Saints homeward bound!!

[thejiggingsaint]

Stop making sense P66, there's a good lad

[samuraisaint]

We left Moorabbin because of constant negating tactics by the council. Competing interests there.
We left the Junction because of the constant negative relationship between the cricket club and us.

Nothing has changed.

We were a basket case on-field at the Junction for 91 years for pete's sake and you all want us to high tail it back there.

We were a basket case at Moorabbin on-field and off-field for twenty years and you all see it as a promised land.

I, as much as the next member, would like us to get a base which is accessible and relevant for the supporters, the administration, and the players (in that order). For visibility of our brand in the sponsorship arena the Junction is fantastic, and probably for the supporters as well. If we move back to Moorabbin there will be a few old timers happy and people with small kids in the bayside suburbs who can take kids along to family days and the odd reserves match, but just remember that if we had stayed at Moorabbin we wouldn't be here now in our current form, and we wouldn't have played in grand finals like we have done. The move to Waverley in the early 90s and some excellent recruiting and coaching got us that.

From my perspective the most pressing issue is how to get our own reserves side back on the field. The Bulldogs have done it, so why not us?

[White Winmar]

One thing I wonder about is our inability to attract major sponsors while we've been at Seaford. I can't prove cause and effect, but it seems more than coincidental. Coupled with that are the constant rumours and grumbling about player dissatisfaction with its location, the fact that it is already outdated as a facility and it's invisibility as a venue. Even it's most ardent defenders struggle to mount a favourable argument for its retention. The argument against it is simple, p66. If it wasn't such a catastrophe, why then has there been constant talk and lobbying to get us out of there, almost from the beginning? All the talk is now about Moorabbin and JO. If it was even a satisfactory venue, none of these proposed moves would be afoot.

[thejiggingsaint]

Excellent points samuraisaint! White Winmar; "constant rumours and grumbling about player dissatisfaction" are part of the DNA of St Kilda FC. I recognise it, (don't like it) but accept that its a part of the fabric of our club, the point is however, to CHANGE the fabric of our club, even if some have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward that change. Wont make an awful lot of difference to me; I'll ALWAYS love this club WHEREVER it may play/train or whatever! The priority remains for me (after 27 pages of this thread) to get successful ON THE FIELD! Story ended!

[plugger66]

One thing I wonder about is our inability to attract major sponsors while we've been at Seaford. I can't prove cause and effect, but it seems more than coincidental. Coupled with that are the constant rumours and grumbling about player dissatisfaction with its location, the fact that it is already outdated as a facility and it's invisibility as a venue. Even it's most ardent defenders struggle to mount a favourable argument for its retention. The argument against it is simple, p66. If it wasn't such a catastrophe, why then has there been constant talk and lobbying to get us out of there, almost from the beginning? All the talk is now about Moorabbin and JO. If it was even a satisfactory venue, none of these proposed moves would be afoot.

Agreed there was player rumbling at the start because most players lived at least 30 minutes from the ground. That has changed and most live much close so that part of it has stopped. The only rumblings I hear from supporters is on here. I know many Saints people because of living in east Bentleigh and most if not all couldn't give a stuff where we train. None of them attend so they have the same response as me, why does it matter to us? As for the sponsorship well I think that has bugger all to do with where we train and a hell of a lot to do with Gilbert, Milne, Joey, Roo and Dal.

As I have said many times I couldn't care where we train as long as we have full control of excellent facilities. I heard nothing to suggest JO will have those 2 requirements. If Seaford is huge problem then Moorabbin looks the much better alternative.

[White Winmar]

If we have viable options in Moorabbin and JO, they will be out of Seaford at the speed of light.

[thejiggingsaint]

Yes, key phrase there WW is ; "VIABLE OPTIONS " (IMHO) the JO "deal"(?!?!) as it stands, is for us to share a facility with an organization that clearly DOES NOT want us there. Yet, despite all these signs, some want us to enter into this arrangement. Can't see the sense in it ( as it stands now)

[White Winmar]

Yes, key phrase there WW is ; "VIABLE OPTIONS " (IMHO) the JO "deal"(?!?!) as it stands, is for us to share a facility with an organization that clearly DOES NOT want us there. Yet, despite all these signs, some want us to enter into this arrangement. Can't see the sense in it ( as it stands now)

Well we do have to see what will eventually be put on the table for us. I don't want us at the JO if the deal is a CV stitch up. So far we've seen and heard nothing but speculation. I'm sure CV wants it all to themselves and is grandstanding and blustering along those lines. I just get the feeling the AFL wants us there and will have some say in it because it has the ability to lobby and pressure the government. Gillon seems to want it as well, which makes me think it's more likely than not that some sort of deal will be offered. As a club, we just need it to be the right deal, in our club's best interests and not just those of the government, CV and the AFL.

[thejiggingsaint]

can't disagree with anything you say there mate!

[samuraisaint]

On SEN, Nettlefold said that the problems surrounding sponsorship were attributable to the scandals surrounding the club during our golden era 2004-2011. I don't recollect him mentioning Seaford from memory.

[Mr Magic]

Yes, key phrase there WW is ; "VIABLE OPTIONS " (IMHO) the JO "deal"(?!?!) as it stands, is for us to share a facility with an organization that clearly DOES NOT want us there. Yet, despite all these signs, some want us to enter into this arrangement. Can't see the sense in it ( as it stands now)

Well we do have to see what will eventually be put on the table for us. I don't want us at the JO if the deal is a CV stitch up. So far we've seen and heard nothing but speculation. I'm sure CV wants it all to themselves and is grandstanding and blustering along those lines. I just get the feeling the AFL wants us there and will have some say in it because it has the ability to lobby and pressure the government. Gillon seems to want it as well, which makes me think it's more likely than not that some sort of deal will be offered. As a club, we just need it to be the right deal, in our club's best interests and not just those of the government, CV and the AFL.

Lots of 'backroom' deals/talking being discussed here (IMHO).

The AFL WANT CV at the JO.
Purely and simply they want access to the MCG earlier than they currently get.
They will quite happily pay the money to get that outcome.
There is zero thought of getting St Kilda back to the JO.
There is plenty of discussion in getting St Kilda back into Albert Park (St Kilda JO precinct) purely as a way of the AFL 'selling' the decision of paying millions to Cricket.
If they can get some sort of 'feel good PR' by getting the Saints 'back into St Kilda' then they'll push it.
NO PROPOSAL IS ABOUT US GOING BACK TO THE JO.
(even the Lib/Nat proposal was sharing admin facilities there only)

Also please remember that Albert Park is 'closed' for tenants for a period of 6-8 weeks each year due to the Grand Prix - so would not be usable by us if we were to move there.

[kosifantutti]

We had open training at the JO the day after the Grand Prix. It didn't seem to be an issue.

[Con Gorozidis]

[

Also please remember that Albert Park is 'closed' for tenants for a period of 6-8 weeks each year due to the Grand Prix - so would not be usable by us if we were to move there.

Well thats crap. Ive played Z grade mixed touch rugby at albert park during the Grand prix. The pool etc all stays open as well. So im sure it wouldnt affect a professional side.

[BackFromUSA]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

[saintspremiers]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

If Collingwood plays 2 of those games and another big club one or two then the answer will be yes.

[plugger66]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

Who do they have to sell it to? They don't even have to put in a cent at the moment. CV are moving without the help of the AFL.

[BackFromUSA]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

Who do they have to sell it to? They don't even have to put in a cent at the moment. CV are moving without the help of the AFL.

Well CV can accept the $25m facility and then that is the end of the story but they will end up with a second rate facility and no benefits of sharing resources.

Ultimately that could be their choice and will be worse off for it.

The AFL will keep their $10m and StKilda will stay at Seaford and Moorabbin.

The only problem with this is that CV will not necessarily release the MCG to the AFL unless they put in the $10m or the State Government forces CV to release their hold on it.

So CV could end up with JO and the MCG until end of March.

CV big winner.
AFL big loser.
Saints status quo.

[thejiggingsaint]

Mate, as long as OUR CLUB isn't shafted by either; CV or the AFL I for one will be happy! I have very uneasy feelings about this whole concept at the moment, and (at the risk of repeating myself yet again) think that the club does NOT need any diversions of this nature from the main task, which is to get success for the club ONFIELD. Incidentally, I've read all the comments that put the "return to Junction Oval" scheme forward as a "magic bullet" for sponsorship, membership and all manner of other economic benefits to the club. I would (humbly) suggest an even better way to achieve this: FINALS FOOTY! and .......dare I dream? a FLAG!

[plugger66]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

Who do they have to sell it to? They don't even have to put in a cent at the moment. CV are moving without the help of the AFL.

Well CV can accept the $25m facility and then that is the end of the story but they will end up with a second rate facility and no benefits of sharing resources.

Ultimately that could be their choice and will be worse off for it.

The AFL will keep their $10m and StKilda will stay at Seaford and Moorabbin.

The only problem with this is that CV will not necessarily release the MCG to the AFL unless they put in the $10m or the State Government forces CV to release their hold on it.

So CV could end up with JO and the MCG until end of March.

CV big winner.
AFL big loser.
Saints status quo.

CV are happy with25 million because it probably gets what they want. 10 million more probably gets close to want we want but doesn't help CV because they have to share. Werent you suggesting things like a SC and a place that they can rent out. I will have a guess and say CV couldn't give a rats about that stuff so yes they may not end up with that but they probably don't care at all.

[White Winmar]

On SEN, Nettlefold said that the problems surrounding sponsorship were attributable to the scandals surrounding the club during our golden era 2004-2011. I don't recollect him mentioning Seaford from memory.

That incompetent clown would say that, wouldn't he? Had nothing to do with a CEO who couldn't fart and chew gum at the same time, could it?

[BackFromUSA]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

Who do they have to sell it to? They don't even have to put in a cent at the moment. CV are moving without the help of the AFL.

Well CV can accept the $25m facility and then that is the end of the story but they will end up with a second rate facility and no benefits of sharing resources.

Ultimately that could be their choice and will be worse off for it.

The AFL will keep their $10m and StKilda will stay at Seaford and Moorabbin.

The only problem with this is that CV will not necessarily release the MCG to the AFL unless they put in the $10m or the State Government forces CV to release their hold on it.

So CV could end up with JO and the MCG until end of March.

CV big winner.
AFL big loser.
Saints status quo.

CV are happy with25 million because it probably gets what they want. 10 million more probably gets close to want we want but doesn't help CV because they have to share. Werent you suggesting things like a SC and a place that they can rent out. I will have a guess and say CV couldn't give a rats about that stuff so yes they may not end up with that but they probably don't care at all.

No the function venue (note - not a social club) is the funding for the final $5m required on the original plan.

$25m government money gets a scaled down second rate facility.

The AFL $10m delivers the bells and whistles.

Good luck to CV if they want to go alone. The get a second rate facility.

And the AFL are the big losers. They may not get the MCG in March.

Unless of course the State Government make their $25m conditional on CV handing over rights to MCG in March to the AFL.

IMHO the AFL and State Government will sort this out and CV and The Saints will comply.

[saintspremiers]

At the end of the day the AFL MUST get the MCG in March.

That's commonsense.

The MCG trust is controlled by the state govt so they should push it through.

[plugger66]

If the AFL doesn't put in $10m then CV gets a watered down $25m facility.

The question is whether $10m can be justified to stakeholders as good spending to get access to 3-5 more games at the MCG per year.

Easier sell if an AFL club benefits - especially when that club has helped pay off the Etihad asset.

Who do they have to sell it to? They don't even have to put in a cent at the moment. CV are moving without the help of the AFL.

Well CV can accept the $25m facility and then that is the end of the story but they will end up with a second rate facility and no benefits of sharing resources.

Ultimately that could be their choice and will be worse off for it.

The AFL will keep their $10m and StKilda will stay at Seaford and Moorabbin.

The only problem with this is that CV will not necessarily release the MCG to the AFL unless they put in the $10m or the State Government forces CV to release their hold on it.

So CV could end up with JO and the MCG until end of March.

CV big winner.
AFL big loser.
Saints status quo.

CV are happy with25 million because it probably gets what they want. 10 million more probably gets close to want we want but doesn't help CV because they have to share. Werent you suggesting things like a SC and a place that they can rent out. I will have a guess and say CV couldn't give a rats about that stuff so yes they may not end up with that but they probably don't care at all.

No the function venue (note - not a social club) is the funding for the final $5m required on the original plan.

$25m government money gets a scaled down second rate facility.

The AFL $10m delivers the bells and whistles.

Good luck to CV if they want to go alone. The get a second rate facility.

And the AFL are the big losers. They may not get the MCG in March.

Unless of course the State Government make their $25m conditional on CV handing over rights to MCG in March to the AFL.

IMHO the AFL and State Government will sort this out and CV and The Saints will comply.

Why would CV care about a function room? And of course the money is conditional on them leaving the G. You are making things up. I still don't see why the AFL need to give any money unless they really want us there and even if that's the case I cant see how or why CV would want us there just to get a function room but then have to share facilities.

[thejiggingsaint]

Concentrate on getting this club right ONFIELD! Let CV and the AFL and State government sort out their own mess.

[White Winmar]

Concentrate on getting this club right ONFIELD! Let CV and the AFL and State government sort out their own mess.

It's sounding more and more as though we'll end up with Moorabbin as our base (good). In the end things look like going 360 degrees. Thanks Archie! The Seaford project will be consigned to history's bin of failed ventures. I'd still like to have some presence, even if it is only an administrative one, in our spiritual home, St.Kilda.