St Kilda-Gold Coast Proposal - The Age

[saintsRrising]

I don't think that those teams will play their home games at QLD, I just think that if we have 11 away games, 8 of them will be against Victorian teams and 3 will be against interstate....
It is great for us IMO!!

....

Sorry Armoo...I misunderstod your intent.

I thought you meant 3 interstate teams all in Qld.

[LennyBoy]

Why are there soo many people thinking that the Gold Coast is going to the the answer financially; its a huge risk and unproven AFL Market.

FACT:
*Only 5% of the Kangaroos current membership based are QLD Based Members.

<1500 New Members
So hows this financially viable?

[Armoooo]

Gold Coast Saints

or

St.Kilda Saints, I don't see how playing 3 games on the GC as making us become the Gold Coast Saints....

We would play as many games in victoria and as many games interstate, it's really no issue...

[TimeToShineFellas]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

[n1ck]

Why are there soo many people thinking that the Gold Coast is going to the the answer financially; its a huge risk and unproven AFL Market.

FACT:
*Only 5% of the Kangaroos current membership based are QLD Based Members.

FACT:
The Southport Sharks have more members than 3qtrs of the AFL clubs. Admittedly, as it is not AFL, memberships are cheaper, but the interest is there, and hardly unproven.

[n1ck]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

[saintsRrising]

This is the way I see the whole thing happening correct me if I'm wrong sRr.

But ATM we play 22 games..
11 home (all TD)
11 away (5 in Vic, 6 I/S)

we want to make it like this:
11 home (8 TD and 3 at the GC)
11 Home (8 in Vic, 3 I/S)

It seems to me like you think that an intertate team would be forced to move their home game to QLD.

...

sorry I misunterstood your original intent as I thought you meant interstate clubs would play their home games in Qld.


With the new proposal..
we want to make it like this:
11 home (8 TD and 3 at the GC)
11 Home (8 in Vic, 3 I/S)

The Lions would probably be one of our Home GC games...
So that would be 4 I/S rather than 6.

[Armoooo]

Why are there soo many people thinking that the Gold Coast is going to the the answer financially; its a huge risk and unproven AFL Market.

FACT:
*Only 5% of the Kangaroos current membership based are QLD Based Members.

<1500 New Members
So hows this financially viable?

I agree with you completely on this, it is a huge risk for the long term, but for what we've proposed for over the next 4 years (excluding '08) it would be a great source of revenue.

Just a random question does anyone know if our proposal involves 2008?
The way I would think it would work is that it would start in '09 because the fixtures are out for '08 and if we were to play home games at the Gold Coast we would end up having to play 9 interstate games, which would essentially write off '08 and lose us Harvey......

[TimeToShineFellas]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

Suppose I'll have to take you at your word on that one..........

[LennyBoy]

Why are there soo many people thinking that the Gold Coast is going to the the answer financially; its a huge risk and unproven AFL Market.

FACT:
*Only 5% of the Kangaroos current membership based are QLD Based Members.

FACT:
The Southport Sharks have more members than 3qtrs of the AFL clubs. Admittedly, as it is not AFL, memberships are cheaper, but the interest is there, and hardly unproven.

Big difference, you can't compare apples and oranges. Fine by me if you target the GC as a trial to see what the potential target audience is like dollar wise - by surely do it in the right manner.

Comparing Southport with an AFL side makes no sense dollar wise; there is a big difference in the price of memberships and it is also also a new club (interstate) entering the supporter zone (eg not a new entity such as the Gold Coast Titans).

[barks4eva]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

yeah but you also voted for Howard

BWAHAHAHAHA

[Armoooo]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

Suppose I'll have to take you at your word on that one..........

I agree, this is a great proposal IMO, infact i think it is too skewed in our favour that the AFL will never accept it...

Tassie was different, because we were playing 2 home games a year there IIRC but we didn't have a cap on interstatte games, so we had to go interstate 8 times a year and IMO that was not on at all...

[saintsRrising]

Gold Coast Saints

On the contrary.

The AFLs statement - that if the Roos dont accept their offer, they will start a new club from scratch on the GC - gives us a legitimate 'get out' clause after the term of the deal.

Once theres a team on the GC, they have no need for us there, but we will already have gained exposure and members in the area. Not to mention the money... and the benefits of not having to travel to Perth and Adelaide twice...

I think any membership gain would be fools gold and temporary.....most lkely anyone won over to AFL would soon swap to the new GC once establsihed as they would be able to watch them first hans 11/12 matches per year vs 1 once the Saints stop playing games there.



To my mind...aprt from short term cash games IF the AFL helps to bankroll it...the ONLY meanigful benefit would be not having to travel to Perth and Adelaide twice.

We could however not play the Swans and so would still have 2 matches in Perth or Adelaide but not both.

[n1ck]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

yeah but you also voted for Howard

BWAHAHAHAHA

And you wanted to keep Butterss.

Whats your point?

[saintsRrising]

FACT:
The Southport Sharks have more members than 3qtrs of the AFL clubs. Admittedly, as it is not AFL, memberships are cheaper, but the interest is there, and hardly unproven.

There are facts and facts...

I think that lot of those memberships will actually be cheap pokie members who have only signed on so that they can play the pokies at the club.

How many of them actually attend games or would be willing to pay the full cost ofa football club membership???

[n1ck]

Gold Coast Saints

On the contrary.

The AFLs statement - that if the Roos dont accept their offer, they will start a new club from scratch on the GC - gives us a legitimate 'get out' clause after the term of the deal.

Once theres a team on the GC, they have no need for us there, but we will already have gained exposure and members in the area. Not to mention the money... and the benefits of not having to travel to Perth and Adelaide twice...

I think any membership gain would be fools gold and temporary.....most lkely anyone won over to AFL would soon swap to the new GC once establsihed as they would be able to watch them first hans 11/12 matches per year vs 1 once the Saints stop playing games there.



To my mind...aprt from short term cash games IF the AFL helps to bankroll it...the ONLY meanigful benefit would be not having to travel to Perth and Adelaide twice.

We could however not play the Swans and so would still have 2 matches in Perth or Adelaide but not both.

I agree, that most likely the membership gains would be temporary. However i think you underestimate the emotional impact footy has on people... once you've chosen a team, most people stay with that team. Its the reason there arent as many Freo members as there are WCE, and same with Port and Adelaide.

There are many supporters and members of Victorian clubs in WA and SA.

As for Sydney... when was the last time we didnt play them in Sydney?

Swans v Saints is usually a decent game, and is a good drawcard to the NSWelshmen for some reason.

[n1ck]

http://www.southportsharks.com.au/

[barks4eva]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

yeah but you also voted for Howard

BWAHAHAHAHA

And you wanted to keep Butterss.

Whats your point?

well excuse me, little johnnie boy, but at least Butterss learnt a thing or two from the Tassie experiment, which seems to be a lot more than what can be said for FFS who have been there all of five minutes and are already talking about compromising our premiership chances by playing HOME games at the Gold Coast

FAIIR FLOWERING DINKUM

[Saints94]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

yeah but you also voted for Howard

BWAHAHAHAHA

And you wanted to keep Butterss.

Whats your point?

well excuse me, little johnnie boy, but at least Butterss learnt a thing or two from the Tassie experiment, which seems to be a lot more than what can be said for FFS who have been there all of five minutes and are already talking about compromising our premiership chances by playing HOME games at the Gold Coast

FAIIR FLOWERING DINKUM

Get over your self come on

[rodgerfox]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

yeah but you also voted for Howard

BWAHAHAHAHA

Howard's gone. Move on.

[n1ck]

And what have you learnt over the last few years on this forum b4e?

What SFF have proposed is completely different to the Tassie 'experiment', but im sure because its not Butterss' lovechild, you're gonna have a pot shot at it anyway.

[LennyBoy]

Vote 1: LGROFB

[Oh When the Saints]

I wonder if people would be backing this proposal so enthusiastically if Butterss was still president?

If the proposal was exactly the same, then yes, I would be without a doubt.

yeah but you also voted for Howard

BWAHAHAHAHA

Howard's gone. Move on.

[cwrcyn]

No one here knows what the financial gains may be.

They could be huge, and if that's the case, the club should go for it. We have only made a profit in recent years due to internal cost cutting, all this occurring during a successul period.

The board has every right to investigate the option and chose it if it feels the club will benefit financially.

If the Australian economy takes a bit of a nose-dive, then sponsorship money will be even harder to come by in Melbourne.

The club has to balance its premiership aspirations with its long-term financial viability. We are seriously way behind almost all other clubs in annual revenue, even though we have been quite successful in recent times.

Do we want more of the same? If so, where is the money going to magically appear from?

I'm right behind the board on investigating this option.

[barks4eva]

And what have you learnt over the last few years on this forum b4e?

What SFF have proposed is completely different to the Tassie 'experiment', but im sure because its not Butterss' lovechild, you're gonna have a pot shot at it anyway.

I couldn't care whether it was FFS, Butterss, Forrest Gump, Mr Bean, Gomer Pyle, Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, The Two Ronnies, The Three Stooges or Monty Python's Flying Cicus proposing to transfer HOME GAMES TO THE GOLD COAST it is a fair dinkum disgrace, no matter which clown, turkey or numbnut thinks it's a good thing for the St.Kilda Football Club

The old administration learnt from their mistake on this and pulled out of Tasmania for precisely the reason, that it was costing us on field and the transferred home games we dropped were not helpful in winning a premiership

Now FFS who have been there all of five minutes, who have obviously been in cloud cuckoo land for the past five years, are now proposing to repeat the mistakes of the past

FAIR DINKUM