Man City/Heart at Moorabbin?

[paulski]

I know cashed up Manchester City is looking for a new training base after their buy out of the Heart.
Do you think they'd consider Moorabbin? As a heart and Saints fan, would be great to see the two clubs joining forces to create a world class sporting precinct. Am I just dreaming?

[White Winmar]

It's a nice thought and a good idea, but I think it's got a touch of Darryl Kerrigan about it. I think they'll be looking for something in central Melbourne, or close to it. Maybe the Junction Oval? I'd love us to squeeze in on a deal like that!

[70s sainter]

Not sure they'd be happy with an oval or us with rectangle lines on the ground. Put a pitch in next door but share the same gym etc I'd be happy with that

[onlooker2]

I hope not.. We need Linton St to be one of our main options when we bail out of Seaford and the quicker we do it the better

[st.byron]

It's a nice thought and a good idea, but I think it's got a touch of Darryl Kerrigan about it...........

Touch of Daryl Kerrigan. I lolled.

[St Chris]

There was talk when Heart was first setting up that they were going to setup Glenferrie as a joint base for themselves and Melb Rebels, but finding coin was the problem - no longer a issue with The Sheik behind them....

[plugger66]

Why would they or us want a club that plays on a ground with the wrong shape train at our VFL ground in 2 years time. It isnt going to happen and also they are the opposition what ever way you look at it.

[gringo]

Why would they or us want a club that plays on a ground with the wrong shape train at our VFL ground in 2 years time. It isnt going to happen and also they are the opposition what ever way you look at it.

I think a manage a trios could work okay myself. Cross marketing ourselves to soccer fans might give us a few more neutrals. More like a deal that involves cross marketing and sharing knowledge than training grounds though. I would love to see the government and St Kilda work with Man City to get the junction oval up with elite recovery facilities they could both use. We could train at the two grounds- maybe do main weekly sessions out at Seaford, VFL at Moorabin and recovery sessions at junction oval. Worth a think about, we seem to stuff all our marketting opportunities up. We went to NZ instead of Tassie where they actually like footy.

[plugger66]

Why would they or us want a club that plays on a ground with the wrong shape train at our VFL ground in 2 years time. It isnt going to happen and also they are the opposition what ever way you look at it.

I think a manage a trios could work okay myself. Cross marketing ourselves to soccer fans might give us a few more neutrals. More like a deal that involves cross marketing and sharing knowledge than training grounds though. I would love to see the government and St Kilda work with Man City to get the junction oval up with elite recovery facilities they could both use. We could train at the two grounds- maybe do main weekly sessions out at Seaford, VFL at Moorabin and recovery sessions at junction oval. Worth a think about, we seem to stuff all our marketting opportunities up. We went to NZ instead of Tassie where they actually like footy.

Why would club want to do that? And I think something like that would ba about 200000 to one in happening. maybe we forget all that rubbish and try and get our own backyard in order. junction Oval is dead. Its a cricket ground. Soccer is opposition. And if Man City were going to go with any AFL club Im sorry but we would be near the bottom of the list.

[gringo]

Why would they or us want a club that plays on a ground with the wrong shape train at our VFL ground in 2 years time. It isnt going to happen and also they are the opposition what ever way you look at it.

I think a manage a trios could work okay myself. Cross marketing ourselves to soccer fans might give us a few more neutrals. More like a deal that involves cross marketing and sharing knowledge than training grounds though. I would love to see the government and St Kilda work with Man City to get the junction oval up with elite recovery facilities they could both use. We could train at the two grounds- maybe do main weekly sessions out at Seaford, VFL at Moorabin and recovery sessions at junction oval. Worth a think about, we seem to stuff all our marketting opportunities up. We went to NZ instead of Tassie where they actually like footy.

Why would club want to do that? And I think something like that would ba about 200000 to one in happening. maybe we forget all that rubbish and try and get our own backyard in order. junction Oval is dead. Its a cricket ground. Soccer is opposition. And if Man City were going to go with any AFL club Im sorry but we would be near the bottom of the list.

The way Junction is going it will be apartments not a cricket ground. We need to get smart and do a Hawks deal. They pay nothing for their facilities while we pay for 2 and the privilege of playing at Etihad. The Hawks were no better off than us and with some wise decisions they are now a financial giant. It's election time in Victoria. We pitch it to Libs and Labour and sell them Footy and soccer votes and call it a community hub or some s*** and we are able to get a rare win on them. The port Phillip residents are happy because they get to keep Junction up.

[plugger66]

I think a manage a trios could work okay myself. Cross marketing ourselves to soccer fans might give us a few more neutrals. More like a deal that involves cross marketing and sharing knowledge than training grounds though. I would love to see the government and St Kilda work with Man City to get the junction oval up with elite recovery facilities they could both use. We could train at the two grounds- maybe do main weekly sessions out at Seaford, VFL at Moorabin and recovery sessions at junction oval. Worth a think about, we seem to stuff all our marketting opportunities up. We went to NZ instead of Tassie where they actually like footy.

Why would club want to do that? And I think something like that would ba about 200000 to one in happening. maybe we forget all that rubbish and try and get our own backyard in order. junction Oval is dead. Its a cricket ground. Soccer is opposition. And if Man City were going to go with any AFL club Im sorry but we would be near the bottom of the list.

The way Junction is going it will be apartments not a cricket ground. We need to get smart and do a Hawks deal. They pay nothing for their facilities while we pay for 2 and the privilege of playing at Etihad. The Hawks were no better off than us and with some wise decisions they are now a financial giant. It's election time in Victoria. We pitch it to Libs and Labour and sell them Footy and soccer votes and call it a community hub or some s*** and we are able to get a rare win on them. The port Phillip residents are happy because they get to keep Junction up.

It makes little actually no difference what we think or say on here but i for one will be mighty pissed off if our club ever wasted a moment ever thinking about the junction Oval again. Lets use our time on Seaford and Moorabbin. We have got many things wrong over the last few years. We need to get those 2 things right. The junction oval is dead. has our club ever mentioned it?

[bobmurray]

Nothing wrong with Seaford, it serves it's purpose, it's a good deal for a club that operates on a shoestring budget , and, the Coffee shop clique have almost gone, so there's no issue.

[onlooker2]

Nothing wrong with Seaford, it serves it's purpose, it's a good deal for a club that operates on a shoestring budget , and, the Coffee shop clique have almost gone, so there's no issue.

Seaford does nothing to enhance the Club's commercial position which is the basis of our future. As a training venue it serves a purpose but it has to be more than that given our present position

[plugger66]

Nothing wrong with Seaford, it serves it's purpose, it's a good deal for a club that operates on a shoestring budget , and, the Coffee shop clique have almost gone, so there's no issue.

Seaford does nothing to enhance the Club's commercial position which is the basis of our future. As a training venue it serves a purpose but it has to be more than that given our present position

How is Hawthorn's position better? And do you really think Holden went to the pies because of where they train or because they are the pies? If that was the case I would expect Melbourne to become one of the biggest clubs in the AFL.

[onlooker2]

Nothing wrong with Seaford, it serves it's purpose, it's a good deal for a club that operates on a shoestring budget , and, the Coffee shop clique have almost gone, so there's no issue.

Seaford does nothing to enhance the Club's commercial position which is the basis of our future. As a training venue it serves a purpose but it has to be more than that given our present position

How is Hawthorn's position better? And do you really think Holden went to the pies because of where they train or because they are the pies? If that was the case I would expect Melbourne to become one of the biggest clubs in the AFL.

Hawthorn could go to Yarrawonga and train and their Board would still be knocking back key sponsors because of the strength of the Club and its success. In our case we have a developing player list, underperforming commercial operations in M'bin, are in serious trouble financially, have a membership that needs restoring, are trying to attract a top line CEO, and have a training base at Seaford. In our case all these things feed of each other. I don't think you can compare Hthorn's or C'wood's training venues to what StKilda's position is at present. At this point to improve our commercial position including sponsorship we need to consolidate big time to build for the future and part of that is leaving Seaford as the main training location. Some strong decisions are needed.

[bobmurray]

Nothing wrong with Seaford, it serves it's purpose, it's a good deal for a club that operates on a shoestring budget , and, the Coffee shop clique have almost gone, so there's no issue.

Seaford does nothing to enhance the Club's commercial position which is the basis of our future. As a training venue it serves a purpose but it has to be more than that given our present position

It's highly unlikely commercial decisions are made based on where you train or where the home "base" is, the commercial value is on how well the club is supported, how successful the team is and how often the club is in the media, and for the right reasons, not because another player has derailed the brand.

Blaming Seaford is folly.

[plugger66]

Seaford does nothing to enhance the Club's commercial position which is the basis of our future. As a training venue it serves a purpose but it has to be more than that given our present position

How is Hawthorn's position better? And do you really think Holden went to the pies because of where they train or because they are the pies? If that was the case I would expect Melbourne to become one of the biggest clubs in the AFL.

Hawthorn could go to Yarrawonga and train and their Board would still be knocking back key sponsors because of the strength of the Club and its success. In our case we have a developing player list, underperforming commercial operations in M'bin, are in serious trouble financially, have a membership that needs restoring, are trying to attract a top line CEO, and have a training base at Seaford. In our case all these things feed of each other. I don't think you can compare Hthorn's or C'wood's training venues to what StKilda's position is at present. At this point to improve our commercial position including sponsorship we need to consolidate big time to build for the future and part of that is leaving Seaford as the main training location. Some strong decisions are needed.

You do realise when the Hawks went to waverley they had finished 2nd and 3rd last in the previous 2 years and when we went to Seaford we had just made the GF. Where we train has no bearing on major sponsors whatsoever otherwise the hawks coming off bad seasons and going to waverley would have been really stuffed. its about good administration. Something that seems to be lacking for us and also all those off field drama's dont help either. You didnt address it but i take it you also think melbourne will now really grow? Im guessing they may to but thats about better administration and that includes getting Roos.

[onlooker2]

[quote="onlooker2"


You do realise when the Hawks went to waverley they had finished 2nd and 3rd last in the previous 2 years and when we went to Seaford we had just made the GF. Where we train has no bearing on major sponsors whatsoever otherwise the hawks coming off bad seasons and going to waverley would have been really stuffed. its about good administration. Something that seems to be lacking for us and also all those off field drama's dont help either. You didnt address it but i take it you also think melbourne will now really grow? Im guessing they may to but thats about better administration and that includes getting Roos.

OK. Understand where you and Bob Murray are coming from and I will try and put this another way and I am not trying to be a smart arse here. I can think of a number of hypotheticals but I will just put three:

No 1 If you were really wealthy, produced product/s and were seriously considering a major sponsorship at the Saints to get the exposure on the players' clothing, jumpers, sreens behind press conferences, some training ground signage and obviously TV would it make any difference to your decision to go ahead or not if the traing ground was at Seaford or M'bin?

No2 You are on the Saints Board and you understand that you have to plough money into the commercial operations at Linton St to make it more attractive for at least 5 years for revenue (it can't continue the way it is). As a Board member would you prefer the traing base at Seaford or M'bin to try and do something dramatic about the revenue?

No3 You are a top line CEO in a sport context. Saints have approached you to fill the vacant CEO's position and you are very interested. Saints have given you certain goals in relation to revenue if you decide to take the job. Given the goals which will expected to be met will your acceptance of the job be influenced by the main training venue being at Seaford or M'bin?

As I said in my initial post all these things feed off each other and what I would try and do is remove the common denominator problems to get us moving ie Seaford being one.

[PADDLEPOP1001]

+1

[plugger66]

OK. Understand where you and Bob Murray are coming from and I will try and put this another way and I am not trying to be a smart arse here. I can think of a number of hypotheticals but I will just put three:

No 1 If you were really wealthy, produced product/s and were seriously considering a major sponsorship at the Saints to get the exposure on the players' clothing, jumpers, sreens behind press conferences, some training ground signage and obviously TV would it make any difference to your decision to go ahead or not if the traing ground was at Seaford or M'bin?

No2 You are on the Saints Board and you understand that you have to plough money into the commercial operations at Linton St to make it more attractive for at least 5 years for revenue (it can't continue the way it is). As a Board member would you prefer the traing base at Seaford or M'bin to try and do something dramatic about the revenue?

No3 You are a top line CEO in a sport context. Saints have approached you to fill the vacant CEO's position and you are very interested. Saints have given you certain goals in relation to revenue if you decide to take the job. Given the goals which will expected to be met will your acceptance of the job be influenced by the main training venue being at Seaford or M'bin?

As I said in my initial post all these things feed off each other and what I would try and do is remove the common denominator problems to get us moving ie Seaford being one.

Ok I will answer the best I can. Number 1. I think a major sponsor couldnt give a stuff if they were training at Seaford or Moorabbin. The only people who really see that stuff now is when they are on TV. hardly anyone watches training these days because of the amount of closed sessions.

Number 2. Well that would depend if the council in that area wanted you and if we could get government grants. If it cost nothing to move back to Moorabbin and we were wanted you probably would go back there but I cant see why we would get grants that need to be close to 20 million to move back there and the club certainly cant afford 20 million.

Number 3. Still cant see why there is more revenue in Moorabbin that Seaford. happy for you to explain that to me.

I notice again you overlooked the points about the Hawks and demons.

[samuraisaint]

NFL teams don't train where they play. Dallas Cowboys train way out in North Dallas in a slum. San Fran Giants train at Oakland - gangland and bikie territory. Non-issue. Difference between Waverley and Seaford is nil. Waverley is as far away from the city for the latte sippers and the chardonnay quaffers as Seaford is, and at least Seaford is right on the bay - Waverley is close to nothing except traffic gridlock half the damn time. We train at Seaford and it looks as if we will develop players and sponsorship through the Moorabbin Oval base which we will play reserves at. It appears that the Seaford strategy was to buy some negotiating and bartering muscle when dealing with Kingston council, as well as plugging in to the massive support the Saints have from Mordialloc down through the Mornington Peninsula.
Stop wasting your time worrying about moving the club back fifty years in time to the Junction Oval. We were crap there anyway.