Saints urged to keep being aggresive.

[saynta]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/kee ... 54xx1.html

[Junction Oval]

Not much to disagree with there.

Thank goodness for long term members of the ilke of Gerry Ryan.

[Sanctorum]

Gerry Ryan has echoed the philosophy expounded recently by Peter V'landys (Chairman of NRL), that it is absolutely paramount that the football "product", as a form of entertainment, has to be attractive to the fans, first and foremost, if the code is to continue to be funded through the media broadcast rights beyond 2020.

Ryan's call for St Kilda to play an aggressive brand of football is in line with this philosophy, and I believe the 5 experienced players brought into the club at the end of 2019 will be a major factor to achieve that objective.

Following all forms of sport, I did notice that the round of NRL matches played this weekend, following the lay-off, was far more exciting and entertaining than what it was previously, so the message has been well and truly understood in that code.

I would imagine that the AFL Commission will be working night and day to come up with a blueprint to tinker with the rules to get football played the way it was during the golden era of the 90s.

[The Fireman]

I can't begin to imagine how many times I've heard this.

[fugazi]

I can't begin to imagine how many times I've heard this.

Literally

[CQ SAINT]

Of course. Let's not strive for another decade of mediocrity.

[Scollop]

Most of the surveys ask fans what rule changes should be introduced and the question that usually gets the least votes is for Only 16 a side.

That's the one that I'd like to see if they are serious at combating stoppages

Jake Niall from The Age has hinted that perhaps that's what is needed. He reckons 'Old footy was better'

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-l ... 54xz7.html

[Secret Kiel]

My takeaway from that article, and I suspect it's the genisis for the article, is this growing noise about how other clubs are expressing concern about whether the AFL can afford 9 clubs in Melbourne.

It's absolute nonsense to suggest a playing style on the field will somehow increase our chances of survival. Absolute fairyt dust being spread by Gerry. What will increase our chances of survival will be a great business idea that can generate revenue on a monthly basis for 12 months a year.

This new administration style management has already started creating greater off field walls between clubs and it wont be long before the resentment towards our inability to create revenue will flow over those walls. Its already happening. And when the pie gets smaller the fight gets much more nastier and the new administration style managment we are now operating under is anything but conducive for clubs to work together or avoid fighting amoungst each other as Gerry suggests.

Where does the revenue come from. Anyone?

[The_Dud]

Hopefully we keep being aggressive on the field, would hate to see that 8 or 9 goal average dip...

[Sanctorum]

My takeaway from that article, and I suspect it's the genisis for the article, is this growing noise about how other clubs are expressing concern about whether the AFL can afford 9 clubs in Melbourne

It's absolute nonsense to suggest a playing style on the field will somehow increase our chances of survival. Absolute fairyt dust being spread by Gerry. What will increase our chances of survival will be a great business idea that can generate revenue on a monthly basis for 12 months a year.

This new administration style management has already started creating greater off field walls between clubs and it wont be long before the resentment towards our inability to create revenue will flow over those walls. Its already happening. And when the pie gets smaller the fight gets much more nastier and the new administration style managment we are now operating under is anything but conducive for clubs to work together or avoid fighting amoungst each other as Gerry suggests.

Where does the revenue come from. Anyone?

You are ignoring the opening statement in this article SK:

"St Kilda must maintain an aggressive approach to improving their on- and off-field fortunes"

Contrary to your assertion, it has been proven time and time again that it is ONLY through on-field success that footy clubs in the AFL, as in all of the professional sporting codes around the world, will turn their finances back into the black.

You need only look at how the Western Bulldogs made significant profits as a direct result of winning their first premiership for 62 years in 2016.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/wes ... t66bv.html

Conversely, the Brisbane Lions went from great financial success during their premiership trifecta in the early "noughties" to becoming a basket case when they dropped down the ladder, then back to their first profit last year since 2007 when they again played finals.

On-field success will generate the revenues required to wipe debt, it is then up to the club's Board and management to have the right strategies in place to develop this winning culture into consistent on-field success.

St Kilda has a history of bad strategic decisions and poor management over the past 15 years, which the current Board is trying hard to set straight.

Gerry Ryan is absolutely right in his suggestion that St Kilda need to adopt an aggressive approach both on and off-field to become successful!

[Secret Kiel]

My takeaway from that article, and I suspect it's the genisis for the article, is this growing noise about how other clubs are expressing concern about whether the AFL can afford 9 clubs in Melbourne

It's absolute nonsense to suggest a playing style on the field will somehow increase our chances of survival. Absolute fairyt dust being spread by Gerry. What will increase our chances of survival will be a great business idea that can generate revenue on a monthly basis for 12 months a year.

This new administration style management has already started creating greater off field walls between clubs and it wont be long before the resentment towards our inability to create revenue will flow over those walls. Its already happening. And when the pie gets smaller the fight gets much more nastier and the new administration style managment we are now operating under is anything but conducive for clubs to work together or avoid fighting amoungst each other as Gerry suggests.

Where does the revenue come from. Anyone?

You are ignoring the opening statement in this article SK:

"St Kilda must maintain an aggressive approach to improving their on- and off-field fortunes"

Contrary to your assertion, it has been proven time and time again that it is ONLY through on-field success that footy clubs in the AFL, as in all of the professional sporting codes around the world, will turn their finances back into the black.

You need only look at how the Western Bulldogs made significant profits as a direct result of winning their first premiership for 62 years in 2016.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/wes ... t66bv.html

Conversely, the Brisbane Lions went from great financial success during their premiership trifecta in the early "noughties" to becoming a basket case when they dropped down the ladder, then back to their first profit last year since 2007 when they again played finals.

On-field success will generate the revenues required to wipe debt, it is then up to the club's Board and management to have the right strategies in place to develop this winning culture into consistent on-field success.

St Kilda has a history of bad strategic decisions and poor management over the past 15 years, which the current Board is trying hard to set straight.

Gerry Ryan is absolutely right in his suggestion that St Kilda need to adopt an aggressive approach both on and off-field to become successful!

We are now operating under administration type control so the old way of doing business is not going to help us survive or be competitive in these unprecedented times.


The AFL approves all expenditure and key decisions while club revenue streams remain dry.

We also do not have a match on free-to-air TV in the first four rounds of the rescheduled fixture and so that just gives you a hint of what the AFL thinks about our ability to create revenue.


Ryan said the COVID-19 environment meant the club needed to examine what unnecessary activities existed, and then invest in ideas to create non-football income and add value to existing income streams so that more members were attracted to the Saints

I hope we play well in the Mickey Mouse cup becuse we will look very vulnerable next year if we start 2021 off with a growing $20 million debt and a team incapable of being competitive yet costing millions of dollars per year to support. Our survival will absolutely require this current list to deliver, if they don't then the other clubs will turn on us very quickly.

Has you got any ideas on how to create revenue other than win games of footy that aren't shown on FTA TV.

[Sanctorum]

Has you got any ideas on how to create revenue other than win games of footy that aren't shown on FTA TV.

I doubt that anyone has any ideas to create more or new revenue streams SK, there are no magic bullets that I know of and in any case, if you examine the instances where weak clubs have managed to turn their fortunes around, in every case it has been as a result of both off and on-field success: the 2 elements have to be totally aligned.

If St Kilda had more enlightened and stronger administrations during the 2 recent periods of on-field success (2004-2006 & 2009-2010) the club would today be in much better financial shape.

I'm inclined to believe now that the AFL is probably doing the weaker clubs a favour by mandating strict financial controls because it will force club administrations to have strategies in place to become financially viable, and that is something that I, as a long term financial member of St Kilda FC, certainly welcome.

Last night on Fox Footy Nick Riewoldt expanded this debate by suggesting that the AFL should consider a more equitable revenue sharing model, by which the big clubs (Collingwood, West Coast Eagles, Richmond, Essendon etc) that regularly play their games in front of sell-out crowds and in prime time TV slots, which generates massive revenues, should have a proportion of that money put into the AFL coffers to engender greater equalisation. It acknowledges the belief that if you have 18 teams that are essentially competitive, you have a much better "product" to market to fans, sponsors and broadcasters. He cited the example of the NFL in the United States:

http://www.thehogsty.com/2020/01/23/nfl ... aring-101/

This principle is entirely reasonable because the NFL clubs accepted many years ago that by pooling their resources and sharing their profits, they would be able to provide a product that, as a whole, was much more valuable than the sum of its parts.

The AFL is part of the way into this form of sporting socialism with the players drafts and caps on spending for player payments and football department expenditures, so to take it a step further by introducing revenue sharing as well would seem quite appropriate.

[Secret Kiel]

Has you got any ideas on how to create revenue other than win games of footy that aren't shown on FTA TV.

I doubt that anyone has any ideas to create more or new revenue streams SK, there are no magic bullets that I know of and in any case, if you examine the instances where weak clubs have managed to turn their fortunes around, in every case it has been as a result of both off and on-field success: the 2 elements have to be totally aligned.

If St Kilda had more enlightened and stronger administrations during the 2 recent periods of on-field success (2004-2006 & 2009-2010) the club would today be in much better financial shape.

I'm inclined to believe now that the AFL is probably doing the weaker clubs a favour by mandating strict financial controls because it will force club administrations to have strategies in place to become financially viable, and that is something that I, as a long term financial member of St Kilda FC, certainly welcome.

Last night on Fox Footy Nick Riewoldt expanded this debate by suggesting that the AFL should consider a more equitable revenue sharing model, by which the big clubs (Collingwood, West Coast Eagles, Richmond, Essendon etc) that regularly play their games in front of sell-out crowds and in prime time TV slots, which generates massive revenues, should have a proportion of that money put into the AFL coffers to engender greater equalisation. It acknowledges the belief that if you have 18 teams that are essentially competitive, you have a much better "product" to market to fans, sponsors and broadcasters. He cited the example of the NFL in the United States:

http://www.thehogsty.com/2020/01/23/nfl ... aring-101/

This principle is entirely reasonable because the NFL clubs accepted many years ago that by pooling their resources and sharing their profits, they would be able to provide a product that, as a whole, was much more valuable than the sum of its parts.

The AFL is part of the way into this form of sporting socialism with the players drafts and caps on spending for player payments and football department expenditures, so to take it a step further by introducing revenue sharing as well would seem quite appropriate.

It's highly doubtful the unassisted clubs will want to participate in revenue sharing anytime soon. They have already made that abundendantly clear. It's a very precarious and vulnerable situation we find ourselves in and revenue is what we need.

[Saintmatt]

Most of the surveys ask fans what rule changes should be introduced and the question that usually gets the least votes is for Only 16 a side.

That's the one that I'd like to see if they are serious at combating stoppages

Jake Niall from The Age has hinted that perhaps that's what is needed. He reckons 'Old footy was better'

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-l ... 54xz7.html

G'day Scol - this is really really simple to fix and it's got nothing to do with 16 a side. Here's the way AFL 'fix' the game style: -

1. Umpires do not wait for the two ruckmen to meet at the contest before throwing it up around the ground AND throwing the ball in from an out of bounds situation. The 2 or 3 seconds of waiting allows not only the two ruckmen to arrive - but also most of the other players on the field to crowd the stoppage. Throw the ball up / in IMMEDIATELY and all that disappears; AND

2. Reduce interchange rotations to 40 per game (i.e. 10 per quarter). Fatigue at the end of games plainly allows things to open up and then scoring generally increases as the game goes on.

Both of those suggestions aren't mine - they're from an AFL umpire who's been doing it for 15 years. He reckons the umpires talk about it all the time. The other one they talk about apparently is paying holding the ball immediately upon a correctly executed tackle being laid.

Why the AFL refuses to to implement these two really simple changes is beyond me. They're so easy to implement.

[CQ SAINT]

Get rid of the boundary umpires.

[Secret Kiel]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 54znm.html

[Scollop]

Most of the surveys ask fans what rule changes should be introduced and the question that usually gets the least votes is for Only 16 a side.

That's the one that I'd like to see if they are serious at combating stoppages

Jake Niall from The Age has hinted that perhaps that's what is needed. He reckons 'Old footy was better'

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-l ... 54xz7.html

G'day Scol - this is really really simple to fix and it's got nothing to do with 16 a side. Here's the way AFL 'fix' the game style: -

1. Umpires do not wait for the two ruckmen to meet at the contest before throwing it up around the ground AND throwing the ball in from an out of bounds situation. The 2 or 3 seconds of waiting allows not only the two ruckmen to arrive - but also most of the other players on the field to crowd the stoppage. Throw the ball up / in IMMEDIATELY and all that disappears; AND

2. Reduce interchange rotations to 40 per game (i.e. 10 per quarter). Fatigue at the end of games plainly allows things to open up and then scoring generally increases as the game goes on.

Both of those suggestions aren't mine - they're from an AFL umpire who's been doing it for 15 years. He reckons the umpires talk about it all the time. The other one they talk about apparently is paying holding the ball immediately upon a correctly executed tackle being laid.

Why the AFL refuses to to implement these two really simple changes is beyond me. They're so easy to implement.

Me and KB ....and thousands more agree with you...especially re number of interchange rotations

[Sanctorum]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 54znm.html

Contrary to the portent of doom and gloom about St Kilda's immediate and long term viability to remain in the competition, in yesterday's papers covering the AFL's recovery after the pandemic, Andrew Bassat declared as follows:

"There is also optimism in previously troubled places. St Kilda president Andrew Bassat was looking forward to a rejuvenated club this year, heading towards 50,000 members and an improved playing list. But St Kilda also went into the season with about $12m debt and reports emerged that they may end 2020 owing $20m. Bassat says that figure is alarmist.

“We won’t talk numbers but it won’t be anything like that. We were looking good going into the season at getting that down but we will probably end roughly where we started,” he said.

“We’re optimistic. We’ve attracted players, got more sponsors and members. Now it is about performing on the field.”

This makes nonsense of claims in the media and on this forum that St Kilda's $12 million will blow out to $20m by the end of this season. I could never quite figure out how any reputable business would be so bad that a $12m debt could actually lose another $8m in the space of just 12 months!

So much for the alarmists....I'll take our club President's word over any uninformed supporters'.

And further on this topic, a few weeks ago Geelong FC advised that they were expecting to have a loss of $10m by the end of this season, and decided to become a "assisted club". The bulk of this loss is stated to be due to lack of gate receipts as Geelong is one of the few AFL clubs to own their own stadium, and as far as I know the only "club owned" stadium where AFL matches are played.

[scallopsroe]

Most of the surveys ask fans what rule changes should be introduced and the question that usually gets the least votes is for Only 16 a side.

That's the one that I'd like to see if they are serious at combating stoppages

Jake Niall from The Age has hinted that perhaps that's what is needed. He reckons 'Old footy was better'

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-l ... 54xz7.html

G'day Scol - this is really really simple to fix and it's got nothing to do with 16 a side. Here's the way AFL 'fix' the game style: -

1. Umpires do not wait for the two ruckmen to meet at the contest before throwing it up around the ground AND throwing the ball in from an out of bounds situation. The 2 or 3 seconds of waiting allows not only the two ruckmen to arrive - but also most of the other players on the field to crowd the stoppage. Throw the ball up / in IMMEDIATELY and all that disappears; AND

2. Reduce interchange rotations to 40 per game (i.e. 10 per quarter). Fatigue at the end of games plainly allows things to open up and then scoring generally increases as the game goes on.

Both of those suggestions aren't mine - they're from an AFL umpire who's been doing it for 15 years. He reckons the umpires talk about it all the time. The other one they talk about apparently is paying holding the ball immediately upon a correctly executed tackle being laid.

Why the AFL refuses to to implement these two really simple changes is beyond me. They're so easy to implement.

Me and KB ....and thousands more agree with you...especially re number of interchange rotations

Excellent suggestion. Too much time is wasted waiting for the umps and rucks to nominate and then throw the pill up. This results in a mass gathering around the contest. Never 16 a side, what a joke.

[Secret Kiel]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 54znm.html

Contrary to the portent of doom and gloom about St Kilda's immediate and long term viability to remain in the competition, in yesterday's papers covering the AFL's recovery after the pandemic, Andrew Bassat declared as follows:

"There is also optimism in previously troubled places. St Kilda president Andrew Bassat was looking forward to a rejuvenated club this year, heading towards 50,000 members and an improved playing list. But St Kilda also went into the season with about $12m debt and reports emerged that they may end 2020 owing $20m. Bassat says that figure is alarmist.

“We won’t talk numbers but it won’t be anything like that. We were looking good going into the season at getting that down but we will probably end roughly where we started,” he said.

“We’re optimistic. We’ve attracted players, got more sponsors and members. Now it is about performing on the field.”

This makes nonsense of claims in the media and on this forum that St Kilda's $12 million will blow out to $20m by the end of this season. I could never quite figure out how any reputable business would be so bad that a $12m debt could actually lose another $8m in the space of just 12 months!

So much for the alarmists....I'll take our club President's word over any uninformed supporters'.

And further on this topic, a few weeks ago Geelong FC advised that they were expecting to have a loss of $10m by the end of this season, and decided to become a "assisted club". The bulk of this loss is stated to be due to lack of gate receipts as Geelong is one of the few AFL clubs to own their own stadium, and as far as I know the only "club owned" stadium where AFL matches are played.

Classic Feeding the Chooks. Still no mention of where the revenue is coming from.

The 50k membership figure is unrealised and was only a strategy to inflate the numbers with memberships for pets and unborn children. Good membership numbers help give a club the facade of being a big club and help argue for prime exposure, a strategy invented by Jeff Kennet. The problem is the revenue from membership isn't nearly enough to support the outgoings to operate an AFL club.

So where is the revenue going to come from? No mention of that by the President.

Just feeding the chooks is the President and the gullable supporter will swallow that article.

[samuraisaint]

and don't forget the Hawks' Frankston Membership where you got entry to a couple of matches a season.

[Ghost Like]

What I was finding tiresome SK but now mildly intriguing is your constant negativity to all threads during this enforced sabbatical. Whilst many look to a silver lining, you look for pieces of threads to pull that lining apart. That's the tiresome part.

The intriguing part is, would you prefer to see St Kilda survive and prosper OR see the club fold so you be correct with your doom & gloom lectures? I'm suspecting the latter.

[Sanctorum]

Classic Feeding the Chooks. Still no mention of where the revenue is coming from.

The 50k membership figure is unrealised and was only a strategy to inflate the numbers with memberships for pets and unborn children. Good membership numbers help give a club the facade of being a big club and help argue for prime exposure, a strategy invented by Jeff Kennet. The problem is the revenue from membership isn't nearly enough to support the outgoings to operate an AFL club.

So where is the revenue going to come from? No mention of that by the President.

Just feeding the chooks is the President and the gullable supporter will swallow that article.

Assume you mean "gullible" chooks SK!

And sure, I'll happily "swallow" statements by the club president (and incidentally the AFL CEO) as being far more credible than uninformed speculations by so-called Saints supporters who keep banging on about our club being on the precipice of insolvency, and who arrogantly dismiss the worth of the season resumption as being devoid of meaning.

I'd like to see you say that to the players who are mustard keen to get out there and give their all to turn the club's fortunes around!

[SaintPav]

What I was finding tiresome SK but now mildly intriguing is your constant negativity to all threads during this enforced sabbatical. Whilst many look to a silver lining, you look for pieces of threads to pull that lining apart. That's the tiresome part.

The intriguing part is, would you prefer to see St Kilda survive and prosper OR see the club fold so you be correct with your doom & gloom lectures? I'm suspecting the latter.

Wears the black hat in a meeting.

Don’t see an issue. World is full of risks.

Wisdom of crowds is bulls***.

[Secret Kiel]

What I was finding tiresome SK but now mildly intriguing is your constant negativity to all threads during this enforced sabbatical. Whilst many look to a silver lining, you look for pieces of threads to pull that lining apart. That's the tiresome part.

The intriguing part is, would you prefer to see St Kilda survive and prosper OR see the club fold so you be correct with your doom & gloom lectures? I'm suspecting the latter.

Where is the revenue coming from. Give me something. That's what I want to hear our President say. Tell us where the revenue is coming from to sustain a club capable of being competitive. Don't regurgitate the same marketing spin from before COVID-19.