Why a 'Detail' plan from SFF is irrelevant

[kaos theory]

There is a lot of talk here about some people waiting for 'detail' financial/business plan for the SFF before deciding whether to vote for them.

This is an irrelevant side issue. Why?

1. Its the team that matters NOT the plan:
Most importantly, it’s the quality of the team that depends on whether a plan has any value or not. You can have the best & most detailed 'plan' in the world, but if you have very limited skill & ability, knowledge, ineffective resources, networks, etc. then your plan isn't worth the paper its written on.

Therefore consider a comparison of the teams:

The current board is fractured, with only 3 moderately talented individuals in RB camp. They have poor networks & business relationships and they have significant friction with their own staff, from the CEO level to basic admin staff. They have demonstrated an inability to maintain a cohesive board and management, and extremely high key staff turnover. They have shown poor skills in capturing and maintaining key sponsors. This gives little confidence to execute a new vast & complex plan covering increased expenditure & increased revenue.

SFF is a bigger, more diversely talented and more capable team. Collectively they have successfully managed complex businesses totalling billions of dollars. They have a vision, enthusiasm, excellent business networks, and proven ability to get people working together to achieve goals.

Therefore, I would have significantly more confidence in SFF executing a plan, than the current board in its current fractious state.

2. You can’t develop a detail plan without intimate knowledge of the environment:
To ask SFF to provide a detail financial plan for the next 3 to 5 yrs has little value without SFF given the time to do a detailed assessment of the way the RB board runs the club, how the processes & work practices, policy & procedures, detailed cost and revenue flows, etc. RB & the board are not going to allow that. Without this access, a detailed financial plan would be purely hypothetical speculation, which the current board, with its knowledge, would pick holes in it.

What happens in the real world?
In the world of mergers, acquisitions, take-overs, etc., the new party (planning to take control) will either be given full & unrestricted access & time (usually many months) to develop a detail plan before taking over, or, in most cases, the new party will simply propose a vision & a high-level plan. It will draw upon its general experience, knowledge, resources to develop the detail plan AFTER it has taken control. From here it will execute its plan.

Ask yourselves: So what was Fox’s detail plan before he took over the saints? What was the Plymton’s board detail plan before they took over? What was Butters board plan before they took over? What was Pratt’s detail plan when he took over at Carlton? Simple, there was NO detail plan.

What’s most important is ability to EXECUTE a plan, not the plan itself.

I have been involved for many years in assessing, building & executing detail plans across small and large enterprises, and the answer is always the same:
- You can’t build a credible plan without detailed knowledge
- The plan is only as good as the ability to execute,
- The plan ALWAYS changes and often is thrown away completely after a short time, because there are always unpredictable changes and new situations emerging
- Therefore, it’s the ability to execute that’s most important.

[evertonfc]

Superb post.

Agree with many excellent points there.

It's not *irrelevant* per se about the plan, but I think far too much emphasis is being placed on how many exact dollars are going where.

I want a detailed plan - with promises.

I'd love that to-the-dollar detail to be made public, but I think that's probably going to far. Just so long as they can give assurances (maybe independantly audited?) that their plans are economically feasible, I'll be very pleased.

[True Blue Sainter]

*applauds*

Top post Kaos! Well-researched and extremely convincing! I find myself agreeing with you on pretty much every point you raised...

[kaos theory]

EvertonFC:

The use of 'irrelevant' might be a bit strong, but its not far off the truth...

I'd love that to-the-dollar detail to be made public, but I think that's probably going to far. Just so long as they can give assurances (maybe independantly audited?) that their plans are economically feasible, I'll be very pleased.

You have got to be careful here. There is a significant cost, and frankly a distraction from the real issue and comparisions. Personally, from my expereince, I would be more concerned with each team's ability rather than any plan. I'm ofthen involved in key decisions where the detailed plan is the last thing on the list to look at, and as a consequence has the least value in the decision.

Why? because of what I wrote above, and in reality, anyone can create a detail plan, the key is what skills & resources, etc. you have to execute that plan that really matters.

[n1ck]

Great post KT... excellent.

[Oh When the Saints]

Convinced me.

[Joffa Burns]

There is a lot of talk here about some people waiting for 'detail' financial/business plan for the SFF before deciding whether to vote for them.

This is an irrelevant side issue. Why?

Ask yourselves: So what was Fox’s detail plan before he took over the saints? What was the Plymton’s board detail plan before they took over? What was Butters board plan before they took over? What was Pratt’s detail plan when he took over at Carlton? Simple, there was NO detail plan.

What’s most important is ability to EXECUTE a plan, not the plan itself.

Disagree kaos, one reason I give is that Fox took over in a time when StKFC was close to going the way of the Thylacine, the SFF group are looking to replace an administration who have turned 3 Million dollar plus profits.

OK, there are stories behind all profit scenarios however the Butterss’ administration has not been financially irresponsible and the club is in a strong financial state.

As a member I’d like this to continue and I’d like to know how SFF plan to do this.

1. Its the team that matters NOT the plan:
Most importantly, it’s the quality of the team that depends on whether a plan has any value or not. You can have the best & most detailed 'plan' in the world, but if you have very limited skill & ability, knowledge, ineffective resources, networks, etc. then your plan isn't worth the paper its written on.

Therefore consider a comparison of the teams:

The current board is fractured, with only 3 moderately talented individuals in RB camp. They have poor networks & business relationships and they have significant friction with their own staff, from the CEO level to basic admin staff. They have demonstrated an inability to maintain a cohesive board and management, and extremely high key staff turnover. They have shown poor skills in capturing and maintaining key sponsors. This gives little confidence to execute a new vast & complex plan covering increased expenditure & increased revenue.

SFF is a bigger, more diversely talented and more capable team. Collectively they have successfully managed complex businesses totalling billions of dollars. They have a vision, enthusiasm, excellent business networks, and proven ability to get people working together to achieve goals.

Therefore, I would have significantly more confidence in SFF executing a plan, than the current board in its current factious state..

I agree in principal on the Management team but can not fathom how the business plan is irrelevant. I currently serve on Boards for a leading PE house as a non executive director, let me tell you I have never seen an investment passed on management only without the detailed business/ finance plan.

2. You can’t develop a detail plan without intimate knowledge of the environment:
To ask SFF to provide a detail financial plan for the next 3 to 5 yrs has little value without SFF given the time to do a detailed assessment of the way the RB board runs the club, how the processes & work practices, policy & procedures, detailed cost and revenue flows, etc. RB & the board are not going to allow that. Without this access, a detailed financial plan would be purely hypothetical speculation, which the current board, with its knowledge, would pick holes in it.

SFF has John Gdanski and reportedly Ross Levine on the new ticket.
Both incumbent Board members with total 12 years service between them.

If this does not comprise intimate knowledge I’d love to know what does?

Look at a business analogy of a Management buy out of an entity, it is the intimate knowledge that allows for the business plan and management structure to be sold as part of the package.

What happens in the real world?
In the world of mergers, acquisitions, take-overs, etc., the new party (planning to take control) will either be given full & unrestricted access & time (usually many months) to develop a detail plan before taking over, or, in most cases, the new party will simply propose a vision & a high-level plan. It will draw upon its general experience, knowledge, resources to develop the detail plan AFTER it has taken control. From here it will execute its plan.

Perhaps in the case of an appointed Administrator assuming control of a business and assessing the viability or a non hostile takeover, in this instance I disagree.

I have been involved for many years in assessing, building & executing detail plans across small and large enterprises, and the answer is always the same:
- You can’t build a credible plan without detailed knowledge
- The plan is only as good as the ability to execute,
- The plan ALWAYS changes and often is thrown away completely after a short time, because there are always unpredictable changes and new situations emerging
- Therefore, it’s the ability to execute that’s most important.

Agree in part and disagree in part.

I do not down play your management team importance as it is critical but I have never seen a deal get across the line with out a detailed financial plan and more importantly security.

[The Peanut]

. . . SFF has John Gdanski and reportedly Ross Levine on the new ticket. Both incumbent Board members with total 12 years service between them.

If this does not comprise intimate knowledge I’d love to know what does?

Fair enough 'Joffa Burns' - but doesn't that just give credibility to the SFF ticket - they have a good general understanding of what's going on inside the club but to disclose their information publicly would not be prudent at least. And it would be very unwise politics to disclose a plan that can only be publicly criticised by the board and they would probably want to make some changes to it after they sit down with the staff and discuss the probable situations, trends and implications regarding the figures.

I don't sit on a board, apart from when I am watching the training at Moorabbin, but I think that I know enough about politics and what I call common-sense to keep confidential details about the financials of a Football club with 30,000 members close to my chest - even if I know my information is fact. And surely every board member doesn't know the details of every last paperclip and postage stamp in the back of there head.

Indeed if SFF are willing to spash the club's financial details, sponsorship strategies and plans all over the newspapers I may reconsider my support for them. The Rod Butterss board hasn't done anything like that, except the financial information that must be provided to members (and probably the AFL) once a year at the AGM.

Edit: By the way I think your rationale makes great sense 'koas theory' - and I deleted a sentance

[kaos theory]

Disagree kaos, one reason I give is that Fox took over in a time when StKFC was close to going the way of the Thylacine, the SFF group are looking to replace an administration who have turned 3 Million dollar plus profits.

OK, there are stories behind all profit scenarios however the Butterss’ administration has not been financially irresponsible and the club is in a strong financial state.

As a member I’d like this to continue and I’d like to know how SFF plan to do this.

JB- Agree in part, but the club wasn't in dire straight when Butters took over, either. Plymton & his team had done a reasonably good job. My point is, that in many cases there is no detail plan when many of these new boards take over.

Yes, a plan is important, and as I say, the use of the 'irrelevant' was to highlight that too much focus is put on a detail plan here on solving everything, which it can't.

Also, it depends by what you mean 'detail' as well....I've seen many wide variations of what people deem as 'detail'....

I agree in principal on the Management team but can not fathom how the business plan is irrelevant. I currently serve on Boards for a leading PE house as a non executive director, let me tell you I have never seen an investment passed on management only without the detailed business/ finance plan.

Yes, as said above the 'irrelevant' bit was intended to raise profile of my post. But, I would say (without knowing the detail of your situation), that those investment decisions are based on sitution in which the party proposing the investment has had the necessary detailed access & time to build its business case.

In hostile merger/acquistion or board takeovers, the outside party is often unlikely to have the luxury of intimate insider knowledge to build a detailed plan of how it will take the company forward. Yes it will have a plan, but often doesn't release this (because the incumbent can freely pick holes in it), or if it does, it keeps it sufficently high-level so that it can't be pulled apart by the incumbent. Once it gets in/takes over, it usually undertakes a more detiled assessment before undertaking major change. And even then finds once it begins implementation of a new model, it encounters unplanned situations/events, which further moves the project away from its original plan.

There is a good reason why most mergers and aquistions are cost blowouts and don't work as planed in the long run....

SFF has John Gdanski and reportedly Ross Levine on the new ticket.
Both incumbent Board members with total 12 years service between them.

If this does not comprise intimate knowledge I’d love to know what does?

Look at a business analogy of a Management buy out of an entity, it is the intimate knowledge that allows for the business plan and management structure to be sold as part of the package.

Yes, good point. But I would also suspect the nature of the changes SFF want to bring into place (e.g. how the sponsorship process will work, how the detail of the sub-committee & re-vamped football department will work, the current processes etc, cost flows, etc. are all best done with direct contact with the people & processes at those points.

I do not down play your management team importance as it is critical but I have never seen a deal get across the line with out a detailed financial plan and more importantly security

Well, as I say above, it depends on the nature of the situation. I have seen situations where a body, group or organization take on a project with a high-level plan, vision, focused team etc. but is a bit sketchy on the detail....some succeed/some fail....and in other cases where the plan covers many 100s of pages.....some fail/some succeed.

Looking for a common denominator in all this is the quality & capability of the team/organization, its structures & processes, and its ability to adapt to change/responsiveness. The plan is just one of the many outcomes it produces....

So finally, while a 'detailed' plan is important, and will be cirtical to measure success (once they are in place and have added to the detiail of the plan), I'm trying to get people to be aware that the plan is just one component in the decision-making process.
.

[joffaboy]

Absolute pigs.hite and codswallop.

Incredibly facile and ignorant OP so far full of hole a truck could be driven through it.

Incredible to think that something as important as a detailed financial plan can be brushed off and over with a series of smokescreens and incredibly ignorant staements.

A complete disgrace and shows that the messiah complex is alive and well at this pathetic rabble of a club.

[Oh When the Saints]

The logic makes sense to me:

Skillful and well-connected board = ability to implement ANY required plans

Current board = fractured, high staff turnover, poor sponsor maintenance, questionable business involvement

Alternative board = united, possess the business ability to deal with sponsors, staff and resources


An MBA student with a Commerce degree could write you a detailed plan, but they would have SFA idea about implementing it.

On the other hand, a board of smart and well-connected businesspeople who are united will be likely to successfully implement any plans and details that are required.


It makes logical sense to me.


But I really have no idea about this stuff ....

[saintsRrising]

, questionable business involvement

....

OWTS.....are you sure that there are no conflicts of interest, or business connections with the current Board???


For example,,,,with Dana..her firm does the catering our our home ground. So she already has a clear conflict of interest...not saying that she should not be on the ticket.....just that this issue is on both tickets.


I think that there is a lot of spin going on.....or heads in the sand when it suits.


The reality is that most Board will have connections and conflicts of interest.

[saintsRrising]

Skillful and well-connected board = ability to implement ANY required plans

....

I think you overstate the ticket.

It has some good people on it.....but in AT and NB there are TWO members with little business experience. No problem with 1 ex player on the Board...but having 2 means that the ticket is weakened.

If FF think that we need more football expertise then they need to bump up the Football Department which is the right place for it.


The ticket as outlined is weak for example in marketing Business Development.



Now the current Board has weaknesses too....but FF is hardly a "Dream Team".

[Teflon]

There is a lot of talk here about some people waiting for 'detail' financial/business plan for the SFF before deciding whether to vote for them.

This is an irrelevant side issue. Why?

Ask yourselves: So what was Fox’s detail plan before he took over the saints? What was the Plymton’s board detail plan before they took over? What was Butters board plan before they took over? What was Pratt’s detail plan when he took over at Carlton? Simple, there was NO detail plan.

What’s most important is ability to EXECUTE a plan, not the plan itself.

Disagree kaos, one reason I give is that Fox took over in a time when StKFC was close to going the way of the Thylacine, the SFF group are looking to replace an administration who have turned 3 Million dollar plus profits.

OK, there are stories behind all profit scenarios however the Butterss’ administration has not been financially irresponsible and the club is in a strong financial state.

As a member I’d like this to continue and I’d like to know how SFF plan to do this.

1. Its the team that matters NOT the plan:
Most importantly, it’s the quality of the team that depends on whether a plan has any value or not. You can have the best & most detailed 'plan' in the world, but if you have very limited skill & ability, knowledge, ineffective resources, networks, etc. then your plan isn't worth the paper its written on.

Therefore consider a comparison of the teams:

The current board is fractured, with only 3 moderately talented individuals in RB camp. They have poor networks & business relationships and they have significant friction with their own staff, from the CEO level to basic admin staff. They have demonstrated an inability to maintain a cohesive board and management, and extremely high key staff turnover. They have shown poor skills in capturing and maintaining key sponsors. This gives little confidence to execute a new vast & complex plan covering increased expenditure & increased revenue.

SFF is a bigger, more diversely talented and more capable team. Collectively they have successfully managed complex businesses totalling billions of dollars. They have a vision, enthusiasm, excellent business networks, and proven ability to get people working together to achieve goals.

Therefore, I would have significantly more confidence in SFF executing a plan, than the current board in its current factious state..

I agree in principal on the Management team but can not fathom how the business plan is irrelevant. I currently serve on Boards for a leading PE house as a non executive director, let me tell you I have never seen an investment passed on management only without the detailed business/ finance plan.

2. You can’t develop a detail plan without intimate knowledge of the environment:
To ask SFF to provide a detail financial plan for the next 3 to 5 yrs has little value without SFF given the time to do a detailed assessment of the way the RB board runs the club, how the processes & work practices, policy & procedures, detailed cost and revenue flows, etc. RB & the board are not going to allow that. Without this access, a detailed financial plan would be purely hypothetical speculation, which the current board, with its knowledge, would pick holes in it.

SFF has John Gdanski and reportedly Ross Levine on the new ticket.
Both incumbent Board members with total 12 years service between them.

If this does not comprise intimate knowledge I’d love to know what does?

Look at a business analogy of a Management buy out of an entity, it is the intimate knowledge that allows for the business plan and management structure to be sold as part of the package.

What happens in the real world?
In the world of mergers, acquisitions, take-overs, etc., the new party (planning to take control) will either be given full & unrestricted access & time (usually many months) to develop a detail plan before taking over, or, in most cases, the new party will simply propose a vision & a high-level plan. It will draw upon its general experience, knowledge, resources to develop the detail plan AFTER it has taken control. From here it will execute its plan.

Perhaps in the case of an appointed Administrator assuming control of a business and assessing the viability or a non hostile takeover, in this instance I disagree.

I have been involved for many years in assessing, building & executing detail plans across small and large enterprises, and the answer is always the same:
- You can’t build a credible plan without detailed knowledge
- The plan is only as good as the ability to execute,
- The plan ALWAYS changes and often is thrown away completely after a short time, because there are always unpredictable changes and new situations emerging
- Therefore, it’s the ability to execute that’s most important.

Agree in part and disagree in part.

I do not down play your management team importance as it is critical but I have never seen a deal get across the line with out a detailed financial plan and more importantly security.

Burnsy your business acumen is showing...

Well said extremely true - you simply dont change a current Board that while it has made mistakes has ALSO presided over a relatively stable and financially succesfull period of the clubs history for a team based on "could be talented"........nup.

If you want change Westaway and Co - fair enough -put up your plan, any plan tell us - even in broad terms - HOW you gonna invest heavily in football and where the new revenue is coming from.

[saint patrick]

Can anyone show me the detailed plan that the current board submitted before they were voted in by members???

The alternative board has obvious business credentials and has two current board members included...

Would think its reasonable that they would have confidence in the proposed board before committing to a change as would Burke and Thompson

[Oh When the Saints]

presided over a relatively stable and financially succesfull period of the clubs history for a team based on "could be talented"........nup.

I have read a few comments recently in support of the current board, and they are based on RB's achievements in comparison to our history.

Comments such as "In relation to our debt and terrible performances in the 1980's, the current administration has been fantastic, and have kept the club stable - something that we would have killed for in the '80's".


This sort of attitude is flawed IMO.

It holds you back from aiming high, and advocates a cautious approach that is unwilling to take the necessary risks for success.

To succeed you must be willing to evolve, to change and to adapt.

You must embrace a view of excellence and push aggressively to be at the forefront in everything you do.

To approach the next 10 years of the St Kilda football club from the point of view of our history is a mistake.

Sure, we have come from a basket case to where we are now.

But that must not - and cannot - alter or cloud judgements of our future.


No use making cautious decisions based on our financial position in the mid-1980's.

The decision that must be made in November this year is a critical one for our club's future.


If we adopt a cautious approach and demand nothing more than a conservative and "head above water" position, then the club will flounder. We will not be able to win a premiership.


To survive and then excel you need to identify the areas which are preventing you from success.

No use middling along and resting on our laurels ...


The Saints need us to demand excellence, and as members we must be in a position where our thinking is not characterised by past failure, but based upon a realistic vision of future success.

[Teflon]

Can anyone show me the detailed plan that the current board submitted before they were voted in by members???

The alternative board has obvious business credentials and has two current board members included...

Would think its reasonable that they would have confidence in the proposed board before committing to a change as would Burke and Thompson

This is akin to a takeover - if your hostile and want to achieve that you should at least offer a viable alternative - not a list including the old chestnut "we just want to win Premierships"

[saintsRrising]

Well there is one BIG advantage to an incoming Board..... in not having a Business Plan.

...they then cannot held accountable for anything as there will almost nothing to measure their achievement, or lack of, against.


All we know so far is that they have promised to spend more,,,,,and increase total revenue.....and presumably have vastly superior sponsorship income.

What this exactly is meant to be.....who knows?????



But fair dinkum....if you don't have a plan....how do you know what you are trying to achieve......how do your work asa team to achieve a shared vision if in fact you don't have a shared vision.

It is one thing to say footy first , which rolls off the tongue, but what does this mean?????

[Joffa Burns]

Can anyone show me the detailed plan that the current board submitted before they were voted in by members???

The alternative board has obvious business credentials and has two current board members included...

Would think its reasonable that they would have confidence in the proposed board before committing to a change as would Burke and Thompson

From memory Butterss was a Board member and the anointed person from Plympton to be his successor.

Hardly think you can draw a comparison to the current situation with SFF.

This is in business terms a hostile takeover attempt.

But of course they have Burke and Thompson on their ticket so that means we should all vote for them blindly

[Oh When the Saints]

This is more akin to a federal election than a business merger.

Essentially, there is an element of risk involved in changing governments.

The Opposition will put forward broad changes they propose to make, but these are not presented with full and detailed costings.

Instead, they ask you to trust them.


The same factor of trust is involved here.


You must make a decision between the incumbent and the alternative board, based on the following:
- Business experience of alternative
- Perceived crediblity
- Personality/experience of candidates
- Passion for the club

There isn't going to be a detailed financial plan from an alternative ticket IMO.

There never has been as far as I am aware from any challenging board at any club in the past.


Simply put, they rely on members being willing to take a risk based on the above factors.


They ask for your trust ...


If you don't want to take that risk, or aren't prepared to, then vote for Butterss.

But if you are willing to put your faith in the business background, passion, expertise and credibility of the alternative, then vote for SFF.


Stop asking for a business plan. If the above factors aren't enough for you to vote for SFF, then don't.

[saint patrick]

This is in business terms a hostile takeover attempt.

But of course they have Burke and Thompson on their ticket so that means we should all vote for them blindly

Rubbish it is a challenge to the board no more,no less...Hostile take over ...pffftttt

and no I haven't decide to support this group blindly but are entilted to believe that people of Burkes ,Thompsons obvious intelligence and proven integrity not to mention Levine and Gdanskis good track record would have done their homework before commiting their support for a change

There are obvoiusly big morale problems at the club and these challenges are fuelled by enough people deciding it can't continue..

Buterss has sealed hiis fate by his public spat with Thomas which effectively railroaded the season and suggesting the AFL decide [as opposed to the members!]the validity of the proposed board challenge...

It is a fait Compli and my hope is that the club can move forward both on and off the field in 08.

[saintsRrising]

This is more akin to a federal election than a business merger.
.
.
.
.

Stop asking for a business plan. If the above factors aren't enough for you to vote for SFF, then don't.

Interesting....so it is your belief that Rudd will not put up any detailed policies??????....and of course ignore the many that he has already announced from workplace realtions to broadband.....

[Joffa Burns]

This is in business terms a hostile takeover attempt.

But of course they have Burke and Thompson on their ticket so that means we should all vote for them blindly

Rubbish it is a challenge to the board no more,no less...Hostile take over ...pffftttt

and no I haven't decide to support this group blindly but are entilted to believe that people of Burkes ,Thompsons obvious intelligence and proven integrity not to mention Levine and Gdanskis good track record would have done their homework before commiting their support for a change

There are obvoiusly big morale problems at the club and these challenges are fuelled by enough people deciding it can't continue..

Buterss has sealed hiis fate by his public spat with Thomas which effectively railroaded the season and suggesting the AFL decide [as opposed to the members!]the validity of the proposed board challenge...

It is a fait Compli and my hope is that the club can move forward both on and off the field in 08.

You have let your hatred of RB get you way off track here saint patrick.

My point was based on your comments that SFF do not need to supply a business plan and you backed this up with the Plympton/ Butterss change over as an example. It was a poor example as the circumstances were not remotely similar.

Personally I want to see what SFF have to offer as a business/ financial plan before they get my vote.

But don't let me stop you going off on a tangent

[Oh When the Saints]

This is more akin to a federal election than a business merger.
.
.
.
.

Stop asking for a business plan. If the above factors aren't enough for you to vote for SFF, then don't.

Interesting....so it is your belief that Rudd will not put up any detailed policies??????....and of course ignore the many that he has already announced from workplace realtions to broadband.....

No ... of course he announces policies ... but there're not detailed.

Find me a full costing of the effects of paying for a broadband network from the Future Fund.

You won't ....

That stuff is worked out when a party takes government and they have the resources of the Treasury department behind them.

Ditto SFF will work that stuff out when they have access to the club's books and staff ...

[Teflon]

This is more akin to a federal election than a business merger.
.
.
.
.

Stop asking for a business plan. If the above factors aren't enough for you to vote for SFF, then don't.

Interesting....so it is your belief that Rudd will not put up any detailed policies??????....and of course ignore the many that he has already announced from workplace realtions to broadband.....

No ... of course he announces policies ... but there're not detailed.

Find me a full costing of the effects of paying for a broadband network from the Future Fund.

You won't ....

That stuff is worked out when a party takes government and they have the resources of the Treasury department behind them.

Ditto SFF will work that stuff out when they have access to the club's books and staff ...

Youve lost objectivity in this.

Riduclous analogy - Rudd and his team DO have to and HAVE at least outlined their position, where it differs from the Gov (Iraq), and in detail - its a must at this late stage or theyd be dead in the water.

Where is 1 shred of detailed approach from SFF? OTHER than "we aim to spend more money on football"????

Big big difference.