$19 per month for 19 months ... your thoughts?

[BackFromUSA]

I know many people have real cash flow issues at the moment but the Government are coming up with ways to help and by May we should mostly have some $s in our pocket.

We need some angels to give us financial help.

I think that the saints should have Rowan Marshall (#19) spearhead an ANGELS campiagn to ask members AND especially non Member fans to commit:

$19 per month for 19 months starting in May.

It's not a membership.

It's not a share scheme.

You would receive an ANGEL certificate of appreciation and a special OFFICIAL ANGEL badge that you can proudly wear at the Footy.

But it's not anything really but a donation. $361 over 19 months. You can even opt to pay it upfront - to help the Saints cashflow.

This gives the Saints LIQUIDITY at a time where we need it AND even a chance to reduce some debt by the end of 2021.

How much would it raise?

10,000 contributors: $3,610,000
20,000 contributors: $7,220,000 (would be the target)
30,000 contributors: $10,830,000
etc

Throw on top of the programme 19 x SAINTS.

19 Donors willing to throw in $19000 a month for 19 months so $361,000 in total.

19 SAINTS earns us another $6,859,000

For this they get:
- Life Membership Honour
- A group photo and description of contribution to be permanently displayed at the Moorabbin headquarters in the Museum
- A framed keepsake signed photo with them and their choice of living Saints Legend with a plaque stating their contribution

20,000 ANGELS + 19 SAINTS = Debt disappears
50,000 ANGELS + 19 SAINTS = debt free and Covid-19 loans from AFL covered

[Shaggy]

I know many people have real cash flow issues at the moment but the Government are coming up with ways to help and by May we should mostly have some $s in our pocket.

We need some angels to give us financial help.

I think that the saints should have Rowan Marshall (#19) spearhead an ANGELS campiagn to ask members AND especially non Member fans to commit:

$19 per month for 19 months starting in May.

It's not a membership.

It's not a share scheme.

You would receive an ANGEL certificate of appreciation and a special OFFICIAL ANGEL badge that you can proudly wear at the Footy.

But it's not anything really but a donation. $361 over 19 months. You can even opt to pay it upfront - to help the Saints cashflow.

This gives the Saints LIQUIDITY at a time where we need it AND even a chance to reduce some debt by the end of 2021.

How much would it raise?

10,000 contributors: $3,610,000
20,000 contributors: $7,220,000 (would be the target)
30,000 contributors: $10,830,000
etc

Throw on top of the programme 19 x SAINTS.

19 Donors willing to throw in $19000 a month for 19 months so $361,000 in total.

19 SAINTS earns us another $6,859,000

For this they get:
- Life Membership Honour
- A group photo and description of contribution to be permanently displayed at the Moorabbin headquarters in the Museum
- A framed keepsake signed photo with them and their choice of living Saints Legend with a plaque stating their contribution

20,000 ANGELS + 19 SAINTS = Debt disappears
50,000 ANGELS + 19 SAINTS = debt free and Covid-19 loans from AFL covered

Whilst the concept is great I think it has 2 problems:

Firstly the people who are being asked to donate will want to know what is happening to this year's membership contribution, and

Secondly no-one has a real understanding of the financial cost yet to the Saints of the Coronavirus or when footy can restart.

Calling on members to fix our finances should be based on some degree of certainty it will fix the saints because second time around members will be sceptical and not so forthcoming.

[Enrico_Misso]

I think most of us have already made a "donation" this year under the guise of "membership".

[whiskers3614]

Sorry to be negative
But, I don't think people would want to give their hard earned to an organization that is paying part of Jack Steven's pay whilst clearing him for next to nothing.

[BackFromUSA]

Sorry to be negative
But, I don't think people would want to give their hard earned to an organization that is paying part of Jack Steven's pay whilst clearing him for next to nothing.

Player wages actually come from payments from the AFL to the clubs - ALL clubs. So the AFL pays Jack’s wage wherever he plays. Any split wage is just taking a % of the salary cap and means that another Saints player gets less.

[Secret Kiel]

As an athiest my overwhelming emotion is OMG.

This surely is a wind up.

The full magnitude of the financial devastation of this health crisis is atleast 12 months away from BEGINING to be realised by the global community.

And talk of angels is cringeworthy.

Let's get to the bottom of the reasons by those wanting thier membership money back before we start fleecing them for more money that could otherwise be redirected to essential items like booze and cigarettes and online gambling.

[BackFromUSA]

I think most of us have already made a "donation" this year under the guise of "membership".

Membership and even my seats in my eyes is a donation to start with. I buy twice as many memberships as I need for actual entry. If you view it as saving money from gate entry to games then what you are buying is a savings plan on your chosen form of entertainment that has everything to do with your economic benefit and very little to do with your love and passion for the survival and prosperity of the club.

[saintspremiers]

Good sentiments and as you’ve said re May payments this maybe is something to roll out in about a month from now - needs to be tax deductible of course.

I’m still pissed off the entitled players are earning 50% of their wage at the moment - it should be a tiered amount where no player gets more than a capped amount, and the overall cut they are getting is around 70% (which it will be by June). Lower paid players of course need some protection which it sounds like they are.

Unfortunately we know the AFL got a $600M loan through the media - but we don’t know each club’s financial position (roughly of course!).

I’d like our club to give us some indicative idea how much needs to raised - and then base a campaign on a $$$ target if that makes any sense??

[BackFromUSA]

As an athiest my overwhelming emotion is OMG.

This surely is a wind up.

The full magnitude of the financial devastation of this health crisis is atleast 12 months away from BEGINING to be realised by the global community.

And talk of angels is cringeworthy.

Let's get to the bottom of the reasons by those wanting thier membership money back before we start fleecing them for more money that could otherwise be redirected to essential items like booze and cigarettes and online gambling.

I believe our debt currently is around $12-$13 million.

I believe most of that is owed to the AFL.

This year that debt could easily double.

A $2 million trading loss and $10 million lower equalisation distribution grant from the AFL replaced by a $10 million loan from the AFL with an interest rate of 3.3%.

We need something to claw back that debt ASAP especially before interest rates rise again in 3 to 5 years time.

[Secret Kiel]

As an athiest my overwhelming emotion is OMG.

This surely is a wind up.

The full magnitude of the financial devastation of this health crisis is atleast 12 months away from BEGINING to be realised by the global community.

And talk of angels is cringeworthy.

Let's get to the bottom of the reasons by those wanting thier membership money back before we start fleecing them for more money that could otherwise be redirected to essential items like booze and cigarettes and online gambling.

I believe our debt currently is around $12-$13 million.

I believe most of that is owed to the AFL.

This year that debt could easily double.

A $2 million trading loss and $10 million lower equalisation distribution grant from the AFL replaced by a $10 million loan from the AFL with an interest rate of 3.3%.

We need something to claw back that debt ASAP especially before interest rates rise again in 3 to 5 years time.

I just don't think it's appropriate to be skimming money from people right now. It's the wrong climate.

[Sanctorum]

I like the idea of approaching members/supporters to dig a bit deeper in their pockets to help the club reduce debt which we all know is going to increase significantly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns.

It is unlikely though that there will be anywhere near sufficient members who will sign up to a "$19 for 19 months" programme to raise sufficient capital. Perhaps we could consider increasing the cost of memberships with a special levy, similar to what the Federal Government does in national emergencies with the Medicare levy, which is relatively painless.

I would like to suggest that the club President chairs a special "Fundraising Committee" and try to get some of the high-profile and wealthy supporters such as Shane Warne, the Fox family, there may be others, behind a special campaign to "Save Our Saints".

Let's face it, for some of these individuals a million dollars is pocket money!

They could apply their expertise to examine all of the avenues available for the club to raise additional capital on a short to medium term basis, in full knowledge that the AFL competition will eventually recover and return to strong revenue flows.

[bigred]

They have tried all of the above before.

It will end up being the supporters that keep the joint going.

Go buy a T shirt or something from the club website.

[Joffa Burns]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

[Secret Kiel]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

[kosifantutti]

I’m a big fan of Nick Coffield. I’m prepared to go $1 for one month.

[Joffa Burns]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

No idea at all.

[howlinwolf]

I think the idea is a good one.
Mainly because I don't want to see us fold and I think something like this will be needed to prevent that.

However, like anything in life , people want to see or know what they are getting for their money.
That's going to be hard for any promises to be made when the total of the fund raiser won't be known until it's done.

Times are tough for a lot of us and most have written off our contribution in memberships already.
I understand that but it all comes down to are people willing to see the club fold ?

I'd be happy to contribute to the 19/19 in the hope that it made the difference.
I can find $5 a week.

If we fold my interest in AFL will be zero so I'll roll the dice at the expense of one coffee a week.

[Secret Kiel]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

No idea at all.

Me neither, I haven't had any communication from the club outlining the details of this new agreement that meida is claiming gives full control to the AFL.

Wouldn't there be something in the club constitution requiring a members vote?

Does anyone have details around what giving full control means?

[asiu]

19 Donors willing to throw in $19000 a month for 19 months so $361,000 in total.

19 x 19 000 x 19 =‘s ... 361 000 ?

[asiu]

oh

per month

[asiu]

then u say

“I think ....

but the whole Angel blurb
says this is a Club idea
being flown by you

yes ?

[BackFromUSA]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

No idea at all.

Me neither, I haven't had any communication from the club outlining the details of this new agreement that meida is claiming gives full control to the AFL.

Wouldn't there be something in the club constitution requiring a members vote?

Does anyone have details around what giving full control means?

I think I can assist here from a historical perspective anyway.

The AFL already owns and controls all of the trademarks and commercial and intellectual property of the clubs.

Have done for over 20 years.

The AFL license to clubs the right to operate under their own suits tic toon within certain firm conditions.

Breaches can lead to a loss of licence!

One of the conditions is that with the move to centralised stadiums was that stadium revenue was mostly taken by the AFL and clubs only given a share of signage to sell.

Another was that clubs couldn’t have competing sponsors to the AFL sponsors but that rule got bent pretty quickly when AFL powerhouses argued that Ford was a pre existing sponsor of Geelong and Collingwood secured Lexus because they were owned by Toyota - the AFL sponsor.

Also the broadcast and internet rights etc - all owned business the league.

Other measures - salary cap / marketing dollars / coaching soft cap etc.

In return clubs given financial distributions to ensure they stay alive as long as they were responsible operations.

The AFL has always retained the right to step into licensees if they are in trouble and they have done it to Port and the Lions and even Melbourne. They take over appointments of people and provide funding for a restructure.

What is happening now is that without profits at AFL level they are replacing the annual distribution (on top of funding every clubs salary cap) with loans at 3.3% interest.

As the guarantor for those loans (they are lending against their stadium) they are making it a condition that if you take that loan you will need to report your financial position back to them regularly so that they can ensure that the clubs are not drowning further after COVID-19.

By the end of June 2021 I estimate the club will have debts of over $20m.

Around 90% owed to the AFL.

My guess: They will tolerate that if we can demonstrate debt reduction of around $2m per year. Given we haven’t made that sort of money they are cutting soft cap and other areas they can control (without stepping in) to force us to reduce spending and improve our bottom line.

The best thing we can do right now is give donations to the club to reduce their need to borrow and pay back.

$19 per month for 19 months ($4.38 per week) is what we should ask members and fans to pay to help bail out the club. Not compulsory. But appreciated.

20,000 contributions (half the members) saves us from this disaster.

Heavy hitters can pitch in more of course.

What do you get in return?

A st Kilda not controlled fully by the AFL.

[Secret Kiel]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

No idea at all.

Me neither, I haven't had any communication from the club outlining the details of this new agreement that meida is claiming gives full control to the AFL.

Wouldn't there be something in the club constitution requiring a members vote?

Does anyone have details around what giving full control means?

I think I can assist here from a historical perspective anyway.

The AFL already owns and controls all of the trademarks and commercial and intellectual property of the clubs.

Have done for over 20 years.

The AFL license to clubs the right to operate under their own suits tic toon within certain firm conditions.

Breaches can lead to a loss of licence!

One of the conditions is that with the move to centralised stadiums was that stadium revenue was mostly taken by the AFL and clubs only given a share of signage to sell.

Another was that clubs couldn’t have competing sponsors to the AFL sponsors but that rule got bent pretty quickly when AFL powerhouses argued that Ford was a pre existing sponsor of Geelong and Collingwood secured Lexus because they were owned by Toyota - the AFL sponsor.

Also the broadcast and internet rights etc - all owned business the league.

Other measures - salary cap / marketing dollars / coaching soft cap etc.

In return clubs given financial distributions to ensure they stay alive as long as they were responsible operations.

The AFL has always retained the right to step into licensees if they are in trouble and they have done it to Port and the Lions and even Melbourne. They take over appointments of people and provide funding for a restructure.

What is happening now is that without profits at AFL level they are replacing the annual distribution (on top of funding every clubs salary cap) with loans at 3.3% interest.

As the guarantor for those loans (they are lending against their stadium) they are making it a condition that if you take that loan you will need to report your financial position back to them regularly so that they can ensure that the clubs are not drowning further after COVID-19.

By the end of June 2021 I estimate the club will have debts of over $20m.

Around 90% owed to the AFL.

My guess: They will tolerate that if we can demonstrate debt reduction of around $2m per year. Given we haven’t made that sort of money they are cutting soft cap and other areas they can control (without stepping in) to force us to reduce spending and improve our bottom line.

The best thing we can do right now is give donations to the club to reduce their need to borrow and pay back.

$19 per month for 19 months ($4.38 per week) is what we should ask members and fans to pay to help bail out the club. Not compulsory. But appreciated.

20,000 contributions (half the members) saves us from this disaster.

Heavy hitters can pitch in more of course.

What do you get in return?

A st Kilda not controlled fully by the AFL.

So have you got an agrrement from the club that assures the members tjst the AFL can't take full control of our club if we make donations to manage the debt?

And when Matt Finnis says our club is owned by its members what exactly does that mean?

Have you been notified or given any transparency of what the AFL has proposed to the club and will members get to vote on any changes to our license agreement or any other changes impacting not only our independence but also our ability to remain competitive in a competition that could have a greater devide between the haves and have nots.

There are 4 to 6 clubs refusing to open thier books up? What are they hiding and what advantage will they get if they secure financial independence?

This is what I want more transparency around, what questions is our club asking with regards to ensuring there is a level playing field after the crisis is over.

[Sanctorum]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

No idea at all.

Me neither, I haven't had any communication from the club outlining the details of this new agreement that meida is claiming gives full control to the AFL.

Wouldn't there be something in the club constitution requiring a members vote?

Does anyone have details around what giving full control means?

I doubt that "full control" of clubs by the AFL is anything to be feared quite frankly. St Kilda, in common with all bar 4 or 5 wealthy clubs, receives millions of dollars annually from the AFL, in fact it is the biggest recipient of aid after Gold Coast and GWS. On top of that, St Kilda's $13 million + loan is reportedly owed to the AFL, and like all of these arrangements will have some significant strings attached.

As things stand, the AFL has a hell of a lot of control over the 18 clubs - the equalisation policies in place now forces all clubs, irrespective of their financial status, to spend exactly the same amount of money on player payments and football department expenditures, rules that are strictly enforced and subject to massive penalties if breached. A form of socialism that ensures that the competition cannot be dominated by the independently wealthy clubs, and for that Saints supporters should be grateful!

Now that the dollars from the golden taps of the broadcasting rights have stopped flowing, with the competition suspended indefinitely, it is incumbent of the AFL Commission, as custodian of our wonderful game, to take whatever actions necessary to ensure that the 18 team competition survives following the indefinite suspension of the 2020 competition.

If this means taking more control over clubs (whatever that might entail) then so be it.

It is absolutely imperative that the AFL negotiates a new 5-year broadcasting rights deal next year that either equals or if possible exceeds the current multi billion dollar deal, something that many experts in the field believe is far from certain.

A critical factor for the 5 year broadcasting rights negotiations will be the continuation of the current 18 team competition, spread across all states bar Tasmania, and this will involve the AFL providing further financial support to the clubs.

Another imperative is that the senior teams are supported by the subsidiary competitions such as the VFL and junior leagues, all of which will require funding from the AFL.

Not to forget the latest flourishing bud on the AFL tree, the AFLW, which is growing strong, attracting hundreds of thousands of new participants and supporters - money well spent in the determination by the AFL to continue to grow the market.

This debate about the AFL controlling clubs is really only incidental, at the end of the day, most Saints supporters are predominantly interested in seeing the spectacle of our great game - watching as Max King and Tim Membrey repeatedly being hit on the chest with pin point passes from a rampaging St Kilda midfield led by Brad Hill, Jade Gresham, Zak Jones, Hunter Clark, and kicking a bag of goals to steer the team to victory!

Does anything else really matter??

Postscript: I wrote this before reading the excellent summary by BackFromUSA - it says it all!

[Secret Kiel]

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me

JB are you across the details of what control the club signed over to the AFL this past week?

No idea at all.

Me neither, I haven't had any communication from the club outlining the details of this new agreement that meida is claiming gives full control to the AFL.

Wouldn't there be something in the club constitution requiring a members vote?

Does anyone have details around what giving full control means?

I doubt that "full control" of clubs by the AFL is anything to be feared quite frankly. St Kilda, in common with all bar 4 or 5 wealthy clubs, receives millions of dollars annually from the AFL, in fact it is the biggest recipient of aid after Gold Coast and GWS. On top of that, St Kilda's $13 million + loan is reportedly owed to the AFL, and like all of these arrangements will have some significant strings attached.

As things stand, the AFL has a hell of a lot of control over the 18 clubs - the equalisation policies in place now forces all clubs, irrespective of their financial status, to spend exactly the same amount of money on player payments and football department expenditures, rules that are strictly enforced and subject to massive penalties if breached. A form of socialism that ensures that the competition cannot be dominated by the independently wealthy clubs, and for that Saints supporters should be grateful!

Now that the dollars from the golden taps of the broadcasting rights have stopped flowing, with the competition suspended indefinitely, it is incumbent of the AFL Commission, as custodian of our wonderful game, to take whatever actions necessary to ensure that the 18 team competition survives following the indefinite suspension of the 2020 competition.

If this means taking more control over clubs (whatever that might entail) then so be it.

It is absolutely imperative that the AFL negotiates a new 5-year broadcasting rights deal next year that either equals or if possible exceeds the current multi billion dollar deal, something that many experts in the field believe is far from certain.

A critical factor for the 5 year broadcasting rights negotiations will be the continuation of the current 18 team competition, spread across all states bar Tasmania, and this will involve the AFL providing further financial support to the clubs.

Another imperative is that the senior teams are supported by the subsidiary competitions such as the VFL and junior leagues, all of which will require funding from the AFL.

Not to forget the latest flourishing bud on the AFL tree, the AFLW, which is growing strong, attracting hundreds of thousands of new participants and supporters - money well spent in the determination by the AFL to continue to grow the market.

This debate about the AFL controlling clubs is really only incidental, at the end of the day, most Saints supporters are predominantly interested in seeing the spectacle of our great game - watching as Max King and Tim Membrey repeatedly being hit on the chest with pin point passes from a rampaging St Kilda midfield led by Brad Hill, Jade Gresham, Zak Jones, Hunter Clark, and kicking a bag of goals to steer the team to victory!

Does anything else really matter??

Postscript: I wrote this before reading the excellent summary by BackFromUSA - it says it all!

So why does BackFromUSA say we can avoid the AFL gaining full control of our club if we manage our finances through a donation system. What is he concerned about to make such a suggestion. And I think you've missed the fact that there will be a different set of rules, a different regime if you like after this crisis, if we are forced into it, most of what you wrote is based on the old rules and old regime.

The situation we find ourselves in is similar to why the fed government changed last week the rules on foreign ownership to scrutinise foreign countries swooping in like vultures to exploit our stressed economy.

If there are clubs 4 clubs (possibly 6) allowed to break away and form thier own rules and tell the AFL to get stuffed then we should be forming an alliance with the other clubs and seeking an independent loan from a bank.

If the old rules and the old regime was working ok then why the need to change it, why can't the AFL keep propping up the clubs under the old system, the AFL was a highly, highly profitable business before the crisis, why do they need full control, they should be able to secure loan without then need to take full control of the clubs.

And another thing, anyone know how much of a pay cut executive managers have taken?