Rich club, poor club

[casey scorp]

That's the point - the only way Hawthorn could have called it home was if they got hold of it. They had it transferred to them courtesy of the AFL because they wouldn't compliantly leave Waverley for home games.

The Waverley argument isn't redundant at all.....it was a decision made by the club in the circumstances that applied at the time.

You mightn't have liked Waverley, but that was another decision at an even earlier time.

[Sainternist]

The Waverley argument isn't redundant at all.....it was a decision made by the club in the circumstances that applied at the time.

Well, it is now because the last game of AFL footy was played there in 1999.

Jeez Louise! Our club is going to have to figure something out which is viable to sustain us in the future. Seems like Docklands and Seaford aren't really cutting the mustard. Dwelling over Waverley won't help the situation either.

[gringo]

We just seem unlucky even Melbourne got heaps of Pokies we seem to get road blocks. The afl blackmailed us out of waverley. That pack of dickheads at kingston townhall were like another knife slashing at the jugular of an already ailing club. They did a disservice to their community which still has pokies but now has stagnated because of an ill informed ideologue.

[remboy]

The article needed to go further back to the early 70's when the VFL took our zone of us and gave it to the Hawks. From that point on it was all downhill for us and all uphill for them.

[bergholt]

We just seem unlucky even Melbourne got heaps of Pokies we seem to get road blocks. The afl blackmailed us out of waverley. That pack of dickheads at kingston townhall were like another knife slashing at the jugular of an already ailing club. They did a disservice to their community which still has pokies but now has stagnated because of an ill informed ideologue.

I don't understand how any AFL club can in clear conscience rely on pokies revenue.

[vacuous space]

The Hawks won their 11th flag and made $3.1?million.

Today, the Hawks have four home games in Launceston, in an arrangement that earns them close to $3.5?million.

Perhaps mathematics isn't my strong suit, but if they are earning $3.5M of their $3.1M operating profit in Tasmania, shouldn't they just move?

[gringo]

We just seem unlucky even Melbourne got heaps of Pokies we seem to get road blocks. The afl blackmailed us out of waverley. That pack of dickheads at kingston townhall were like another knife slashing at the jugular of an already ailing club. They did a disservice to their community which still has pokies but now has stagnated because of an ill informed ideologue.

I don't understand how any AFL club can in clear conscience rely on pokies revenue.

They all do. Gambling is an idiots game but how do you decide who should profit from it. Packer doesn't need more.

[plugger66]

We just seem unlucky even Melbourne got heaps of Pokies we seem to get road blocks. The afl blackmailed us out of waverley. That pack of dickheads at kingston townhall were like another knife slashing at the jugular of an already ailing club. They did a disservice to their community which still has pokies but now has stagnated because of an ill informed ideologue.

I don't understand how any AFL club can in clear conscience rely on pokies revenue.

They all do. Gambling is an idiots game but how do you decide who should profit from it. Packer doesn't need more.

Nothing at wrong with certain types og gambling if you can afford it. Pokies on the other hand i just dont get. Still I agree that clubs have as much right at the local pub to make money on them. At least the money isnt just going to the one person.

[Cairnsman]

The article needed to go further back to the early 70's when the VFL took our zone of us and gave it to the Hawks. From that point on it was all downhill for us and all uphill for them.

Spot on, the bloke that wrote the article probably isn't old enough to remember zones and only constructed a piece from snippets on the internet...Journalism is such an easy profession these days...tongue, cheek, firmly planted.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

No doubt the article by Jake "Hawthorn" Niall is a great read for smug Hawks supporters (is there any other kind?)

All clubs make decisions; not all are correct in the long run. When the Saints admin spent a lot of money building that stand at Moorabbin they thought they were doing the right thing. They didn't know that in less than 20 years there'd be no matches played there. So we would've been better off spending that money on players, like North and Hawthorn did.

We didn't have any choice about moving to Waverley and I don't think there was any choice about moving to Docklands. BTW the first club to to move to Docklands (Essendon) had an almost undefeated season its first year there and won the flag.

[linz]

I saw the word "retrospect" in a comment. You didn't need hindsight to know that what a lot of what St Kilda FC was doing was madness.

There is a simple reality here. The Hawks ran a business that specialised in playing football. A succesful business will make strategic business decisions.

The Saints ran a footy club. A footy club will make short-term decisions to try to win a flag in the lifetime of the Board or the President.

As in the past I expect that my views will be disparaged, and accusations of a vested interest will be trotted out to seek to confuse the situation.

But simply, it was all so easy to see in advance.

You may recall, even before we actually moved to Seaford when I was arguing for redevelopment at Moorabbin instead, that I was told to get over it, decision already made in the interests of the football club, I was just a knocker etc etc.

The sad thing is that the apologists for poor decision-making by the Board who are posters on this site will continue to parrot the crap they always have.

+1.

[bergholt]

No doubt the article by Jake "Hawthorn" Niall is a great read for smug Hawks supporters (is there any other kind?)

Niall is a Collingwood supporter.

BTW the first club to to move to Docklands (Essendon) had an almost undefeated season its first year there and won the flag.

What does that have to do with anything?

[I Love Peter Kiel]

No doubt the article by Jake "Hawthorn" Niall is a great read for smug Hawks supporters (is there any other kind?)

Niall is a Collingwood supporter.

BTW the first club to to move to Docklands (Essendon) had an almost undefeated season its first year there and won the flag.

What does that have to do with anything?

How do you know he's a Collingwood supporter? Whether he is or not, that's the nickname I give him because he generally is anti-St Kilda and of course thinks that everything the Premiership team has done is successful. BTW no mention of that bloke who embezzled thousands from Hawthorn FC......funny how that story got buried. Imagine if it'd happened at St Kilda!

Essendon was the first club to be "in" with the Docklands stadium. There was a real buzz about 'Colonial Stadium' .....it was even said that the ball carried further there. It was the 'latest thing'.

I don't really follow that last question.
Going into the 2000 season, after a moderately successful 1999 ( after a mid-season slump, we beat WC in Perth in the last round!) , coached by an ex-Essendon player, we were trying to emulate the success of the Bombers (5 GFs, 4 flags numerous finals including the '99 Prelim in the previous 16 years). The whole tenor of the article is that we don't make the decisions the successful clubs make (ATM Hawthorn). Well, in 1999 we were going to be co-tenants with the successful Bombers. There were no negatives at the time about that decision, just positives.

[MrCordz]

I saw the word "retrospect" in a comment. You didn't need hindsight to know that what a lot of what St Kilda FC was doing was madness.

There is a simple reality here. The Hawks ran a business that specialised in playing football. A succesful business will make strategic business decisions.

The Saints ran a footy club. A footy club will make short-term decisions to try to win a flag in the lifetime of the Board or the President.

As in the past I expect that my views will be disparaged, and accusations of a vested interest will be trotted out to seek to confuse the situation.

But simply, it was all so easy to see in advance.

You may recall, even before we actually moved to Seaford when I was arguing for redevelopment at Moorabbin instead, that I was told to get over it, decision already made in the interests of the football club, I was just a knocker etc etc.

The sad thing is that the apologists for poor decision-making by the Board who are posters on this site will continue to parrot the crap they always have.

Well said - my thoughts exactly

[suss]

Leaving Tassie was an unmitigated financial disaster. Who was responsible for that move - Thomas? Butterss?

Maybe it's what happens when you let the coach run the club.

The Docklands - MCG choice was more an issue of luck I suppose but still, there was clearly less risk in going to try the G than a brand new stadium ran for profit.

[Johnny Member]

We just seem unlucky even Melbourne got heaps of Pokies we seem to get road blocks. The afl blackmailed us out of waverley. That pack of dickheads at kingston townhall were like another knife slashing at the jugular of an already ailing club. They did a disservice to their community which still has pokies but now has stagnated because of an ill informed ideologue.

I don't understand how any AFL club can in clear conscience rely on pokies revenue.

I agree.

But more to the point, I don't understand how packing more pokies into the joint can be seen as astute and make you a smart and successful club?


I'm certainly not anti-gambling, but if this is what people talk about when lauding the success of 'powerful clubs', then count me out.

[Johnny Member]

I saw the word "retrospect" in a comment. You didn't need hindsight to know that what a lot of what St Kilda FC was doing was madness.

There is a simple reality here. The Hawks ran a business that specialised in playing football. A succesful business will make strategic business decisions.

The Saints ran a footy club. A footy club will make short-term decisions to try to win a flag in the lifetime of the Board or the President.

As in the past I expect that my views will be disparaged, and accusations of a vested interest will be trotted out to seek to confuse the situation.

But simply, it was all so easy to see in advance.

You may recall, even before we actually moved to Seaford when I was arguing for redevelopment at Moorabbin instead, that I was told to get over it, decision already made in the interests of the football club, I was just a knocker etc etc.

The sad thing is that the apologists for poor decision-making by the Board who are posters on this site will continue to parrot the crap they always have.

Well said - my thoughts exactly

With all due respect to both of you, I'll 100% categorically guarantee you that Hawthorn will struggle and fray at the seams like every other club does within the next 5 years.

It's just a fact of footy.


And I'll 100% categorically guarantee you both tat the Saints will be all looking rosy and doing really well off-field within the next 5 years.


It's happened forever. It's called a cycle. And it will continue to happen.

[bergholt]

How do you know he's a Collingwood supporter?

Dunno. How do I know the sky is blue? It's just a fact.

Going into the 2000 season, after a moderately successful 1999 ( after a mid-season slump, we beat WC in Perth in the last round!) , coached by an ex-Essendon player, we were trying to emulate the success of the Bombers (5 GFs, 4 flags numerous finals including the '99 Prelim in the previous 16 years). The whole tenor of the article is that we don't make the decisions the successful clubs make (ATM Hawthorn). Well, in 1999 we were going to be co-tenants with the successful Bombers. There were no negatives at the time about that decision, just positives.

Sure. The negatives have become apparent in hindsight - that we did a significantly worse deal than Essendon did, and that Hawthorn also made a better call than us in moving to the MCG. I'm not sure how you can dispute that, or why it's relevant that Essendon won some games in 2000.

[Megamaguire]

Let's just keep our fingers crossed that St.Kilda Football Club has the ability and focus to learn from past bad decisions. There have been good decisions as well of coarse particularly beginning with the Kenny Sheldon era and the return of St.Kilda to finals footy for the first time in 20 odd years i believe.
From around 1991 St.Kilda started moving back into contention and played some memorable finals encounters with the likes of geelong/ Coll'wd etc culminating in Sheldon's successor stan Alves guiding the team to a 1997 Grand Final. We probably know the rest since with GT getting us really close and then Ross Lyon getting us closer again.

Can't help thinking that although GT probably had his reasons in becoming opposed to playing in Tassie if he believed it would compromise a premiership tilt the balancing argument would no doubt have pointed out the financial sense in playing there longer term. I find it interesting that the club voted to leave Tassie . Perhaps the new strategy to head to NZ admits that previous bad decision.
Reg: being forced to exit Waverley and to pitch camp @ The Dome it does indeed appear that St Kilda Football Club could do a lot better at negotiating favourable financial deals - especially l o n g t e r m ones.

Not repeating the mistakes of the past is always a win in itself.
Structurally our administration need to include very aware and talented people on board who understand the critical need for long term planning as a simple matter of club survival and success.
This is one chestnut that if we crack we will be able to follow in the footsteps of Geelong and Hawthorn.

It is a bit like politics in the sense that genuine long term planning actually does pay off but takes rare commitment to see it through. I learnt a few years ago that the proposed construction of the Thomson dam was a hot political subject and opposed as a terrible waste of money by some politicians (of coarse). It might have been around the $800 million - $900 million mark when built but during the 2009 bushfire season most people were relieved it had been even with a total dam capacity dropping to a mere 23% at its' lowest ebb.
We can all see how Hawthorn and Geelong have taken the time to seriously plan long term and to commit themselves to making their success happen. We need this approach at St. KIlda !

G O S A I N T S 1

[Johnny Member]

But you're confusing on-field success with off-field 'success'.

We played in back to back GFs whilst having a terrible time off-field.


The two, contrary to popular opinion, are mutually exclusive.

[casey scorp]

But you're confusing on-field success with off-field 'success'.

......

The two, contrary to popular opinion, are mutually exclusive.

What a load of tripe. Almost universally, on-field AFL success is supported by a strong and stable Board and administration.

There will be the odd exception, but nothing which can support a contention that on-field and off-field success are mutually exclusive.

[Johnny Member]

Rubbish.

It's amazing how solid a club looks when their football team is winning and supporters start emptying their pockets.

And it's equally amazing how quickly the cracks appear when they start losing.

[BigMart]

Wrong IMO Johnny

[I Love Peter Kiel]

How do you know he's a Collingwood supporter?

Dunno. How do I know the sky is blue? It's just a fact.

Going into the 2000 season, after a moderately successful 1999 ( after a mid-season slump, we beat WC in Perth in the last round!) , coached by an ex-Essendon player, we were trying to emulate the success of the Bombers (5 GFs, 4 flags numerous finals including the '99 Prelim in the previous 16 years). The whole tenor of the article is that we don't make the decisions the successful clubs make (ATM Hawthorn). Well, in 1999 we were going to be co-tenants with the successful Bombers. There were no negatives at the time about that decision, just positives.

Sure. The negatives have become apparent in hindsight - that we did a significantly worse deal than Essendon did, and that Hawthorn also made a better call than us in moving to the MCG. I'm not sure how you can dispute that, or why it's relevant that Essendon won some games in 2000.

A bit of a patronising answer. I just wondered how you knew he barracked for Collingwood. E.g. It was written in the Age.

As for Docklands I think you've missed the point. Everyone tries to copy what the successful clubs do. Essendon was then a successful club. And ultimately, winning games is what a club exists for. As to our particular deal..... Obviously teams like the Saints and Dogs don't have as much bargaining power and so won't get as good a deal.
I'm not sure that we had a realistic opportunity of becoming an MCG tenant.

Sure mistakes were made but the Saints were caught between a rock and a hard place. As a supporter I was annoyed about the Tassie games because we just couldn't win down there and it definitely cost us top 4 in '06 plus we lost crucial games there in '04 and '05 that could have put us in a much better position for a flag ( e.g. Not having to play in Brisbane first week of the '04 finals) . If we'd managed to snatch a flag in those years we would've have more bargaining power and more marketing opportunities.

PS if Geelong had kicked straight in '08, Clarko wouldn't have lasted this long.
Luck also plays a pretty big role in all this.

[oh when the]

successful clubs play finals footy regularly and win a flag
when they get the chance.