To all the posters who kept saying debt doesn't matter.....

[Nick_BlueNRG]

With the AFL set to lose millions of $$$$ because of COVID-19 would you like to reconsider your opinion? If any teams go bust, we will be the first one.

[The Fireman]

we have always been the first...and it just won't happen.
Sorry but this thread is a waste of internet space...

[saintspremiers]

Could you not just add this to my thread?

Oh - and nick - I’m sure you told us all to sell our shares in late Jan/early Feb??

[Nick_BlueNRG]

we have always been the first...and it just won't happen.
Sorry but this thread is a waste of internet space...

This post is not a waste, it is very pertinent under the circumstances. A lot of people shouted me down when I said we need to play games in NZ to make money in order to eradicate our debt asap. The current situation with the virus underscores what I have been saying.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

Could you not just add this to my thread?

Oh - and nick - I’m sure you told us all to sell our shares in late Jan/early Feb??

I have no idea what you are talking about saintspremiers.

[Spinner]

we have always been the first...and it just won't happen.
Sorry but this thread is a waste of internet space...

It just won't happen?

It definitely can happen.

[The Fireman]

we have always been the first...and it just won't happen.
Sorry but this thread is a waste of internet space...

It just won't happen?

It definitely can happen.

nup. bookmark it and come and see me.

[asiu]

13 000 000 divided by 50 000 =‘s less than $300 a head

we can pay the clubs debt off tomorrow
if we so desired

what else stops us surviving ?

[The Fireman]

13 000 000 divided by 50 000 =‘s less than $300 a head

we can pay the clubs debt off tomorrow
if we so desired

what else stops us surviving ?

Those that keep saying the sky is falling.

[Spinner]

13 000 000 divided by 50 000 =‘s less than $300 a head

we can pay the clubs debt off tomorrow
if we so desired

what else stops us surviving ?

Those that keep saying the sky is falling.

The sky isn't falling but those that think a sporting club cannot fail is something very different.

[saintspremiers]

Must say it’s ridiculous the players are still on half pay when most people without jobs are stood down without pay or simply unemployed

[Joffa Burns]

I would expect to see a combination of GOVT and BIG business step in to bail out the AFL & the clubs when the AFL runs out of money, which seems inevitable after listening to Gil speak.

It will be interesting to see how the AFL behaves moving forward when they no longer have the coffers to support the expansions clubs and clubs like the Saints into the long term future. What will the TPP budget look like? I would assume that it is a big chance that the industry may need to take a hair cut across the board for a period of time.

It will be a great opportunity for the Tasmanian Govt to secure a club to relocate and also a time of potential merger such as Suns/ Brisbane to form the Brisbane suns playing 1/2 their games in Brisbane and half on the Gold Coast.

Regardless of how successful GSW are on the field, they have very little local support so they are an interesting case.

Anyhow, just speculation from me as none of us really understand what this new financial world is going to look like post Covid-19.

[ace]

Must say it’s ridiculous the players are still on half pay when most people without jobs are stood down without pay or simply unemployed

With virtually no income the clubs and the AFL have to reduce expenses to close to zero.
The players need to be offered the minimum wage or be stood down without pay.
The players need to understand they are entertainers.
Other entertainers who can't work get no pay.
They only get paid when someone pays for their entertainment.
If the players don't like it they can go on strike with no pay or go find real jobs.

The leeches (player agents) should get nothing.

[BarryGrogan]

A couple of points/questions:

- The AFL decide if we get the arse. And it won't be because of debt. It will be a number of factors. Debt probably being the least relavent.
- The debt is an obvious problem now because we can't service the loan. And the AFL won't be in a position to help as they're going cap in hand to the banks already.
- But if the AFL lost a club - they lose a huge chunk of the TV rights too.
- Who do we owe the money too? If we do close, they don't get paid.
- The AFL made over $700m last year didn't they? That increased from previous years due to the Women's comp and having 18 Men's teams.
- The AFL make more money because we're in the comp - not less because they give us cash each year (along with every other club)
- Obviously whilst the revenue has stopped, the AFL is hemorrhaging money - but when it returns next year, will they strip it back in terms of teams and AFLW and reduce their costs, but which will also drastically reduce revenue?


Fascinating times.

[St Chris]

A couple of points/questions:

- The AFL decide if we get the arse. And it won't be because of debt. It will be a number of factors. Debt probably being the least relavent.
- The debt is an obvious problem now because we can't service the loan. And the AFL won't be in a position to help as they're going cap in hand to the banks already.
- But if the AFL lost a club - they lose a huge chunk of the TV rights too.
- Who do we owe the money too? If we do close, they don't get paid.
- The AFL made over $700m last year didn't they? That increased from previous years due to the Women's comp and having 18 Men's teams.
- The AFL make more money because we're in the comp - not less because they give us cash each year (along with every other club)
- Obviously whilst the revenue has stopped, the AFL is hemorrhaging money - but when it returns next year, will they strip it back in terms of teams and AFLW and reduce their costs, but which will also drastically reduce revenue?


Fascinating times.

I fear for our club. We might just become the "20 minute quarter" of the clubs - a change the AFL wants to make and now has a convenient excuse.

If the AFL revokes our licence in August 2018, the backlash is severe and its a terrible look for them PR wise. If they do the same in August 2020, "oh well, the economy's screwed, there's been no footy for 6 months, Caronavirus this and that, something had to give..."

The biggest threat is where is the AFL going to recoup this money from?? How's Fox Sports going to be travelling in 6 months time with no sport, or Foxtel overall with no new content?? How are the 18 clubs going to be travelling with no sponsorship, cause businesses have gone under or are barely afloat??

I think it's inevitable that the AFL will no longer be able to support 18 clubs, and we are top of the s*** list.

[perfectionist]

...Oh - and nick - I’m sure you told us all to sell our shares in late Jan/early Feb??

I went to cash 24th February - missed the peak by a day (too bad) . Anyone who had the capacity to, and didn't, wasn't paying attention. And for those jumping around like yahoos about the 11% bounce in the US, they are still 30% off the peak. Mind you, if rich investors agree with The Idiot that a few million deaths is a fair price to pay for business as normal, who knows what will happen. Just kidding. The Dow will hit 10,000 before it ever gets back to 30,000.

[BarryGrogan]

A couple of points/questions:

- The AFL decide if we get the arse. And it won't be because of debt. It will be a number of factors. Debt probably being the least relavent.
- The debt is an obvious problem now because we can't service the loan. And the AFL won't be in a position to help as they're going cap in hand to the banks already.
- But if the AFL lost a club - they lose a huge chunk of the TV rights too.
- Who do we owe the money too? If we do close, they don't get paid.
- The AFL made over $700m last year didn't they? That increased from previous years due to the Women's comp and having 18 Men's teams.
- The AFL make more money because we're in the comp - not less because they give us cash each year (along with every other club)
- Obviously whilst the revenue has stopped, the AFL is hemorrhaging money - but when it returns next year, will they strip it back in terms of teams and AFLW and reduce their costs, but which will also drastically reduce revenue?


Fascinating times.

I fear for our club. We might just become the "20 minute quarter" of the clubs - a change the AFL wants to make and now has a convenient excuse.

If the AFL revokes our licence in August 2018, the backlash is severe and its a terrible look for them PR wise. If they do the same in August 2020, "oh well, the economy's screwed, there's been no footy for 6 months, Caronavirus this and that, something had to give..."

The biggest threat is where is the AFL going to recoup this money from?? How's Fox Sports going to be travelling in 6 months time with no sport, or Foxtel overall with no new content?? How are the 18 clubs going to be travelling with no sponsorship, cause businesses have gone under or are barely afloat??

I think it's inevitable that the AFL will no longer be able to support 18 clubs, and we are top of the s*** list.

My point is though, that the AFL don't support 18 clubs. It's 18 clubs tbat support the AFL.

That's the quandary they have.

Less than 18 teams would mean an instant reduction in revenue of millions. Far more than what it costs to 'support' a club.

[St Chris]

A couple of points/questions:

- The AFL decide if we get the arse. And it won't be because of debt. It will be a number of factors. Debt probably being the least relavent.
- The debt is an obvious problem now because we can't service the loan. And the AFL won't be in a position to help as they're going cap in hand to the banks already.
- But if the AFL lost a club - they lose a huge chunk of the TV rights too.
- Who do we owe the money too? If we do close, they don't get paid.
- The AFL made over $700m last year didn't they? That increased from previous years due to the Women's comp and having 18 Men's teams.
- The AFL make more money because we're in the comp - not less because they give us cash each year (along with every other club)
- Obviously whilst the revenue has stopped, the AFL is hemorrhaging money - but when it returns next year, will they strip it back in terms of teams and AFLW and reduce their costs, but which will also drastically reduce revenue?


Fascinating times.

I fear for our club. We might just become the "20 minute quarter" of the clubs - a change the AFL wants to make and now has a convenient excuse.

If the AFL revokes our licence in August 2018, the backlash is severe and its a terrible look for them PR wise. If they do the same in August 2020, "oh well, the economy's screwed, there's been no footy for 6 months, Caronavirus this and that, something had to give..."

The biggest threat is where is the AFL going to recoup this money from?? How's Fox Sports going to be travelling in 6 months time with no sport, or Foxtel overall with no new content?? How are the 18 clubs going to be travelling with no sponsorship, cause businesses have gone under or are barely afloat??

I think it's inevitable that the AFL will no longer be able to support 18 clubs, and we are top of the s*** list.

My point is though, that the AFL don't support 18 clubs. It's 18 clubs tbat support the AFL.

That's the quandary they have.

Less than 18 teams would mean an instant reduction in revenue of millions. Far more than what it costs to 'support' a club.

I'm not convinced that the AFL's bottom line would be worse off if we played 7 games a week vs 9.

In a world where St Kilda, North, the Dogs and Melbourne (4 most financially challenged clubs in an over-saturated market) were wound up/merged with other clubs, you're potentially looking at wiping off the $80M a year in the handouts these 4 clubs receive, 180-odd player salaries to pay, the travel costs, the staff at clubs, the matchday venue hire, the training facilities capital costs, all the stuff the AFL tips in for.

You might lose 160,000 members (some would change clubs or go with the merger), the clubs sponsors, but the footy world would move on quickly.

The current broadcast agreement is $2.5b over 6 years - approx $2m per H&A game over that period. Assuming those companies (Channel 7, Fox, Telstra, Radio etc) can still stump up that cash, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't lose any sleep over not having St Kilda playing the Dogs at 4.45pm on a Sunday in July, that's for sure.

[BarryGrogan]

I'm not convinced that the AFL's bottom line would be worse off if we played 7 games a week vs 9.

In a world where St Kilda, North, the Dogs and Melbourne (4 most financially challenged clubs in an over-saturated market) were wound up/merged with other clubs, you're potentially looking at wiping off the $80M a year in the handouts these 4 clubs receive, 180-odd player salaries to pay, the travel costs, the staff at clubs, the matchday venue hire, the training facilities capital costs, all the stuff the AFL tips in for.

You might lose 160,000 members (some would change clubs or go with the merger), the clubs sponsors, but the footy world would move on quickly.

The current broadcast agreement is $2.5b over 6 years - approx $2m per H&A game over that period. Assuming those companies (Channel 7, Fox, Telstra, Radio etc) can still stump up that cash, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't lose any sleep over not having St Kilda playing the Dogs at 4.45pm on a Sunday in July, that's for sure.

I disagree.

By the way, you know that Collingwood get a $10m handout. Richmond got $15m.

West Coast got $12m!

[BarryGrogan]

There's a reason the AFL added 2 more teams.

And there's also a reason they wanted women's footy.

The more teams, the broader the customer base. The more revenue.

The AFL know they need more teams - not less.

[asiu]

It's 18 clubs that support the AFL.

hmmm

true.

[BarryGrogan]

Having said that, I actually wouldn't be surprised to see us become the Gold Coast Saints.

For reasons above, the AFL are desperate to keep 18 teams. They'd be losing millions if they lost even 1 team.

However, like the average punter with an investment property - even if its capital growth far outweighs the mortgage repayments - if you can't get a tenant and can't make the repayments...you've got no choice but to get rid of it.

It's very probable that the AFL simply won't be able to support 18 clubs for a season without footy.

Even if NAB do give them a half billion dollar loan - it still may be touch and go.

Even when they actually start playing footy again, the revenue realistically won't be the same. Sponsors won't have the same cash to splash, fans won't be able to afford memberships and many won't even be able to afford to attend games. Foxtel won't have the same budget for the next TV deal either.

So FWIW, I think we're rooted.


The key to 18 teams and AFLW is that the revenue far exceeds the investment. However when that revenue disappears entirely, then is reduced significantly, you simply can't afford the investment.


So even if the Saints can survive for a season without any footy (which will be touch and go), the return on investment in future seasons in the short term won't be what it has been.

Obviously our outgoings will reduce significantly too - but can we reduce them enough to outweigh the reduction in revenue to the point where we still add value to the AFL?

I'm not so sure.

The AFL will, in my opinion, try to get 4 clubs to merge. I think it will include a Vic club going to the Gold Coast.

Possibly another merging with GWS.


I reckon we'll be one of them.

[asiu]

Well done NZ.



Like us they had ample warning as to what's coming if they don't get in front of this (they're at about 200 known cases), and they're doing what we should have done... and should still do.

[Sanctorum]

With the AFL set to lose millions of $$$$ because of COVID-19 would you like to reconsider your opinion? If any teams go bust, we will be the first one.

That's a bit alarmist Nick - this is what I posted on this subject on another poster's topic:

"Beno88 wrote: ↑Tue 24 Mar 2020 8:21am
Sorry, why are we not surviving?

Quite right Beno88, there are other clubs that are deemed in a worse position than the Saints:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/03/26/t ... -the-wall/

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/ ... 54dwl.html

In any case, the AFL has a massive war chest to keep the 18 team competition going which is really crucial come the negotiations with broadcasters for the next media deal. Unlike the other major football codes, including the NRL, the AFL has long planned for a doomsday scenario, with a Future Fund as well as a massive physical asset, free of debt, of Docklands Stadium.

Any speculation that St Kilda will fall by the wayside as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic is way off the mark!

On another related matter, I feel there is likely to be some concern about the key Football Department figures who have been stood down, people like David Rath and James Gallagher and others who have been instrumental in working with Simon Lethlean to bring in the 6 experienced AFL players to beef up the team for 2020. This major disruption of the season and mass staffing cuts (80%) may well see a big shake-up of every club's support personnel as they may well go and look for opportunities elsewhere to get a job..."

[BarryGrogan]

With the AFL set to lose millions of $$$$ because of COVID-19 would you like to reconsider your opinion? If any teams go bust, we will be the first one.

That's a bit alarmist Nick - this is what I posted on this subject on another poster's topic:

"Beno88 wrote: ↑Tue 24 Mar 2020 8:21am
Sorry, why are we not surviving?

Quite right Beno88, there are other clubs that are deemed in a worse position than the Saints:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/03/26/t ... -the-wall/

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/ ... 54dwl.html

In any case, the AFL has a massive war chest to keep the 18 team competition going which is really crucial come the negotiations with broadcasters for the next media deal. Unlike the other major football codes, including the NRL, the AFL has long planned for a doomsday scenario, with a Future Fund as well as a massive physical asset, free of debt, of Docklands Stadium.

Any speculation that St Kilda will fall by the wayside as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic is way off the mark!

On another related matter, I feel there is likely to be some concern about the key Football Department figures who have been stood down, people like David Rath and James Gallagher and others who have been instrumental in working with Simon Lethlean to bring in the 6 experienced AFL players to beef up the team for 2020. This major disruption of the season and mass staffing cuts (80%) may well see a big shake-up of every club's support personnel as they may well go and look for opportunities elsewhere to get a job..."

It depends on how long they don't have any revenue for.

Then it depends on whether crowds and memberships remain strong when the game returns.

Then it depends on whether broadcasters have the cash themselves to offer the same money for the rights.