Tonight's AGM

[The Fireman]

thanks for that report Enrico..your reporting skills are far better than your football skills

[The Peanut]

Well, Grumpy One, the past is the past, and we live for the future.

Hence knowing how the Club is positioned currently (as the starting point) and what it is projecting over the ensuing period is of (vital?) interest.

We do this on the playing front, but we need a financially viable footy club as the foundation for us continuing to field a side (look at North Melbourne and the predicament they are in).

And keep a wary eye on the financial markets, because lenders are finding money harder to access - and they do lend long and borrow short.

In regards the Council, they had been elected on a ticket of opposing Poker Machines within the municipality - so they were always going to take advantage of any application to re-locate to "big note" themselves by at least reducing the number of machines.

Hence the impasse.

Now they are left to collect rent as landlord - and (we trust) to maintain the grounds and the infrastructure to publicly acceptable presentation and safety requirements. I trust the lease has been drawn to reflect exactly what the liability of the Tenant is.

In regards Vodaphone, they are a "little" player compared to Telstra and Optus - from my knowledge they could not have competed with either Telstra or Optus but saw another way by "getting into bed" with Pratt - except Pratt (probably and probably deliberately) did them over as he has done the rest of us over.

The pending Class Action will be of interest. It is not all over yet as I would believe.

Regarding vodaphone the way I understood it from what Archie Fraser said - The National office passed on the responsibilty for sponsorship to the new State Manager and the National office wanted to stay (with St Kilda and West Coast etc) for two two more years (as was the option) - as an Australian wide coverage. The Vodaphone state manager did a deal with Carlton who were going to reneg on their current phone sponsorship deal to accommodate them but their current sponsor refused to stand aside leaving vodaphone without a club.

A question was put to the board regarding future income development and once again AF answered on behalf of the club. He said that he and the new guy the club employed have set up a committee of professionals which meets (monthly I think) and they are seeking separate sponsorship deals in all business catagories i.e. Cars, retail etc.

[BakesFan]

excellent...and enjoyable.(to hear).... report ...thanks mate....god i love this club.....

100% with you there, stinger.

[BakesFan]

this bloke might make a coach!

If I give him some wool, can he make me one too?

[To the top]

Thanks Peanut.

No doubt there is a budget sub-committee and no doubt they have Cash Flow projections and business trading projections, hopefully showing liquid and profitable outcomes, including provisioning for TPP increases in 2009 for contract negotiation in the lead up to 2009. It is an on-going business.

But the real question is, in bankable dollars, how does our sponsorship sit against last year. No doubt, with debt said repaid, there are no principal plus interest repayments in the forward projections, so these funds are freed up for core business - ie performance on the footy field.

In a very competative telecommunications market, no doubt Vodaphone was attracted by Pratt perhaps indicating that Pratt's Companies (including Visy Board) would transfer from Optus to Vodaphone, and Vodaphone wet themselves at the prospect because Vodaphone do not win many over Telstra and Optus on pure pricing.

It would have been a huge get by the Vodaphone State Manager, who maybe pencilled in a bonus!

But it fell in the predictable hole - because, no doubt, Optus responded.

That is the way business is done.

Until the ink is dry, you have nothing.

[RBnW]

Thanks Peanut.

No doubt there is a budget sub-committee and no doubt they have Cash Flow projections and business trading projections, hopefully showing liquid and profitable outcomes, including provisioning for TPP increases in 2009 for contract negotiation in the lead up to 2009. It is an on-going business.

But the real question is, in bankable dollars, how does our sponsorship sit against last year. No doubt, with debt said repaid, there are no principal plus interest repayments in the forward projections, so these funds are freed up for core business - ie performance on the footy field.

In a very competative telecommunications market, no doubt Vodaphone was attracted by Pratt perhaps indicating that Pratt's Companies (including Visy Board) would transfer from Optus to Vodaphone, and Vodaphone wet themselves at the prospect because Vodaphone do not win many over Telstra and Optus on pure pricing.

It would have been a huge get by the Vodaphone State Manager, who maybe pencilled in a bonus!

But it fell in the predictable hole - because, no doubt, Optus responded.

That is the way business is done.

Until the ink is dry, you have nothing.

The pressure is on at Dodafone as i suggested a few months ago, from my source at Dodafone ...Dodafone HQ are questioning why you would go with Nth Melbourne....and miss the main merchandise order, Dodafone are not in the shops on the Nth jumpers and Nth cant afford to recall everything as it has a big cost... local Mr Dodafone thought he would get Carlton...didnt happen, so he went with Brayshaw who has worked him beautifully, by talking him up on radio and on the footy show, apparently he loves hearing his name.....problem is that doesnt sell phones to business people and companies and Nth members wont buy them....its a disaster for Vodafone and Nth a one year deal without your name on the shirts in the high sales area.... and no increase in phone sales to bussiness....
I will let you know when he gets the DCM (dont come Monday).....

[To the top]

Well RBnW some in the telecomunications industry (and elsewhere, including the AFL) have super opinions on themselves and their level of importance.

And the further up the totum pole you get, the further there is to fall as many have found out in the past and many more will find out in the future.

What is coming out of the USA currently, and allowing for the Fed. Reserve pouring liquidity into the banking system so they have some money to lend, there is more fallout in prospect in the Corporate world.

Shades of virtually exactly the same thing starting with the Share Market crash and then the Savings & Loans debacle in the USA in the late 1980's - and again with the "dot-com" bust of the early 2000's.

The very real upshot in regards footy clubs is pressure on sponsor dollars, and sponsor bankable dollars in particular.

It is time for great caution - and it is a time for some very hard work to be undertaken to protect the brand, revenues and reputation.

In these times markets (and that includes bankers) do not look favourably on any enterprise which does not have adequate debt servicing cover.

If North Melbourne, given their decision to spurn the AFL and re-location, can not maintain their sponsor base, well, they will have a major problem because the AFL may not continue to prop them up as it currently does (and for some other clubs as well).

The State Manager of Vodaphone may have provided a band aid, but what happens next year, and the year after? If you are relying on band aids and promoting the sympathy factor, you are in trouble.

Fortunately, during the 3 to 4 good years we had in the economic cycle (2003 -> July 2007, because the sub-prime crisis impacted from August 2007), St Kilda concentrated on repaying its debt.

Because debt and footy clubs is a lethal cocktail which will come back to bite.

North Melbourne, and the other clubs relying on AFL hand outs over and above distributions, are in the worst possible situation entering the worst possible time.

Even those who support themselves and who have no debt will need careful management, because income streams will become harder to source.

[RBnW]

Well RBnW some in the telecomunications industry (and elsewhere, including the AFL) have super opinions on themselves and their level of importance.

And the further up the totum pole you get, the further there is to fall as many have found out in the past and many more will find out in the future.

What is coming out of the USA currently, and allowing for the Fed. Reserve pouring liquidity into the banking system so they have some money to lend, there is more fallout in prospect in the Corporate world.

Shades of virtually exactly the same thing starting with the Share Market crash and then the Savings & Loans debacle in the USA in the late 1980's - and again with the "dot-com" bust of the early 2000's.

The very real upshot in regards footy clubs is pressure on sponsor dollars, and sponsor bankable dollars in particular.

It is time for great caution - and it is a time for some very hard work to be undertaken to protect the brand, revenues and reputation.

In these times markets (and that includes bankers) do not look favourably on any enterprise which does not have adequate debt servicing cover.

If North Melbourne, given their decision to spurn the AFL and re-location, can not maintain their sponsor base, well, they will have a major problem because the AFL may not continue to prop them up as it currently does (and for some other clubs as well).

The State Manager of Vodaphone may have provided a band aid, but what happens next year, and the year after? If you are relying on band aids and promoting the sympathy factor, you are in trouble.

Fortunately, during the 3 to 4 good years we had in the economic cycle (2003 -> July 2007, because the sub-prime crisis impacted from August 2007), St Kilda concentrated on repaying its debt.

Because debt and footy clubs is a lethal cocktail which will come back to bite.

North Melbourne, and the other clubs relying on AFL hand outs over and above distributions, are in the worst possible situation entering the worst possible time.

Even those who support themselves and who have no debt will need careful management, because income streams will become harder to source.

Wonderfully put....you should change you're name to Dow Jones...

[To the top]

Well, cycles come and cycles go.

If you can survive the downturns and then provision during the upswings you are better positioned to survive.

One of the concerns that I have is that St Kilda's upswings have been so very few and so very far apart!

Responsibility starts at the Board table with the setting of the business model to ensure, firstly, the club's continuing survival and, secondly, its ability to win some silver ware.

St Kilda had no hope before the introduction of the Draft and TPP's, because St Kilda struggled to survive, let alone make an impact by bringing home some silver ware (and it really should not have survived except for Fox monstering the ANZ Bank and other major creditors).

So we have to make the most of this period.

The time to deliver is here and now - because this club has to change the perception it has courtesy of its history - and get its name consistently on the Honour Board of Premiers and get some team photographs on its Club room walls.

[The Peanut]

Well, cycles come and cycles go.

If you can survive the downturns and then provision during the upswings you are better positioned to survive.

One of the concerns that I have is that St Kilda's upswings have been so very few and so very far apart!

Responsibility starts at the Board table with the setting of the business model to ensure, firstly, the club's continuing survival and, secondly, its ability to win some silver ware.

St Kilda had no hope before the introduction of the Draft and TPP's, because St Kilda struggled to survive, let alone make an impact by bringing home some silver ware (and it really should not have survived except for Fox monstering the ANZ Bank and other major creditors).

So we have to make the most of this period.

The time to deliver is here and now - because this club has to change the perception it has courtesy of its history - and get its name consistently on the Honour Board of Premiers and get some team photographs on its Club room walls.

I have to agree with you here ... we must remember that membership prices were frozen this year and if the economy slides so will the memberships, especially if the cost needs to be reviewed, which is likely and/or we don't win the big one.

I must say I was dissappointed with the board passing so many questions on to Archie Fraser to answer all night, its not as if they were voted in a few days ago.

Greg Westaway and his board said before he took over that they had a sponsor sorted but was it 'Jeld Wen' and if not, where is it? From what Archier Fraser was saying at the AGM he did did all (or at least most) of the negotiations with the Wen family in USA.

Does the new board believe they have done their job by fixing up the footy department and hiring a few new staff members? They have done a great job in footy but surely they should have their fingers on the pulse in every department - especially financial planning.

At the AGM the only board member that appeared to me to have any life in him was the MC.

[Enrico_Misso]

At the AGM the only board member that appeared to me to have any life in him was the MC.

Totally agree.
It showcased the talents of Archie and Ross Lyon.

But it also highlighted to me that if we do achieve success on and off the field it will be because of those two and their support staff, NOT the Board.

I have not seen any discernable impact from the new board.

And, to be blunt, Westaway looked uncomfortable and unknowlegible.
He only attempted to answer that one question about the expansion to 18 clubs and made a mess of it, such that Levin had too step in and help him out (with an answer that I found objectionable - but that is another issue).

[The Peanut]

...And, to be blunt, Westaway looked uncomfortable and unknowlegible.
He only attempted to answer that one question about the expansion to 18 clubs and made a mess of it, such that Levin had too step in and help him out (with an answer that I found objectionable - but that is another issue).

I found the answer to that question objectionable too and although its another issue it shouldn't be shoved under the carpet and it may be one of the same.

My understanding from what was told to us from the board is that they have made their decision and the members can go hop if they don't agree. - Perhaps the whole picture regarding finances is that if the club goes along with the AFL we can attract a new income stream through the new structure ... Archie did infer that we could be advantaged by it ... without selling players and games, but one wonders just what we are going to sell.

[saint08]

...And, to be blunt, Westaway looked uncomfortable and unknowlegible.
He only attempted to answer that one question about the expansion to 18 clubs and made a mess of it, such that Levin had too step in and help him out (with an answer that I found objectionable - but that is another issue).

I found the answer to that question objectionable too and although its another issue it shouldn't be shoved under the carpet and it may be one of the same.

My understanding from what was told to us from the board is that they have made their decision and the members can go hop if they don't agree. - Perhaps the whole picture regarding finances is that if the club goes along with the AFL we can attract a new income stream through the new structure ... Archie did infer that we could be advantaged by it ... without selling players and games, but one wonders just what we are going to sell.

Great thinking .... it seems from these posts that there needs to be 12 clubs to prevent the AFL plans for extra teams...he says there are not anywhere near 12 who would object, so you want StK to object ? Gee that's wise thinking Peanut. Piss off the AFL, who has a great deal it can do for us if we are strategic in when we side with them and when we object.

( as we see from Hawks /Kennett and their shocking draw and no home game at telstra for ages...etc)

We need to be smarter than that TBH. To fight for nothing is madness. There is a bigger picture for our club, and to fight "city hall" on the wrong issue - and one we would be certain to lose - is sheer madness.

I for one prefer honesty to the members , and strategic thinking in board management and a long term view - not take a stance when you are sure to lose. It's about winning the war , not the battle.

Sounds more like the board sussed out the other clubs, and accepted that the smart move for the club, was not to take the Kennett path.


your previous posts usually show more insight than this one WoM.

[The Peanut]

Great thinking .... it seems from these posts that there needs to be 12 clubs to prevent the AFL plans for extra teams...he says there are not anywhere near 12 who would object, so you want StK to object ? Gee that's wise thinking Peanut. Piss off the AFL, who has a great deal it can do for us if we are strategic in when we side with them and when we object.


...

I for one prefer honesty to the members , and strategic thinking in board management and a long term view - not take a stance when you are sure to lose. It's about winning the war , not the battle.

Sounds more like the board sussed out the other clubs, and accepted that the smart move for the club, was not to take the Kennett path.


your previous posts usually show more insight than this one WoM.

I never said that I object to what they are doing ... just thinking out loud on a footy forum ... I would say that you are right in regarding why we have taken the path ... and please don't hold me to insightful posts, I'm just a supporter like eveyone else on here. Love the club and very miuch want it to succeed but history has made me wary of boards if they think they are not accountable to members or get too big for their boots ... not saying things are that bad but as mentioned in previous posts I was surprised that the board appeared aloof (and blunt on this topic) to members at the AGM.

[Bono]

Not sure if I missed it or not but were any Life Members inducted?

[saint08]

Great thinking .... it seems from these posts that there needs to be 12 clubs to prevent the AFL plans for extra teams...he says there are not anywhere near 12 who would object, so you want StK to object ? Gee that's wise thinking Peanut. Piss off the AFL, who has a great deal it can do for us if we are strategic in when we side with them and when we object.


...

I for one prefer honesty to the members , and strategic thinking in board management and a long term view - not take a stance when you are sure to lose. It's about winning the war , not the battle.

Sounds more like the board sussed out the other clubs, and accepted that the smart move for the club, was not to take the Kennett path.


your previous posts usually show more insight than this one WoM.

I never said that I object to what they are doing ... just thinking out loud on a footy forum ... I would say that you are right in regarding why we have taken the path ... and please don't hold me to insightful posts, I'm just a supporter like eveyone else on here. Love the club and very miuch want it to succeed but history has made me wary of boards if they think they are not accountable to members or get too big for their boots ... not saying things are that bad but as mentioned in previous posts I was surprised that the board appeared aloof (and blunt on this topic) to members at the AGM.

I accept the correction - but on the core point of board attitude- one of my mates who was actually there, says that the issue came up when some bozo asked not only what the clubs position was on the AFL's 18 teams idea ( fair enough for that part), but then - and you'll love this- asked the board to committ that it wouldn't make a decision without putting it back to the members to let the members decide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why vote in a board at all- maybe just ask Archie to spend 50 grand and do a mailout and ballot for 25000 voting members every time there is an issue to decide on, and spend hours bringing all of the issues up - both direct and indirect , and debate it - keeping all issues confidential from te media if evryone promises to keep it all quiet, and then eventually we can move on , until the next month or so when another issue arises of significance.

A bit rude IMO to iplicitly question the directors ability to make a sensible decision without first asking the mebers- i mean FFS , we just voted the guys in , and now they are supposedly wrong by saying that there were 9000 people who gave them a vote to make those very decisions , and to trust them to make it.

If we want to relocate/change the club logo or name or colours or song or motto etc - we must as members have the say. but I dont want a board that is so weak that it needs to go back and ask the members what each of them want on big issues that arise. Trust the people we just elected, wait and see how they do..

[rodgerfox]

Can I ask, was there a ceremonial burning of an Grant Thomas effigy?

[saint08]

Can I ask, was there a ceremonial burning of an Grant Thomas effigy?

LOL...

fire restrictions prevented it...the size of the fire may have been too large

[Enrico_Misso]

If we want to relocate/change the club logo or name or colours or song or motto etc - we must as members have the say. but I dont want a board that is so weak that it needs to go back and ask the members what each of them want on big issues that arise. Trust the people we just elected, wait and see how they do..

Well I think that expanding the competition to 18 clubs is a HUGE decision.
And one where the Board needs to represent the views of the members.

Do we really want 18 teams ?
An even more hopelessly compromised draw ?
Further dilution of our chances of winning Premierships
Further dilution of the standards
Biaised treatments to "help" the new clubs get up and running
(which means further impositions/obstacles for us)
Further competition for limited sponsorship dollars
More travelling.

I would venture to guess that the VAST majority of our supporters would be TOTALLY against this.
The Board should be representing us on this.
Cowering behind the "but if we stand up to them they might make life tough for us" defence is cowardly, and the long term consequences of rolling over and agreeing to two extra "favoured" new teams is probably more negative than standing up to Dimwit & Coy now.

My message to Westaway is
- 1) Canvass our views
- 2) Listen to us
- 3) Then represent us

[saint08]

If we want to relocate/change the club logo or name or colours or song or motto etc - we must as members have the say. but I dont want a board that is so weak that it needs to go back and ask the members what each of them want on big issues that arise. Trust the people we just elected, wait and see how they do..

Well I think that expanding the competition to 18 clubs is a HUGE decision.
And one where the Board needs to represent the views of the members.

Do we really want 18 teams ?
An even more hopelessly compromised draw ?
Further dilution of our chances of winning Premierships
Further dilution of the standards
Biaised treatments to "help" the new clubs get up and running
(which means further impositions/obstacles for us)
Further competition for limited sponsorship dollars
More travelling.

I would venture to guess that the VAST majority of our supporters would be TOTALLY against this.
The Board should be representing us on this.
Cowering behind the "but if we stand up to them they might make life tough for us" defence is cowardly, and the long term consequences of rolling over and agreeing to two extra "favoured" new teams is probably more negative than standing up to Dimwit & Coy now.

My message to Westaway is
- 1) Canvass our views
- 2) Listen to us
- 3) Then represent us

Oh , look over there Enrico... a brick wall you and others dont like and dont want ! - and let us assume also that you have brilliant reasons to want to bravely fight against the wall !....pls proceed to show that you are not a coward , by bravely standing by your views and bashing your head against that brick wall...

Some will say - such courage !. Other will say that bashing your head against a brick wall under the guise of not being a coward, when the outcome of your fight will not achieve anything and damage you in the future and lessen your power , is not really a great idea.


Also, why are you assuming that the directors dont think exactly like you , and dont want it, but accept the smart move is to not bash their heads aganst the brick wall

[bigcarl]

If we want to relocate/change the club logo or name or colours or song or motto etc - we must as members have the say. but I dont want a board that is so weak that it needs to go back and ask the members what each of them want on big issues that arise. Trust the people we just elected, wait and see how they do..

Well I think that expanding the competition to 18 clubs is a HUGE decision.
And one where the Board needs to represent the views of the members.

Do we really want 18 teams ?
An even more hopelessly compromised draw ?
Further dilution of our chances of winning Premierships
Further dilution of the standards
Biaised treatments to "help" the new clubs get up and running
(which means further impositions/obstacles for us)
Further competition for limited sponsorship dollars
More travelling.

I would venture to guess that the VAST majority of our supporters would be TOTALLY against this.
The Board should be representing us on this.
Cowering behind the "but if we stand up to them they might make life tough for us" defence is cowardly, and the long term consequences of rolling over and agreeing to two extra "favoured" new teams is probably more negative than standing up to Dimwit & Coy now.

My message to Westaway is
- 1) Canvass our views
- 2) Listen to us
- 3) Then represent us

i'm with you on this enrico.

most of the fans i speak to (us as well as other clubs) are deadset against expanding it to 18 teams, mainly because it gives their club even less of a chance of winning a flag.

as you say, the board is there to represent the membership and must listen to our views on this very important issue.

personally i've nothing against expanding the competition into "growth areas" but not by simply adding new teams.

the gold coast and western sydney slots should be filled by melbourne clubs who cannot survive in a marketplace that already supports too many teams.

i blame the kangaroos for the whole sorry fiasco. they should have taken the gold coast option when it was offered to them.

if you can't pay, you can't play, imo. and i'd say the same thing about us if we were broke.

the board needs to show some balls and vision, overlook any short term financial gain and see the big picture. ie, how will this effect st kilda's chances of ever winning a flag.

also, can someone clear this up for me?

I thought it was 12 of the 16 clubs had to agree to adding new teams. if that is correct then it is hardly the fait accompli that the board seems to be presenting it as.

[To the top]

The underlying reason for the speculation as to 18 teams is simple.

Representation in geographical areas.

Where are these new licences to be issued? West Sydney and the Gold Coast.

Given this underlying reason (and the sole reason I would argue), the solution is simple.

The AFL Administration, starting from Fitzpatrick to Demitriou, moves teams to those locations.

The next question, and where the passion which the AFL is so afraid of comes into play, is what teams?

Again, simple,

Which teams rely on extra-ordinary hand outs from the AFL year after year after year (and what do their forward projections indicate) to survive and to field a team?

The AFL sets an even playing field, and each club receives its distribution. No more and no less.

Once the AFL has the guts to do this, and does not run scared of a minority who will oppose re-location including to pander to their own egos, and those clubs are forced to accept the AFL edict to re-locate to West Sydney and the Gold Coast the "problem" is solved.

And they can receive extraordinary "re-location" support for a period of (say) 3 years.

Of course there is the contigency that the AFL can not allow a non-Victorian side to fail financially, so there is a virtual guarantee of financial support.

Further, these re-located sides will be competative from day 1 - vital to attract memberships (bouyed by a Victorian base) and supporters to their home games - who goes to watch a side being comprehensively beaten week after week?

Fortunately St Kilda has improved its financial profile over the past couple of years - including by concentrating on debt repayment - and not needing to seek additional support from the AFL to make ends meet.

St Kilda cut its cloth.

So St Kilda is not a club that can be identified as a target for forced re-location - thanks to the business plan of the former Board which did correctly put the horse before the cart (and we trust the current board does not put the cart before the horse because the risks are obvious).

St Kilda, for its part, should resist the 18 team push because it is the coward's way out - or into an expanding market! Not that you can say that publicly because Demitriou, well Demitriou is Demitriou and vitriolic retribution will come. But behind the scenes, and to Demitriou, Demitriou should be told to do his job, properly. 2 clubs will object, obviously. 14 will support and that is the result required. Demitriou is compromised. And he may well resign because his ego has been pricked - and he has been shown to be what he is - an employee who acts at the direction of the Board.

The solution is obvious and the solution's players identify themselves courtesy of their Balance Sheets, their Trading Statements and their forward projections - recognising that a slowing economy (courtesy of JWH's mate Bush's America - but don't get me started on that!) will make sponsor bankable dollars harder to access.

Do these clubs continue to need AFL extra-ordinary assistance to meet their financial obligations - and how long can such a situation be tolerated?

St Kilda is not currently at risk, but it should take care.

[bigcarl]

can someone clear this up for me?

I thought it was 12 of the 16 clubs had to agree to adding new teams. i saw it reported that way in the herald sun (which has been known to be wrong).

if that is correct then it is hardly the fait accompli that our board seems to be presenting it as and we should fight it tooth and nail

[Ice Wolf]

can someone clear this up for me?

I thought it was 12 of the 16 clubs had to agree to adding new teams. i saw it reported that way in the herald sun (which has been known to be wrong).

if that is correct then it is hardly the fait accompli that our board seems to be presenting it as and we should fight it tooth and nail

The way ive heard it is that to protect the clubs from their own self interest and for the good of the competition, AFL commision decsions can only be overturned by the agreement of a 2/3 majority. This came about because when the clubs have been left to own devices they almost destroyed themselves.

[bigcarl]

AFL commision decsions can only be overturned by the agreement of a 2/3 majority

is that right?

the herald sun must have mis-reported it then, because i distinctly remember reading that two thirds of the teams must agree to the new teams coming in.

i'm seeking further clarification on this