The Business of Football

[Vazelos]

I am extremely happy with the clubs work last 2 years. List management and supporter club engagement has been excellent. Redefining what it means to be a Saints supporter has also been clever giving us new direction with the slogan " How I want to be"...
No 1 in member retention and turning lapsed members back into active members after a wooden spoon is enormous. Matt Finnis is doing an amazing job.
Still there is so much work to do.
Facts are we have the lowest revenue turnover in the league currently( just over 30 milliion), we have 8 million + currently in debt and we need to raise 5 million to start up Moorabbin and get our new base developed that will hopefully have some revenue streams ie pokIes etc delivering to the club.
We will have a new neighbor in the Hawks coming into our heartland (1 of the big 4) which isn't a good thing for us.
Does anyone know when we can renegotiate our stadium deal?
This has crippled us for years.
Whilst we have finally started receiving compensation for this crap deal in recent years it's a thorn in our side.
Some huge years ahead of us guys, inside word is we need to start showing sone profitable years in trading indicating we can run a responsible business before we can go cap in hand to some big hitters that support our club to raise cash. It's exactly what the Tigers did and we are following suit.
No doubt when we are in a position to win a flag in the window ala 2004 to 2010 we cannot cut corners anywhere due to a lack of cash. This costs premierships !!!

[Freebird]

The AFL negotiate the deal on behalf of us...they are contracted to play a set number of games there and we have no choice, unlike other clubs.
Even when collingwood and Richmond are drawn to play at edihad they are paid a $180,000.00 transfer fee by Edihad. Carlton and Essendon receive 10% of catering while its real tenants (those made to play at edihad by way of AFL fix) footscray, kangas and us only receive 5% of catering.

If we survive the next 16 years? until AFL take over the ground we will be so far behind in wealth. At present we have to rely on equalisation but selfish clubs who enjoy the spoils of being drawn away from edihad are getting pssd at (in their eyes) giving money to clubs who can't look after themselves

[Vazelos]

Stadium deal stinks for sure...

[Rosco]

no renegotiation, i think our last deal timed out years ago but rolls on year to year because we can't get a deal at the MCG because it's in the hands of AFL fixturing.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 1jv1x.html

Nettlefold:
"I think the reality is that the sides that play at Etihad are pre-funding the acquisition of Etihad Stadium on behalf of the AFL, which they take over in 14 years."

MCC:
"The difficulty in the fixturing is this is an AFL decision. We're not in a position to enter deals with any club individually to say we want you to come and play here or play more games unless the AFL agree to it.
"We’d like to have more games, and certainly there are games at times that you think should be here, but the AFL’s in control of the fixture."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-07/s ... adium-deal

Summers:
"One of the major components of club revenues is match returns.

"These are heavily linked to where and when matches are scheduled, and we have repeatedly stated that we are financially disadvantaged in relation to the returns from playing at Etihad (Stadium)."

Summers said St Kilda made as much revenue playing one match in New Zealand or two games at the MCG as it did playing eight games at Etihad Stadium.

He said the issue facing tenants of the Docklands stadium was not one of equalisation but commercial fairness.

"Right now we are being disadvantaged by the allocation of games and the agreements that are in place that compensate for that," he said.

"We are one of those clubs that are creating a very valuable asset for this competition by effectively paying off Etihad Stadium.

"We will press for this to be resolved as soon as possible.

"This is not to say we, the St Kida Football Club, don't have a role to play in our own destiny. We do, and we are totally focused on improving our operations."

[Rosco]

just read through my post above. maybe we can offer to buy etihad for $2 after the AFL buy it for $1 in 2030 or whenever it is. then sell it off for high-rises and play at moorabbin.

[ROLS-LEE]

just read through my post above. maybe we can offer to buy etihad for $2 after the AFL buy it for $1 in 2030 or whenever it is. then sell it off for high-rises and play at moorabbin.

Get it done.

[Gordo' Sumner]

no renegotiation

we can't get a deal

Stadium deal Nettlefold says:
"I think the reality is that the sides that play at Etihad are pre-funding the acquisition of Etihad Stadium on behalf of the AFL, which they take over in 14 years."

Stadium deal MCC says:
"The difficulty in the fixturing is this is an AFL decision. We're not in a position to enter deals with any club individually to say we want you to come and play here or play more games unless the AFL agree to it.
"We’d like to have more games, and certainly there are games at times that you think should be here, but the AFL’s in control of the fixture."

Stadium deal Summers says:
"One of the major components of club revenues is match returns.

"These are heavily linked to where and when matches are scheduled, and we have repeatedly stated that we are financially disadvantaged in relation to the returns from playing at Etihad (Stadium)."

Summers said St Kilda made as much revenue playing one match in New Zealand or two games at the MCG as it did playing eight games at Etihad Stadium.

He said the issue facing tenants of the Docklands stadium was not one of equalisation but commercial fairness.

"Right now we are being disadvantaged by the allocation of games and the agreements that are in place that compensate for that," he said.

"We are one of those clubs that are creating a very valuable asset for this competition by effectively paying off Etihad Stadium.

"We will press for this to be resolved as soon as possible.

"This is not to say we, the St Kida Football Club, don't have a role to play in our own destiny. We do, and we are totally focused on improving our operations."

Stadium deal Sumner says:

FFS !!!!

[Vazelos]

Does anyone know how much we receive in compensation from the AFL due to this unfair stadium deal?

[howlinwolf]

It makes it very hard to put the hat around and ask hard working average Joe's to tip in when we are being fleeced by a huge corporate entity.
To think E'dope and Carlton make more % out of catering than us is incredible.
Then some of the big clubs are complaining about equalisation.
It was never a level playing field in the VFL days and it's not now either.

[stjay]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

[plugger66]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

[stjay]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

You're speculating - you don't know that anymore than I know that a deal is possible. Fact is we need to do something. As a commercial entity the MCC will do a deal if it makes money for them.

[plugger66]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

You're speculating - you don't know that anymore than I know that a deal is possible. Fact is we need to do something. As a commercial entity the MCC will do a deal if it makes money for them.

Im using common sense and I also have contacts at the G. They have no interest in our side and the AFL would never let us go there anyway. Can you tell me why the MCG would get rid of big drawing side so we can replace them?

[supersaints]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

Catch 22 Pluggs, the small clubs like us will NEVER get the same deals as the Big clubs that's why they have remained big no matter how badly they go during the season, favored draws , favored stadium deals, keep on going. Look at the " big games" the dopers still get to pkat the blockbusters, as do Carlton and Collingwood regardless of their ladder position. The league has no intreats in St Kilda becoming a powerhouse at the expense of one of the big boys.. Never going to happen... sadly

[plugger66]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

Catch 22 Pluggs, the small clubs like us will NEVER get the same deals as the Big clubs that's why they have remained big no matter how badly they go during the season, favored draws , favored stadium deals, keep on going. Look at the " big games" the dopers still get to pkat the blockbusters, as do Carlton and Collingwood regardless of their ladder position. The league has no intreats in St Kilda becoming a powerhouse at the expense of one of the big boys.. Never going to happen... sadly

Exactly but then you can do what Richmond and Hawthorn have done and that's grow on your own and then the AFL have no choice but to help you. We don't help ourself by having the lowest membership of all the Victorian clubs probably for the second year in a row. makes it hard to bargain.

[stjay]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

You're speculating - you don't know that anymore than I know that a deal is possible. Fact is we need to do something. As a commercial entity the MCC will do a deal if it makes money for them.

Im using common sense and I also have contacts at the G. They have no interest in our side and the AFL would never let us go there anyway. Can you tell me why the MCG would get rid of big drawing side so we can replace them?

Why does it need to be one out, one in? They are accomodating 5 sides at Etihad now whilst there's 4 at the G.

[plugger66]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

You're speculating - you don't know that anymore than I know that a deal is possible. Fact is we need to do something. As a commercial entity the MCC will do a deal if it makes money for them.

Im using common sense and I also have contacts at the G. They have no interest in our side and the AFL would never let us go there anyway. Can you tell me why the MCG would get rid of big drawing side so we can replace them?

Why does it need to be one out, one in? They are accomodating 5 sides at Etihad now whilst there's 4 at the G.

Because there is contracts with Etihad for a certain amount of games to be played there. And why would the MCG want another tenant that would draw low crowds?

[borderbarry]

It looks as if our recent successful years have gained us nothing. I dont for the life of me understand why the AFL would have the attitude to the poorer clubs that does. It is not that long agp when Hawthorn was one of the struggling clubs too.

[stjay]

We are definitely over a barrel on the stadium deal - no question.
Obviously a deal with the MCC is the only other option but as stated there are issues to getting a deal done.
It has to be brought to a head and the best way to do that is to demonstrate what a potential alternate MCC deal would generate in revenue for the club.
Once you have a figure of "missed revenue" then you have the beginnings of a negotiating position. It needs to be distilled down to one number of annual missed revenue that the club can go public with, to start to apply some pressure.
The inability to move stadiums could also be seen as a "restraint of trade". Remember the clubs own the AFL not the other way around.
It is a wafer thin argument but you have to start somwhere.

There is no way we will be able to get a deal done at the MCG. Firstly they would have no interest in us and secondly the AFL decide where sides play. We get about 3 million for playing there. it may not be fair but we have no bargaining power whilst we have poor crowds and the lowest membership in Victoria. We have to sit it out until we again become some sort of power.

You're speculating - you don't know that anymore than I know that a deal is possible. Fact is we need to do something. As a commercial entity the MCC will do a deal if it makes money for them.

Im using common sense and I also have contacts at the G. They have no interest in our side and the AFL would never let us go there anyway. Can you tell me why the MCG would get rid of big drawing side so we can replace them?

Why does it need to be one out, one in? They are accomodating 5 sides at Etihad now whilst there's 4 at the G.

Because there is contracts with Etihad for a certain amount of games to be played there. And why would the MCG want another tenant that would draw low crowds?

This is not the MCC getting rid of another tenant, it is adding one. The real questions are what is the breakeven attendance to make money at the G and is there a net benefit in a move? Obviously there are contracts in place at Etihad at the moment.

[stjay]

It looks as if our recent successful years have gained us nothing. I dont for the life of me understand why the AFL would have the attitude to the poorer clubs that does. It is not that long agp when Hawthorn was one of the struggling clubs too.

Amazing turnaround. The Waverley deal set them up.

[Vazelos]

There is only so much supporter engagement can do, there is no doubt success ( premierships) builds supporter bases.
We need to work hard, get the Moorabin complex finished & then start working on getting rid of the debt.
I see in 2 to 3 years we are back at Linton Street which would culminate in us having a very good side, a perfect time to:
1. Knock off the crippling debt
2. Start building our supporter base ie memberships
3. This will increase crowds & give us more clout with the AFL
4. Corporates will follow
5. Moorabin complex will start delivering profits as well with extra revenue streams

If we can have no debt, mid range membership base ie 45 to 50,000 members, good strong crowds because we are in the premiership window & we can sneak a flag then you can start turning it around.
This has to be our objective working towards 2020.
The Hawks have done it over 25 to 30 years of on field success & smart (lucky) strategic decisions.
We can do it too.
How can we help??
Honestly, we are just voices in the wind in real terms but we can all do our bit by doing little things like:

Influencing people to support the Saints
ie nephew/niece or a family friend
A new Australian that has come into the country
Give a lapsed member a hard time to resign

Attend as many matches as possible
Buy Merchandise
Support to debt funds if you can etc

30,000 can become 45,000 if we all put in.

[Freebird]

Do you think success will help, have a look at Carlton...they're protected by the draw in playing more wealthy clubs twice the most friday night games.

Carlton have been on the bottom for years but if you have a look at their attendances it is inflated by the draw.

<edited by mods>

[supersaints]

If a clubs success was based on " onfield perfOrmance then North Melbourne would be one of the big teams, they Possibly had one of the most successful eras in football ( due mainly to the 10 year rule)
It got them nowhere, hawthorn also had one if the most successful eras back then, but they ended up back down in the pack. I expect after this current era the Gawks will again slide down.

The "Big" four successfully cheated the salary cap for many years, paid cash to players stole the best players from other clubs and even tried to force the lower clubs into take overs (supposedly as mergers)

Carlton in fact paid players not to sign with other clubs and stay in lesser competitions, (at least in one case with a then VFL player , a friend of mine who had suspect knees , but got a payment on the basis that no other club could sign him and if his knees came good they would again recruit him.

[plugger66]

Do you think success will help, have a look at Carlton...they're protected by the draw in playing more wealthy clubs twice the most friday night games.

Carlton have been on the bottom for years but if you have a look at their attendances it is inflated by the draw.

<edited by mods>

It said the flog 66. Edited but no warning. But say moron and you get a warning. I don't want a warning for flog but consistency would be nice.

[plugger66]

If a clubs success was based on " onfield perfOrmance then North Melbourne would be one of the big teams, they Possibly had one of the most successful eras in football ( due mainly to the 10 year rule)
It got them nowhere, hawthorn also had one if the most successful eras back then, but they ended up back down in the pack. I expect after this current era the Gawks will again slide down.

The "Big" four successfully cheated the salary cap for many years, paid cash to players stole the best players from other clubs and even tried to force the lower clubs into take overs (supposedly as mergers)

Carlton in fact paid players not to sign with other clubs and stay in lesser competitions, (at least in one case with a then VFL player , a friend of mine who had suspect knees , but got a payment on the basis that no other club could sign him and if his knees came good they would again recruit him.

Success is part of the reason as is failure part of the reason you lose the big games. The other reasons are the membership and North have had a small membership until the last few years and Carton still have a large membership. The other reason is crowds to the games and North still don't get big crowds and Carltons is dropping but still larger than many. None of this has anything to do with us thinking we should play at the MCG. If anyone can give me a logical readon they would want us and the AFL would let us then Im all ears. I would rather play there as I can use my MCC membership. And remember if we play there then someone else doesn't because of contracts with games at the G and Etihad.