Are the profits enough?

[carn_sainter]

Whilst i'm sure this presidential challenge talk is largely rubbish and i am skeptical that any change will occur, thought i'd start a thread on Rod.

Does Butterss deserve to go on as our president? Has he done enough?


The financial health of the club is the best it's ever been but it's far from perfect.

Further to this, how much of this health is attributable to Butterss himself?

Further again, just because we are profiting does not mean we are performing well (opportunity cost)...are we really maximising our good fortunes?

We have not had any brilliant money making ideas...the only thing i've heard out of the club was the farcical light show idea...are we being proactive at all about making money (or winning games for that, re: expenditure) or just taking what comes at the gate and being happy?

How's our sponsorship?


Besides strictly pecuniary matters, we bundled a great opportunity for 1st rate training facilities all for a few pokies whilst our centred social club philosophy is wrong to begin with - we should be branching out a la collingwood into numerous venues.


Look beyond the pure number that follows the word profit and be critical of the club's off-field performance...compare it to other clubs and are we doing well?

I'm not sure, to be honest i'm not clued on the off-field side of things, but i would like to know, mainly for the sake of discussion, if we are any good and if the Pres. is driving the off field health or lack thereof...

[meher baba]

My take on it all is that RB and the Board did a good job in the early years.

The recruitment of Blight was a good call - bringing Hamill and G-Train to the club among other benefits - and so was the decision to get rid of him quickly when it was apparent that he wasn't really onboard for the journey.

The decision to put GT in charge was an idea from left-field which was an unexpected success.

The strategy over the next 3-4 years was an excellent one: keep costs down, concentrate on bringing on a highly promising group of early draft picks, try to change the culture at the club into something more professional and committed to success.

Then, in September 2006, it all went totally wrong. It wasn't just the decision to get rid of GT: this would have made perfect sense if a Mark Williams or a Leigh Mathews or perhaps even a Dean Laidley had been lined up to replace him. Even the promotion of Matt Rendell would have made sense.

But, instead, we got a scorched earth policy. The Board sacked our coach, it sacked his knowledgable and respected assistant, it brought in an unknown quantity in Lyon and allowed him to select three of his totally inexperienced mates to help him. At the same time, the whole off-field structure of the club was reorganised, with a past failed coach brought in as "Football Manager" and more power in relation to football matters given to a CEO who probably hadn't even heard of football before he was well into his 30s.

They managed a recruitment process for the new coach which brought him in too late to have a significant say in the trade and draft period. They have failed to give him the training and other resources he needed to make a real difference. The injury problems under GT got even worse.

The new onfield setup has managed to recruit a ruckman from another club who (as many in the football world predicted) was too injured to to play an AFL match during 2007. Seemingly in a fit of pique, they sacked a good backup player in TS 40 who would have been highly useful during the year, given our disastrous run with injuries. They have now failed to persuade Gehrig to stay on for 2008 (did they do everything they possibly could? Did they want him to stay?), have the Board that appointed them highly concerned about the possibility that the club might lose a likely replacement in Kosi. Meanwhile, we have had all sorts of problems with a new style of play which is boring, exhausting for the players and which leads us into a fight to the death in the final quarter to barely overcome (sometimes) teams that we beat by 50 or more points in 2006 without Lenny and Goose and others.

And then there was the Steven Baker debacle.

The chaos at the club has extended well into the non-football side of operations, with sponsors walking away, with an embarrassingly public and seemingly unproductive stoush with Kingston Council, and with the even more embarrassing personal feud between RB and GT.

To say that 2007 has not been a good year for the club is something of an understatement.

And why has it all happened like this? Because the geniuses on the Board thought that the pre-2007 setup wasn't "best practice" and wasn't bringing us the results that we were somehow entitled to expect (notwithstanding the tight-fisted approach the Board had maintained in spending money on anything except the playing list).

The master plan for "moving to the next level" is looking very shaky right now. Some people on this forum want to blame the coach, and others the players.

But the buck stops with the Board. I'm not sure that a clean sweep of the entire Board isn't warranted. They set themselves up for this: not because they sacked GT, but because they couldn't provide a convincing story as to why there had to be such a total upheaval of football operations. If they had simply sacked GT and promoted Rendell: the strategy that two clubs now playing in the finals - Sydney and Adelaide - adopted, then they wouldn't be in this situation. But instead they had to go for a scorched earth policy backed up by a load of drivel about "best of breed" and "benchmarking" and "personality testing" and "generation Y".

Bunch of turkeys.

[St DAC]

Don't hold back MB, tell us what you really think!

[always tomorrow]

Whilst i'm sure this presidential challenge talk is largely rubbish and i am skeptical that any change will occur...

talk is certainly not rubbish AND change will occur.

AT

[saintsrus]

Mb you are in contention for post of the year!

[Stephen Theodore]

Great post M.B. You are correct in saying that the whole admin deserves to go. My problem with that is WHO do you repace with, and are they any more business and footy club savvy than the present admin.

[joffaboy]

No profits are not enough. It is only an accounting concept although it is an indicator of the health of the finances of an organisation.

However it is not the be all and end all. Enron had massive earnings and huge bottom lines, however it was all done through off book liability hiding, and mark to market earnings (booking "potential" earnings as revenue).

Much better indicators are the Balance Sheet and cash flows of an organisation along with with its debt to equity ratios.

However a headline screaming $1 mill profit is a nice little publicity stunt and good politically for the board.

[saintsRrising]

MB....to replace the Board will be a good pathway IF they can deliver a better future.


In hindsight the current Board may well have held the purse strings too tight......and could have spent more on "training services etc".


The decison to hire GT was a valid one...and I have no issues with it. For a while he did an ok job.

But BOTTOM Line is GT does not have what it takes to bea very good coach.....


He failed to realise how the game was changing.....stiill had the players pumping themselves up with body mass when other clubs were doing the endurance work.

Failing to understand the importance of running....he did not recruit enough mids.

He traded for too may GOPS rejected by other clubs...


He FAILED to ealise that the most important thing that coach needs to do is to build a good list....and delagted this to others at his and the clubs peril. While he was busy playing with contracts he neglected to builda list by good draftinga and also most importantly by DEVELOPING the players that we had in the correct manner.
etc etc...

Tt was givena golden list through Blightlotto, Draftlotto and Cheatlotto (thank the Blues for BJ!!)....and then could not IMPROVE it.

Exiting him out was the correct call.


IF a better Board presents. then it will be time for RB to go too.....just as with our 22 where it would appear that it is time for Voss to go as well.

[saintlee]

No profits are not enough. It is only an accounting concept although it is an indicator of the health of the finances of an organisation.

However it is not the be all and end all. Enron had massive earnings and huge bottom lines, however it was all done through off book liability hiding, and mark to market earnings (booking "potential" earnings as revenue).

Much better indicators are the Balance Sheet and cash flows of an organisation along with with its debt to equity ratios.

However a headline screaming $1 mill profit is a nice little publicity stunt and good politically for the board.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting the club is distorting our financial picture?

[Sainterman]

My take on it all is that RB and the Board did a good job in the early years.

The recruitment of Blight was a good call - bringing Hamill and G-Train to the club among other benefits - and so was the decision to get rid of him quickly when it was apparent that he wasn't really onboard for the journey.

The decision to put GT in charge was an idea from left-field which was an unexpected success.

The strategy over the next 3-4 years was an excellent one: keep costs down, concentrate on bringing on a highly promising group of early draft picks, try to change the culture at the club into something more professional and committed to success.

Then, in September 2006, it all went totally wrong. It wasn't just the decision to get rid of GT: this would have made perfect sense if a Mark Williams or a Leigh Mathews or perhaps even a Dean Laidley had been lined up to replace him. Even the promotion of Matt Rendell would have made sense.

But, instead, we got a scorched earth policy. The Board sacked our coach, it sacked his knowledgable and respected assistant, it brought in an unknown quantity in Lyon and allowed him to select three of his totally inexperienced mates to help him. At the same time, the whole off-field structure of the club was reorganised, with a past failed coach brought in as "Football Manager" and more power in relation to football matters given to a CEO who probably hadn't even heard of football before he was well into his 30s.

They managed a recruitment process for the new coach which brought him in too late to have a significant say in the trade and draft period. They have failed to give him the training and other resources he needed to make a real difference. The injury problems under GT got even worse.

The new onfield setup has managed to recruit a ruckman from another club who (as many in the football world predicted) was too injured to to play an AFL match during 2007. Seemingly in a fit of pique, they sacked a good backup player in TS 40 who would have been highly useful during the year, given our disastrous run with injuries. They have now failed to persuade Gehrig to stay on for 2008 (did they do everything they possibly could? Did they want him to stay?), have the Board that appointed them highly concerned about the possibility that the club might lose a likely replacement in Kosi. Meanwhile, we have had all sorts of problems with a new style of play which is boring, exhausting for the players and which leads us into a fight to the death in the final quarter to barely overcome (sometimes) teams that we beat by 50 or more points in 2006 without Lenny and Goose and others.

And then there was the Steven Baker debacle.

The chaos at the club has extended well into the non-football side of operations, with sponsors walking away, with an embarrassingly public and seemingly unproductive stoush with Kingston Council, and with the even more embarrassing personal feud between RB and GT.

To say that 2007 has not been a good year for the club is something of an understatement.

And why has it all happened like this? Because the geniuses on the Board thought that the pre-2007 setup wasn't "best practice" and wasn't bringing us the results that we were somehow entitled to expect (notwithstanding the tight-fisted approach the Board had maintained in spending money on anything except the playing list).

The master plan for "moving to the next level" is looking very shaky right now. Some people on this forum want to blame the coach, and others the players.

But the buck stops with the Board. I'm not sure that a clean sweep of the entire Board isn't warranted. They set themselves up for this: not because they sacked GT, but because they couldn't provide a convincing story as to why there had to be such a total upheaval of football operations. If they had simply sacked GT and promoted Rendell: the strategy that two clubs now playing in the finals - Sydney and Adelaide - adopted, then they wouldn't be in this situation. But instead they had to go for a scorched earth policy backed up by a load of drivel about "best of breed" and "benchmarking" and "personality testing" and "generation Y".

Bunch of turkeys.

Great post MB, very well put. Change is in the wind and as I said in an earlier post last week, the more seamless the change the better....

[hotdish]

No profits are not enough. It is only an accounting concept although it is an indicator of the health of the finances of an organisation.

However it is not the be all and end all. Enron had massive earnings and huge bottom lines, however it was all done through off book liability hiding, and mark to market earnings (booking "potential" earnings as revenue).

Much better indicators are the Balance Sheet and cash flows of an organisation along with with its debt to equity ratios.

However a headline screaming $1 mill profit is a nice little publicity stunt and good politically for the board.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting the club is distorting our financial picture?

I don't think distort is the correct word - I think cost cutting is what we are talking about -

Its all good and well to post $1m profits annually, but if you are low in comparison in football department spending (recruiting/scouts/assistants/fitness staff etc), it isn't really an objective $1m profit...

I think the board has done a decent job, but in reality any competent board could deliver good profits when your team is a top 4 team for 2-3 years, delivering good merchandise and member figures etc... whilst cutting costs

[Animal Enclosure]

You would expect big profits given the on field success enjoyed between 2004-2006 (with carry over into 07). Membership & merchandise sales at all time highs, prime time TV exposure allowed big name sponsors, corporate sales going well too.

The problem with all of that is that it WILL decline when on field performance declines.

As has been posted previously, our admin runs on the smell of an oily rag, one of the smallest staff and expenditure in the league. Footy club expenditure is gradually increasing but was in the lowest quartile in the comp.

So when you combine all of the financial benefits that a period of onfield success brings with running a club with extremely low costs then million dollar profits are much more likely.

My biggest query over the Butterss board is

"Have you 'drought proofed' the club for the time when on field performance dives?"

Or have you enjoyed your time in the sun but basically done squat?

[Statsman]

On the whole that's a great rant/post and a pretty fair assessment of our current position and the board's performance. However there's a few points I would content, not in support of the board, but merely as an alternate view.

The Board.....brought in an unknown quantity in Lyon and allowed him to select three of his totally inexperienced mates to help him.

Lyon may not have coached before, but he's good a great pedigree as an assistant is is widely respected in AFL circles for that. How is Lyon any more of an unknown quantity as a new coach that say Laidley, Clarkson, Ratten or Bailey when they were appointed? You could also make the case that newcomers Laidley and Clarkson have been more successful than re-treads like Wallace and Eade.

I would agree that John Barker was a surprise selection as an assistant, but I'd think Silvagni and Rock have enough runs on the board as players and assistant coaches to suggest it wasn't just jobs for the boys.

a past failed coach brought in as "Football Manager" and more power in relation to football matters given to a CEO

What additional football powers does the CEO have these days? I'm not disputing it, I'm just not aware of it.

The new onfield setup has managed to recruit a ruckman from another club who (as many in the football world predicted) was too injured to to play an AFL match during 2007. Seemingly in a fit of pique, they sacked a good backup player in TS 40 who would have been highly useful during the year, given our disastrous run with injuries.

I would have thought the recruitment of Gardiner and the de-listing of Schwarze would have been driven largely by the football department rather than the the Butterss board. Gardiner was a reasonable punt given our situation that may still pay off. Schwarze had been average at best for quite a while and showed little scope for improvement. I'd say our list is better off without him.

[Mr Magic]

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the Board publicly stated since we started reporting profits, that it's primary financial focus was to clear the accumulated debt of the Club?

And hasn't that now almost been done?

If so, then that may well be why additional monies haven't been spent in other areas.

You may well debate whether the focus on 'retiring debt' was correct,but that focus was enunciated years ago and seemed to be universally accepted as a 'good thing'.

Give that the Club is essentially 'debt free' now, any incoming board (including the current one if re-elected) will be in a much better postition to determine the best way to spend any surplus funds.

[meher baba]

a past failed coach brought in as "Football Manager" and more power in relation to football matters given to a CEO

What additional football powers does the CEO have these days? I'm not disputing it, I'm just not aware of it.

I have no inside knowledge about how power is distributed within the club, but I have heard rumours from people who do know something that one of the factors that precipitated the demise of GT was the fact that young Archie was envious of the extent of GT's power (Archie, of course, comes from a background in soccer where, in most clubs, the boundary between football and non-football matters is much less clearly defined than it generally is at AFL clubs).

I think that the key area that Archie wanted to wrest from the hands of the coach was that of negotiating player contracts. He certainly likes to give the impression in the media that he plays a big part in these negotiations: although one can never be certain about what is actually going on (and he does seem to have been able to duck the issue of the failure so far to re-sign Kosi, and allow Sheldon to take the bullet by himself).

I would surmise that the bulk of the power taken from the coach has been redistributed to the Football Manager. But to whom does the Football Manager himself report?

[Otiman]

The proposed training facility that was shut down by the kingston council was about the only expenditure outside of regular football expenses.

[saintlee]

The proposed training facility that was shut down by the kingston council was about the only expenditure outside of regular football expenses.

Speaking of which, what is the latest on the training facility? does anyone know?

[Mr Magic]

a past failed coach brought in as "Football Manager" and more power in relation to football matters given to a CEO

What additional football powers does the CEO have these days? I'm not disputing it, I'm just not aware of it.

But to whom does the Football Manager himself report?

I would think to the Board Member in charge of Football - Mark Kellet?

[saint66au]

The million dollar profits were exactly want we wanted when we were a financial basket case in the early days of this decade. Now, however, we are financially much more stable and I think the members should be more concerned about what the money is being spent on rather than how massive our profits are. Cash in the bank wont fix our hamstring curse.

Totally pointless making all this profit when we have the crappiest gym and smallest FOotball Services dept in the competition, with no improvment in facilities on the horizon.

If the current board doesnt start making some positive noise about our future home (and IM not taking about the damn Social Club) then any challenge that does will go a long way to getting my vote.

[meher baba]

The decison to hire GT was a valid one...and I have no issues with it. For a while he did an ok job.

But BOTTOM Line is GT does not have what it takes to bea very good coach.....


He failed to realise how the game was changing.....stiill had the players pumping themselves up with body mass when other clubs were doing the endurance work.

Failing to understand the importance of running....he did not recruit enough mids.

He traded for too may GOPS rejected by other clubs...


He FAILED to ealise that the most important thing that coach needs to do is to build a good list....and delagted this to others at his and the clubs peril. While he was busy playing with contracts he neglected to builda list by good draftinga and also most importantly by DEVELOPING the players that we had in the correct manner.
etc etc...

Tt was givena golden list through Blightlotto, Draftlotto and Cheatlotto (thank the Blues for BJ!!)....and then could not IMPROVE it.

Exiting him out was the correct call.

I hesitate to dive back into this now ageing and decepit debate once more sRr, but I do think that GT - if he were replying to your criticisms - would want to point out that he had developed a great, potentially GF-winning list, but had hardly ever been able to put it on the park because of injuries.

Of course, you might wish to argue (and many on here do: although it has never been clear to me on what basis) that the injury situation was all GT's fault too. But, as time goes on, it seems to be becoming clearer that a more significant factor was the level of investment the club put into our "training services".

In terms of the oft-repeated accusation that GT failed to build a good list through drafting, I think this only works if you are one of the faithful who believe (against the words of GT, Rendell and Bevo) that GT was actually in charge of selecting the players we drafted.

The fact is that the decline in our recruitment quality began from 2003 which coincided with the time when our improved performances denied us priority picks. Extraordinary coincidence that.

Even then, we managed to snaffle Sam Fisher, Raph Clarke and Jason Gram in 2003: all of whom look set to be automatic selections for the first team in 2008.

In 2004 and 2005 (including after GT was sacked), we have used trades and the set of draft picks available to teams that make the preliminary final to recruit Fiora, Ackland, Watts, McQualter, McGough, Gwilt, Gilbert, Raymond and Sweeney (and I might have missed some). Of this list, all but Ackland, Watts and perhaps Sweeney are able to be used in the midfield.

Some of these choices haven't really worked out: which is what you expect from a bunch of mediocre draft picks. The only players in the draft whose quality is completely obvious tend to be snaffled in the first dozen or so picks. We got what most people in the AFL world think is more than our fair share of these in the form of Kosi, Riewoldt, Ball and Goddard (and, although he was a bit further down the list, Dal). Terry Wallace was still whinging on about how well we did out of past drafts on Saturday FFS!!

When Bevo (and there is no reason whatsoever for believing that it was anyone other than Bevo) decided to recruit the likes of Fiora, McQualter, McGough, Gwilt and Raymond he did so because he couldn't see any other midfielders further down the pecking order who he thought would do better. Many posters on this forum are 100% convinced that they could have done better than Bevo: well there is nothing to stop each and every one of you sending your cv to the club along with a convincing letter explaining why you should be appointed as recruitment manager.

And I really never want to hear anyone ever again going on about the decisions made in the dim dark past to recruit Guerra (about to play in the finals, which puts him ahead of 44 players who are based at Morabbin) or Brooks: who looked like a terrific gain at the time.

Really, all this "GT stuffed up the list" whinging is a load of old cobblers. I wish people would stop going on and on about it on this forum.

[evertonfc]

Meher - a superb opening post.

You couldn't have said it better. A great and very accurate summation.

(And FYI, I was very keen to send my CV for the recruiting post, but I doubt they would have selected me )

[The Fireman]

Yep , a fair summation meher.
I wouldn't have a problem if the present board were to be taken over, but I would like some sort of guarantee that they would continue financial success , it's great to have a winning team but it's also great to have a team.

[The Peanut]

I think that the key area that Archie wanted to wrest from the hands of the coach was that of negotiating player contracts. He certainly likes to give the impression in the media that he plays a big part in these negotiations: although one can never be certain about what is actually going on (and he does seem to have been able to duck the issue of the failure so far to re-sign Kosi, and allow Sheldon to take the bullet by himself).

I would surmise that the bulk of the power taken from the coach has been redistributed to the Football Manager. But to whom does the Football Manager himself report?

It is my understanding that the Football Manager reports to Rod Butterss 'only' and the recent problems coming out of the board room seems to be associated with the Football Manager not involving a particular board member on Bakes representation recently. There is also some murmurs that some or all board members are not as involved in key decision making as they would like.

As for Archie - he has very little to do with the Football Department except what comes under his position such as general administration and staff management (unless specifically directed by the board) - I think that he would not be happy with Rod when he followed a board directive to search for a new location for training services a while back, then Rod came back from OS and publicly spoke out against Archie's work on this issure.

It is my understanding there more than a few key staffers are not happy with the way Rod is running things these days and there may be a a list of resignations in the next few months if things aren't fixed.

Members have the right to form a ticket and it is healthy for members exersise this right when they are genuinely not happy with the way the board is performing.

Lets just hope that if there is a shake-up on the board, it is done in a smooth and professional way and that Caro and crew are not the only ones that will greatly benefit.

As for my vote (if it gets to that) will be who is the best to lead the club forward. If Rod can sort things out in the board room and with staff - and demonstrate a positive plan for the future, it will probably be him.

[Mr Magic]

Well said Peanut.
At last someone is letting us know what some of the particular problems may be / have been.

If RB has become the 'dictator' he and his board apparently felt GT was then he/they deserve the same fate as GT.

With respect to the problem surrounding Baker's defence, if the story is true about Levin being kept 'out of the loop' on this, then it would be farcical if you have a Lawyer on your Board and don't use his expertise. Unless you feel his expertise is no good.
And if that was the case why the hell is he on the Board?

[meher baba]

Well said Peanut.
At last someone is letting us know what some of the particular problems may be / have been.

If RB has become the 'dictator' he and his board apparently felt GT was then he/they deserve the same fate as GT.

With respect to the problem surrounding Baker's defence, if the story is true about Levin being kept 'out of the loop' on this, then it would be farcical if you have a Lawyer on your Board and don't use his expertise. Unless you feel his expertise is no good.
And if that was the case why the hell is he on the Board?

As I posted on another thread, I don't think a person on the Board - no matter how good a lawyer he might be - has an automatic right to stick their nose into the club's legal affairs. Board members are appointed to take responsibility for an organisation's financial position, major appointments and broad strategic direction. Organisations often include lawyers on their board because their advice might be useful in informing deliberations on those issues.

The idea of having a lawyer on the board who can provide some additional free advice for an organisation is perhaps ok for child care centres and scouting clubs, but a big professional organisation really ought to be buying its legal advice in a more regular sort of way: from in-house employees or by engaging legal firms as required.

Clearly Levin didn't see it this way: but who has the high moral ground here? I'm not sure, but I suspect it isn't Levin. Most lawyers I know think that, when someone else's case goes wrong, they could have done a better job than the person who was engaged. Unfortunately, the Baker case seems to have gone seriously wrong, which has given Levin an opening to stick his knife in.