35,000 members will keep 11 HOME games in Melbourne!!

[saintspremiers]

Boys and girls....

THAT IMO is the bottom line.

Our new board is hungry for cash, and they MAY be prepared to prostitute some of our home games for the necessary dollar.

Just like North at the moment, we need more members.

I know a lot of folk on here are already members, so no point preaching to the converted, just thought I'd name a number that should get us across the line.

The other option is more direct donations to the club.

Give us a number Westaway, throw out the bait and let's use this opportunity to strengthen our weakening membership base in Melbourne.

GO SAINTS!!!

[Darren]

Well said.

SAINTS '08 PREMIERS.

[Oh When the Saints]

Nothing to do with that IMO.

It's about:

1. Getting a better draw for the club to maximise our on-field performance

2. Making a huge amount of money (equivalent of 10,000 new members) for 3 years and then pulling out.
It's basically a 3-year sponsorship deal for the club.


Not a reflection of a shaky financial situation, but of a desire to improve our draw and make more money than we are currently doing.

[n1ck]

It's about:

... a desire to improve our draw and make more money than we are currently doing.

Thats what its about.

If we can earn a bucketload, while limiting our travel problems - at the expense of a reserved seat or victory room for a couple of weeks (p/a for 3 years) - then its a hell of a worthwhile excercise.

[Batnoe]

As they say in the add, they want back to back games at Gold Coast, therefore limiting travelling again

Not a bad move and we do have a lot of South East Saints, me as a brisbaneite would love this to happen, it will only see our membership invrease as the all the people that get interstate membership will probably talk their friends into it as well or maybe get a full membership if it means seeing 4 or 5 games a year

[saintspremiers]

It's about:

... a desire to improve our draw and make more money than we are currently doing.

Thats what its about.

If we can earn a bucketload, while limiting our travel problems - at the expense of a reserved seat or victory room for a couple of weeks (p/a for 3 years) - then its a hell of a worthwhile excercise.

Yeah I see your point in theory, but our 2 games in Tassie may as well have been in Hell with 5 men vs. 22, will those proposed GC games be true neutral games or will we be shyte and disinterested and the the travel problem issue is just transferred from Subi or Sydney etc to the Gold Coast???

[rodgerfox]

It's about:

1. Getting a better draw for the club to maximise our on-field performance

That's critical.

Even with the injuries we had, a reasonable draw in 05 and 06 could have seen us win the flag.

The AFL is not a competition. It's a business. It's not fair, it's not even.

We start about 20% behind the non-Melbourne clubs, and Collingwood before each season even begins.

We play home finals at our opponents home grounds.

We have to find a way to get an advantage in this area. Apart from moving to the MCG or back to Moorabbin, this is the most sensible approach.

Also, and this is bound to upset a few, should North not move there, I wonder who would have one foot in the door already???

[BAM! (shhhh)]

It's about:

... a desire to improve our draw and make more money than we are currently doing.

Thats what its about.

If we can earn a bucketload, while limiting our travel problems - at the expense of a reserved seat or victory room for a couple of weeks (p/a for 3 years) - then its a hell of a worthwhile excercise.

Yeah I see your point in theory, but our 2 games in Tassie may as well have been in Hell with 5 men vs. 22, will those proposed GC games be true neutral games or will we be shyte and disinterested and the the travel problem issue is just transferred from Subi or Sydney etc to the Gold Coast???

IMO, if we can get an away game transferred out of Subi, regardless of which team, that's more than likely worth a home game.

I don't like it... but i don't necessarily hate it - need more info (i.e. see this proposed fixture...).

[bozza1980]

It's about:

... a desire to improve our draw and make more money than we are currently doing.

Thats what its about.

If we can earn a bucketload, while limiting our travel problems - at the expense of a reserved seat or victory room for a couple of weeks (p/a for 3 years) - then its a hell of a worthwhile excercise.

I agree.

Even if we had 50,000 members the club would be investigating this option.

If we can take 3 trips interstate from a hostile envirnoment into a more neutral environment it can only be good for the club.

It is another example of the club looking outside the square to negotiate a positive deal for the team.

[evertonfc]

If we have 16/22 games in Victoria, that's a fair number.

If that means hosting two games in Gold Coast - I love the idea of back-to-back matches - then it's a great idea.

Perhaps we could negotiate other parts of the deal, like no more than one trip per year to Perth?

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

[Saints94]

If we have 16/22 games in Victoria, that's a fair number.

If that means hosting two games in Gold Coast - I love the idea of back-to-back matches - then it's a great idea.

Perhaps we could negotiate other parts of the deal, like no more than one trip per year to Perth?

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

The perfect fixture

[Armoooo]

If we have 16/22 games in Victoria, that's a fair number.

If that means hosting two games in Gold Coast - I love the idea of back-to-back matches - then it's a great idea.

Perhaps we could negotiate other parts of the deal, like no more than one trip per year to Perth?

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

This would be a win for every party involved, it would give St.Kilda a good run and quite a bit of money, it would be good for the kangaroos because it would take a bit of pressure from the AFL off of them, the AFL would have interest builiding in Gold Coast to get them prepared for a full time team...

I am very doubtful that the AFL will accept this offer though, it is too skewed in our favour.... One thing that may get us over the line from the pies though is that we have Riewoldt, the best ex-gold coaster in the game today, that should rally up a bit of interest and they could put a face to the campaign....

[vacuous space]

If we can get a guarantee of 16 home games in Melbourne and then play half of our interstate games on the Gold Coast, then I'm all for it.

[Solar]

If we have 16/22 games in Victoria, that's a fair number.

If that means hosting two games in Gold Coast - I love the idea of back-to-back matches - then it's a great idea.

Perhaps we could negotiate other parts of the deal, like no more than one trip per year to Perth?

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

Thats how I read it, we basically are jumping in and playing on our terms, if they knock it back then we say "we tried but no thanks". If they take us up on the above and we can get the GC games close together or back to back with perhaps some work in the community during the two weeks then it's a win for our club.

[RBnW]

If we have 16/22 games in Victoria, that's a fair number.

If that means hosting two games in Gold Coast - I love the idea of back-to-back matches - then it's a great idea.

Perhaps we could negotiate other parts of the deal, like no more than one trip per year to Perth?

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

Thats how I read it, we basically are jumping in and playing on our terms, if they knock it back then we say "we tried but no thanks". If they take us up on the above and we can get the GC games close together or back to back with perhaps some work in the community during the two weeks then it's a win for our club.

the fewer times we have to go to subi the better, even if it was a swap and we got paid for it that would work, if we can get one of the AMMI, Sydney or Subi games on the GC and they are not additional travels that has to be good and i think the back to back option is great, even if we played Brisbane at the Gabba away and then the week after played at the GC and got paid for the week, then went to the mid year break that would be better than a travel to Subi, AMMI or Sydney.
I don't think the club is looking at this as another Tassie, this has legs and would be an advantage, its all about playing less at Subi IMHO....

[saintspremiers]

Gee it sounds like all you lot are really confident we'll play OK up on the Gold Coast.

I'm not that confident.

But go ahead.....sell off 2 or 3 games, let's reinvent the broken wheel that was Launceston!

Some of you lot have very, very short memories!

[RBnW]

Gee it sounds like all you lot are really confident we'll play OK up on the Gold Coast.

I'm not that confident.

But go ahead.....sell off 2 or 3 games, let's reinvent the broken wheel that was Launceston!

Some of you lot have very, very short memories!

we never asked for a swap in Tassie we just added games where we had to travel, if you read what was reported it is clear that we are asking for a game less at Subi for one at the GC.........this is nothing like playing 2 home games in Tassie in addition to 5 or 6 interstate games with 2 at Subi which is what we did. Add to that the coach who did not want to play in Tassie and made sure everyone knew that.
This is a long way from the Tassie deal, we will get paid for playing thier knock off 2 travels in the one week and have one less trip to Subi, which has to be better........don't you see this, give the new lot some credit this is smart thinking that will result in a better opportunity to pick up points away from home

[No1_Saint]

I would rather stronger financial returns from home games at the Dome from more diverse streams of revenue....or....

We need at least one (preferably 2) blockbusters at the MCG against another Melbourne team. Yes the Dome is great and has had good results on the field for us...but off the field a 55,000 crowd at the 'G versus the Dome brings in significantly more profit for the club. This is why the operating revenue has been stagnant for a while.

[Megamaguire]

Collingwood for instance don't 'need' a blockbuster nor do essendon or even hawthorn but Saint Kilda do from a financial point of view alone .

Having a blockbuster as our home game at the 'G' gives the club a chance to close the gap on the financial giants we have to pit ourselves against. I like the idea of playing a Home game against Collingwood or the next largest crowd pulling team. Hold on just to keep it simple shouldn't we pushing for a Home game every year at the 'G' against Collingwood. If the fans knew how significant it was to the club's security they would lock in their attendance and just about guarntee 65,000+ crowds every time.

The club made a good decision pulling back from Tassie but we need to keep agitating and arguing for a better deal for Saint Kilda.

NO MORE SUBI TRIPS AS A STRATEGY THANKS. - apologies Robert Harvey on your 350th. that trip was worth it.

GOOD LUCK Board room Boys.

G O S A I N T S !

[Riewoldting]

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

A worse scenario:

9 home games at Docklands
2 home games at Carrara
5 away games at Docklands/MCG
1 away game at York Park
1 away game at Kardinia Park
1 away game at Subiaco
2 away games at Football Park
1 away game at SCG/Gabba

In real terms, 14 games in Melbourne, 1 in Geelong and seven interstate (2 home, five away)

[n1ck]

I thought the point is that it would be capped at 6 interstate, Riewoldting?

[St.Kenny]

MAybe we will pick up a few KAngaroos supporters in the wash.
I insist however they must wear their false teeth at games.
Otherwise we sit 'em with Barks and Joffaboy !

[iwantmeseats]

My pitch to the AFL:

- 16 games in Melbourne (9 home @ Dome, 7 away between Dome/MCG)
- Two games @ GC
- No more than one game per year in Perth, leaving three away games to be shared between Port, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

I think it's fair - certainly gets us a great deal ($ wise), whilst ensuring we get to see the same amount of football in Victoria.

Everybody wins IMO.

A worse scenario:

9 home games at Docklands
2 home games at Carrara
5 away games at Docklands/MCG
1 away game at York Park
1 away game at Kardinia Park
1 away game at Subiaco
2 away games at Football Park
1 away game at SCG/Gabba

In real terms, 14 games in Melbourne, 1 in Geelong and seven interstate (2 home, five away)

yeah that would be bad. The whole idea is BAD! Less ganes in melbourne = total no go zone. total!

[Saint Bev]

I think it is a brialliant idea. Its a great opportunity to give something back to the Qld supporters and do less travelling. Not to mention the money. But there is one thing that everyone seems to have overlooked. Its only for a couple of years, so I really don't know why people are getting so uppity about it.

[repta]

By keeping 11 home games you give the opportunity to gain more members. If they sell the games away again I am tossing in the membership (reserved seat, social the whole lot).
If the Saints board think they can out cage the AFL by saying 16 games in Melbourne, 4 at Carara and 2 interstate they have to be kidding. Why does North Melbourne HATE the deal? Because they will play only 6-7 games in Melbourne a year ... still having to go to Western Australia twice, Adelaide twice etc etc. The AFL will say ok ... then ohh ... we couldnt schedule it sorry .... too late .... and if the saints try and say NO once the deal happens they pull every pin in the basket to try and roll us (financially, game scheduling etc etc). Remember the great Tassy experiement .. the Canberra one for other clubs ... has this been the answer ..... it has confirmed one thing
- erosion of the traditional supporter base
Has Melbourne, Footscray, North Melbourne or the Saints become a financial powerhouse from prostituting themselves and selling their Premiership Points?