Westaway joins the fray

[plugger66]

So in other words you have no idea who why or how negotiations went when giving us stadium deals. Consistent would have to be your middle name.

I have absolutely no idea.

I was basing my post on your statements (granted they were barely legible so I may have misinterpreted them) that "Deals could be better that was up to the clubs".

If the AFL left it up to the clubs, to which you responded by saying "Just maybe the clubs actually thought they were getting a good deal and wanted to do it all themselves", then the AFL are totally and outrageously negligent to let the clubs do deals of such magnitude and significance to the competition in the long term - merely because the clubs wanted to! (according to you).


If the AFL did the deals, then they are simply incompetent and complete amateurs to get it so wrong.


Either way, it was yet another example of the AFL stuffing up and now having to fix it.

I made it up like you do. Fancy even thinking I would know who did the deals. Anyway for a sport that seems to be the worst run sport in the world in your opinion it is going ok. Pity it seems that people outside the AFL think it is the best run sport in Australia.

[Johnny Member]

I made it up like you do. Fancy even thinking I would know who did the deals. Anyway for a sport that seems to be the worst run sport in the world in your opinion it is going ok. Pity it seems that people outside the AFL think it is the best run sport in Australia.

You know that the VFL survived two World Wars, and a Great Depression?


It even dropped down to a handful of teams throughout those years.


But it still survived, and thrived.



And you think that the stooges running the show right now deserve ticketape parades and bronze statues for having the game in the state it is in now?


f*** me, you're easily pleased.

[Johnny Member]

I made it up like you do. Fancy even thinking I would know who did the deals. Anyway for a sport that seems to be the worst run sport in the world in your opinion it is going ok. Pity it seems that people outside the AFL think it is the best run sport in Australia.

I haven't made anything up.

I didn't make a statement either way. I merely responded to statements made by yourself.

[MCG-Unit]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

It's a total farce that the AFL basically gets rid of all the grounds except 2. And then they stuff up the dealings with the stadiums so the clubs that are at each ground don't get the same deals!

In reality, it's not like clubs really get to choose! There's 2 grounds. And 10 clubs - the AFL had to ensure that someone played at Docklands!

So they did - but then they stuff up the deals! It's just appalling really. Just another in the long line of AFL debacles.

Why would they want more than 2 grounds. Works perfectly. They even get to own one of the grounds in 13 years. Deals could be better that was up to the clubs. Dont see Essendon complain about their deal. Sometimes you just have to be a strong club. Anyway I would love to know which ground you would have kept considering Waverley need millions to fix it up and I even doubt Etihad would have been built if Waverley was still there. Anyway you are very consistant.

P66 I reckon the AFL deliberately let Waverley become run down - the amenities were a disgrace (not the playing field) so that people would not protest as much when it was closed.

I never trusted that shifty Ian Collins. Even when the crowd was 70,000 v Rich I think, he wouldn't concede it was still a popular venue, stating something like "....so you should expect that crowd...."

IMO they could have upgraded Waverley and built ES....

[plugger66]

I made it up like you do. Fancy even thinking I would know who did the deals. Anyway for a sport that seems to be the worst run sport in the world in your opinion it is going ok. Pity it seems that people outside the AFL think it is the best run sport in Australia.

You know that the VFL survived two World Wars, and a Great Depression?


It even dropped down to a handful of teams throughout those years.


But it still survived, and thrived.



And you think that the stooges running the show right now deserve ticketape parades and bronze statues for having the game in the state it is in now?


f*** me, you're easily pleased.

At least you continue to make things up. Not sure I have ever asked for any parade but then again your consistancy shows. The VFL survived and that was about it. The AFL thrived and it is due to more than AD at the moment. It has been the hard decisions that obviously arent always popular but lets not forget there hasnt been a popular CEO since probably Kenneth Luke in about 1970. The AFL make mistakes. BHP make mistakes. Com Bank make mistakes but every one makes mistakes it is how you deal with them that matter. The NBL made mistakes and it now shows. If soccer doesnt fix up their mistakes they will be next national league in trouble. I dont think anyone with knowledge thinks the AFL is in trouble at the moment. Well no more than what is usually written at this time every year.

[Johnny Member]

The AFL make mistakes. BHP make mistakes. Com Bank make mistakes but every one makes mistakes it is how you deal with them that matter.

No it's not.


The business of the Commonwealth Bank, and BHP is to make money for share holders.

They achieve that. Making mistakes is irrelevant, if it doesn't negatively impact that goal.


The AFL's business is not to make money. Somewhere along the line, they and some of the general public seem to have started to believe that it is.

It's not.

Their business is a sporting competition. As a sporting competition, the game is in tatters.

It's a debacle. It's a joke.


As a money making business, it's doing well. Very well.


But that's not the business they're in. Or at least, it shouldn't be the business they're in.

[plugger66]

The AFL make mistakes. BHP make mistakes. Com Bank make mistakes but every one makes mistakes it is how you deal with them that matter.

No it's not.


The business of the Commonwealth Bank, and BHP is to make money for share holders.

They achieve that. Making mistakes is irrelevant, if it doesn't negatively impact that goal.


The AFL's business is not to make money. Somewhere along the line, they and some of the general public seem to have started to believe that it is.

It's not.

Their business is a sporting competition. As a sporting competition, the game is in tatters.

It's a debacle. It's a joke.


As a money making business, it's doing well. Very well.


But that's not the business they're in. Or at least, it shouldn't be the business they're in.

What has making money got to do with the example I used. If anything the companies trying to make money for shareholders shouldnt make mistakes. Anyway the word debacle obviously has a different meaning to you than me. I would have thought how Soccer and the NBL is being run is a debarcle or the NBA at the moment in America. The game is in tatters. That comment may be popular on here but to people who know the game well they would just piss themselves laughing at you. Ha Ha Ha.

[InkerSaint]

The AFL's business is not to make money. Somewhere along the line, they and some of the general public seem to have started to believe that it is.

The core business of the clubs is to win premierships. Their best chance of doing that is to make as much money as possible, to have the best training facilities, sports science knowledge, recruiting, and support teams possible.

The core business of the AFL is to administer the competition and promote the game in a market that includes other sports codes in competition for the public's attention.

Making money is a pillar of both the clubs' and the AFL's objectives.

[Johnny Member]

The AFL's business is not to make money. Somewhere along the line, they and some of the general public seem to have started to believe that it is.

The core business of the clubs is to win premierships. Their best chance of doing that is to make as much money as possible, to have the best training facilities, sports science knowledge, recruiting, and support teams possible.

The core business of the AFL is to administer the competition and promote the game in a market that includes other sports codes in competition for the public's attention.

Making money is a pillar of both the clubs' and the AFL's objectives.

Case in point the Butterss administration.

The thinking was when the were turfed out, that they were too focussed on making money and had forgotten that the only reason they need money is to assist in the core business of the joint - footy.

That's why they were kicked out. And why when Westaway came in, his crew balanced things up and pumped money back into footy.

It paid immediate dividends.


At what point are the AFL going to start putting money in to ensuring a fair, even comp with integrity?

Because at this point, they've completely lost the plot and have neglected the comp itself for too long.

[InkerSaint]

Case in point the Butterss administration.

The thinking was when the were turfed out, that they were too focussed on making money and had forgotten that the only reason they need money is to assist in the core business of the joint - footy.

That's why they were kicked out. And why when Westaway came in, his crew balanced things up and pumped money back into footy.

The Butterss administration was criticised for delivering profits by slashing costs - and for neglecting revenue generation. We were 16th in the league for revenue generation.

Integrity shouldn't cost a cent. If it hurts revenue - that's a different matter...

[Johnny Member]

Case in point the Butterss administration.

The thinking was when the were turfed out, that they were too focussed on making money and had forgotten that the only reason they need money is to assist in the core business of the joint - footy.

That's why they were kicked out. And why when Westaway came in, his crew balanced things up and pumped money back into footy.

The Butterss administration was criticised for delivering profits by slashing costs - and for neglecting revenue generation. We were 16th in the league for revenue generation.

Integrity shouldn't cost a cent. If it hurts revenue - that's a different matter...

The biggest concern was that they weren't spending enough on footy.

They'd become obsessed with the profit sheet at the end of the year. It was their glory.

But unfortunately, wasn't utilised to actually benefit the reason for the club's existence.

[duckduckduckgoose]

gotta laugh at the argument re number of clubs and chance to win.

every club, all other things being equal, will have a 17/1 chance (1 win out of 18) to win the flag next year.

the 'best' club in any particular year may indeed have the same chance or better as a slightly lesser 'best' club in an earlier year in a smaller field (geelong 2007 more chance than hawthorn in 1971), this argument hardly counters the fact that:

Every clubs chance to be the best club has been reduced from 15/1 to 17/1 with the two new teams, all other things being equal.

you almost got it right.

what you and others dont understand is that while yes it is true that adding an extra team into the competition changes the odds of winning the flag from 1/17 to 1/18... those odds change for EVERY team. It's relative, but not to history ie comparing one years odds to another, because from a purely mathematical point of view the number of teams in the competition has no bearing on how hard or easy it is to win.

A premiership is no harder to win with more teams, and no easier to win with less teams.

This is of course assuming all those non mathematical elements are taken out of the equation and we are just talking about statistics and numbers here.

Hypothetically: only 2 teams in the AFL in 2012 Saints and Pies.

wow awesome instead of having just the 5.8% chance we had last year (1/17) we now have a whopping 50% chance of winning (1/2).
oh wait.... so do the Pies...
ergo the net gain in ease of winning the flag is zero.

Now if we are talking about more than just statistics (talent pool dillution, less existing money to be shared around due to more clubs etc.) that is a whole other kettle of fish.


All you 'expert' statistician folks banging on about things like tattslotto and horse races forgot that in those events you have multiple opponents at the same time in a single event.
You cannot play a game of football against more than one team at a time unless we start talking parallel universes, and if that was the case you would be correct in your application of odds.

Once again, i repeat the odds of winning a flag are relative to all others in the competition and statistically speaking, the assumption that adding another team decreases an existing teams chances of winning is completely wrong.

If you would like to know more about relativity I believe some bloke called Albert SomethingOrOther had a word or two to say about it.


Thank you and goodnight.

[matrix]

shesh, expert?
cant see too many calling themselves experts
so yeah
more chance
thats pretty much what everyone said

isnt it?

[desertsaint]

i like ddgoose's angle - as it recognises in a sense that nothing changes - all clubs (everything being equal) have the same chance as each other regardless of the number.
but it does remain that the more clubs in meqns each club has less chance of winning. 17/1.
remove eight clubs and each club has more chance. 9/1.
as for p66's view - he isn't able to shake past history. bit like a peraon who tosses 100 heads in a row thinks there's more chance he'll throw a head again. he doesn't divorce the other factors.
in regards to st kilda he may be right, in regards to the odds, he aint.

[Animal Enclosure]

It's good to see Greg Westaway going "public" for a change. Obviously no-one is listening to his in-house comments at the AFL.

However, at the end of the day, who conducted the "very poor" negotiations with Etihad - the St Kilda Football Club. It's very, very easy to look back in hindsight, but a lot of the Saints long-term decision making has been deplorable.

Surely the AFL has enough clout to get some contract changes made with Etihad management. I thought that something was done along these lines over 12 months ago. The whole situation is now getting very messy and some Clubs are in real trouble. Collectively, all parties - the AFL, Clubs, Etihad (which the AFL will own in around 2025) need to come together to sort something out.

I think that the AFL Chairman is also a major shareholder of the Etihad
stadium. If so, it's a "major conflict of interest" for him to be in.

Our original deal was dubious & borderline fraudulent. Wayne Jackson needed a few clubs to tenant Colonial Stadium in support of having Essendon as the feature tenant.

The numbers presented to the St Kilda board looked like a Golden Goose to a club that had always had the ar5e handing out of it's pants. The figures could have been put together by Christopher Skase, they were that rubbery.

On field we were a mess & those first 3 years (2000-2002) would have been a death knell for the club had the AFL not under written a certain amount to cover the drop off in membership. Luckily for the club, on field improved & membership/sponsorship, etc with it.

Those continually saying that we should have gone to the MCG are ignoring the fact that the MCG Trust did not want St Kilda. It was Docklands or Southport (eventually) for the Saints.

Our deal is better now but when you compare it to a club like Geelong, we are massively disadvantaged. The past few admins have done a wonderful job of keeping us away from AFL special distributions but the key years lie ahead (when on field will inevitably drop away).

A flag would have provided a massive 'future fund' for the lean times ahead, alas it was not meant to be.