As a club, have we been in the premiership business?

[Bluthy]

I know that title might sound a bit silly. Of course a club plays for premierships right? But has it been at the absolute core of what the club does, first and foremost at every turn and every decision, or has it at times got a bit buried. The big clubs have always had a sense of almost mandatory success ie premierships. It's what they do, win premierships, they say its in their clubs DNA. And they move hell and high water to do it, pushing, and even crossing, the boundaries of the competitions rules and protocols to do it. Success becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - you HAVE to succeed because you believe its what you do, hence you do everything to succeed and you end up proving yourself right and the cycle starts again.

I like the way our President is setting goals for a premiership (2020). This is now spelling out the very basis for why our great club is operating - a flag. Richo often talks that everything we are doing is based around winning a flag. That may seem obvious but the way he states it so clearly means that you can make the hard and long term decisions with such a clearly defined goal being repeated again and again. In the hurly burly of day to day footy business with so many facets - media, fans, members, controversies etc it easy to lose focus.

The long period of amazing domination (but not ultimate success alas) we had in the 2000's has definitely embedded our DNA with a sense of success and power. I like the way winning a flag is now the brightly lit beacon that the club keeps repeating. I think we are clearly now in the premiership business. And all our resources are focused on that. It seems a subtle, but powerful change.

[gringo]

I know that title might sound a bit silly. Of course a club plays for premierships right? But has it been at the absolute core of what the club does, first and foremost at every turn and every decision, or has it at times got a bit buried. The big clubs have always had a sense of almost mandatory success ie premierships. It's what they do, win premierships, they say its in their clubs DNA. And they move hell and high water to do it, pushing, and even crossing, the boundaries of the competitions rules and protocols to do it. Success becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - you HAVE to succeed because you believe its what you do, hence you do everything to succeed and you end up proving yourself right and the cycle starts again.

I like the way our President is setting goals for a premiership (2020). This is now spelling out the very basis for why our great club is operating - a flag. Richo often talks that everything we are doing is based around winning a flag. That may seem obvious but the way he states it so clearly means that you can make the hard and long term decisions with such a clearly defined goal being repeated again and again. In the hurly burly of day to day footy business with so many facets - media, fans, members, controversies etc it easy to lose focus.

The long period of amazing domination (but not ultimate success alas) we had in the 2000's has definitely embedded our DNA with a sense of success and power. I like the way winning a flag is now the brightly lit beacon that the club keeps repeating. I think we are clearly now in the premiership business. And all our resources are focused on that. It seems a subtle, but powerful change.

Listening to Ken Sheldon on SEN the other day we spent a large portion of the VFL era in survival mode. Since efforts to make salary cap and draft competitive we have done pretty well. I reckon it's probably fair to say that we made a few calls that could have made us super successful. The Hawks for example got Waverley as a base for like $1 or something stupid while we had to pay out money, they were in similar position to us but chose the MCG and we got Docklands. There our finances went in polar opposite directions. Their extra money could pay the best people. The best people lead to on field stability and then sustained success. Our financial constraints lead us to employ who was available or have good ones poached. I think we have good people in now but need things to change with stadium deals before we are properly competitive.

[To the top]

The history of sporting clubs is the photos that adorn the Club room walls - and they are the photos of premiership sides.

These photos are also the glue that bonds, from one generation to the next.

That said, the foundations for success are the administration which ensures the Club is in the financial position to attract the players it is assesses will bring premiership success to the Club and ensures that the most capable people form the administration (including in the football department).

The VFL was what it was - and when I came to Victoria, St Kilda were a financial mess, only surviving because of Fox and his "clout" at ANZ Banking Group.

St Kilda were selling Form 4's to the likes of Carlton (with its benefactors. How ironic!) and receiving some cast off players in return.

And that continued until the Social Club and the Football Club ultimately merged (and what an exercise that was).

So St Kilda, and other Clubs which did not have the financial benefactors, languished and only certain Clubs won premierships recruiting the likes of Kernahan, Bradley, Motley, Platten, Carman et al, and that was just from South Australia.

St Kilda and the other Clubs which did not have wealthy benefactors could not compete - so the VFL was what it was.

That said, Elliott bankrupted Carlton - so no Club was exempt, as Collingwood, Richmond and Hawthorn also found out.

Along came the AFL and Salary Caps and Drafts (mind you some rorted, such as Elliott's Carlton believing they were above the law - sound familiar?)

And the media rights have delivered financial stability to the AFL (at a cost I would present), where those media rights cover an 18 team competition so Clubs which remain financially not viable are given hand outs to survive.

But, at the end of the day, despite this roughly putting St Kilda on a par with other Clubs despite the absence of benefactors (ex Gerry Ryan), certain of those other Clubs have political clout St Kilda do not have.

So now we have "Free Agency" where a Hawthorn can eternally "top up" from experienced players from other Clubs, and to the detriment of the re-build of those other Clubs.

So they play their games at the Board table - and those games are political, including party political and where those pushing their agenda's to the benefit of THEIR Clubs exclusively carry such perceived political "weight" that they are not argued down in the interests of the competition and the presentation of the competition to the public - a public, in regards interest including attendances, which is not growing as the population is growing.

So people per se get readily sick and tired of the exposure given to the likes of the Collingwood's - at the expense of other Clubs.

And ALL this exposure is managed by the AFL including thru the Clubs and who they trot out saying what from their cheat sheets - and the media report what is said, never questioning (including in other matters apart from AFL football).

So, in this environment, how do St Kilda get Premiership side photographs on the walls, and build the culture?

With a lot of hard work, with supporting the business model and with a lot of luck.

Once there it is relatively easy to stay there (given the political masters who control the AFL and bring in such rules as "Free Agency" don't then attempt to cut the likes of St Kilda - a once in a lifetime "romance" Club in their view - by Rule changes, which is likely) because you can now sell "finish your career with a premiership by coming to us" - so you can pick the eyes from the likes of where St Kilda and others are at today.

Free Trade came a couple of years too late for St Kilda!!!

But is has suited one other Club, a Club which wields very significant political clout, political clout which is about self interest.

[Jacks Back]

As president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”

[Bluthy]

Listening to Ken Sheldon on SEN the other day we spent a large portion of the VFL era in survival mode. Since efforts to make salary cap and draft competitive we have done pretty well. I reckon it's probably fair to say that we made a few calls that could have made us super successful. The Hawks for example got Waverley as a base for like $1 or something stupid while we had to pay out money, they were in similar position to us but chose the MCG and we got Docklands. There our finances went in polar opposite directions. Their extra money could pay the best people. The best people lead to on field stability and then sustained success. Our financial constraints lead us to employ who was available or have good ones poached. I think we have good people in now but need things to change with stadium deals before we are properly competitive.

Valid points to some degree Gringo. But you make your own luck. If you are desperate for success and will do anything it takes to make it happen, you find ways to make things happen your way. If you lack direction and purpose you tend to blow in the winds when they get rough.

I agree about getting the best people as ultimately its people who make the decisions - the smarter and more long-term thinking the better. I feel we are getting that professionally ruthless edge under Sumner (Summer?). He seems to have the cold, hard, calmness required and has put good people in under him. And this new laser focus on the ultimate goal being a flag is a good example of our improved focus. We can do all the stuff required for financial security and increased membership which is vital, but not take our eye off our real core business - another a premiership cup. That is what we are about now. We've wised up to the fact that success breeds success. A flag changes everything and we will now fight tooth and nail for it, doing whatever it takes.

The calm and strategic management we took when we were heading for the bottom of the ladder, a burnt out list with little young talent, the pain of being so close to a flag still extreme, an erratic coach, and low membership showed the mettle of Sumner. It takes real nerve and long term vision to turn that ship around so quickly. Plenty of clubs haven't - Melbourne, Carlton, brisbane etc Bodes well.

[To the top]

Luck is losing Everitt and Vidovic as we did in 1997.

And before that, under Sheldon, losing Burke and Pekin (?) early in a Preliminary Final v. Geelong

The first thing you need is a healthy List including on game day, and that is where luck comes in.

Able to put your "A Grade" side on the park week in, week out which also benefits cohesion.

[borderbarry]

It was'nt Pekin. It was David Grant. And who was the thug that got both of them? Thats right, Gary Ablett.

[Bluthy]

Luck is losing Everitt and Vidovic as we did in 1997.

And before that, under Sheldon, losing Burke and Pekin (?) early in a Preliminary Final v. Geelong

The first thing you need is a healthy List including on game day, and that is where luck comes in.

Able to put your "A Grade" side on the park week in, week out which also benefits cohesion.

You can't deny key players going down that can't be replaced hurts and that can just be bad luck. But that's also about depth too and building in redudancy into your list. I think we've tended to rely on too many stars to get it done. ST Kilda has always seemed to have a bit more of a cult of superstars but it the bottom 6, and who can't get into the team, that shows how much depth you've got to cover all eventualities.

Playing Eddie just smacked of desperation. And we play a guy like McQualter who misses a goal from 15m out and then we all go "oh why did we kick so bad on grand final day?" as if it was out of the blue. Even Schneider was known to be erratic and one-dimensional and hence why Sydney let him go. We seem to be building a more even, structured list this time with redundancy built in. We are developing players to play multiple positions so we can't be shut down easily by the oppo or injuries. Again I think it shows great foresight to cover as many bases as we can and not leave it upto luck.

[Jacks Back]

I agree about getting the best people as ultimately its people who make the decisions - the smarter and more long-term thinking the better. I feel we are getting that professionally ruthless edge under Sumner (Summer?). He seems to have the cold, hard, calmness required and has put good people in under him. And this new laser focus on the ultimate goal being a flag is a good example of our improved focus. We can do all the stuff required for financial security and increased membership which is vital, but not take our eye off our real core business - another a premiership cup. That is what we are about now. We've wised up to the fact that success breeds success. A flag changes everything and we will now fight tooth and nail for it, doing whatever it takes.

The calm and strategic management we took when we were heading for the bottom of the ladder, a burnt out list with little young talent, the pain of being so close to a flag still extreme, an erratic coach, and low membership showed the mettle of Sumner. It takes real nerve and long term vision to turn that ship around so quickly. Plenty of clubs haven't - Melbourne, Carlton, brisbane etc Bodes well.

It's Peter Summers Bluthy - not Andy Sumner (he was the guitar player in The Police).

From the saints.com.au web site:

Peter Summers
President

Peter Summers is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer AV Jennings Limited. He has been a Director of the company since August 1998 and an employee of the company and its related corporations since 1984. During that time he has held various management roles in, and directorships of, these companies.

Prior to his appointment as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in February 2009, Peter was the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Finance Director. Mr. Summers is a Chartered Accountant having worked previously with Price Waterhouse, has extensive experience in general and financial management as well as mergers and acquisitions and will head our Auditing Committee.

He was appointed St Kilda president at the end of Greg Westaway's tenure in 2013.

- See more at: http://www.saints.com.au/club/about/boa ... RB4MP.dpuf

[Bluthy]

It's Peter Summers Bluthy - not Andy Sumner (he was the guitar player in The Police).

From the saints.com.au web site:

Peter Summers
President

Peter Summers is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer AV Jennings Limited. He has been a Director of the company since August 1998 and an employee of the company and its related corporations since 1984. During that time he has held various management roles in, and directorships of, these companies.

Prior to his appointment as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in February 2009, Peter was the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Finance Director. Mr. Summers is a Chartered Accountant having worked previously with Price Waterhouse, has extensive experience in general and financial management as well as mergers and acquisitions and will head our Auditing Committee.

He was appointed St Kilda president at the end of Greg Westaway's tenure in 2013.

- See more at: http://www.saints.com.au/club/about/boa ... RB4MP.dpuf

Gee you could almost argue a great president is perhaps the key appointment at any club even more important than a great head coach (that's arguable obviously). You get a smart, forward thinking, broad minded strategic Pres and they become the driving force that kicks it all off with a vision for the club's future. Professional football is a hugely complex, political, big money business and someone who can comfortably swim in those choppy waters is vital. They put the right people in under them, who then put the right people under them until you have a whole organisation of the right people pulling int the same direction.

Every successful club seems to have had great presidents that you don't hear anything bad about - Dickers Hawks, Costa Geelong, Eddie Pies (well some bad stuff but he's a powerhouse for that club). Its an under-rated role seeing as its unpaid (isn't it?) and they have to manage their own business as well. I think we've been really lucky getting Summers at a key point in the clubs history. Maybe finally our luck has changed.

[To the top]

From "The Age" online:-

Kennett crushes Maguire's $1 BILLION Plan"

These are the very individuals who have ruined the Australian Rules Football code prosecuting exclusively self interest, keeping their names in the headlines and (in their estimation and because of the publicity) remaining the "power brokers" and relevant.

And they are killing the code Australia wide - where in SA the AFL has deemed the SANFL Reserves competition redundant, destroying those community based clubs.

So tell me exactly, why should what Kennett or Maguire think have any relevance whatsoever?

With both we know what they are going to say before they say it.

The Andrew Bolt's, the James Campbell's or the Terry McCrann's of the AFL!!!

Docklands has been a financial disaster since it was embraced as a Stapled Debt project delivering tax advantages to the initial subcribers - simply, it cost way, way too much, the business model has never been viable and that will continue to be the case no matter what the AFL ultimately pays for it.

It has cost a lot of people a lot of money for no return - and a loss of capital.

[To the top]

Another issue that goes to the "boys club" way of doing business is the move to bankrupt Butters.

Reading between the lines, Investec lent $1.35M to a Company associated with Butters against a Guarantee from Butters, and that Guarantee obligation is now being called in (given you can not get blood from a stone!).

So, it appears, an Unsupported Guarantee by Butters was all that Investec required to lend - because, if the Guarantee was supported by (say) a mortgage over a property that specific supporting security would have been realized on.

That leaves aside the liquidation of the subject Company and any net result for secured and then unsecured lenders, which it can be assumed was absent in total.

This is the way these "boys at the board table" go about it - substance being "name" and "associations", not accrued net wealth.

And they do their deals.

Until they (or one of them) fall over, you tip the "boys at the board table" upside down and shake them around and you see exactly what falls out.

The balls are kept in the air by "name" and profile, not substance and this appears yet another case in point.

And they attack Unions!!!!!

[spert]

I suggest there has been real weakness from the top for decades- lack of strong leadership at president and board level.. how else can a club not win a premiership for almost 50 years -it's a disgrace. No doubt Saint supporters for decades wanted success, and still do. Even under the current president, we saw incredible weakness in the sacking of Watters (who I don't really have any opinions of as a coach), whose ways some couldn't handle, but a strong leadership would have come out and stated that he is the coach, if you don't like it- leave, and that's how Hawthorn would have handled it, and always have when there's been dissent in their ranks- remember there were knives out for Clarkson years back, but the club simply got behind him, told the dissenters to pull their heads in, and the club reaped the rewards. Blight at Adelaide ruffled feathers and made enemies, but again the board got behind him and reaped the rewards. It all starts at the top.

[evertonfc]

I suggest there has been real weakness from the top for decades- lack of strong leadership at president and board level.. how else can a club not win a premiership for almost 50 years -it's a disgrace.

It is. We've had shocking boards for that long.

Even the good ones turned sour. In Buttress's case, spectacularly.

His replacement came in on a ticket of you-won't-hear-from-me-ever - which was nice until a year or two later when we turned a huge loss in a GF year.

Good boards create stability and have the vision and wisdom to appoint good executives, who in turn hire the right staff, who in turn recruit the right players. You see where this is going.

Basically, we've had some great operators for brief periods (Waldron, Thomas, Lyon even Buttress at his peak) who were able to create a tremendous ambition. Our new board and executive has a long way to go but the early steps are reasonable. Finnis is particularly attuned to the club's needs.

Think we're going to make slow, steady progress in the years ahead.

[BigMart]

I thought leaving Tassie was a great decision... Just a master stroke.

I mean, why play outside in tough conditions, and have an excuse to lose, when we can win inside and gain 4 more points?

Lucky for us, big finals are played indoor and at home in the comfy confines of The Dome

[Bluthy]

Even under the current president, we saw incredible weakness in the sacking of Watters (who I don't really have any opinions of as a coach), whose ways some couldn't handle, but a strong leadership would have come out and stated that he is the coach, if you don't like it- leave, and that's how Hawthorn would have handled it, and always have when there's been dissent in their ranks- remember there were knives out for Clarkson years back, but the club simply got behind him, told the dissenters to pull their heads in, and the club reaped the rewards. Blight at Adelaide ruffled feathers and made enemies, but again the board got behind him and reaped the rewards. It all starts at the top.

The other take on that is that it takes a strong President to say "we got the wrong guy, he's not upto it, we have to cut out losses despite the embarrassment". All the talk coming out of the club was that Watters was erractic with his approach (we're a juggernaut, we're rebuilding) and also with players (particularly the older ones) and coaches. The way he went rogue over playing Saad despite testing positive showed he wasn't in line with the club. You get the feeling that he pushed for some recruiting decisions such as WA boys Tom Lee and Beau that again wasn't in line with the rest of the recruiting staff's vision. You can't have a coach that isn't in sync with the rest of the club.

The Watters decision was the beginning of the clubs clear cut vision that we were in full rebuild mode and all our list and recruitment decisions were now based on that to great success so far. Watters probably did pay the price for the club being in a limbo state where we weren't sure where we were or how to proceed. You often have those sacrificial type coaches after a successful period. But the President found a back bone and made a hard decision. It's hard to argue it wasn't the right decision when you see how solidly we are building.

[Con Gorozidis]

Listening to Alistair Clarkson on this topic - his philosophy is you dont aim for flags. You aim to get a side that can finish top 4 repeatedly.
If you do that - you will get a flag. We need to focus on assembling a squad - not that can fluke a one off flag - but that can finish top 4 every year for 5 straight years.
To do this you need to be winning 80% of your games for a few years running.

[saintsRrising]

I suggest there has been real weakness from the top for decades- lack of strong leadership at president and board level.. how else can a club not win a premiership for almost 50 years -it's a disgrace.

It is. We've had shocking boards for that long.

Even the good ones turned sour. In Buttress's case, spectacularly.

His replacement came in on a ticket of you-won't-hear-from-me-ever - which was nice until a year or two later when we turned a huge loss in a GF year.

Good boards create stability and have the vision and wisdom to appoint good executives, who in turn hire the right staff, who in turn recruit the right players. You see where this is going.

Basically, we've had some great operators for brief periods (Waldron, Thomas, Lyon even Buttress at his peak) who were able to create a tremendous ambition. Our new board and executive has a long way to go but the early steps are reasonable. Finnis is particularly attuned to the club's needs.

Think we're going to make slow, steady progress in the years ahead.

It is no accident that our one flag came in an era when we had a very good offield team.

Our good/win loss record and regularly finals appearances in the naughties came about largely due to a competent and ambitious offield team, who sadly self-destructed before the silverware actually arrived.

Our current offield team is showing promise but have a huge handicap in that their predessors have not built solid revenue streams.

[To the top]

Correct.

You have to build to constantly challenge.

What Hawthorn can now do, courtesy of Free Agency, is pick the eyes from building teams by taking their experienced players.

So, with their perceived political clout, Hawthorn have identified a way to constantly challenge.

Promote Free Agency.

A disgrace - and it will be the ruin of the game because it takes competition away.

[Bluthy]

Listening to Alistair Clarkson on this topic - his philosophy is you dont aim for flags. You aim to get a side that can finish top 4 repeatedly.
If you do that - you will get a flag. We need to focus on assembling a squad - not that can fluke a one off flag - but that can finish top 4 every year for 5 straight years.
To do this you need to be winning 80% of your games for a few years running.

Yeah that the long-term thinking to patiently build the team the way you think will hold up in the heat when you are up at the top. Clarkson copped a lot of criticism early when he played his men one-on-one early because he wanted them to learn to win their own ball early before putting in his zone system. That way he didn't need to flood the ball but his team could keep their structure and move the ball on the spread incredibly quickly.

I feel like Richo is doing something similar, we are getting a lot of good kicking, explosive players into the list. I'm getting more confidence in Richo as he goes on. I think he's a pretty cluey cat with a long-term vision.

[meher baba]

Listening to Alistair Clarkson on this topic - his philosophy is you dont aim for flags. You aim to get a side that can finish top 4 repeatedly.
If you do that - you will get a flag. We need to focus on assembling a squad - not that can fluke a one off flag - but that can finish top 4 every year for 5 straight years.
To do this you need to be winning 80% of your games for a few years running.

G'day everyone.

Clarkson's approach was more or less the Butterss-Thomas strategy when they were working together well from 2001 through 2004.

Then they fell out and that backstabbing Scots guy was made CEO (and proceeded to knife first Thomas and then Butterss, before being shown the door himself). Butterss and other members of the board started to become impatient for a premiership, and the club changed direction towards a "win at all costs" strategy. Lyon was brought in to implement that approach and it almost worked. But not quite.

Then we went for Watters, who was simply the result of a dud recruitment decision: which can happen to any organisation (although the people who selected him were not the best we've ever had running our club).

I was very frustrated after Thomas was sacked at what I saw as the abandonment of the strategy of slowly building our strength and aiming to become one of the top clubs on a permanent basis. That's what I really liked about Thomas's approach: he took the view that there wasn't any reason why we couldn't be a club that other teams feared playing, and he instilled this belief into the players. An achievement unfairly ignored by the endlessly carping critics of the man on this forum (one in particular, although I believe he has personal reasons for disliking Thomas).

However, there is an alternative view, regularly put forward by plugger or Steve or Voldemort or whatever was the name of that guy who is no longer allowed on here. And that was that the club had been starved of success for so long, that the roll of the dice, "win at all costs" strategy was a good one to go with. It didn't work, but that view would suggest that we should now have no regrets (but, gee, it's hard not to).

But I always really liked the idea of trying to get up there permanently with the Pies, Bombers, Hawks, etc. IMO, it isn't too late. Richo seems to be a coach with a similar sort of philosophy: help each player to be as good as he can be, get the team to gel as a group, and then see what can be achieved. The club board and management now seem to be about as good as we could hope them to be.

We're going in the right direction, that's for sure. Maybe this year will be better than some of you think.

Back to my cave: I might return during the match on Sunday if I can get away from my work and family duties for long enough to watch it on the box. Until then, best wishes to you all.

[spert]

Listening to Alistair Clarkson on this topic - his philosophy is you dont aim for flags. You aim to get a side that can finish top 4 repeatedly.
If you do that - you will get a flag. We need to focus on assembling a squad - not that can fluke a one off flag - but that can finish top 4 every year for 5 straight years.
To do this you need to be winning 80% of your games for a few years running.

I bet if Clarko hadn't won any flags in his tenure, then all the top 4 finishes in the world wouldn't have saved him, though it should always be a priority for any club to aim for the top and not hide behind endless excuses for failure.

[Con Gorozidis]

Remember the Hawks finished

7th (2010)
3rd (2011)
2nd (2012)
before finishing
1st, 1st, 1st

So that is 5 top 3 finishes in a row.

If someone had have offered Clarko 1 flag and three top 4 finishes after the 2012 GF he probably would have taken it.

The point is they got a list that they knew would be up there for a few years.

[Con Gorozidis]

Listening to Alistair Clarkson on this topic - his philosophy is you dont aim for flags. You aim to get a side that can finish top 4 repeatedly.
If you do that - you will get a flag. We need to focus on assembling a squad - not that can fluke a one off flag - but that can finish top 4 every year for 5 straight years.
To do this you need to be winning 80% of your games for a few years running.

I bet if Clarko hadn't won any flags in his tenure, then all the top 4 finishes in the world wouldn't have saved him, though it should always be a priority for any club to aim for the top and not hide behind endless excuses for failure.

Yeah but if you finish top 3 for 5 straight years you create yourself an opportunity to win a flag (or two or three).

Look at the Pies - after 2010 everyone thought they were going to have a dynasty. But they lost the GF in 2011. The Pies finished 4th in 2009 and 2012. So they were up there (top 4) for four straight years (09, 10, 11, 12) and won just the one.

We were top 4 for just the three years (08, 09, 10) and won none. In 2011 we could only manage 7th. We actually werent all that good depth wise.

So the fact is = We didn't have a list that could stay top 4 for more than three years. Based on this - a flag would have been a fluke for us.

Sure you might fluke one - but the aim needs to be to get a squad that can stay top 4 for 4 straight years.

[magnifisaint]

I thought leaving Tassie was a great decision... Just a master stroke.

I mean, why play outside in tough conditions, and have an excuse to lose, when we can win inside and gain 4 more points?

Lucky for us, big finals are played indoor and at home in the comfy confines of The Dome

Thanks to your mate Grant Thomas