Rod....if you want to stay on as President...

[To the top]

And, when challenged, you reply with the "bleeding obvious".

Fair dinkum!

The alternate ticket is challenging, and seeking an EGM with a spill of Board positions.

That is why they have to put up - or shut up.

The incumbent responds when they know what the parameters of the challenge are.

Further, the record of the incumbents is there for all to see.

Like it or lump it.

Here we have an alternate - but what is the alternate?

You are obviously (at least) a cheer leader for the alternate - but exactly how are you going to be different?

It is fortuitous that this challenge is announced when the club's debt has been repaid, and total emphasis can be placed on other issues.

But, in termsof the items you identify such as expenses being cut to the cloth of net revenue after the debt reduction programme (and was this arbitrary by the lender or at the iniative of the club - the lender would have had a principal reduction programme regardless because lenders want their money back - so what?), and being critical of the amount of revenue achieved, exactly what and who are you going to bring to the table?

You do not sit there and say we have a couple of former players on board (and where is their business expertise respectively and their net wealth? I can tell you that Iwould not be a Financial Planner for all the tea in China -you are always riding for a fall when you advise people how to invest their money - it is a no win industry because valuations change - and you are speculating on forward projections) so trust us and give us your proxies.

If you are challenging, you put your plan out there.

And in terms of the Thomas record, there was no flag - and the club was never best positioned to win a flag because it had to play interstate finals (albeit it won against Adelaide in Adelaide). It never finished high enough on the ladder. And THAT was the problem. Because they faded so badly over the second half of 2004, they started slowly in 2005 - and then were in danger of missing the finals halfway thru 2005 -NOT the way to win a flag.

And that is just part of the reason it was obvious to me, and a few others I know, that Thomas had bought to the club what he was able to by mid 2004.

And the record confirms that.

[JeffDunne]

They "need" to? Maybe to get your vote (& others) they do, but they don't "need" to put up anything.

As for liking or lumping the record of the incumbents, fortunately we have an EGM comming up so I don't need to do either when I decide who to vote for.

And again you go off on one of your rants when I didn't even mention expenses or debt reduction. Or was the "you" not directed at me? (I do find it hard to follow at times who are what your rants are directed at)

You might think I'm "obviously (at least) a cheer leader for the alternate" but you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. I'm critical of the performance of the incumbents, critical of their recent record and where they are taking us. My interest is in having the board spilled and allowing members to decide who they want to take us forward, but thanks for putting words into my mouth. We are (or should be) a membership driven organisation and my objection is to people trying to limit or take away that right. By all means cheer on Rod if that is your want, but to be honest your posts read as self-serving and condescending to anyone that's prepared to have an alternate view. As much as you keep trying to make it so, this isn't about Rod or Grant Thomas, it's about whether there are better people to take the club forward than those that appear to many to have run their race. I'm not scared of putting the future of the club in the hands of the members but it would appear that you and other Rod supporters are.

[JeffDunne]

Answer me this To the top, why did Rod go into an AFL President's meeting and argue that the AFL shouldn't increase it's dividend to clubs on the back of a new media rights deal?

[Joffa Burns]

I do not think that the incumbent administration and much more importantly the members requesting a detailed business plan from SFF is unreasonable. I also believe that plan needs to be more detailed that that of the incumbent.

As an analogy lets consider Bank Finance for an existing business for growth or acquisition (from the incumbents side) and at start up or purchase of a business (for the new entity SFF).

From the incumbent the Bank requests inter alia …

1/ Historical data (P&L, Balance sheet) minimum last three years
2/ Budget for the next three years incorporating acquisition/growth (read revenue)
3/ Cash flow projection for the next three years
4/ Estimated EBIT or EBITDA for the entity
5/ Funding amortization period
6/ Cap ex allocation
7/ Security (most importantly)
8/ Management experience and expertise

The bank also focuses on trading history with the entity.

I’d suggest (purely speculative on my behalf) the incumbent Board would have points 1 – 4 covered albeit on a one year basis projected and 7 & 8 if they are remotely financially responsible and they have proven to be in my mind.

Given history I think this well covers the incumbent’s business plan.

From the new entity (SFF) the Bank requests…

All of those requirements with a much, much stronger focus.

If you were to allocate a point scoring system against each point you’d be looking closely at how they intended to manage points 1-4 and focus heavily on points 7 & 8.

I wonder if having one possibly two current directors defect to the new Board would assist (ie. In finance terms a vendor retaining a stake hold in a business being sold would give the financier stronger peace of mind).

The new entities Management’s expertise would be of enormous concern to the financier and could easily tip the deal to the wrong side of the ledger.

In my mind the historical management of the past three years (no matter how negative you may be toward the Butterss' administration) shows the Butterss administration to be fiscally sound as even the SFF group do not dispute financial management – quite the opposite.

In summary I think it is fair for members to seek a much more detailed plan from the SFF group than the incumbent administration as they do not have any runs on the board.

Now I am not a Banker (though many on this site may believe that I am if you use the term as colloquial rhyming slang ) but I’d be interested in TOT’s thoughts who clearly has experience in this matter.

In choosing an administration we need to conduct our own due diligence I sincerely hope we receive the information to make an informed decision.

[JeffDunne]

WTF? New entity?

What new enity?

[saintsRrising]

Untill he had called the EGM he would not have had legtmate reason to access the list.....

Nonsense.

Or should I say nonsense (I presume bolding makes it somehow more relevant).

FWIW, I think I'd respect Gdanski's legal opinion on what he can and cannot do as a sitting board member than I would yours.

You don't think Rod "I'm seeking legal advice" Butterss wouldn't be floating that boat if someone's acted inappropriately?

I am just curious as to how they gained access to the info so quickly...I think it is VERY obvious that someone did.


Whether Gdanski hasa right to use it or not is one issue....but I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the club just does not have permanent access to the list for anyone that wants it....and that they would have to go througha Club Staff Member to get it.


Maybe Archie is being "friendly" to FF and had it ready and waiting.


AF wanted GT to go....and perahps he wants RB to go to???

[mischa]

Well my answer would be start acting in the best interests of the STKFC and stop doing Demetriou's bidding (roll over on Baker, SirenGate and everything else). I've seen Butterss sitting next to Andy D. at football games noticeably after his obscene outburst on SEN-clearly as a sign of support Rod is probably very happy to be made a member of the AFL boys club (the power and privileges that go with that). The fact that Andy, Patrick and Robert now all approve is enough for me. And we're now seeing the results with the smear campaign being levelled at FFS and particularly Thompson and Burke. Sickening

[Joffa Burns]

WTF? New entity?

What new enity?

Now if you don't agree with my analogy (or the use of it) that is fine debate it, but who implied there is a new entity ?

As an analogy lets consider Bank Finance for an existing business for growth or acquisition (from the incumbents side) and at start up or purchase of a business (for the new entity - SFF).

Why don't you worry about answering some of the queries raised by SRS and TOT JeffDunne, you seem to be struggling to keep up old chum

[Joffa Burns]

Well my answer would be start acting in the best interests of the STKFC and stop doing Demetriou's bidding (roll over on Baker, SirenGate and everything else). I've seen Butterss sitting next to Andy D. at football games noticeably after his obscene outburst on SEN-clearly as a sign of support Rod is probably very happy to be made a member of the AFL boys club (the power and privileges that go with that). The fact that Andy, Patrick and Robert now all approve is enough for me. And we're now seeing the results with the smear campaign being levelled at FFS and particularly Thompson and Burke. Sickening

Sue them all mischa - sue them all

[JeffDunne]

Sorry JB, I don't see the analogy between changing the composition of the board of an existing entity and the financing of a new. Especially when you consider the nature of the business and the income streams that finance it.

[crowjelly]

Joffaboy [/quote] I'm pretty sure (but happy to be corrected if wrong) the saints members list has been available to sponsors such as Mortgage House and Vodaphone etc to flog their wares so to speak.[/quote]

I would hope not'Mortgage House'. My understanding is the reason they were dropped as a sponsor was for welshing on the $ promised to the Saints. Previously knowing the track record of the owner of MH this did not surprise me in the least. I should have warned the club at the time.
The issue here is the privacy laws and compliance with such.
Did SFF obtain the data legitimately?

[stinger]

[quote="To the top"

You are obviously (at least) a cheer leader for the alternate - but exactly how are you going to be different?
/quote]


and your not a cheer leader for the current dropkicks.....?????

[To the top]

JoffaBurns, you are right on the money.

Superimposed on this is that we are in diificult times in regards credit - with Central Banks propping up liquidity and the ability of banks to finance.

Banks are not self-funded thru SHF and deposits (liabilities).

They borrow from the market as well, including from the subordinated debt market and against their Credit Rating.

That is why our Net Foreign Debt exceeds $600 BILLION, which is of concern particulaly given our Balance of Payments performance, which is adding to that debt - and in an"economic boom" on the back of our resources and energy sectors.

So, in this climate, you have to be precise in approaching a bank - and if one knocks you back, well, best of luck elsewhere.

The alternate ticket may think they just walk in, take over and everything stays the same - which is far from the case, even with existing staff.

Those responding that they do not understand should stick to what they do understand.

[JeffDunne]

I've read some irrelevant claptrap in this debate but that would have to take the cake. Can we at least stick close to the topic?

Take a look at the expertise of the challengers and tell me they lack the necessary financial management skills to be a viable alternative to the incumbents.

Anyhow, To the top, try answering the question I posed re: Rod arguing that the AFL shouldn't increase the dividend to clubs. Why do you think he'd take that position? Further to that, why would he also argue that the AFL should cap the spending of football depts? If you answer the question honestly you'll realise why many of us think it's time for a change.

[saintsRrising]

Take a look at the expertise of the challengers and tell me they lack the necessary financial management skills to be a viable alternative to the incumbents.
.

Yes agreed, this is one area where the FF ticket is well covered.

[Joffa Burns]

Take a look at the expertise of the challengers and tell me they lack the necessary financial management skills to be a viable alternative to the incumbents.

If you are correct then SFF should display this acumen and release a Business plan.
How difficult will that be for business people of this ilk?

I would specifically be interested in the additional funding to the football department as in …How much? How it will be spent? How it will be funded?

If it stacks up in my mind they have my vote.

The one concern I have is a Liberal / Labour scenario where the Libs create surplus and Labour get into power and blow the lot.

[JeffDunne]

Careful JB, you'll have Andrew after you.

TBH, the suggested increase in spending on the football dept isn't what interests me (within reason), it's more how they propose to diversify the club's income streams and increase those we already have.

This financial year we are forecasting a profit slightly less than the increase from the AFL's distribution to clubs. If we are to keep pace with the rest of the competition we cannot afford to maintain current levels of expeniditure let alone increase it (taking into account increases in the cap and other inflationary pressures) and still remain profitable.

This is not just a question I'd like the challengers to answer but also the incumbents. Rod's comment the other day on increasing revenue did concern me but I accept it was probably worded poorly.

[To the top]

In response to a few things mentioned.

When there was the AFL, premierships were won by very few clubs.

The reason for this was that those same clubs had influentual supporters who contributed to the club coffers, enabling those clubs to recruit dominant players from Tasmania, South Australia and West Australia.

By contrast, St Kilda had to sell its Form 4's to other clubs to make ends meet, and take cast offs from other VFL clubs.

The formation of the AFL, with salary caps, upsurped the "finanacial" clubs - except for Carlton which, under Elliott, played by its own rules - and where they are at today is ironic because they are benefiting from salary cap rorting by being the club in contention for Judd - if he wants to go there.

Where the playing field is not even is in the player support area.

You could mount an argument that Collingwood are where they are today because of their superior support system - and their ability to fund that support system.

So it may be that there are caps also put on "Football Department" spending - and on distributions because those distributions find their way to "Football Departments". No doubt it will be reviewed.

So Collingwood may be precluded from having enough people in the coach's box for each player to have an individual assessor - feeding into the zone coach and the head coach.

Who knows - but that is what it is coming to, and some can afford and some can not.

No doubt however, the AFL do not want the competition dominated by a few as was the VFL.

And they will act to correct any inbalances - as they have in ensuring Victorian clubs are in contention for the premiership this year.

The semi-finalists have only played each other once this season.

So, who has copped the top 4 clubs twice in the roster season?

In regards the alternate ticket and revenue, one of the "trust us" comments is that the Football sub-committee named will bring their expertise and fund raising abilities to the club, and them bringing on board St Kilda legends will bring more revenue (or waffling words to that effect).

I would suggest that St Kilda FC need to get sponsorship monies from parties currently external to the club - because I do not see a Pratt among St Kilda's benefactors.

And I do not know what influence Burke, Thompson, Klim and the Queen's Counsel (Senior Counsel) have in corporate Australia - from their CV's it appears not much.

In terms of buying a premiership, by spending on the "Football Department", look at the lessons in the EPL - including Blackburn Rovers and Leeds United.

You can only deal with what you have.

And then we have the statement that revenue sources are to be diversified!

But, as JD says, we can go out and buy a pub.

No, sorry, that was just an example, wasn't it.

Well, when you find a way to make money which costs you nothing and into which you have to contribute nothing, let me know.

It may well be that we can use a different focus than that of the current board, and that the consolidation period was their forte (reducing debt), but to arrive at that conclusion we need more than is being put before us now - a lot more.

All that is happening now is that the club is paralysed during a vunerable period - a period when the President, his board and his support staff should be scouring the Board Rooms of the nation in search of major sponsorships.

If St Kilda FC made a presentation to the Board you presided over and given the current circumstances, what would you say?

And I still have concerns at the Fox/Thomas interests, regardless of what Burke has said.

[JeffDunne]

Seriously, try answering a question for once rather than attempting to (again) impress us with your irrelevant rants.

Buy a pub? Where'd you pull that one from?

Sounds to me you're very much from the Rod "we can't compete" Butterss school of thought where just existing is considered a success.

[joffaboy]

Take a look at the expertise of the challengers and tell me they lack the necessary financial management skills to be a viable alternative to the incumbents.

If you are correct then SFF should display this acumen and release a Business plan.
How difficult will that be for business people of this ilk?

I would specifically be interested in the additional funding to the football department as in …How much? How it will be spent? How it will be funded?

If it stacks up in my mind they have my vote.

Exactly correct JB.

Wonder if they will release it to the plebs or just keep asking us to send champion ex great Nathan Burke our proxies and hide behind his integrity.

The financial details will all be worked out later.

[Oh When the Saints]

I spoke of the concerns raised by Joffaboy about how they were going to start a flood of unfunded spending. This is one area the new ticket are certainly not going to go blindly or spend just for the sake of spending.

They do have detailed plans for where monies will be spent as well as detailed plans for increasing memberships, sponsorship and revenue. A number of groups are willing to back this ticket with sponsorship on the proviso they are elected. It's interesting that these parties are not approaching the current board, seems sponsorship money is there on the proviso the current board aren't the ones managing it.

[joffaboy]

TBH, the suggested increase in spending on the football dept isn't what interests me (within reason), it's more how they propose to diversify the club's income streams and increase those we already have.

This financial year we are forecasting a profit slightly less than the increase from the AFL's distribution to clubs. If we are to keep pace with the rest of the competition we cannot afford to maintain current levels of expeniditure let alone increase it (taking into account increases in the cap and other inflationary pressures) and still remain profitable.

This is not just a question I'd like the challengers to answer but also the incumbents. Rod's comment the other day on increasing revenue did concern me but I accept it was probably worded poorly.

Excellent post. Revenue increases has been my main worry for a couple of years now.

I couldn't understand why our Revenue hovered around 21-22 mill but our membership was increasing substaintally and our average crowds rose to 40k.

They are just two streams but both are significant.

If it comes to that I would love to know what the incumbants and the FFS outline as far as this goes.

In another thread Bungiton mentioned that Westaway suggested that they have substantial backing coming on board that wont support the incumbants. While this is welcome and would be terrific, it must be viewed with an air of healthy skepticism as every challenger always mentions "substaintial backing that will come on board" if they win.

Obviously Westaway cant say too much more at this time, but the fact remains that Revenues have to rise and fairly substaintially if the FFS are to put their plans in place.

if they dont get in how will the current board get the revenue out of its current torpor?

[joffaboy]

I spoke of the concerns raised by Joffaboy about how they were going to start a flood of unfunded spending. This is one area the new ticket are certainly not going to go blindly or spend just for the sake of spending.

They do have detailed plans for where monies will be spent as well as detailed plans for increasing memberships, sponsorship and revenue. A number of groups are willing to back this ticket with sponsorship on the proviso they are elected. It's interesting that these parties are not approaching the current board, seems sponsorship money is there on the proviso the current board aren't the ones managing it.

As i said OWTS - great news if true, and it must be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism as Westaway is in electioneering mode, however it is nothing worse than i have heard from the incumbants for years.

[Oh When the Saints]

True joffaboy ... despite protestations of his humbleness and desire for privacy, you generally aren't successful in business if you don't know how to spin things and "grease" people ...

[To the top]

JD, there are a few who post in a similar manner to you.

One of those is SRS, who posted on the thread "Substance or rhetoric" on 12th September at 3.30PM.

The one thing you and your like posters have in common, in my view, is that a difinitive comparative analysis is absent.

Because we have nothing to compare.

As I say, it may be that the alternate ticket should be supported - but you do not say give us your proxies because we have Nathan Burke.

Some years ago, following on from the Savings & Loans debacle in the USA and property prices and financiers coming under pressure globally, a News Reader on Channel 9 (Naylor) was the face of Pyramid Building Society, telling people to invest their money and earn 17% per annum.

And, more recently, Dawn Fraser has done a similar thing.

Both later lamented that they knew nothing of the circumstances of those they were promoting.

I am not comparing this bid with the parties Naylor and Fraser promoted respectively, but I am saying that a rigourous assessment process should be undertaken before anyone makes up their minds.

We need the information so that we can assess and decide.

Currently we have windy rhetoric.

And one thing I have always adhered to is never presume to speak on behalf of someone else.

So the references to un-named parties who will come on board but do not want to become associated or named carries no weight with me.