ has to work for us. It's not the silver bullet but it is a great start. Moorabbin upgrade looks like it will happen so that's a tick. The other component is the JO. The club have to get all 3 up or else we will always be at the mercy of others.

Spare us the hysterics. The money in TV rights and the AFL will help us out. However I do agree that the Saints have to get everything correct. We are 2500 up in membership fromthis time last season. The day after the draft we had over 400 renewals of membership.

Hope is being restored for the Saints faithful. But we need to utilise the AFL's desire for AFL in NZ.As you stated KiwiKick has grown from 5k to over 30k in the past couple of years. Look at the opportunity that we are getting first hand at those big islanders and Maori. The International rookie the big Tongan bloke.Can you imaging us getting someone like him that turns out to be like a Jimmy Stynes, a player from a foreign country being first under the wire?

We have an oportunity to plant out club firmly in a developing area. In years to come we should get a NZ academy and get first nibs at all the picks from NZ, just like Sydney and Brisbane do.

It may take ten years, but we should do it for the long term and get some benefits other development areas get.

So while I dont go in for the doom and gloom of citwest, i do agree we should go all out to make NZ work and over the next decade.

[karnaby]

Hope is being restored for the Saints faithful. But we need to utilise the AFL's desire for AFL in NZ.As you stated KiwiKick has grown from 5k to over 30k in the past couple of years. Look at the opportunity that we are getting first hand at those big islanders and Maori. The International rookie the big Tongan bloke.Can you imaging us getting someone like him that turns out to be like a Jimmy Stynes, a player from a foreign country being first under the wire?

We have an oportunity to plant out club firmly in a developing area. In years to come we should get a NZ academy and get first nibs at all the picks from NZ, just like Sydney and Brisbane do.

It may take ten years, but we should do it for the long term and get some benefits other development areas get.

So while I dont go in for the doom and gloom of ........, i do agree we should go all out to make NZ work and over the next decade.

I definitely agree with the NZ academy idea.

[saintspremiers]

So what is your alternative to finally get the Saints out of debt and make us some money so we can compete with the big boys?

No idea but winning will help. A better run club would also help. God knows how the 8 years of success didn't get success off the ground. Its hard to believe actually.

The reason we are financially forked has a lot to do with our two former presidents - one was a drunk and the next a fraud

[plugger66]

So what is your alternative to finally get the Saints out of debt and make us some money so we can compete with the big boys?

No idea but winning will help. A better run club would also help. God knows how the 8 years of success didn't get success off the ground. Its hard to believe actually.

The reason we are financially forked has a lot to do with our two former presidents - one was a drunk and the next a fraud

Well the drunks record as a president, money wise, was excellent. Your sense of humour is all a bit weird for me.

[asiu]

which is how come gt ended up wearing so many hats
... rocket was paying down debt 'n doin a good job.

[spert]

The club is just embracing a money deal, and if NZ doesn't give us what we need, then we move on and look for other opportunities...one of the first things above all else is to start winning a few games ASAP, and especially the next NZ game, as if we lose that one, then we might as well pack up the NZ idea as they will drop off like flies. Must have been some terrible financial planning and management at the club over the last five or six years.

[White Winmar]

I think we should aim to have a base on the moon before the end of the century. Not for any reason but it makes as much sense as a lot of other ideas on this thread.

A nice idea, but it will never work. There's just no atmosphere.

[plugger66]

I think we should aim to have a base on the moon before the end of the century. Not for any reason but it makes as much sense as a lot of other ideas on this thread.

A nice idea, but it will never work. There's just no atmosphere.

Boom boom.

[Life Long Saint]

Well the drunks record as a president, money wise, was excellent.

Of course it was because his administration spent no money.
He had the Coach being the football manager and contract manager and whatever else he wanted to do. Then had a falling out with him and sacked him after three consecutive finals series.

The next administration vowed to spend money on the football department and reaped the results and nearly won two premierships. But didn't and we are now paying for that failed gamble.

We need a balance between the two extremes.

We should have stayed in Tassie and developed that market instead of letting Hawthorn do it.

We have an opportunity to develop a new frontier and should embrace that, especially when someone else is paying for it.

[plugger66]

Well the drunks record as a president, money wise, was excellent.

Of course it was because his administration spent no money.
He had the Coach being the football manager and contract manager and whatever else he wanted to do. Then had a falling out with him and sacked him after three consecutive finals series.

The next administration vowed to spend money on the football department and reaped the results and nearly won two premierships. But didn't and we are now paying for that failed gamble.

We need a balance between the two extremes.

We should have stayed in Tassie and developed that market instead of letting Hawthorn do it.

We have an opportunity to develop a new frontier and should embrace that, especially when someone else is paying for it.

In our defence Hawthorn were there first so it would never have worked anywhere near as well as the Hawks now if 2 clubs were there. Yep we didn't spend enough money when Buteress was there but we also went to far te other way after that. We also didn't capitalise on 3 GF's in 2 years which still amazes me.

[Linton Lodger]

I honestly believe that New Zealand has the capacity to make the St Kilda FC a power house in the AFL. If done correctly I expect 10, 000 kiwi based members within the next 10 years and a huge flow on effect in Australia. ie, every kiwi that emigrates to Australia will automatically follow the Saints.

For all the doubters click on the link below and listen carefully but more importantly look at the smile on the kids faces.

http://aflnz.co.nz/st-kilda-visit-auckl ... nity-camp/

Why not Shanghai and Dubai while your at it?

[asiu]

but there are 2 clubs there
... north have slipped in down south

[saintspremiers]

Well the drunks record as a president, money wise, was excellent.

Of course it was because his administration spent no money.
He had the Coach being the football manager and contract manager and whatever else he wanted to do. Then had a falling out with him and sacked him after three consecutive finals series.

The next administration vowed to spend money on the football department and reaped the results and nearly won two premierships. But didn't and we are now paying for that failed gamble.

We need a balance between the two extremes.

We should have stayed in Tassie and developed that market instead of letting Hawthorn do it.

We have an opportunity to develop a new frontier and should embrace that, especially when someone else is paying for it.

In our defence Hawthorn were there first so it would never have worked anywhere near as well as the Hawks now if 2 clubs were there. Yep we didn't spend enough money when Buteress was there but we also went to far te other way after that. We also didn't capitalise on 3 GF's in 2 years which still amazes me.

Plugger, when you read about Ghostaway's piss-poor management of his company, it's really no surprise he nearly took our club under like his business.

I guess in fairness to Westaway, he probably had little to no interest in the affairs of St.Kilda with his company struggles.

[Life Long Saint]

Well the drunks record as a president, money wise, was excellent.

Of course it was because his administration spent no money.
He had the Coach being the football manager and contract manager and whatever else he wanted to do. Then had a falling out with him and sacked him after three consecutive finals series.

The next administration vowed to spend money on the football department and reaped the results and nearly won two premierships. But didn't and we are now paying for that failed gamble.

We need a balance between the two extremes.

We should have stayed in Tassie and developed that market instead of letting Hawthorn do it.

We have an opportunity to develop a new frontier and should embrace that, especially when someone else is paying for it.

In our defence Hawthorn were there first so it would never have worked anywhere near as well as the Hawks now if 2 clubs were there. Yep we didn't spend enough money when Buteress was there but we also went to far te other way after that. We also didn't capitalise on 3 GF's in 2 years which still amazes me.

Weren't we offered the deal Hawthorn ended up with first? We knocked it back because we struggled to win there.

[plugger66]

Well the drunks record as a president, money wise, was excellent.

Of course it was because his administration spent no money.
He had the Coach being the football manager and contract manager and whatever else he wanted to do. Then had a falling out with him and sacked him after three consecutive finals series.

The next administration vowed to spend money on the football department and reaped the results and nearly won two premierships. But didn't and we are now paying for that failed gamble.

We need a balance between the two extremes.

We should have stayed in Tassie and developed that market instead of letting Hawthorn do it.

We have an opportunity to develop a new frontier and should embrace that, especially when someone else is paying for it.

In our defence Hawthorn were there first so it would never have worked anywhere near as well as the Hawks now if 2 clubs were there. Yep we didn't spend enough money when Buteress was there but we also went to far te other way after that. We also didn't capitalise on 3 GF's in 2 years which still amazes me.

Weren't we offered the deal Hawthorn ended up with first? We knocked it back because we struggled to win there.

I have no idea what deal we were offered but they played there first so im gathering they would have got a better or at least an equal deal.

[Saints43]

And as I asked earlier, what is that other way????? Answer There is no other way.

I think the plan is to concentrate on convincing existing Saints fans to become members.
Seems a much better idea to me than trying to manufacture new ones.

How they're going to do that while the team is getting beaten most weeks? No idea.