Nick and his other Nick’s turns over a new leaf.

[asiu]

we’ll be hot to trot this year

best take advantage

[BarryGrogan]

Our growth shouldn't be about trying to find new supporters.

That's an exhausted market.


Hawthorn make their dough from pokies. Don't believe the bulls***. Pokies are their cash cow - they try to hide that grubby truth by inflating their supporter and membership numbers. It's a smokescreen.

There's a reason the AFL bounced them from the cushy fixtures - cause they don't have the support that the big clubs have. They are bandwagoners that come and go.


Growth for us, won't look like growth does for other clubs. To grow, we need to find a niche that doesn't go head to head with big clubs - that's a fight we simply can't win, and it needs to align with the AFL's agenda.


It doesn't matter what supporters think. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter how many members you have - it's whether the AFL values you.

Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond bring value in the form of crowds and eyeballs.
The interstate clubs bring value in market share.

f***, Gold Coast can't win a game, don't have any supporters and cost the AFL millions every year - yet they're an incredibly valuable asset.

Sydney even moreso! No one shows up, they have f*** all members, the AFL have to change the rules to make them competitive cause the moment they drop down the ladder they'll be less popular than Fitzroy.

But they are incredibly important to the AFL's agenda.



We need to make ourselves important to the AFL. That won't ever happen by drawing crowds and supporters (as I've discussed adnauseum in this thread), so it has to happen some other way.

The supporters may hate it, but if the club have to play games in China, NZ or relocate to Bali - so be it.

The real way to be relevant in the eyes of the AFL is to capture new markets and bring those eyes too TV screens. Scrapping over an existing saturated market won't do s***.

[saynta]

Our growth shouldn't be about trying to find new supporters.

That's an exhausted market.


Hawthorn make their dough from pokies. Don't believe the bulls***. Pokies are their cash cow - they try to hide that grubby truth by inflating their supporter and membership numbers. It's a smokescreen.

There's a reason the AFL bounced them from the cushy fixtures - cause they don't have the support that the big clubs have. They are bandwagoners that come and go.


Growth for us, won't look like growth does for other clubs. To grow, we need to find a niche that doesn't go head to head with big clubs - that's a fight we simply can't win, and it needs to align with the AFL's agenda.


It doesn't matter what supporters think. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter how many members you have - it's whether the AFL values you.

Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond bring value in the form of crowds and eyeballs.
The interstate clubs bring value in market share.

f***, Gold Coast can't win a game, don't have any supporters and cost the AFL millions every year - yet they're an incredibly valuable asset.

Sydney even moreso! No one shows up, they have f*** all members, the AFL have to change the rules to make them competitive cause the moment they drop down the ladder they'll be less popular than Fitzroy.

But they are incredibly important to the AFL's agenda.



We need to make ourselves important to the AFL. That won't ever happen by drawing crowds and supporters (as I've discussed adnauseum in this thread), so it has to happen some other way.

The supporters may hate it, but if the club have to play games in China, NZ or relocate to Bali - so be it.

The real way to be relevant in the eyes of the AFL is to capture new markets and bring those eyes too TV screens. Scrapping over an existing saturated market won't do s***.

to.

[asiu]

yes



maybe our value to the Afl
is our ‘general hopelessness‘

everyone loves the underdog
we could brand our elves as everyones favourite 2nd club

we try hard
but our actual talent is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
... see history for confirmation



i have come at it from this angle before

it gives us ‘something’ that our other relegation
buddies in the doggies ‘n roos don’t have


value

knockout a st kilda history mini series

[asiu]

our Provenance , is our Value

[Secret Kiel]

Our growth shouldn't be about trying to find new supporters.

That's an exhausted market.


Hawthorn make their dough from pokies. Don't believe the bulls***. Pokies are their cash cow - they try to hide that grubby truth by inflating their supporter and membership numbers. It's a smokescreen.

There's a reason the AFL bounced them from the cushy fixtures - cause they don't have the support that the big clubs have. They are bandwagoners that come and go.


Growth for us, won't look like growth does for other clubs. To grow, we need to find a niche that doesn't go head to head with big clubs - that's a fight we simply can't win, and it needs to align with the AFL's agenda.


It doesn't matter what supporters think. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter how many members you have - it's whether the AFL values you.

Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond bring value in the form of crowds and eyeballs.
The interstate clubs bring value in market share.

f***, Gold Coast can't win a game, don't have any supporters and cost the AFL millions every year - yet they're an incredibly valuable asset.

Sydney even moreso! No one shows up, they have f*** all members, the AFL have to change the rules to make them competitive cause the moment they drop down the ladder they'll be less popular than Fitzroy.

But they are incredibly important to the AFL's agenda.



We need to make ourselves important to the AFL. That won't ever happen by drawing crowds and supporters (as I've discussed adnauseum in this thread), so it has to happen some other way.

The supporters may hate it, but if the club have to play games in China, NZ or relocate to Bali - so be it.

The real way to be relevant in the eyes of the AFL is to capture new markets and bring those eyes too TV screens. Scrapping over an existing saturated market won't do s***.

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

And where do grass root markets figure in your beliefs, without parents supporting thier kids to enter the sport, the AFL also has issues with the available talent pools feeding the elite level.

Will we be seeing kids from China and NZ playing at the elite level as a result of bringing eyes to TVs?

Connect the dots, as I say, the OS projects are not about growing markets for the StKilda football club. We are just feedstock for the AFL and thier corporate partner's commercial interests.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

Our growth shouldn't be about trying to find new supporters.

That's an exhausted market.


Hawthorn make their dough from pokies. Don't believe the bulls***. Pokies are their cash cow - they try to hide that grubby truth by inflating their supporter and membership numbers. It's a smokescreen.

There's a reason the AFL bounced them from the cushy fixtures - cause they don't have the support that the big clubs have. They are bandwagoners that come and go.


Growth for us, won't look like growth does for other clubs. To grow, we need to find a niche that doesn't go head to head with big clubs - that's a fight we simply can't win, and it needs to align with the AFL's agenda.


It doesn't matter what supporters think. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter how many members you have - it's whether the AFL values you.

Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond bring value in the form of crowds and eyeballs.
The interstate clubs bring value in market share.

f***, Gold Coast can't win a game, don't have any supporters and cost the AFL millions every year - yet they're an incredibly valuable asset.

Sydney even moreso! No one shows up, they have f*** all members, the AFL have to change the rules to make them competitive cause the moment they drop down the ladder they'll be less popular than Fitzroy.

But they are incredibly important to the AFL's agenda.



We need to make ourselves important to the AFL. That won't ever happen by drawing crowds and supporters (as I've discussed adnauseum in this thread), so it has to happen some other way.

The supporters may hate it, but if the club have to play games in China, NZ or relocate to Bali - so be it.

The real way to be relevant in the eyes of the AFL is to capture new markets and bring those eyes too TV screens. Scrapping over an existing saturated market won't do s***.

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

And where do grass root markets figure in your beliefs, without parents supporting thier kids to enter the sport, the AFL also has issues with the available talent pools feeding the elite level.

Will we be seeing kids from China and NZ playing at the elite level as a result of bringing eyes to TVs?

Connect the dots, as I say, the OS projects are not about growing markets for the StKilda football club. We are just feedstock for the AFL and thier corporate partner's commercial interests.

I disagree very strongly with the highlighted above. If we played 2 games every year in NZ and 1 game every year in China we will never be in debt again first and foremost. The second major thing is all Kiwis moving to Australia will barrack for St Kilda. Thirdly, over time (20 years), I would expect 10,000 kiwi based members. With China, we would clean up in sponsorship money and who knows, maybe some Chinese people who live in Melbourne who don't watch footy may decide to have a look at "their" team on the Telly.

[BarryGrogan]

.....as I say, the OS projects are not about growing markets for the StKilda football club. We are just feedstock for the AFL and thier corporate partner's commercial interests.

Exactly.

All clubs are.


Adding value to the AFL is what the whole caper is about.

The Saints will never, ever be big. No matter what. Will never happen.

AFL clubs exist purely to make money for the industry. It's naivety, borderline ignorance, to live in the past where clubs were about the fans. Get real.


We will never make money for the AFL by pulling big crowds and drawing in supporters. On that basis, we cost the AFL a fortune and have done so for decades.

Simply put - we are not viable.


Where we add value, is by making up the numbers and adding to the 'growth of the game' by keeping eyes on AFL rather than other sports.


Kids playing AFL doesn't happen cause the Saints win on a Sunday arvo at Docklands in front of 20k people.

It happens cause big clubs pack big grounds in Blockbusters and the product looks exciting. The AFL know this - that's why they market and structure the sport the way they do.

[BarryGrogan]

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

Why would Google buy it if no one watches it?


On a side topic, I don't know why TF Google would buy rights to sport though anyway?

[CQ SAINT]

The club realises it needs to fill the Docklands to make the AFL money and come out on top, now we have a better tenancy deal. The quickest way for us to do that is win games and sustain that for a decade again. A couple of flags this time and exposure in big time TV slots will do the job.
We really only need to get 35,000 members to games every week in Melbourne and maintain another 10,000 casual members for marquee games and finals, win half our interstate games and get in the top 6 consistently. That is our niche. Winning in China would be great financially, but it wont change much. Currently, Port is expected to win the match.

[Secret Kiel]

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

Why would Google buy it if no one watches it?


On a side topic, I don't know why TF Google would buy rights to sport though anyway?

Because free TV is gasping its last breathes and within the not too distant future all media content will be consumed via direct payment, either PPV or plans.

Memberships to your favourite colors will be called plans and they will be stacked with complimentary products like Google, the vehicle to your eyes. Kerry Stokes is currently putting pins in Google voodoo dolls.

And you are wrong about large crowds in stadiums being the block busters, the operating costs are no where near as attractive as small stadiums and much larger screen audiences. The new world template is 50 to 60k. Even the Olympic movement is heading to stadiums around these sizes. The next time the MCG needs a renovation it will be a downsizing. Having large assets like the MCG that can only produce revenue during the winter months are an accountant's nightmare.

The complimentary products will be, food, booze, gambling, credit cards and ISPs. Utopia is monthly payments via credit cards 12 months a year and the lowest possible operating costs. Who doesn't want that type of business model and cash flow.

[BarryGrogan]

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

Why would Google buy it if no one watches it?


On a side topic, I don't know why TF Google would buy rights to sport though anyway?

Because free TV is gasping its last breathes and within the not too distant future all media content will be consumed via direct payment, either PPV or plans.

Memberships to your favourite colors will be called plans and they will be stacked with complimentary products like Google, the vehicle to your eyes. Kerry Stokes is currently putting pins in Google voodoo dolls.

And you are wrong about large crowds in stadiums being the block busters, the operating costs are no where near as attractive as small stadiums and much larger screen audiences. The new world template is 50 to 60k. Even the Olympic movement is heading to stadiums around these sizes. The next time the MCG needs a renovation it will be a downsizing. Having large assets like the MCG that can only produce revenue during the winter months are an accountant's nightmare.

The complimentary products will be, food, booze, gambling, credit cards and ISPs. Utopia is monthly payments via credit cards 12 months a year and the lowest possible operating costs. Who doesn't want that type of business model and cash flow.

Sorry man, but barely a word of that contains any logic.

Do some homework on how Google makes it money then re-engage in the discussion.

[BarryGrogan]

And you are wrong about large crowds in stadiums being the block busters, the operating costs are no where near as attractive as small stadiums and much larger screen audiences. The new world template is 50 to 60k. Even the Olympic movement is heading to stadiums around these sizes.

Hahaha.

Seriously man


Are you suggesting that the MCC demolish the MCG and let the AFL tear up the 20 year contract??

Hahahaha.



Of course not. So what do fhe AFL need to do? Fill it as much as possible!!!!

And where do you think the Saints will fit into the fixture when thr AFL ks worling out the best way to make that happen??



Come on man.

[Secret Kiel]

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

Why would Google buy it if no one watches it?


On a side topic, I don't know why TF Google would buy rights to sport though anyway?

Because free TV is gasping its last breathes and within the not too distant future all media content will be consumed via direct payment, either PPV or plans.

Memberships to your favourite colors will be called plans and they will be stacked with complimentary products like Google, the vehicle to your eyes. Kerry Stokes is currently putting pins in Google voodoo dolls.

And you are wrong about large crowds in stadiums being the block busters, the operating costs are no where near as attractive as small stadiums and much larger screen audiences. The new world template is 50 to 60k. Even the Olympic movement is heading to stadiums around these sizes. The next time the MCG needs a renovation it will be a downsizing. Having large assets like the MCG that can only produce revenue during the winter months are an accountant's nightmare.

The complimentary products will be, food, booze, gambling, credit cards and ISPs. Utopia is monthly payments via credit cards 12 months a year and the lowest possible operating costs. Who doesn't want that type of business model and cash flow.

Sorry man, but barely a word of that contains any logic.

Do some homework on how Google makes it money then re-engage in the discussion.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 51cf6.html

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and ... 605-p51uls

[BarryGrogan]

Bringing eyes to a TV screen might not be future either. It's highly likely the next media rights deal will be with Google.

Why would Google buy it if no one watches it?


On a side topic, I don't know why TF Google would buy rights to sport though anyway?

Because free TV is gasping its last breathes and within the not too distant future all media content will be consumed via direct payment, either PPV or plans.

Memberships to your favourite colors will be called plans and they will be stacked with complimentary products like Google, the vehicle to your eyes. Kerry Stokes is currently putting pins in Google voodoo dolls.

And you are wrong about large crowds in stadiums being the block busters, the operating costs are no where near as attractive as small stadiums and much larger screen audiences. The new world template is 50 to 60k. Even the Olympic movement is heading to stadiums around these sizes. The next time the MCG needs a renovation it will be a downsizing. Having large assets like the MCG that can only produce revenue during the winter months are an accountant's nightmare.

The complimentary products will be, food, booze, gambling, credit cards and ISPs. Utopia is monthly payments via credit cards 12 months a year and the lowest possible operating costs. Who doesn't want that type of business model and cash flow.

Sorry man, but barely a word of that contains any logic.

Do some homework on how Google makes it money then re-engage in the discussion.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 51cf6.html

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and ... 605-p51uls

Is that you apologising?

[Secret Kiel]

What for?

[BarryGrogan]

What for?

For the tripe you posted.


Why would Google buy the rights to the AFL?? Do you know how they make their dough?


They spy on us - and sell the juicy details to organisations like the TV channels and like the AFL.

Why would they bother buying it??? It doesn't make sense to me. And the articles you posted make it less clear.

[Secret Kiel]

What for?

For the tripe you posted.


Why would Google buy the rights to the AFL?? Do you know how they make their dough?


They spy on us - and sell the juicy details to organisations like the TV channels and like the AFL.

Why would they bother buying it??? It doesn't make sense to me. And the articles you posted make it less clear.

Ok B.M

[asiu]

barry is more johnny the fox than mart

[SaintPav]

barry is more johnny the fox than mart

Baz wishes he was Johnny.

[BackFromUSA]

Bidders for next AFL rights will definitely include Amazon Prime and possibly Google for Google Chromecast / Google YouTube TV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_TV if they decide to launch in Australia - but at this stage Amazon Prime is the most likely.

All are trying to build global broadcast platforms delivered over the internet / 5G with big data based localised advertising content so the ad you might see (say you are interested in alcohol and gambling) will be different to the ad your neighbour sees because he is interested in real estate and finance.

[SaintPav]

That’s f***ed up.

[Secret Kiel]

That’s f***ed up.

You're standing in it.

[asiu]

we

as in
we are standing in it

[Secret Kiel]

we

as in
we are standing in it

Exactly...fill ya boots.