Rhetoric or substance?

[To the top]

The stated aim of those mounting the challenge to the current board, in respect to more spending on the football department, are noble and will win support, obviously.

What concerns me are the comments that the current board has focused on debt reduction to the detriment of spending on the football department.

Simply, football clubs can NOT afford to have debt on their Balance Sheets.

And the focus on clearing St Kilda FC's debt, especially in times of low interest rates courtesy of global economic concerns, was the fundamental requirement of the Board.

Simply, there is no better time to repay debt than when interest rates are low, and artificially low - as they have been since 2000 (Fed Reserve rate of 1% in the USA).

The reason football clubs can not sustain debt on their Balance Sheets is because debt takes servicing - on a principal reduction plus interest basis.

Revenues of football clubs are always under pressure, relying as they do on sponsorships, raffles, membership subscriptions and the like.

The volatility with the revenue side of operations is shown by Pratt using his corporate influence on Vodaphone. And do not get me started on Pratt because I hold him in very low esteem. The fact that he is quite prepared to offer collateral corporate business (Visyboard) to pinch a sponsor from another club says it all about Pratt and his ethics - and he has never been any different. Plus, company's establishing a niche and seeking exposure thru sponsoring a football club, are sometimes taken over and the ultimate proprietor will review expenditure - including sponsorships. Such is the volatility. And it is on-going.

Against this volatility in revenue, you have fixed outgoings courtesy of the Salary Cap and administration and marketing costs.

Plus, in terms of outgoings, you have a claim such as the claim now being made by Thomas for underpayment of entitlements - Annual Leave and LSL, which appear as contingent liabilities on the Balance Sheet.

Football clubs, like many others in the community, spend what they earn - and the need for on-field success drives this.

To overlay this volatile and fragile Profit and Loss with an interest expense just does not work - and to extend that to overlay the Net Profit with the expense of principal loan repayments equally does not work.

So the emphasis is on repayment of debt - because principal repayments and interest are non productive expenses.

St Kilda FC, or more accurately its creditors and bankers, has paid a price before because of debt.

The lessons should not be lost.

When you see that any club makes a profit, and that profit is then used to reduce/repay debt, there is a capacity for a longer term problem, because the lender is taking preference.

Geelong is a case in point, where Westpac wrote off 50% of their debt (which they could not service, and interest was being capitalised by Westpac) on the condition Geelong re-financed the remainder debt.

So, in terms of the statements being made that debt repayment took preference over spending on the football operations, let's consider the wider view that the eradication of a preferential creditor demanding principal plus interest repayments was to the longer term benefit of the club.

And let us not forget that the cost of debt has risen since the recovery in global economic circumstances because interest rates are no longer at accomodation settings to encourage that recovery in economic activity.

And, to diverse, this is why Howard is (also) in trouble over what he said about interest rates in the lead up to the last election - it was and was always going to be seen as gross oportunism with no substance in fact because they were extraordinary times - globally and led by the USA Fed Reserve which had rates at 1%.

So look thru the rhetoric people and ask the pertinent questions.

Do not be seduced by short term opportunism, or opportunism based on the hard yards done by others - which again has comparisons in politics and the reforms of Hawke/Keating providing an enduring platform.

And you can only spend what you earn.

So forward cash flow budgets are the bible, and the flexibility must remain to adjust for any variance in revenues.

[kaos theory]

Simply, football clubs can NOT afford to have debt on their Balance Sheets.

'
Firstly, that is not entirely true. A club can run successfully with a debt. It is far more important to have quality revenue streams, and to be constantly looking for new revenue streams. We have a strong supporter base, good crowds and finals 3 yrs running. We should be a much stronger revenue stream.

Cutting costs to make profit is not a way to grow a business, its a way to run it down.

Also, the new challenge has made it clear they are interested in maintaining & building a strong football club - that by necessity means that it must be able to service its creditors & debts. BUT most importantly, because of the volitility of the market, you need to maximize you revenue opportunities, especially if you have a strong base (which we do).

This current baord has over the last few yrs run the club down as a business, and is without ideas, vision, skill & commitment to take us forward....
They are in a constant crisis management mode...

[saintsRrising]

Not true...there is good debt and bad debt.


For example IF the Saints do in fact get title to some land there would be nothing wrong with he Club taking outa loan to help pay the cost of new facilities with the land mortgaged to secure the loan.


YES you have to finacially responsible....but this does not mean that you should never take on debt.

[Juggernaut]

Has anyone got any facts on where our revenue came from and from what sources last year. I threw out the annual report last year

[Stephen Theodore]

saintsrRising wrote:
Not true...there is good debt and bad debt.

Spot on, and there is a big difference between the two

[Mr Magic]

saintsrRising wrote:
Not true...there is good debt and bad debt.

Spot on, and there is a big difference between the two

When the current Board was elected, what debt did we have - good or bad?

[To the top]

Even debt invested into property assets requires principal plus interest servicing - so the absolute assessment is the revenue stream and the long-term viability of that revenue stream.

There is also the small matter of the re-sale value of the underlying asset, such that, if difficulty is encountered, moneys can be re-couped and debts repaid from the sale proceeds.

The level of emcumbrance comes into play also - or the amount of "own equity" to phrase it another way.

Because if you do not have any "own equity" in any project, you will receive commensurate distributions because you are last on the feed chain.

You see, there are no blanket statements.

Because, at the end of the day debt takes servicing and servicing is dependent on net revenues.

The easiest decision is to lend the money - the discipline is to ensure the expectations in lending that money maintain.

In regards entertainment venues, crowds can shift for a number of diverse reasons. So there is added volatility if you are investing in entertainment venues.

So, "good" debt is where you have net equity sufficient to ensure that the agenda is not taken out of your hands by lenders (if you borrow 90% the lender has you by the short and curlies) and the underlying asset has a sustainable, diversified income stream.

This is NOT football clubs.

There is no question asked as to how and why St Kilda FC has the debt it has - and has had.

Why not?

Look at the position of Carlton FC, now bailed out by Pratt.

Their Balance Sheet was illiquid because the valuation of the facilities at Princes Park were adjusted to the lower of purchase cost or realisable value - as is the requirement.

And realisable value was $NIL - no matter the cost and the debt remaining which say the Liabilities exceed the Assets.

And there was no revenue stream to service.

And if you want another example, look at the history of Docklands and see what the original stapled security holders came out with - and what its current circumstances are.

So what is "good debt"?

And what is "bad debt"?

Motherhood statements carry no substance.

[To the top]

Koas theory, because it is St Kilda FC we should be knocking back sponsors and the world should be rosy?

Get into the real world. One premiership in 1966. A couple of finals appearances in recent years, but missing out AGAIN in 2007.

How the alternate group can be supported by anyone at this stage is beyond comprehension, unless you have a prejudice against the existing board and/or its President.

Simply, the alternate group have said nothing yet except for offering some rhetoric bout how they are going to spend money.

Well, you have to put the horse before the cart.

So, what will they bring to the table which is an improvement on the current Board?

I would suggest that those Thomas deciples still smarting at his removal move on and consider the wider issues - not just mis-placed hero worship for a control freak with a huge ego.



I would be interested in a Funds Movement Statement covering the period of the current President, showing what funds have been accrued and where they have been applied to.

And where the club's long term debt is today (ie ex Trade Creditors, accruals and contingent liabilities).

[saintsRrising]

So what is "good debt"?

And what is "bad debt"?

Motherhood statements carry no substance.

A bit like you posts.

Now for example one could borrow to pay fora pub = income generation & asset

One could borrow to build an elite training centre on land one now owns....and which is used by others where a fee can be charged for use......or where in return for access other parties (council, state or federal government stump up $million to help buid a faclity you could not otherwise afford.


I will let you get back to your blanket statements that hold no water.

[kaos theory]

TTP - Lets get a few things straight. I am NOT a GT fan, quite the opposite.

I was an a RB fan, until recently....

Koas theory, because it is St Kilda FC we should be knocking back sponsors and the world should be rosy?

Get into the real world. One premiership in 1966. A couple of finals appearances in recent years, but missing out AGAIN in 2007.

So are we supposed to meekly sit on our ever-dwindling reveune stream and continue to cut costs? Is that how you build a business...sorry, but I think you need to get into the real world...

I've written why i support the new ticket, in another post...

[saintsRrising]

Hey...just read my FF letter..


They reckon that there is good debt and bad debt too

See Point 9.

[To the top]

SRS, it just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

Let's just go out and buy a pub.

And that will be good debt! Because you have revenue!!

Well, you have the purchase consideration, you have Stamp Duty of the Memorandum of Transfer, you have legal expense, you have borrowing expenses including Loan Approval Fees, you have Licence fees, you have deposits for supplies such as supplies from the brewery and you have a Working Capital requirement.

So the establishment cost is not just the purchase consideration.

The next question is how much are you going to "stump up" toward the purchase consideration and the pre-operational costs?

Or is a lender going to lend you 120% of the purchase consideration?

The point is that you need to fund the pre-operational costs and a component of the purchase consideration - including because lenders will lend on the basis of financial performance (ie the debt can be serviced with interest cover of 2.5:1 as a minimum) and to a percentage of Valuation, whichever is the lower.



Fair dinkum, you have no idea.

But it just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?

Let's just go out and buy a pub!

In terms of the proposed re-location the terms and conditions attaching to the funding to be provided by public bodies needs to be fully examined.

And the scope for revenue generation needs careful appraisal - particularly as the St Kilda FC will need to go into debt to consumate the deal.

This is why there is an impasse over poker machines at the venue.

Again, the lenders will look at interest cover - and in regards start up enterprises, the assessment is more critical.

And can the property be mortgaged to allow St Kilda FC to use it as collateral for the borrowings required - because St Kilda FC do not have $4M sitting in a bank account - they have debt.

And if it can not be mortgaged for this purpose, how does St Kilda FC provide the collateral?

Some of you people are out of your depth and should learn to change hands at 99.

Everyone has the capacity and the wealth to attend certain enterprises - the secret is to know what that capacity and wealth is and not to put that capacity and wealth in jeopardy.

We do not want delusional people having their hands on the cheque book of St Kilda FC.

[saintsRrising]

The pub was only an example. I was not necessarily advocating that we actually buy a pub.


Have you never borrowed for an investment???? Sounds like not. More fool you.

If you cannot understand that you CAN use debt to advantage.....well what can one say.

However I personally use it for leveraged personal gain....clubs can...businesses can....

You use debt WISELY....and YEs you do not just borrow for anything.

[To the top]

SRS, you make the time honoured mistake of speaking to a person's circumstances when you know nothing of those circumstances.

And you digress from the central theme.

The emphasis at St Kilda FC has been to apply the net revenue to debt reduction.

And NOW we have an alternate ticket saying that those funds applied to debt reduction should have been applied (probably in regards part, I assume) to football operations costs.

And I make the point, from first hand knowledge, that debt does not sit easily on the Balance Sheet of football clubs.

The volatility of the income stream, which also reflects on-field success, is the reason debt does not sit easily on the Balance Sheet of any football club.

As we can see at St Kilda, the lack of success on the football field over the last 2 seasons has had a detrimental effect on revenue.

And, in competing with the "big boys" who have the media profile and the influentual supporters, St Kilda FC does not compete, as Pratt offering Vodaphone the telecommunications business of Pratt's business interests if Vodaphone jettison St Kilda for Carlton attests.

Even Collingwood, some 20 odd years ago were on a knife's edge financially, poor results impacted on revenue which fell short of Cash Flow Forecast and the club lost the support of its bankers.

But, the one thing that was obvious, and resulted in the bank not moving to recover its monies, was that, when you went to the President's lunch, everyone and then some from the upper echelons of corporate Australia were there, including the Governor General of the day.

And ditto Carlton, where Pratt has now come to the recscue of a bankrupt football club.

[To the top]

Of interest is that Butterrs is saying that he inherited $3.7 MILLION in debt when he came to the presidency.

The cost of such debt in interest only terms (using the 30 day Commercial Bill Rate plus a Bank Line Fee of 2%) is over $300,000- per annum.

If you superimpose on that a commrcial arrangement repaying the loan over 10 years (which is generous against what is in the market - normally 5 year terms are available for business related expenditure), that adds annual principal repayments of $370,000.

So, servicing the loan on a principal plus interest basis costs $670,000- a year.

And therein lies the problem.

Because, in improved trading circumstances (and, from what is alleged, with tighter fiscal constraints), St Kilda FC is making a profit of $1 MILLION a year.

The punishing effect of principal plus interest servicing of the debt is obvious.

Of interest also is the press reports, sourced from the alternate group, that Fox is to mediate.

There were press reports of the relationship between Thomas and Fox previously.

So where do the Fox interests lay in all of this, and who are their fellow travellers?

No doubt, from a previous time, St Kilda FC owes Fox a debt of gratitude because it was Fox who applied what was applied to the bankers of St Kilda FC to have them accept the Scheme of Arrangement.


There was only one reason why the bank involved accepted the Scheme of Arrangement, which was a different course to the course normally adopted by that bank in like circumstances and as a matter of policy.

As the major Creditor (secured under Charge and un-secured), the bank held sway - its decision carried the vote.

If the pressure that was applied to the bank had not been applied, and the bank had acted in accordance with its normal procedures, St Kilda FC would have been liquidated and (particularly) the secured Creditor would, in all probability, have had a beneficial outcome to the outcome delivered. It must be remembered that the bank was the secured creditor, and took preference. Unsecured Creditors sat behind the secured Creditor. Did all (secured and un-secured) accept 20 cents in the $1- to allow the club to survive?

I do not know the merits of the incumbent Board versus the alternate ticket - simply, we do not know anywhere near enough yet.

But the comment that the club has focused on the reduction of a debt, initially at $3.7 MILLION does draw question from me - because the focus should have been on debt reduction to ensure the future viability of St Kilda FC.

Geelong had a debt to the order of $7 MILLION, courtesy of grandstand improvements, could not service, saw interest capitalising to debt and saw its bankers write off $4 MILLION on the basis the remainder $3 MILLION could be re-financed elsewhere, which it was.

And their Board presents that debt reduction has been a coup for the Board!

But they are not so forthcoming as to the method offered to them and accepted by them.

So, along with the rest of us, I wait to hear what the Board and the alternate ticket present - and I will consider all circumstances - antecedent, contemporoneous and future - in coming to a decision.

No doubt the coach will have requirements - and those requirements will differ from the "Thomas era", when the football department was a one man band and facilities were obviously delapidated (because, from reports, money has been spend on the football department since Lyon was correctly appointed).

[spert]

Sorry debt is debt..don't listen to good or bad debt waffle which the financial planning/ banking/ investment sector have wheeled out especially in recent times..supposed good debt exists purely to service greed and sustain the financial sector whilst bad debt is ...debt.

[To the top]

Spert, I accept your sentiment, but :-

Everything costs something therefore everything is financed in one way or another by a debt to someone.

A Company is (basically) funded by its Shareholders (Capital and Retained Earnings), Trade Creditors (suppliers) and Term Creditors (banks).

The Shareholders receive dividends, the Trade Creditors receive payments from cash flow and the Term Creditors receive interest - and principal repayments.

So it comes down to what monetary interest you have as to what you get back.

And the last on the list to receive their return are the Shareholders.

In business you are investing in stock, Trade Debtors and Plant & Equipment - and you look to make profit from the performance of these assets.

So business can sustain a level of Term Debt.

But not footy clubs.

Because what are the assets of a footy club - unless it has the capital Reserves (cash at bank) to invest in a trading asset and expect a return on those assets commensurate with the level of investment.

Footy clubs can not afford debt on their books because the only tangible asset they have is the licence to compete in the AFL - and how secure is that?

It would rate with Goodwill.

[To the top]

Have received a mail out and a text message from the alternate ticket.

What they have mailed out falls into the rhetoric catagory.

I would suggest they attend a prospectus detailing where the club is at now, how it is trading now and then detailing the initiatives they have and the scope of the improvements they will bring.

Let's start with a detailed synopsis of the Balance Sheet as it stands today and then project what it will look like after the initial year of any new board. And so on for the next 5 years - because every one has a five year plan to deliver the outcome they have signed off on.

Nothing like this is presented.

Let see the detailed Profit & Loss Statements for the past few years and then let us see the projected performance under a new Board - again signed off over a five year period.

Detail where the increased revenue is to be sourced from - who is coming onto the board and what credentials and corporate contacts they have in regards introducing significant sponsorship monies.

And where budgeted expenses are at.

And remember, Cooper (of FAI & HIH fame) came to the Board of the Collingwood Football Club on the back of a $250,000- sponsorship which, I think, Collingwood refused to disgorge to the Liquidators acting in Australia's (then) biggest corporate collapse.

So be careful what you accept, and who you accept it from.

No doubt, improved player training/recovery facilities are an attraction, and they have probably played a part in the conditioning of such clubs as West Coast, Adelaide and Collingwood, who have the financial resources to maintain such facilities at state of the art status. Because it is an on-going science - and the leader is probably Craig in Adelaide because of his qualifications.

In terms of injuries, how do you evade the types of injuries suffered by Maguire, Hayes, Goddard and Koschitzke? And Judd now replicates Ball.

Soft tissue injuries, yes - but you need some luck. Look at Cousins.

We would all love to see an injury free season because it is well proven that this is a pre-requisite for going deep into September.

And we now have a coach from a club which has gone deep into September - and knows the value of having dominant, experienced ruckmen - hence M. Clarke and Gardiner.

The text message was to ask me to return my proxy to Greg.

Sorry, Greg, but you are a very, very long way short of gaining my vote.

I just ain't sold on rhetoric - and windy rhetoric at that.

I want to see a detailed prospectus covering off on every aspect of the being of St Kilda FC.

Then I may consider you, but not until then.

And I am one of those who believes in generational change so I do not like going back to a grey haired older man - because I reckon I could present my case in a far superior manner than you have presented your case, but I also am a grey haired older man - and I have been there and done that, cultivated the next generation and moved on.

Came in with a detailed 5 year plan including benchmarks accross all aspects of the particular club, achieved and then handed over in accordance with the succession planning chart which was part of the 5 year plan at the outset. Different league in a different State, but the fundamentals remain - as does the need for the hard work to present your case in finite detail accross the business and competition model.