Afl lovechild

[MC Gusto]

We often talk about the afls lovechild or lovechildren

This puts an interesting slant on things..

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sai ... 541lr.html

[MC Gusto]

In all seriousness Afl handouts can’t be sustainable and the sponsorship dollars or lack thereof is a real issue

[Nick_BlueNRG]

This is why we MUST continue to play one game in China each year. Also, when Western Springs in Auckland is ready, 2 games every year in NZ. Do both of the above and we will never be in debt again.

[Bowey Boy]

Moving to Telstra, Colonial, Etihad, Marvel has worked out well. At AFL's request. Just, like moving to VFL/AFL Park. How much money are we expected to make when playing Freo etc? Hopefully the gradual return to Moorabbin is on for smaller games.

[chook23]

Moving to Telstra, Colonial, Etihad, Marvel has worked out well. At AFL's request. Just, like moving to VFL/AFL Park. How much money are we expected to make when playing Freo etc? Hopefully the gradual return to Moorabbin is on for smaller games.

Almost certain that will never happen....

age article as written not good read...

sponsorship a concern...

[ausfatcat]

Moving to Telstra, Colonial, Etihad, Marvel has worked out well. At AFL's request. Just, like moving to VFL/AFL Park. How much money are we expected to make when playing Freo etc? Hopefully the gradual return to Moorabbin is on for smaller games.

Scheduling has had a far greater impact than all of those combined, with the TV rights starting to bring in big money in the late 90's and the AFL ceo's having bonus based on ratings and attendance naturally they scheduled the bigger clubs the best timeslots and more games to get their bonus' this of course resulted in lopsided exposure for these clubs compared to everyone else, which in return resulted more and more young fans barracking for those clubs because they were the ones on telly more than anyone else (over the last 20 years how many interstate games have Collingwood played compared to St Kilda?). This became self perpetuating where the bigger clubs were getting more viewers/attendance/sponsorship so the gave them more favourable draws/exposure/sponsorship so they got more fans, so they got more favourable draws/exposure/sponsorship ect ect. The result of this created a bigger and bigger gap between the bottom clubs and the top clubs and it is nearing the stage of untenable. Early 90's with a good couple of years our membership was close to Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood, I would hesitate a guess that the sponsorship levels were similar during this period as well.
I don't want to over simplify but there was more factors involved but this was a huge one.


Just for reference

Membership levels 1990 2000 2016
St Kilda 11k 17k 39k
Collingwood 10k 28k 55k
Essendon 11k 34k 55k
Carlton 14k 27k 50k
Hawthorn 9k 26k 75k
http://footyindustry.com/files/afl/memb ... _aug13.png
note Carlton was the powerhouse of the afl for having 3k more members

(The saints have basically stagnated in membership since 2004, when we were a fair amount in front of Richmond, Bulldogs, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, Geelong, Essendon all of whom are now in front of us)

Is the equalisation warranted damn right it is, the AFL created the problem it by thinking short term to get their bonus'

Is it untenable? probably now that articles are appearing insinuating the Saint's are getting handouts and prop ups the pressure will build and build.

Do things need to change for the Saints as we have now been over taken by North Melbourne, Melbourne and the Bulldogs and are the most vulnerable club in the afl now? defiantly!

If the draw , tv coverage and stadium deals was similar for all Melbourne clubs for the last 20 or 30 years I doubt we would need a handout at all, hell this forum is even a good guide of how many saints supports are out there less and less people post every year.

Can it be fixed? Yes it can but will take years to undo years of damage, and tough non-bonus friendly decisions from the AFL (Is that likely?)

[Enrico_Misso]

If it was an even playing field they wouldn't have to subsidise us.

So
- if we didn't get a higher than average share of home games against low drawing interstate clubs
- if they gave us a fair share of Fri/Sat televised night games (instead of making us the "Sunday Twilight" club)
- if they gave us a share of the "blockbuster" market (QB/Good F/AnzacD games at The G)
- if they hadn't forced us into an uneconomic stadium deal where most games lost us money (unlike the deal they gave The Druggies)

Then ...
- we would have much higher turnstile revenue
- we would have much higher membership revenue
- we would have much higher sponsorship revenue

And
- then they wouldn't have to prop us up.


The real reason is the AFL is obsessed with maximising attendances.
And hence their favoured big boy clubs get looked after in the draw, get those prime time slots, the blockbuster games at The G, and favourable stadium deals.

That logic means if they want an 18 team comp they need to prop up the clubs they systematically discriminate against.

[saintspremiers]

I don’t blame potential sponsors for avoiding us.

If the crappy TV slots doesn’t distract them, then not playing finals for 8 consecutive seasons will.

We have become irrelevant lately. Cho’s blandness also helped perpetuate the aroma.

Have a look at the type of sponsors we get - generally unknown brands who are trying to get brand awareness.

The big “name” brands will choose one of the other 8 options in Melbourne instead!

It didn’t help when we were good that our admin was dicey with the likes of Fraser and Nettlefold on charge - both incapable of harnessing our on field success and getting the corporate world on board. (All the off field player issues didn’t help either - bad image club!)

[Secret Kiel]

ALL clubs receive financial support, who doesn't try to put thier hand in the cooky jar. Got nothing to do with survival and more to do with cash grabbing, good on us for skimming the most, thanks to the power brokers at our club who know how to get deep down into the bottom of the cooky jar.

[barneyboyz]

If it was an even playing field they wouldn't have to subsidise us.

So
- if we didn't get a higher than average share of home games against low drawing interstate clubs
- if they gave us a fair share of Fri/Sat televised night games (instead of making us the "Sunday Twilight" club)
- if they gave us a share of the "blockbuster" market (QB/Good F/AnzacD games at The G)
- if they hadn't forced us into an uneconomic stadium deal where most games lost us money (unlike the deal they gave The Druggies)

Then ...
- we would have much higher turnstile revenue
- we would have much higher membership revenue
- we would have much higher sponsorship revenue

And
- then they wouldn't have to prop us up.


The real reason is the AFL is obsessed with maximising attendances.
And hence their favoured big boy clubs get looked after in the draw, get those prime time slots, the blockbuster games at The G, and favourable stadium deals.

That logic means if they want an 18 team comp they need to prop up the clubs they systematically discriminate against.

Our fair share of blockbuster games? really? we showed how much spirit we had two years ago when we limp wristed our way through Good Friday. The prick who only got the arse just late last year should have been sacked at 3/4 time that day

[BarryGrogan]

If it was an even playing field they wouldn't have to subsidise us.

Exactly!!!


This article misses the point.

We get 'handed' $20m - whilst other clubs get handed blockbusters and a primetime fixture.

What's the difference?


But the most relevant point is overlooked entirely in this article. Amd that is:

"The AFL's revenues increased by $15 million to $794 million because of broadcast revenue and commercial income hitting a new record."


The AFL give Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon etc. the handouts of primetime fixtures, because it generates more for the game overall than if we had those same fixtures. Our supporters don't show up, and we have a relatively small base.

However the flipside is, without 18 teams the AFL wouldn't be half as commercially viable.

So they need the big clubs playing on big stages, and they need the small clubs playing games, full stop.

The $20m the AFL give us is not a burden. It's an investment that forms part of the above mentioned $794m in revenue.


It's like focussing on the 4 bucks it costs to get the train to a job that pays $150k.

[Otiman]

How would things look different if the AFL ran the show, took all advertising, gate and membership revenue and distributed amongst the clubs evenly?

[Secret Kiel]

If it was an even playing field they wouldn't have to subsidise us.

Exactly!!!


This article misses the point.

We get 'handed' $20m - whilst other clubs get handed blockbusters and a primetime fixture.

What's the difference?


But the most relevant point is overlooked entirely in this article. Amd that is:

"The AFL's revenues increased by $15 million to $794 million because of broadcast revenue and commercial income hitting a new record."


The AFL give Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon etc. the handouts of primetime fixtures, because it generates more for the game overall than if we had those same fixtures. Our supporters don't show up, and we have a relatively small base.

However the flipside is, without 18 teams the AFL wouldn't be half as commercially viable.

So they need the big clubs playing on big stages, and they need the small clubs playing games, full stop.

The $20m the AFL give us is not a burden. It's an investment that forms part of the above mentioned $794m in revenue.


It's like focussing on the 4 bucks it costs to get the train to a job that pays $150k.

Spot on Baz. It's one company and our club is just one cost centre that is integral to overall revenue with the "gross contribution" theory being the first principle most likely being applied to manage cost and finance.

[Life Long Saint]

we showed how much spirit we had two years ago when we limp wristed our way through Good Friday. The prick who only got the arse just late last year should have been sacked at 3/4 time that day

The crowd that day at Docklands represented North's biggest home crowd of the year! 33,966...Their match against Richmond at the same venue...29,153.
If it was our home game instead, it would have drawn a much larger crowd...Maybe 10k more.
Our home game against Richmond that year drew 36,269 and we'd only won 4.5 games by that stage. We were awful the whole year that season.

We should be given another chance to play on the day as the home team.

[mr six o'clock]

Gil and co every year manipulate the season for their own benefit . If crowd numbers and tv ratings are down it can effect their million dollar bonuses.
So as we are a smaller club we are always going to be given the scraps . The only way we can climb the ladder is by climbing the ladder .

[Nick_BlueNRG]

You all make good points. But as I said, we have the power to overcome the AFL's bias. China and New Zealand, if done properly, will make us one of the biggest clubs in the AFL. This will ensure that we are never in debt again and also ensure our long term survival in the AFL.

[remboy]

If it was an even playing field they wouldn't have to subsidise us.

Exactly!!!


This article misses the point.

We get 'handed' $20m - whilst other clubs get handed blockbusters and a primetime fixture.

What's the difference?


But the most relevant point is overlooked entirely in this article. Amd that is:

"The AFL's revenues increased by $15 million to $794 million because of broadcast revenue and commercial income hitting a new record."


The AFL give Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon etc. the handouts of primetime fixtures, because it generates more for the game overall than if we had those same fixtures. Our supporters don't show up, and we have a relatively small base.

However the flipside is, without 18 teams the AFL wouldn't be half as commercially viable.

So they need the big clubs playing on big stages, and they need the small clubs playing games, full stop.

The $20m the AFL give us is not a burden. It's an investment that forms part of the above mentioned $794m in revenue.


It's like focussing on the 4 bucks it costs to get the train to a job that pays $150k.

That's it in a nutshell. The AFL's only interest is maximising revenue for the AFL. Hence the Pies getting 18 games in Victoria every year, big clubs getting more Friday night games and MCG games. As a result we get the twilight games and less free to air coverage.
The AFL don't have an issue giving us $20 mill a year as long as the big boys are helping them get an extra couple of hundred million.

[Secret Kiel]

The AFL have more power than the government, they are one of most successful and profitable businesses in the country. Heaps of cash to splash. We won't overcome their bias. The OS experiment projects are play things for some very small interest groups. You'd also be surprised how much the government fund AFL projects like the OS experiments. It's not about growing our fan base. Period.

[To the top]

Interestingly in past times the likes of Richmond have gone cap in hand to supporters to “save” the Club - on successive occasions

Collingwood during the McAllister years and the guy from Fairfax years were on the cusp, having to provide bank cheque’s to secure brewery deliveries ahead of home games

Carlton also ran to significant problems

That said, the difference was the likes those Clubs could call on for support, that support base evidenced at President’s luncheons (aa they were in the day)

St Kilda had Gerry Ryan and Molly Meldrum - along with some other celebrities

Travis Payze requested his donation back with ramifications

The support of people with influence assists because these people have influence including thru associations including at the AFL Board table

From there it is self fulfilling including programming

Mind you, in the economy of today we see 10 taken over by Trade Creditors converting monies owed to Capital, 9 collapsing and reinventing as the Phoenix 9 Entertainment and now 7 West shares at 21 cents - all because advertising revenue is under real pressure

Add to that list of struggling media Companies the name of Murdoch

So how long before sponsorships of AFL Clubs come under scrutiny?

And then you have the AFL reliance on revenue from media

[ausfatcat]

And then you have the AFL reliance on revenue from media

Media is evolving which it has always done, from town cries to books, to newspapers to radio to tv and now to streaming, but this can potentially be our saviour as well. The next media rights will be interesting imo one of two things could occur, the tv and pay tv will throw everything at it to keep there audience and it will continue like it has for the last 15 years and having a streaming element in there. or tv and pay tv will take a back seat to streaming will take on the major role this could be very interesting because if streaming is the front runner it may mean the bigger games are exclusive on streaming to encourage people to subscribe and the Sunday timeslots on free to air...…..,.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

The AFL have more power than the government, they are one of most successful and profitable businesses in the country. Heaps of cash to splash. We won't overcome their bias. The OS experiment projects are play things for some very small interest groups. You'd also be surprised how much the government fund AFL projects like the OS experiments. It's not about growing our fan base. Period.

I will explain why I think it will work but then you need to explain why you think it won't work (Period as you said).

The China game netted us $1mill from the AFL I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. We also picked up extra sponsors from just 1 game even though we performed terribly.

New Zealand....If we play 2 games there every year it will be against poor drawing clubs eg. Port, GWS, Freo etc. These games if played at Marvel stadium would make us a loss in terms of $$$$$. Play them in NZ and we would make a minimum of $500k profit. That would come partly from the AFL and NZ government (I'm being conservative as it is likely to be more than $500k). Over time, possibly 20 years I would expect more than 5,000 NZ based members. Kiwis emigrating to Australia would more than likely choose St Kilda to be their team. Kiwis already in Australia that don't follow AFL may decide to have a look at us.


Over to you now Secret Kiel. Please tell us why you don't think it will work!!!!!

[saintspremiers]

The AFL have more power than the government, they are one of most successful and profitable businesses in the country. Heaps of cash to splash. We won't overcome their bias. The OS experiment projects are play things for some very small interest groups. You'd also be surprised how much the government fund AFL projects like the OS experiments. It's not about growing our fan base. Period.

I will explain why I think it will work but then you need to explain why you think it won't work (Period as you said).

The China game netted us $1mill from the AFL I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. We also picked up extra sponsors from just 1 game even though we performed terribly.

New Zealand....If we play 2 games there every year it will be against poor drawing clubs eg. Port, GWS, Freo etc. These games if played at Marvel stadium would make us a loss in terms of $$$$$. Play them in NZ and we would make a minimum of $500k profit. That would come partly from the AFL and NZ government (I'm being conservative as it is likely to be more than $500k). Over time, possibly 20 years I would expect more than 5,000 NZ based members. Kiwis emigrating to Australia would more than likely choose St Kilda to be their team. Kiwis already in Australia that don't follow AFL may decide to have a look at us.


Over to you now Secret Kiel. Please tell us why you don't think it will work!!!!!

You keep banging on about NZ.

They don’t want us!!!

You seem obsessed with the country? Is it the sheep? The way they smile at you or something?!!!

[ausfatcat]

Play them in NZ and we would make a minimum of $500k profit.

How? NZ gov isn't interested in paying us that and the gate receipts wouldn't get close to that and the AFL is concentrating on China (if they cared about NZ we would still be there)

[Secret Kiel]

Firstly on the sponsorship deals; the club sells itself as the vehicle for exposure, but what if you aren't getting much exposure due to ladder postion, well you do something similar to how player contracts are front or rear end loaded. You sell exposure based on short term deals that speculates you will rise up the ladder and be able to provide prime time slots, if you fail to deliver prime time slots becuase you didn't rise up the ladder in the predicted time frame then your deal defaults to a longer time frame on lesser exposure. These types of deals can be done in many different combinations or permentations but you get my drift. The sponsorship market has never been tougher and cashflow from these deals can flatten out over several years. In terms of exposure the OS projects offer very little exposure on thier own, i.e , not much stock is sitting in the warehouse, And what we don't know is how much exposure we will owe to the sponsors who have signed on in the last few years while we have been signed up to the OS R&D project. The OS deals are relying on all sorts of subsidised arrangements including from different levels of government.

Secondly, fans from other countries capable of creating cashflow; so let's use your metric of 5000.

What's an overseas membership going to sell for in OS currency, then minus import tax and duty etc. Bugger all actually. And the games in OS countries are free and heavily subsidized so bugger all cahsflow from game day.

Multiply the numbers and I reckon the annual figure might pay for the person's was wages who works at reception in the admin department.

Probably the biggest income derived is from the export grant from the Fed government...and that is a crooked joke in itself, basically because that is tax dollars.

[BarryGrogan]

Why do people think on-field performance changes fixturing?

It doesn't. It's a total myth.


Crowd sizes are what determine fixturing. Nothing else.

Even when we've been dominant on-field, our crowds are still smaller than when the big clubs stink.

So we're never getting better fixtures than them. Forget it.