Saints promised truckloads of cash

[saintsRrising]

I think the article below is a reasonably balanced one about what needs to be done financially for FF to deliver on their promises.

Members should not take an announced ofa Major Sponosr or two over the next few months as a sign that FF has delivered....as the Saints would have secured some new major sponsors anyway. Sponsors have come and gone in the past and the old Board would have secured some new sponsors as well as they have done in the past. what they need is to secure well beypond what the current Board could have achieved...and importantly this must flow through to actual increased spend on the Football Department as a first priorty and secondly on members. If all that occurs is that the Corporate set get more prawns and Chardonnay then we will have achieved nothing more than fools gold.


What will be the measure, is FF actually being able to increase expenditure on the Football Department beyond what had ALREADY started to occur......ie The Saints need to be spending on par with the highest 4 Melbourne Clubs as per the FF platform.

Now I do not expect this to happen instantly....but by the end of say two years FF will need to at or near its stated platform.

If FF can achieve what they have said they will....well that will be a most marvelous achievement.

Saints promised truckloads of cash

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 32,00.html

Chip Le Grand, Australian Football
October 04, 2007
ST KILDA's chairman-elect Greg Westaway is less new broom than giant, golden spoon.

One day after learning the board had yielded to the weight of proxy votes and taken immediate leave of the club before a scheduled Extraordinary General Meeting, Westaway vowed to boost the Saints' spending on football operations by $2.27million.

Westaway didn't use this figure. But he did state his ambition to elevate St Kilda to within the AFL's top four clubs in terms of football department spending.

"I will have to have a look at the exact numbers but we have been very poor in that area," Westaway said yesterday. "We have been 11th or thereabouts in total footy spend, and I would like to get that up to fourth. That will give us a better chance."

According to the latest figures available, St Kilda's 2006 expenditure on football was $11.28m. West Coast Eagles, the club which finished fourth on the spendthrift ladder, ploughed $13.55m into football in the same year. St Kilda members will be hoping that Westaway can do the maths.

Westaway, and members of Rod Butterss' dismantled board, may point out that these figures are out of date and St Kilda is already spending more on its football operations. This is correct; the figures for all clubs for 2007 won't be collated until March.

But it is safe to assume that rival clubs have not been idle since the AFL last updated its books. Collingwood, the only Melbourne-based club in the top four in football expenditure in 2006, has this year spent in excess of $15m on recruiting, coaching, and paying its team.

Westaway, the owner of a trucking company, has identified fitness/conditioning and recruiting as two areas in which St Kilda is under-resourced. Asked how he intended to pay for new staff and improved facilities, Westaway said his board was "well down the track in securing some good sponsorships".

New sponsors are always welcomed at an AFL club, especially at St Kilda, which has churned major sponsors at an alarming rate under Butterss' time as president. But new sponsors alone will not address the difference between the money St Kilda has and what it plans to spend.

To spend as much as Sydney, for instance, it must earn an additional $6.54m to bridge the relative gap in revenue.

While naming rights and secondary sponsors are generally worth about $5m to an AFL club, it costs them anywhere from $3.5m to $4.2m to service those sponsors.

Sponsors like to be associated with clubs, but they also expect access to signage at stadiums, corporate hospitality and free tickets to major events such as the Brownlow Medal count.

Despite clubs diverging into gaming, hotel ownership and even travel agencies to unlock new revenue streams, membership remains the most efficient source of revenue for clubs.

As a rule of thumb, an additional 5000 members can bring in as much as $800,000 in net revenue -- enough to cover the difference between what St Kilda and Collingwood spent on fitness/conditioning and recruiting in 2006.

The difficulty St Kilda faces is generating enough excitement within its supporter base to mobilise new members. Since the end of the 2007 season, the club's leading goal-kicker Fraser Gehrig has retired. As of yesterday, its emblematic though injury-prone forward, Aaron Hamill, has accepted an undisclosed pay-out in lieu of the final year of his contract.

The senior team finished ninth last year following a wretched run of injuries. St Kilda will expect to play finals next season, but there is not the same buzz about the Saints as there was two or three years ago, when they were seen as having the most talented list in the competition.

Westaway joked yesterday that he would be happy to finish 16th in 2008 in terms of media appearances. Even as a throw-away line, this does not bode well.

As one rival club insider put it: "Maybe with the new board coming on there is a bit of excitement, but there is no Eddie McGuire there and there is no Chris Judd."

Football clubs have traditionally been far better at spending money than making it. It is only in recent years that the AFL has been comfortable with the administration at Moorabbin, a comfort shaped in no small part by the financial rectitude of Butterss and his board.

This year, like last year, the club will turn a trading profit in excess of $1m: a financial result which underscores the curious circumstances leading to Westaway's bloodless coup.

While boardroom challenges are common at AFL clubs, they rarely succeed unless the club is either haemorrhaging money or languishing at the bottom of the ladder.

A challenge to Essendon chairman Ray Horsburgh and managing director Peter Jackson this week was stillborn before the counting of proxies was complete.

Asked why a new board was necessary at St Kilda, Westaway said it was a matter of giving the coaches and players more resources to win.

"We have gone third, third, eighth and ninth," he said. "It is hardly moving in the right direction, is it? That is really what it is all about.

"I don't believe we have necessarily given everything we can to the players, which we have to do to make them perform at the top level. We are there to be in finals."

This message will be well received by the players when Westaway addresses the coaches and playing list on Friday, first at a private meeting and later at the club's best and fairest count. After all, what organisation doesn't like to be told that it needs more staff, more resources and more money in all areas?

The bigger question is whether Westaway and his board can make this happen. In trucking terms, it is a long haul ahead.

[Oh When the Saints]

Yep, good article.

The excitement factor is not one I am worried about ... that develops through successful on-field performance, and to have successful on-field performance you need to be putting resources to the football department.


The key will be keeping our membership above 30,000 for 2008 ... many will have been disappointed with 2007, and with interest rate rises and grocery prices going up because of the drought, it will be more difficult to entice people to spend that extra hundred/two hundred bucks.

Hopefully the new board will look at revenue streams besides membership and sponsors.

No doubt I am sure sponsors will help, especially if we lift the number we have and service them better.


Westaway, Dana Nelson, Simon Grant and Chris Brant have all been involved in businesses which have experienced fairly significant growth in their time there.

They should have a few clues how to grow revenue.


By the end of the 2009 season I would expect the club to have shown significant increases in football spending, revenue and sponsorship.

[Solar]

I also think that smarter use of functions could be a real boon for finances. Alot of the current functions are too expensive for general members and thus are only making small profits.

[rodgerfox]

The excitement factor is not one I am worried about ... that develops through successful on-field performance

That's an interesting point.

It's actually an area where I think Butterss and Co. dropped off over the past couple of years.

When they took the reigns, the letter to the members asked us to 'talk us up' at every opportunity. To talk about the Saints at work, at the pub, at school, wherever.

The intention was that people were talking about us, and the excitement would build.

It worked I think. Possibly too well as the expectation exceeded what our output would realistically be. But we certainly thrived in membership and general exposure at the time. I found that people hated us - it was great! In the past no-one cared enough about us to hate us. But suddenly they did.

However, over the past year or two it's like we weren't even trying. No new membership campaign, no big marketing ploys, no big recruits on or off field - nothing.

I think we need to build some excitement. If you build it artificially then back it up with some good early performances, it creates some really big interest.

[chook23]

The excitement factor is not one I am worried about ... that develops through successful on-field performance

That's an interesting point.

It's actually an area where I think Butterss and Co. dropped off over the past couple of years.

When they took the reigns, the letter to the members asked us to 'talk us up' at every opportunity. To talk about the Saints at work, at the pub, at school, wherever.

The intention was that people were talking about us, and the excitement would build.

It worked I think. Possibly too well as the expectation exceeded what our output would realistically be. But we certainly thrived in membership and general exposure at the time. I found that people hated us - it was great! In the past no-one cared enough about us to hate us. But suddenly they did.

However, over the past year or two it's like we weren't even trying. No new membership campaign, no big marketing ploys, no big recruits on or off field - nothing.

I think we need to build some excitement. If you build it artificially then back it up with some good early performances, it creates some really big interest.

Part of the excitement at the time was created by having the early draft picks etc

the same excitement Hawks and Carlton(now) with high draft picks.

[rodgerfox]

Part of the excitement at the time was created by having the early draft picks etc

the same excitement Hawks and Carlton(now) with high draft picks.

True - but as with Carlton and Hawthorn, we played on it.

There is no reason we can't find reasons to talk ourselves up and build excitement.

As per Chippa's article, membership is the best revenue stream for clubs. This has to be the main focus.

[Oh When the Saints]

Yeah, it's an interesting one.

We were the most exciting team in the AFL in 2004 and carried that tag for much of '05.

Things dropped off at the start of '06 as other clubs over-took us ... our membership only rose slightly and our marketing seemed to stall.

Ditto '07 ... no ads on TV this year, a gimmicky little tin to try and entice members.


As I said above, a large part of the excitement factor comes with on-field performance. There's not much you can do about that from a board perspective except for resourcing your football department and ensuring you have the right people in place.


But I agree we could freshen up our "brand" a bit. A couple of new sponsors, especially if they are exciting (Bill Express was hardly inspiring) will help.

If we can follow that up with advertisments on TV, maybe a decent trade during trade week and then a good start to 2008, hopefully we will be on the right track.

[Brewer]

I also think that smarter use of functions could be a real boon for finances. Alot of the current functions are too expensive for general members and thus are only making small profits.

I think this is one area that will definitely improve. Ms Nelson seems to have some pretty solid experience in corporate schmoozing, special events and the like. Hopefully this will translate into some good fundraising events as well as some things to keep the sponsors keen.

[saintspremiers]

I'm sick of the media and SFF talking about 2006 figures.

2007 Footy Year End has now closed (or almost closed), and I'd love to see what our revenue was for 2007 vs 2006......sure, we may not have other club's data for a little while yet, but has our revenue base improved or declined this year?

Understand if Westaway won't go public on it for a bit for commercial reasons, but 2006 financials are a full year old at this point in time IMO.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Yep, good article.

The excitement factor is not one I am worried about ... that develops through successful on-field performance, and to have successful on-field performance you need to be putting resources to the football department.


The key will be keeping our membership above 30,000 for 2008 ... many will have been disappointed with 2007, and with interest rate rises and grocery prices going up because of the drought, it will be more difficult to entice people to spend that extra hundred/two hundred bucks.

Hopefully the new board will look at revenue streams besides membership and sponsors.

No doubt I am sure sponsors will help, especially if we lift the number we have and service them better.


Westaway, Dana Nelson, Simon Grant and Chris Brant have all been involved in businesses which have experienced fairly significant growth in their time there.

They should have a few clues how to grow revenue.


By the end of the 2009 season I would expect the club to have shown significant increases in football spending, revenue and sponsorship.

Those are big expectations.

The article makes 2 clear points that needs to be recognised: A major sponsor is worth about $5Mil, and is about 30% margin to the club - they are selling a service. The second is that the end number to be looking at as a spending increase is about $2.27mil to put St. KFC in the top 4.

So that's 450% more than Butterss and co. had budgeted for.

If we assume from other numbers given and the $1Mil profit, that turnover was around $12.28Mil, to match revenue to output, that's around 20% growth - which in spite of the successes these board members have had in the past would be a phenominal figure to achieve.

The two straighforward ways (there is unlikely to be an investment that pops up with enough fast return to allow for that) are major sponsors ($1.5Mil per according to the article, and we're two down), and members (800k per 5,000 and at 30k with game style and less hype, this will be a tough number to grow).

Should they achieve static membership (i.e. retail ALL members, or be able to sign up 1 for 1), then that means that not only do SFF have to sign up 2 major sponsors, they have to get 2 new ones - and that's WITHOUT addressing spending towards growing revenue in general - i.e. revenue streams outside sponsorship and membership.

The implication is that the club will be taking on debt in order to grow revenues, which will hopefully play to the strengths of some of the new board members, but there really isn't an obvious place to do it with a sporting club. Sporting clubs rely on discretionary spend, and in a market prey to inflation and consumerism leveraging the brand to take advantage of the consumer isn't easy, and bears little relation to logistics, catering or investment over any short term project - and sporting clubs like charities rarely have the luxury of thinking over a long term.

All I can say is that while I like the comment that he hopes for a premiership in the next 3 years, I sincerely hope that the inference the article makes (that we'll be spending 2.27Mil more) is as baseless as it seems.

By the end of 2009, if the Saints are able to grow their annual spend continually while increasing turnover, and staff size, I won't quibble top 4 (WCE, Sydney, Coll, Adelaide are in a different landscape), and consider a job well done. I don't know where others might measure significant, but I'm conservative in my expectations.

[4theluvoftheclub]

Just gotta laugh at the way the media twist GW's words, from what we can hear on sportal of the actual media conference. he said he will be here for 3 years at least . He also said he wants us to be in the top 4 in footy spend...so journos with an exciting headline to write, say - "oh - duhh, that must mean immediately, in season 2008" ....what dunces.

[Oh When the Saints]

Mmm.

Buts a different perspective on it when you say it like that BAM! (shhhh).


I think they will have a tough time maintaining the same bottom line for '08, because I expect our membership to fall somewhat and missing the finals to hurt.

[satchmo]

Love this bit...

Westaway vowed to boost the Saints' spending on football operations by $2.27million.

Westaway didn't use this figure.

[saintsRrising]

Love this bit...

Westaway vowed to boost the Saints' spending on football operations by $2.27million.

Westaway didn't use this figure.

No...but as the next line in the article was..
"Westaway didn't use this figure. But he did state his ambition to elevate St Kilda to within the AFL's top four clubs in terms of football department spending. "

So seems to be reasonablly fare reasoning to me.

[satchmo]

Love this bit...

Westaway vowed to boost the Saints' spending on football operations by $2.27million.

Westaway didn't use this figure.

No...but as the next line in the article was..
"Westaway didn't use this figure. But he did state his ambition to elevate St Kilda to within the AFL's top four clubs in terms of football department spending. "

So seems to be reasonablly fare reasoning to me.

You don't think it's misleading to say he "vowed" to reach a specific target, when in fact as you said, "he did state his ambition to elevate St Kilda to within the AFL's top four clubs in terms of football department spending" ?

"vowing" is surely a fair bit stronger than "Having ambition" ?

[Riewoldting]

Agree with satchmo.

One day after learning the board had yielded to the weight of proxy votes and taken immediate leave of the club before a scheduled Extraordinary General Meeting, Westaway vowed to boost the Saints' spending on football operations by $2.27million.

Westaway didn't use this figure. But he did state his ambition to elevate St Kilda to within the AFL's top four clubs in terms of football department spending.

According to the latest figures available, St Kilda's 2006 expenditure on football was $11.28m. West Coast Eagles, the club which finished fourth on the spendthrift ladder, ploughed $13.55m into football in the same year. St Kilda members will be hoping that Westaway can do the maths.

Doesn't this assume that West Coast's spending will remain static at $11.28m between 2006 and 2007?

Le Grand himself mentions that "it is safe to assume that rival clubs have not been idle since the AFL last updated its books". Yet he arrives at a figure of $2.27m.

He makes factual errors ("Westaway vowed") and his figures are extremely rubbery. Is that reasonably fair reasoning, saintsRrising?

Saints fans will be hoping that Westaway can do the maths a damn sight better than Le Grand can do the writing.

[To the top]

I see from the climes of France that this debate is still running, as it is now guaranteed to do because the vote has been won on expectations.

And now the expectation needs to crystallise to performance, immediately because that was the presentation.

Revenue was to the order of $21 Million, to achieve a Net Profit of $1 Million. This is in the public record.

Factor the revenue generated into the article which appeared on "The Australians" Web site, an article which is very close to the facts of the matter accross all fronts addressed.

But not all fronts have been addressed.

And can I add, the one thing you look for in assessing investment into any Company is its Succession Planning.

There are reasons for that.

Certain on here obviously live for the footy club, and that is fair enough.
But never judge others by yourself, and particularly do not judge those required to bring money to the club by paying hundreds if not thousands to attend functions promoted by the club because they are a different breed - and a breed that follows success.

The article only touches on the sheer dimension of the task the incoming Board have set for themselves.

I wish them luck, because I, for one, fear they are going to need it.

On that sobering note, see ya at the footy!

In Orstralia of course!!

[saintsRrising]

I see from the climes of France that this debate is still running,

Peut-être vous pourriez discuter le football plutôt que de chercher à impressionner avec vos voyages?




.