Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Legendary wrote:A poor crowd will still result in a low return from the stadium when it's under AFL management. The AFL will find (like they did at Waverley) that stadium management is not a cheap exercise.
Hopefully they eventually realise that for some short term pain, the league will be stronger overall with 18 healthy clubs, not 8 uber-rich ones and 10 on life support.
I don't want handouts, I just want us to have the fixturing and exposure that is afforded to the clubs that are already much wealthier than us.
Would be interesting to see how much money Collingwood has made over the years from perpetually having Anzac day, Queens Birthday & hosting all of the other power clubs every single year.
This year, they host Geelong, Essendon, Carlton & Hawthorn… wowee what are the odds that the AFL's magical software would spit out that formula again…
Toy Saint wrote:Anybody know if we are legally entitled to take legal action against the governing body to 'force' them to allow us to make money at the gate?
That makes no sense because St Kilda and AFL aren't really separate entities. It's like your liver suing your brain for forcing it to metabolise so much alcohol. Or the HR department suing the Finance department for forcing them to cut costs. Neither can exist without the other so they're effectively all part of the same corporate entity.
The only people who pretend that's not the case are the supporters. The marketing of the AFL requires that supporters see a distinction between the separate brands. Luckily that works for them otherwise the competition would be tedious.
Dave McNamara wrote:The Hillbillies have offered the Poodles $750,000 per game to play some of their home matches down there.
We should look to take up that offer for several of our selected home games.
Definitely worth considering. I think Finnis needs to think about:
- another NZ game
- a Cairns game or two
- a Tassie game or two
- Geelong games
- Optus Oval - do they still want AFL games?
We're going to lose a lot of games in the next couple of years. Our attendances are going to be poor anyway. So it actually doesn't matter that much if we lose our home-ground advantage and play in front of fewer supporters, because financially we'll be well and truly ahead. More money means better player development, simple as that. If we could play four home games a year in far-flung locations then we could maybe net $2m - $3m more, taking into account the losses we'd make playing GC at Docklands, for instance. That's a lot of cash for a club like us.
And maybe the constant travel could even help condition our kids so that we become a really good team on the road when we're challenging again.
And maybe we could get an airline to sponsor us! St Kilda Nomads, sponsored by Virgin Australia!
Legendary wrote:Nettlefold - for whatever flaws he had - advocated really strongly behind the scenes for YEARS on our stadium deal. He went above and beyond on this issue, and still got nowhere, although we did manage to improve the deal we had under Waldron/Fraser.
Even when the AFL take over Etihad, we are not going to experience the returns of Geelong or Collingwood at the MCG. A poor crowd will still result in a low return from the stadium when it's under AFL management. The AFL will find (like they did at Waverley) that stadium management is not a cheap exercise.
It will depend if they make it a clean stadium. if they do we can make huge money. Not like geelong because we dont have the support and the ground is to bit to big to get much reserved seating but never the less we can make a lot of money. More than the clubs at the G do. the problem is how viable is a clean stadium.
Dave McNamara wrote:The Hillbillies have offered the Poodles $750,000 per game to play some of their home matches down there.
We should look to take up that offer for several of our selected home games.
Definitely worth considering. I think Finnis needs to think about:
- another NZ game
- a Cairns game or two
- a Tassie game or two
- Geelong games
- Optus Oval - do they still want AFL games?
We're going to lose a lot of games in the next couple of years. Our attendances are going to be poor anyway. So it actually doesn't matter that much if we lose our home-ground advantage and play in front of fewer supporters, because financially we'll be well and truly ahead. More money means better player development, simple as that. If we could play four home games a year in far-flung locations then we could maybe net $2m - $3m more, taking into account the losses we'd make playing GC at Docklands, for instance. That's a lot of cash for a club like us.
And maybe the constant travel could even help condition our kids so that we become a really good team on the road when we're challenging again.
And maybe we could get an airline to sponsor us! St Kilda Nomads, sponsored by Virgin Australia!
The majority of this proposal has some financial merit.
The problem with all this talk of selling home games is that then you are faced with a reduction in membership because members don't see the value of paying for 11 home games when in reality it is 7 or 8 home games and 3-4 replacement games in Melbourne. Also, and someone here may know better then myself, but I was of the understanding that when you have 'compensation' home games like the richmond game later this year to make up for the NZ game the club has to fork out money to the ground to have our members come in for that game?
amusingname wrote:The problem with all this talk of selling home games is that then you are faced with a reduction in membership because members don't see the value of paying for 11 home games when in reality it is 7 or 8 home games and 3-4 replacement games in Melbourne. Also, and someone here may know better then myself, but I was of the understanding that when you have 'compensation' home games like the richmond game later this year to make up for the NZ game the club has to fork out money to the ground to have our members come in for that game?
Exactly what i was going to say. i reckon its short term gain for long term pain. We become the nomad club. One game goes then 2 then 3. When does it stop especially if we are still losing huge amounts of money and like you say there are people who want value for money for their membership. Always beea donation for mebut some cant afford to just donate. They will give their membership away and buy the cheapest foxtel packeage which is a lot more money but you do get many channels.
Dave McNamara wrote:The Hillbillies have offered the Poodles $750,000 per game to play some of their home matches down there.
We should look to take up that offer for several of our selected home games.
Definitely worth considering. I think Finnis needs to think about:
- another NZ game
- a Cairns game or two
- a Tassie game or two
- Geelong games
- Optus Oval - do they still want AFL games?
We're going to lose a lot of games in the next couple of years. Our attendances are going to be poor anyway. So it actually doesn't matter that much if we lose our home-ground advantage and play in front of fewer supporters, because financially we'll be well and truly ahead. More money means better player development, simple as that. If we could play four home games a year in far-flung locations then we could maybe net $2m - $3m more, taking into account the losses we'd make playing GC at Docklands, for instance. That's a lot of cash for a club like us.
And maybe the constant travel could even help condition our kids so that we become a really good team on the road when we're challenging again.
And maybe we could get an airline to sponsor us! St Kilda Nomads, sponsored by Virgin Australia!
The majority of this proposal has some financial merit.
I was thinking along these lines too. But the other issue is that ground rationalisation was partly brought in to standardise the quality of the television spectacle which is what has made it a billion dollar industry. I don't think Foxtel and channel 7 enjoy lugging all their equipment to NZ, Canberra, Tasmania, Darwin etc where the games are often played on strange shaped windy grounds resulting in poor quality footy in front of small crowds. Etihad is a state of the art stadium for broadcasting and they will be demanding as many games are played there as possible to recoup their billion dollar investments. This is the balancing act the AFL has too manage and why we get chucked some money our way for playing there and having to write cheques to Ian greedy bastard Collins.
Thats a steve keen chart I believe.
Why do you think it is wrong Mrcordz?
I have seen several graphs that has average household debt at 160% of income so it cant be far off.
We are 2nd in the world behind Canada I believe.
back to the op.
in my opinion our five point plan should be:
1. Much more pokies revenues.
2. More sponsorship revenue
3. At least break even on members while we are down and cash in when we get back up.
4. Stand up to the afl/etihad and fight tooth and nail for a better deal there. Look at every threat or loophole we can find there. Why are saints fans paying to make spotless catering rich for starters.
5. If we have to play teams like gws and gc - lets play them away.
Dave McNamara wrote:The Hillbillies have offered the Poodles $750,000 per game to play some of their home matches down there.
We should look to take up that offer for several of our selected home games.
Definitely worth considering. I think Finnis needs to think about:
- another NZ game
- a Cairns game or two
- a Tassie game or two
- Geelong games
- Optus Oval - do they still want AFL games?
We're going to lose a lot of games in the next couple of years. Our attendances are going to be poor anyway. So it actually doesn't matter that much if we lose our home-ground advantage and play in front of fewer supporters, because financially we'll be well and truly ahead. More money means better player development, simple as that. If we could play four home games a year in far-flung locations then we could maybe net $2m - $3m more, taking into account the losses we'd make playing GC at Docklands, for instance. That's a lot of cash for a club like us.
And maybe the constant travel could even help condition our kids so that we become a really good team on the road when we're challenging again.
And maybe we could get an airline to sponsor us! St Kilda Nomads, sponsored by Virgin Australia!
The problem with selling games is that supporters are forced to find other activities/ teams or hobbies .
They realize that maybe footy doesn't mean as much to them anymore . The habit and the routine is broken .
It's hard to ask supporters to jump back on board years later .
You could lose a whole generation and not get them back.
Con Gorozidis wrote:Thats a steve keen chart I believe.
Why do you think it is wrong Mrcordz?
I have seen several graphs that has average household debt at 160% of income so it cant be far off.
We are 2nd in the world behind Canada I believe.
Correct Con.
Govt debt might be low at the moment but things can change.
Anyway, the Aust Govt had to guarantee the liabilities of the Aust banking sector which implicitly raised sovereign debt, by a lot.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
