Holy shyte, we are $11M in debt!

[saintspremiers]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/-gutn25.html

Really need to get going with sponsorships.

Clearly we don't have the right profile, whatever that is, or maybe not enough members to make us relevant?

Surely the school girl/dwarf shenneagens aren't still hurting us, but who knows??

Also desperately need to sell off several games a year for cash. Its absurd we are playing 11 home games in Melbourne given where we are.

[The Fireman]

hope we don't have to shake the can again

[Bluthy]

I feel like we've crossed some sort of no mans land though after some years in the wilderness that have had us hemorrhaging money and wondering about survival and our future direction:

* Hopefully get good Etihad deal instead of PAYING MONEY to goddamn play despite drawing heaps of people in to eat Eithads cold chips, shitty hot dogs and over priced beer
* Morrabbin is happening and will cost money but football, spiritual and player returns should be huge - we have a proper, stable, convenient home again
* Getting up to finals where get finals money, better time slots, block buster matches, bigger crowds and more members - we will be relevant again in the footy world
* Still think we can get some good stuff from NZ if keep chipping away at it
* Scandals are pretty minor and not horrible rape/dwarf burning stuff
* Our list looks set to be up for a while as long as long as we keep recruiting well
* We play an attractive style
* Sponsers should keep wanting to get on board if we keep our noses clean and play good footy
* Some very marketable players - Billings, Paddy, Steele, Bruce etc to give us a cool, good looking image again to go with our "by the beach" marketing
* TV rights deals just keep going up
* Footy saturation still hasn't seemed to have peaked - womans game could keep growing the interest in footy in general

So as long as we keep steady with our course we should be able to start getting that debt down reasonably quick. But they may need to do a whip around to take the top of the debt and get the interest under control. Even a club like Geelong that was looking a financial powerhouse had to go into a lot of debt to get their ground upgraded so we are doing the same with Morrabbin. You have to go backwards to set yourself up for the future.

[dragit]

Tis' just a flesh wound.

[spert]

I thought the previous president and board has this under control after all the finals appearances but obviously not, and then the current mob recklessly throwing away good money sacking the previous coach for whatever reason with a huge payout, instead of waiting for his contract to expire. Just hope the Saints stay settled and really push the marketing side of things to a new peak, as I think there is still room for improvement there.

[Linton Lodger]

I thought the previous president and board has this under control after all the finals appearances but obviously not, and then the current mob recklessly throwing away good money sacking the previous coach for whatever reason with a huge payout, instead of waiting for his contract to expire. Just hope the Saints stay settled and really push the marketing side of things to a new peak, as I think there is still room for improvement there.

Allowing Watters (I assume that's who you meant) to Coach for another year would have had disastrous consequences. His appointment was yet another enormous blunder by Nettlefold and needed to be fixed quickly.

[Spinner]

I thought the previous president and board has this under control after all the finals appearances but obviously not, and then the current mob recklessly throwing away good money sacking the previous coach for whatever reason with a huge payout, instead of waiting for his contract to expire. Just hope the Saints stay settled and really push the marketing side of things to a new peak, as I think there is still room for improvement there.

Allowing Watters (I assume that's who you meant) to Coach for another year would have had disastrous consequences. His appointment was yet another enormous blunder by Nettlefold and needed to be fixed quickly.

Exactly. If that's the call the board made / needed to make - it needed to be applied then and there. Would be worse off player and money wise waiting for a contract to expire.

[To the top]

IF our Balance Sheet identifies $11 Million in liabilities, what are the assets?

And what is the performance of those assets, including forward projections viz a viz the servicing of that debt including any reductions in principal debt?

Just to report the liability is a nonsense.

Same as the former Liberal Party ACT politician (Carnell) in her latest re-incarnation carrying on about bank lending to small business and the bank moving on small business (or any debt) when the borrowers continue to service the loan/s.

Simply, if an analysis of the Financial Statements and the Trade Debtor Ledger and the Trade Creditor Ledger provided at least annually identify that the servicing is provided by a run down in inventory, discounting to attract that sales revenue impacting on GP and resultant trading losses AND/OR an increase in Trade Creditor support where the Working Capital Position identifies that the payments to those Trade Creditors as and when due are in doubt the bank will move, irrespective of adherence to facility servicing.

And that is why all facilities provided to business enterprises are subject to (at least) Annual Review incorporating adherence to Capital Adequacy Covenants and Liquidity Covenants along with Interest Cover covenants and LVR covenants.

St Kilda FC will be assessed in the same way by their bankers.

So you need a full assessment, not just a reference to the $11 Million debt.

[prwilkinson]

IF our Balance Sheet identifies $11 Million in liabilities, what are the assets?

And what is the performance of those assets, including forward projections viz a viz the servicing of that debt including any reductions in principal debt?

Just to report the liability is a nonsense.

Same as the former Liberal Party ACT politician (Carnell) in her latest re-incarnation carrying on about bank lending to small business and the bank moving on small business (or any debt) when the borrowers continue to service the loan/s.

Simply, if an analysis of the Financial Statements and the Trade Debtor Ledger and the Trade Creditor Ledger provided at least annually identify that the servicing is provided by a run down in inventory, discounting to attract that sales revenue impacting on GP and resultant trading losses AND/OR an increase in Trade Creditor support where the Working Capital Position identifies that the payments to those Trade Creditors as and when due are in doubt the bank will move, irrespective of adherence to facility servicing.

And that is why all facilities provided to business enterprises are subject to (at least) Annual Review incorporating adherence to Capital Adequacy Covenants and Liquidity Covenants along with Interest Cover covenants and LVR covenants.

St Kilda FC will be assessed in the same way by their bankers.

So you need a full assessment, not just a reference to the $11 Million debt.

I was thinking the same thing,

[Legendary]

We are effectively a guaranteed subsidiary of the AFL, so the debt (within reason) doesn't concern me.

What is more concerning is a lack of sponsorship interest. This is indicative of either (a) a lack of market presence / attractiveness of our brand; or (b) management lacking the skills / capability to market and support sponsors.

It's definitely not the later from my (limited) engagement with the current management team and Board. They seem to work hard in this area.

Let's hope we can draw interest from some second tier sponsors to fill the coach and shorts sponsorships. We are missing out on c. $500k per year by not having these sponsors in place.

[Playon]

Well its to be expected, the club has to pay for Moorabbin, where the majority will come from. Last mention was we were 5 mill short, and thats with some spending cuts to compensate. For example originally there was to be a pool, now theres not
The club also rang members last year asking 'if' we pass the hat around , how much can you contribute etc.

And besides sponsors we really need more members, we seem to have a very slow growth rate compared to others, and its not as if the club hasnt been trying, going out to schools and Auskick etc. Perhaps we need some giveaways a free cap or scarf here or there on some of the visits

[To the top]

We continue to be in very, very tough economic times - with Chinese demand for iron ore putting a plus in front of the most recent quarterly GDP data and so evading a technical recession - which is where the Country actually is.

Hence the Cash Rate remaining at a historic low and the RBA being compromised in regard any raising bias.

In these times sponsorship's are very hard won.

There is also probity in respect to those wishing to associate with the St Kilda brand.

And seeing the color of their money!!!!

[SuperDuper]

We continue to be in very, very tough economic times

Really? very very tough?
No recessions in 25 years.
Low unemployment.
Lots of people at the top are making LOTS of money.

What words would you use if there was actually, say, a depression or an unemployment rate of 25%?

Sure, some people are doing it tougher than they should be considering the overall wealth of the nation... but that is a political issue not a sign of particularly tough economic times

[Playon]

We continue to be in very, very tough economic times

Really? very very tough?
No recessions in 25 years.
Low unemployment.
Lots of people at the top are making LOTS of money.

What words would you use if there was actually, say, a depression or an unemployment rate of 25%?

Sure, some people are doing it tougher than they should be considering the overall wealth of the nation... but that is a political issue not a sign of particularly tough economic times

In 1988 houses in Highett we 51k when I earnt the average wage, In the early 2000's my wages had doubled since 98, yet houses in Highett were over 500k
Not to mention rates going up, water used to be free which is now our biggest bill, I can go on like this with other examples.
But when both Sydney and Melbourne being listed in the top 10 most expensive cities in the world to live in, there are reasons why.

Try buying a house and raising a family on the minimum wage.

Not to mention the employment figures are misleading. How many are employed on a casual or part time basis?

Yeah its fine if you live at the top of the tree star gazing, but some of us are down to earth

[spert]

I thought the previous president and board has this under control after all the finals appearances but obviously not, and then the current mob recklessly throwing away good money sacking the previous coach for whatever reason with a huge payout, instead of waiting for his contract to expire. Just hope the Saints stay settled and really push the marketing side of things to a new peak, as I think there is still room for improvement there.

Allowing Watters (I assume that's who you meant) to Coach for another year would have had disastrous consequences. His appointment was yet another enormous blunder by Nettlefold and needed to be fixed quickly.

Exactly. If that's the call the board made / needed to make - it needed to be applied then and there. Would be worse off player and money wise waiting for a contract to expire.

Really?

[Jacks Back]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/-gutn25.html

Really need to get going with sponsorships.

Clearly we don't have the right profile, whatever that is, or maybe not enough members to make us relevant?

Surely the school girl/dwarf shenneagens aren't still hurting us, but who knows??

Also desperately need to sell off several games a year for cash. Its absurd we are playing 11 home games in Melbourne given where we are.

I hear the TAC are looking for another club to sponsor.

[To the top]

So Super Duper, why is the Cash Rate being maintained at a historical low of 1.5%?

Why is the unemployment rate static/increasing, noting the measurement of unemployed AND noting that positions being created are part time and casual with resultant under employment?

Why is wages growth static?

Why is the measure of inflation static?

Why are retailers under pressure, with some collapsing?

What is the impact of the growth in the amount we owe to our home lenders rising from $355 BILLION as at January 2000 to $1.226 TRILLION as at January 2010, the data courtesy of RBA 10 Year data?

What are the impacts of changes to Social Security payments, including to partly self funded retirees?

What will be the impact of the reduction in penalty rates?

What we see is the impact of "trickle down" economics and the "the most effective form of regulation is self regulation" agenda, with those who self regulate being the exclusive beneficiaries.

Then we hear that our Gas producers, holding Australians and Australian business to ransom in regards supply and cost parity with offshore markets, are going to be questioned - just like the "grow the book regardless" banks are going to be questioned!!!

Post the introduction of the GST, and a quarter of negative growth, to evade a recession impetus was given to the housing industry by way of the non means tested First Home Owners Grant, turning a Bunsen Burner under house prices into a raging bush fire because of the successive annual negative performances of the ASX at that time. This time we have seen a negative quarter GDP followed by the impact of iron ore sales to China, hardly impacting on Australians going about their lives.

Ahh, the ASX. It peaked at 6,800 Points in 2007, when the DJIA was at 14,500 Points (and prior to the GFC)

Today the ASX is struggling to maintain 5,700 Points and the DJIA is at 21,000 Points (and we under perform other Global Markets, significantly)

Why, noting Share Indices are forward looking markets?

And that leaves the depreciation of the AUD from parity to the USD out of the equation!!

So if you think that everything is rosy in the garden, then all the very best to you.

But you just might not have very many others with the same opinion.

It may be OK for Taxi Drivers, invested into one asset, to scream as we see but what about those who have lost their employment including in the car industry and their associated suppliers or those where retailing chains have gone into liquidation et al?

[IanRush]

Just do Collingwood's trick... Scam some prime Crown Land off the State Govt.

[Johnny Member]

We are effectively a guaranteed subsidiary of the AFL, so the debt (within reason) doesn't concern me.

Exactly.


Every club could run at a loss every year - but as long as the AFL makes enough to line their pockets, and hand enough back to the clubs to ensure they still operate - then the system works perfectly well.

And at this stage, that's exactly what is happening.



So the Saints' finances don't concern me. All clubs are merely franchises of the AFL anyway. I don't know why anyone cares to be honest. If it translates to losing on-field - then it would be an issue. But it doesn't.

[Johnny Member]

So Super Duper, why is the Cash Rate being maintained at a historical low of 1.5%?

Why is the unemployment rate static/increasing, noting the measurement of unemployed AND noting that positions being created are part time and casual with resultant under employment?

Why is wages growth static?

Why is the measure of inflation static?

Why are retailers under pressure, with some collapsing?

What is the impact of the growth in the amount we owe to our home lenders rising from $355 BILLION as at January 2000 to $1.226 TRILLION as at January 2010, the data courtesy of RBA 10 Year data?

What are the impacts of changes to Social Security payments, including to partly self funded retirees?

What will be the impact of the reduction in penalty rates?

What we see is the impact of "trickle down" economics and the "the most effective form of regulation is self regulation" agenda, with those who self regulate being the exclusive beneficiaries.

Then we hear that our Gas producers, holding Australians and Australian business to ransom in regards supply and cost parity with offshore markets, are going to be questioned - just like the "grow the book regardless" banks are going to be questioned!!!

Post the introduction of the GST, and a quarter of negative growth, to evade a recession impetus was given to the housing industry by way of the non means tested First Home Owners Grant, turning a Bunsen Burner under house prices into a raging bush fire because of the successive annual negative performances of the ASX at that time. This time we have seen a negative quarter GDP followed by the impact of iron ore sales to China, hardly impacting on Australians going about their lives.

Ahh, the ASX. It peaked at 6,800 Points in 2007, when the DJIA was at 14,500 Points (and prior to the GFC)

Today the ASX is struggling to maintain 5,700 Points and the DJIA is at 21,000 Points (and we under perform other Global Markets, significantly)

Why, noting Share Indices are forward looking markets?

And that leaves the depreciation of the AUD from parity to the USD out of the equation!!

So if you think that everything is rosy in the garden, then all the very best to you.

But you just might not have very many others with the same opinion.

It may be OK for Taxi Drivers, invested into one asset, to scream as we see but what about those who have lost their employment including in the car industry and their associated suppliers or those where retailing chains have gone into liquidation et al?

Trickle Down Economics doesn't work in the real world. In theory it does - but that's only if you believe that the biggest economy in the world is awesome, even though it means a big percentage of its people are in poverty and will never, ever get out of it.

If that's what makes a great economy, then count me out. An economy should be judged on its poorest people, not the richest.

I've always said that we live in a society anyway - not an economy.



But having said that...... I do think there's a case for trickle down economics in sport.

Contrary to the real world - in sport, I actually don't think that there's enough to go around if we all share it evenly and fairly. I don't think there's enough money to support 18 AFL clubs in isolation. In fact, you could point to our own finances to prove that point. We're broke, in debt, and barely viable. Realistically, quite a few other clubs would be in the same boat.

But the AFL props us up.

In 'real world' trickle down economics, the rich get the perks and the scraps trickle down to everyone else. The problem is that the scraps that trickle down are often basically slave labour jobs requiring working 15 hour days, which barely provides money to live somewhere and feed your family. Sure, you've got a job - but your life sucks. Throw millions of people in the same boat and society goes downhill fast for everyone.


In the AFL world though, it's different. The scraps that flow down are watching your team play live each week, having a competitive team with a realistic chance of being able to win the flag every few years. Being able to recruit star players to your club. etc. etc.
Sure, it's not quite as nice as the rich clubs - but I do think it's better than the alternative.


In 'real world' trickle down economics, what the poor miss out on are things like an education, proper health care, time with family, somewhere to live, nutritious food, etc.

In the AFL world though, really only what the poor miss out on is getting to play most of your games in prime time, and not having as many coaches. Maybe your 'state of the art facilities' aren't quite as state of the art as the rich clubs' are.




So once you accept that clubs aren't clubs anymore, and that their only reason for existence is to ensure that the AFL as a whole can continue to make money - then the concept of trickle down economics in sport isn't really that bad a thing.

[Premium89]

So Super Duper, why is the Cash Rate being maintained at a historical low of 1.5%?

Why is the unemployment rate static/increasing, noting the measurement of unemployed AND noting that positions being created are part time and casual with resultant under employment?

Why is wages growth static?

Why is the measure of inflation static?

Why are retailers under pressure, with some collapsing?

What is the impact of the growth in the amount we owe to our home lenders rising from $355 BILLION as at January 2000 to $1.226 TRILLION as at January 2010, the data courtesy of RBA 10 Year data?

What are the impacts of changes to Social Security payments, including to partly self funded retirees?

What will be the impact of the reduction in penalty rates?

What we see is the impact of "trickle down" economics and the "the most effective form of regulation is self regulation" agenda, with those who self regulate being the exclusive beneficiaries.

Then we hear that our Gas producers, holding Australians and Australian business to ransom in regards supply and cost parity with offshore markets, are going to be questioned - just like the "grow the book regardless" banks are going to be questioned!!!

Post the introduction of the GST, and a quarter of negative growth, to evade a recession impetus was given to the housing industry by way of the non means tested First Home Owners Grant, turning a Bunsen Burner under house prices into a raging bush fire because of the successive annual negative performances of the ASX at that time. This time we have seen a negative quarter GDP followed by the impact of iron ore sales to China, hardly impacting on Australians going about their lives.

Ahh, the ASX. It peaked at 6,800 Points in 2007, when the DJIA was at 14,500 Points (and prior to the GFC)

Today the ASX is struggling to maintain 5,700 Points and the DJIA is at 21,000 Points (and we under perform other Global Markets, significantly)

Why, noting Share Indices are forward looking markets?

And that leaves the depreciation of the AUD from parity to the USD out of the equation!!

So if you think that everything is rosy in the garden, then all the very best to you.

But you just might not have very many others with the same opinion.

It may be OK for Taxi Drivers, invested into one asset, to scream as we see but what about those who have lost their employment including in the car industry and their associated suppliers or those where retailing chains have gone into liquidation et al?

Trickle Down Economics doesn't work in the real world. In theory it does - but that's only if you believe that the biggest economy in the world is awesome, even though it means a big percentage of its people are in poverty and will never, ever get out of it.

If that's what makes a great economy, then count me out. An economy should be judged on its poorest people, not the richest.

I've always said that we live in a society anyway - not an economy.



But having said that...... I do think there's a case for trickle down economics in sport.

Contrary to the real world - in sport, I actually don't think that there's enough to go around if we all share it evenly and fairly. I don't think there's enough money to support 18 AFL clubs in isolation. In fact, you could point to our own finances to prove that point. We're broke, in debt, and barely viable. Realistically, quite a few other clubs would be in the same boat.

But the AFL props us up.

In 'real world' trickle down economics, the rich get the perks and the scraps trickle down to everyone else. The problem is that the scraps that trickle down are often basically slave labour jobs requiring working 15 hour days, which barely provides money to live somewhere and feed your family. Sure, you've got a job - but your life sucks. Throw millions of people in the same boat and society goes downhill fast for everyone.


In the AFL world though, it's different. The scraps that flow down are watching your team play live each week, having a competitive team with a realistic chance of being able to win the flag every few years. Being able to recruit star players to your club. etc. etc.
Sure, it's not quite as nice as the rich clubs - but I do think it's better than the alternative.


In 'real world' trickle down economics, what the poor miss out on are things like an education, proper health care, time with family, somewhere to live, nutritious food, etc.

In the AFL world though, really only what the poor miss out on is getting to play most of your games in prime time, and not having as many coaches. Maybe your 'state of the art facilities' aren't quite as state of the art as the rich clubs' are.




So once you accept that clubs aren't clubs anymore, and that their only reason for existence is to ensure that the AFL as a whole can continue to make money - then the concept of trickle down economics in sport isn't really that bad a thing.

I'd argue there's a side of socialism thrown in there too... AFL divides up the total money pool, gives a few handouts to the struggling clubs here and there, and sets how much clubs can pay their players...

[Johnny Member]

I'd argue there's a side of socialism thrown in there too... AFL divides up the total money pool, gives a few handouts to the struggling clubs here and there, and sets how much clubs can pay their players...

Yep, I reckon they realised they were alienating about 60% of the customers, so they moved toward a more socialist model.


It's a good point actually - a few years ago there was an enormous gap opening up between the rich and the poor. Maybe trickle down doesn't work either in sport?

But then again, maybe it did work to a point where the coffers got so full by using that model, that they were then able to move toward the more socialist approach, which may not have worked earlier on?

[longtimesaint]

I think you will find that most of this debt was to finance building Seaford so presumably we still own that asset.
Whether we can get a return on that asset in the future after we move to Moorabbin is the question.

[Griggsy]

As people have said, a building development is the partial cause and we have the AFL backing us. Brand new TV deal has kicked off this year in 2017 running till 2022 worth $2.5billion, I see little cause for concern.

Debt isn't always a great indicator for financial position either.

[ausfatcat]

isn't almost of the 11 mil debt related to

1. moving to seaford
2. moving back home

?

if so hopefully will be able to reduced both debts through commercial deals soon (not the whole amounts but a fair chunk)