Private Ownership ?

[WinnersOnly]

I wonder how the AFL & St Kilda FC would feel about full or part private ownership. Our club has struggled for survival for the past 100 years and we are still at a considerable disadvantage when teams like Collingwood generate 150% more revenue than we can. We continue to be cellar dwellers when it comes to income and membership, is it something the club should consider?

The perfect example is South Sydney with the huge additional income flow Russell Crowe and Holmsacort put in they now boast the 2014 premiership cup and have the largest membership numbers in the NRL.

I wonder if anyone in the corporate world would be brave enough to take us on?

[FQF]

Most professional sports have privately owned clubs. I've never really thought about the issue and the pros and cons. Is there any reason why the AFL owns all the clubs?

[FQF]

Most professional sports have privately owned clubs. I've never really thought about the issue and the pros and cons. Is there any reason why the AFL owns all the clubs?

This pretty much sums it up.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... zt3wd.html

[desertsaint]

Most professional sports have privately owned clubs. I've never really thought about the issue and the pros and cons. Is there any reason why the AFL owns all the clubs?

This pretty much sums it up.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... zt3wd.html

Completely overlooks the NRL situation as mentioned by the OP. But yes, as it mentions, could only be an investment of love. So just how much money is Bana on?
C'mon Eric, get Lindsay onside - heck get Gina onside (wouldn't that pee off a few on here?), and invest in the Saints! Money lost would be a simple tax dodge, love gained would send you smiling to your graves.

[FQF]

Gina is a Saints fan?

[plugger66]

Never let it happen AFL. We don't need that crap.

[desertsaint]

Never let it happen AFL. We don't need that crap.

We could sell ourselves to a consortium of brothel madames - surely there'd be some profit in that?
Home games back in St Kilda - thousands of frustrated men pouring out of the gates after another loss, vouchers for a 15% discount to the visit the local.
When we're successful give the vouchers to the visiting fans!

And no idea FQF - but we need a benefactor with more money than sense, or with a warm, womanly heart - not sure Gina fits either category, but there you go.

[stinger]

I wonder how the AFL & St Kilda FC would feel about full or part private ownership. Our club has struggled for survival for the past 100 years and we are still at a considerable disadvantage when teams like Collingwood generate 150% more revenue than we can. We continue to be cellar dwellers when it comes to income and membership, is it something the club should consider?

The perfect example is South Sydney with the huge additional income flow Russell Crowe and Holmsacort put in they now boast the 2014 premiership cup and have the largest membership numbers in the NRL.

I wonder if anyone in the corporate world would be brave enough to take us on?

if i can jag one of those 50 mil plus tattslotto wins..........

[Toy Saint]

In theory the clubs are owned by the members, and there is a ruling body to run the competition and ensure equitable opportunities for all member clubs.

But in this day and age where commercialisation has taken over professional sports, the AFL has effectively become the 'owner' of the competition and all of its participants. The AFL mandate is to grow the sport and maximise its income. This is directly opposed to ensuring equitable opportunity for all clubs. The AFL very deliberately organise the 'draw' to ensure maximum exposure and maximum revenue for the controlling body. The AFL very deliberately support new teams in new markets to help grow revenue for the controlling body.

Clubs like St Kilda are very vuleranable to the existing structure. We probably would be better off with private ownership. There could be an opportunity for the club to issue shares to members who would effectively become owners. The owners would appoint a board and a CEO. Significant investors may be entitled to significant privilages.

The $billion dollar broadcast rights money would be shared by participating clubs. Lets say $1b divided by 18 = $heaps of cash. Everybody is happy.

The private owners would almost certainly wish to reduce their funding to the AFL. There is an upside and a downside. The upside is a reduction of wasted resources in running the AFL, the downside is that there would be less funding available to develop the game.

Also with private ownership, we could expect the dilution of the salary cap, and as a result the rich clubs would be able to afford better players. So we may be screwed.

In summary, I vote for private ownership.

[plugger66]

In theory the clubs are owned by the members, and there is a ruling body to run the competition and ensure equitable opportunities for all member clubs.

But in this day and age where commercialisation has taken over professional sports, the AFL has effectively become the 'owner' of the competition and all of its participants. The AFL mandate is to grow the sport and maximise its income. This is directly opposed to ensuring equitable opportunity for all clubs. The AFL very deliberately organise the 'draw' to ensure maximum exposure and maximum revenue for the controlling body. The AFL very deliberately support new teams in new markets to help grow revenue for the controlling body.

Clubs like St Kilda are very vuleranable to the existing structure. We probably would be better off with private ownership. There could be an opportunity for the club to issue shares to members who would effectively become owners. The owners would appoint a board and a CEO. Significant investors may be entitled to significant privilages.

The $billion dollar broadcast rights money would be shared by participating clubs. Lets say $1b divided by 18 = $heaps of cash. Everybody is happy.

The private owners would almost certainly wish to reduce their funding to the AFL. There is an upside and a downside. The upside is a reduction of wasted resources in running the AFL, the downside is that there would be less funding available to develop the game.

Also with private ownership, we could expect the dilution of the salary cap, and as a result the rich clubs would be able to afford better players. So we may be screwed.

In summary, I vote for private ownership.

You do remember Skase and Edelston don't you. The AFL wouldn't allow and thank god for that.

[oh when the]

Maybe not the same but I had shares in the Saints in the 80's to help save the Club and then gave them back to Club sometime later.

[gringo]

Would be an absolute disaster for us. If I was a corporate man I would take over the club for a nominal fee then asset strip the f%$# out of it and shut the doors. Corporations have no place in a passion industry.

[saintbrat]

Would be an absolute disaster for us. If I was a corporate man I would take over the club for a nominal fee then asset strip the f%$# out of it and shut the doors. Corporations have no place in a passion industry.

agree
and an owner could be quite specific abuot lots of things that may affect on field, off field, ot could prove to be restrictive for sponsorship-- theoretically you wouldn't need as much BUT

givenhow former owners of AFL teams have gone- Skase and Edelstone= would think the AFL would be stearing well clear of putting the fate of a club in the hands of one

Carlton are probably the closest to being ' privately owned with Jenni and the pokies guy putting in squillions/

[Toy Saint]

In theory the clubs are owned by the members, and there is a ruling body to run the competition and ensure equitable opportunities for all member clubs.

But in this day and age where commercialisation has taken over professional sports, the AFL has effectively become the 'owner' of the competition and all of its participants. The AFL mandate is to grow the sport and maximise its income. This is directly opposed to ensuring equitable opportunity for all clubs. The AFL very deliberately organise the 'draw' to ensure maximum exposure and maximum revenue for the controlling body. The AFL very deliberately support new teams in new markets to help grow revenue for the controlling body.

Clubs like St Kilda are very vuleranable to the existing structure. We probably would be better off with private ownership. There could be an opportunity for the club to issue shares to members who would effectively become owners. The owners would appoint a board and a CEO. Significant investors may be entitled to significant privilages.

The $billion dollar broadcast rights money would be shared by participating clubs. Lets say $1b divided by 18 = $heaps of cash. Everybody is happy.

The private owners would almost certainly wish to reduce their funding to the AFL. There is an upside and a downside. The upside is a reduction of wasted resources in running the AFL, the downside is that there would be less funding available to develop the game.

Also with private ownership, we could expect the dilution of the salary cap, and as a result the rich clubs would be able to afford better players. So we may be screwed.

In summary, I vote for private ownership.

You do remember Skase and Edelston don't you. The AFL wouldn't allow and thank god for that.

Agree Skase & Edelston don't inspire confidence. But using that arguement, anybody who remembers Alan Bond may argue that TV stations should not be privately owned.

For most of my life private ownership in the AFL was abhorent to me, but having lived in the USA for a number of years and becomming a passionate San Diego Padre (baseball) fan, I began to understand how private ownership works. It has its pro's and it's cons.

I've followed St Kilda since the early 1960's and in that time I've whitnessed our game change from a surburban sport to a large national corporation. The way the AFL is run has it's pro's and it's cons.

The Australian goverment is 'privatising' most things, there is the view that private enterprise is more efficient than the public service. Look at the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra for example.

As football becomes more comercialised, I believe private ownership becomes more equitable and more effective. It doesnt necessarily make me happy to believe this, if I had a magic wand I'd turn the clock back a few decades to the days of passionate surbaban rivalry.

[Con Gorozidis]

Not sure about the actual idea but it has the makings of a terrific comedy film!

[ace]

How much would we have to pay them to take the club over ?

[plugger66]

In theory the clubs are owned by the members, and there is a ruling body to run the competition and ensure equitable opportunities for all member clubs.

But in this day and age where commercialisation has taken over professional sports, the AFL has effectively become the 'owner' of the competition and all of its participants. The AFL mandate is to grow the sport and maximise its income. This is directly opposed to ensuring equitable opportunity for all clubs. The AFL very deliberately organise the 'draw' to ensure maximum exposure and maximum revenue for the controlling body. The AFL very deliberately support new teams in new markets to help grow revenue for the controlling body.

Clubs like St Kilda are very vuleranable to the existing structure. We probably would be better off with private ownership. There could be an opportunity for the club to issue shares to members who would effectively become owners. The owners would appoint a board and a CEO. Significant investors may be entitled to significant privilages.

The $billion dollar broadcast rights money would be shared by participating clubs. Lets say $1b divided by 18 = $heaps of cash. Everybody is happy.

The private owners would almost certainly wish to reduce their funding to the AFL. There is an upside and a downside. The upside is a reduction of wasted resources in running the AFL, the downside is that there would be less funding available to develop the game.

Also with private ownership, we could expect the dilution of the salary cap, and as a result the rich clubs would be able to afford better players. So we may be screwed.

In summary, I vote for private ownership.

You do remember Skase and Edelston don't you. The AFL wouldn't allow and thank god for that.

Agree Skase & Edelston don't inspire confidence. But using that arguement, anybody who remembers Alan Bond may argue that TV stations should not be privately owned.

For most of my life private ownership in the AFL was abhorent to me, but having lived in the USA for a number of years and becomming a passionate San Diego Padre (baseball) fan, I began to understand how private ownership works. It has its pro's and it's cons.

I've followed St Kilda since the early 1960's and in that time I've whitnessed our game change from a surburban sport to a large national corporation. The way the AFL is run has it's pro's and it's cons.

The Australian goverment is 'privatising' most things, there is the view that private enterprise is more efficient than the public service. Look at the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra for example.

As football becomes more comercialised, I believe private ownership becomes more equitable and more effective. It doesnt necessarily make me happy to believe this, if I had a magic wand I'd turn the clock back a few decades to the days of passionate surbaban rivalry.

But TV stations have been privately owed for ever. Footy clubs have only been privately owed twice for 2 failures. If we were privately owed then the person owning it would want to make money otherwise they would just get rid of it and you start again. The problem is footy clubs don't make money unless you are one of the bigger clubs. And I don't know much about US sport but I would suggest the big difference is all or most clubs make huge money. Even when Fox was our president he wouldn't put in his own money because he knew it was wasted money. Rich people don't usually try and waste money. Anyway it matters little because it wont happen in the next 30 years and that's all that matters to me.

[bergholt]

Would be an absolute disaster for us. If I was a corporate man I would take over the club for a nominal fee then asset strip the f%$# out of it and shut the doors. Corporations have no place in a passion industry.

Correct. Footy teams aren't meant to make money. There's no way anyone could get a return out of it short of exactly what you say.

[Furphy]

The Edelsten experience back in the mid 80's seems to have put a dampener on future private ownership on AFL clubs. BTW, why the hell is Edelsten still being invited to the Brownlow Medal function?

[plugger66]

The Edelsten experience back in the mid 80's seems to have put a dampener on future private ownership on AFL clubs. BTW, why the hell is Edelsten still being invited to the Brownlow Medal function?

Maybe he isn't.

[gringo]

In theory the clubs are owned by the members, and there is a ruling body to run the competition and ensure equitable opportunities for all member clubs.

But in this day and age where commercialisation has taken over professional sports, the AFL has effectively become the 'owner' of the competition and all of its participants. The AFL mandate is to grow the sport and maximise its income. This is directly opposed to ensuring equitable opportunity for all clubs. The AFL very deliberately organise the 'draw' to ensure maximum exposure and maximum revenue for the controlling body. The AFL very deliberately support new teams in new markets to help grow revenue for the controlling body.

Clubs like St Kilda are very vuleranable to the existing structure. We probably would be better off with private ownership. There could be an opportunity for the club to issue shares to members who would effectively become owners. The owners would appoint a board and a CEO. Significant investors may be entitled to significant privilages.

The $billion dollar broadcast rights money would be shared by participating clubs. Lets say $1b divided by 18 = $heaps of cash. Everybody is happy.

The private owners would almost certainly wish to reduce their funding to the AFL. There is an upside and a downside. The upside is a reduction of wasted resources in running the AFL, the downside is that there would be less funding available to develop the game.

Also with private ownership, we could expect the dilution of the salary cap, and as a result the rich clubs would be able to afford better players. So we may be screwed.

In summary, I vote for private ownership.

You do remember Skase and Edelston don't you. The AFL wouldn't allow and thank god for that.

Agree Skase & Edelston don't inspire confidence. But using that arguement, anybody who remembers Alan Bond may argue that TV stations should not be privately owned.

For most of my life private ownership in the AFL was abhorent to me, but having lived in the USA for a number of years and becomming a passionate San Diego Padre (baseball) fan, I began to understand how private ownership works. It has its pro's and it's cons.

I've followed St Kilda since the early 1960's and in that time I've whitnessed our game change from a surburban sport to a large national corporation. The way the AFL is run has it's pro's and it's cons.

The Australian goverment is 'privatising' most things, there is the view that private enterprise is more efficient than the public service. Look at the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra for example.

As football becomes more comercialised, I believe private ownership becomes more equitable and more effective. It doesnt necessarily make me happy to believe this, if I had a magic wand I'd turn the clock back a few decades to the days of passionate surbaban rivalry.

I think the NRL compared to AFL is exactly the example of why you don't want to put it in private hands. In NSW AFL is getting a foothold because the NRL won't put development money in at the same levels. I'm not a huge fan of privatisation as it is. Share holders always want a bigger return every year so services have to drop off, staff need to be cut or more has to be charged. When we privatise in Australia the government still has to pay our money to put in infrastructure in PPPs but then hand over the running and profits to a private enterprise. It's more efficient in the fact they employ less people and don't offer services that aren't absolutely required but anyone that deals with any private company running the things that we used to own would say they don't offer better service in any way to customers.

[Dave McNamara]

Never let it happen AFL. We don't need that crap.

This!


We are a real club, not a franchise!

[Dr Spaceman]

For all the feel good stuff about South Sydney's glorious 2014 it needs to be remembered the Rabbitohs are owned by multi millionaires Russell Crowe & Peter Holmes a Court.

And word is that Holmes a Court's share may soon find its way into the hands of a bloke named James Packer.

I'd absolutely love to see the Saints win their second Flag, but not at the expense of the club becoming a play thing of the obscenely rich & infamous!

[happy feet]

Whilst South Sydney have tasted success in the NRL, private ownership is not all it's cracked up to be. Ask anyone around Newcastle and they will tell you it's been a complete failure there in NRL, A-League and basketball.

[andrewg]

Gina is a Saints fan?

I know Lindsey is...still can't belive we don't have Lindsey Fox on the back of our jumpers