JUST DECLARE THE 2020 SEASON CANCELLED!!

[Secret Kiel]

I am only explaining the competition structure as I was semi involved / one step away from it's evolution in the 90s.

As for the AFL revenue sources = each month lost of the season would equal hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue - money that usually goes as non loan allocations to the clubs, VFL and other feader competitions, U 18 comps, AFLW, GWS and Gold Coast and community programs and of course the future fund.

Ideally the sponsors and broadcasters can be delivered value to ensure that they only pay say 30% less than they were meant to.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of that - that eqautes to around $300 million lost by head office but it could be worse.

That is BEFORE losses that are incurred by clubs that I am told may vary between $100 million and $300 million depending on length of the delay to the start of the season and how long the season will last and whether it is

Can you now see why they are setting up a facility worth $600 million?

As the lender to the clubs. the AFL needs some surity that the loans can be repaid.

The negotiations will finalise with some sort of access reporting going to the AFL.

Clubs CAN opt out.

I prefer we opt out and raise $10m to $15m from supporters.

I'm tending to agree the club should be opting out as we are probably one of 3 or 4 Melbourne clubs that are the most exposed to being killed off by an administration style managment.

We should be looking to secure our own bank financing and be prepared to pay the extra costs for the loan facilty. We can still access the AFL funds at a later time if needed and just be prepared to pay the penalty fee.

We are moving into an era of quantitative easing and money printing. Time to join the movement.

Banks won’t extend our current loans (around 5 million o believe) as no worthwhile asset to loan against. You need security to be given a loan - or a loan guarantor.

On a brighter note - the Saints featured me today on Instagram

So on your donation plan, how did you crunch the numbers to determine a survival number?

[BackFromUSA]

On a brighter note - the Saints featured me today on Instagram

And Twitter


And Saintsational.

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... e686ae9639

Multi media star!!!

[BackFromUSA]

I am only explaining the competition structure as I was semi involved / one step away from it's evolution in the 90s.

As for the AFL revenue sources = each month lost of the season would equal hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue - money that usually goes as non loan allocations to the clubs, VFL and other feader competitions, U 18 comps, AFLW, GWS and Gold Coast and community programs and of course the future fund.

Ideally the sponsors and broadcasters can be delivered value to ensure that they only pay say 30% less than they were meant to.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of that - that eqautes to around $300 million lost by head office but it could be worse.

That is BEFORE losses that are incurred by clubs that I am told may vary between $100 million and $300 million depending on length of the delay to the start of the season and how long the season will last and whether it is

Can you now see why they are setting up a facility worth $600 million?

As the lender to the clubs. the AFL needs some surity that the loans can be repaid.

The negotiations will finalise with some sort of access reporting going to the AFL.

Clubs CAN opt out.

I prefer we opt out and raise $10m to $15m from supporters.

I'm tending to agree the club should be opting out as we are probably one of 3 or 4 Melbourne clubs that are the most exposed to being killed off by an administration style managment.

We should be looking to secure our own bank financing and be prepared to pay the extra costs for the loan facilty. We can still access the AFL funds at a later time if needed and just be prepared to pay the penalty fee.

We are moving into an era of quantitative easing and money printing. Time to join the movement.

Banks won’t extend our current loans (around 5 million o believe) as no worthwhile asset to loan against. You need security to be given a loan - or a loan guarantor.

On a brighter note - the Saints featured me today on Instagram

So on your donation plan, how did you crunch the numbers to determine a survival number?

My calculations started with the feeling our debt will double to $25m. But a debt of $10m -$15m would be serviceable (especially at low interest rates) if the competition returns to normal in 2021. The next media rights deal is crucial. The AFL will be saying now - commit now at the same or higher rate for the next X years or we shall be returning the phone call we got from Amazon Prime.

Anyway - whatever happens we are going to be $10m to $15m further in debt by the end of this year without the AFL distribution dropping from $20m to $10m and the club game day revenue sources and possible sponsorship reductions creating another $5m loss.

$19 a month for 19 months isn’t going to be possible for everyone but some would chip in for others in their family too - so for an example I would probably take one in the name of my wife and son too. Why? Because it would be one less takeaway meal per month that I would be sacrificing to ensure my footy club survives. My father would take two - for him and my mum. My uncle would take 5. There is 10 from 3 people already.

Get 25,000 onto this and the club secures funding stream worth $9m+ and that’s before the heavy hitters - 19 that can afford $19000 per month for 19 months (a donation of $361,000 each) and another $6.9m to reach the target we need to raise to avoid the AFL control.

[Secret Kiel]

I am only explaining the competition structure as I was semi involved / one step away from it's evolution in the 90s.

As for the AFL revenue sources = each month lost of the season would equal hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue - money that usually goes as non loan allocations to the clubs, VFL and other feader competitions, U 18 comps, AFLW, GWS and Gold Coast and community programs and of course the future fund.

Ideally the sponsors and broadcasters can be delivered value to ensure that they only pay say 30% less than they were meant to.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of that - that eqautes to around $300 million lost by head office but it could be worse.

That is BEFORE losses that are incurred by clubs that I am told may vary between $100 million and $300 million depending on length of the delay to the start of the season and how long the season will last and whether it is

Can you now see why they are setting up a facility worth $600 million?

As the lender to the clubs. the AFL needs some surity that the loans can be repaid.

The negotiations will finalise with some sort of access reporting going to the AFL.

Clubs CAN opt out.

I prefer we opt out and raise $10m to $15m from supporters.

I'm tending to agree the club should be opting out as we are probably one of 3 or 4 Melbourne clubs that are the most exposed to being killed off by an administration style managment.

We should be looking to secure our own bank financing and be prepared to pay the extra costs for the loan facilty. We can still access the AFL funds at a later time if needed and just be prepared to pay the penalty fee.

We are moving into an era of quantitative easing and money printing. Time to join the movement.

Banks won’t extend our current loans (around 5 million o believe) as no worthwhile asset to loan against. You need security to be given a loan - or a loan guarantor.

On a brighter note - the Saints featured me today on Instagram

So on your donation plan, how did you crunch the numbers to determine a survival number?

My calculations started with the feeling our debt will double to $25m. But a debt of $10m -$15m would be serviceable (especially at low interest rates) if the competition returns to normal in 2021. The next media rights deal is crucial. The AFL will be saying now - commit now at the same or higher rate for the next X years or we shall be returning the phone call we got from Amazon Prime.

Anyway - whatever happens we are going to be $10m to $15m further in debt by the end of this year without the AFL distribution dropping from $20m to $10m and the club game day revenue sources and possible sponsorship reductions creating another $5m loss.

$19 a month for 19 months isn’t going to be possible for everyone but some would chip in for others in their family too - so for an example I would probably take one in the name of my wife and son too. Why? Because it would be one less takeaway meal per month that I would be sacrificing to ensure my footy club survives. My father would take two - for him and my mum. My uncle would take 5. There is 10 from 3 people already.

Get 25,000 onto this and the club secures funding stream worth $9m+ and that’s before the heavy hitters - 19 that can afford $19000 per month for 19 months (a donation of $361,000 each) and another $6.9m to reach the target we need to raise to avoid the AFL control.

Id be happy to tip in a substantial donation but only if the club doesn't sign up to the deal that strips away our independence. If the time came, I'd want the decision to kill off the club to be a members vote and the AFL proposal will take that right away from us.

[saintspremiers]

Couldn’t Bassat just loan the club $15M ?

He could seek repayment at 3.3%

[saynta]

Couldn’t Bassat just loan the club $15M ?

He could seek repayment at 3.3%

Guys like Basset don't get rich dipping into their own pockets.

[BackFromUSA]

Couldn’t Bassat just loan the club $15M ?

He could seek repayment at 3.3%

3.3% with no capital return on $15m is a terrible return on a huge sum of money especially with zero security.

No bank would lend us that money on that security for even close to that interest rate.

The AFL can do it (and pass it onto the clubs) because they have a blue chip asset. They are attaching strings but it is all still in negotiations.

[asiu]

granting St Kilda the ‘financial inependance’
in forging it’s future is a fairly high return on his millions

keep your eye on the ball

[Sanctorum]

Couldn’t Bassat just loan the club $15M ?

He could seek repayment at 3.3%

3.3% with no capital return on $15m is a terrible return on a huge sum of money especially with zero security.

No bank would lend us that money on that security for even close to that interest rate.

The AFL can do it (and pass it onto the clubs) because they have a blue chip asset. They are attaching strings but it is all still in negotiations.

In today's Oz there is a report about Essendon FC deciding to remain independent of AFL handouts and among comments from their President Lindsay Tanner the following is pertinent to this debate:

"“As part of the AFL funding position moving forward, clubs are required to determine whether they will require additional funding from the AFL and, as such, become positioned as an ‘assisted club’.

“Assisted clubs will be required to work closely with the AFL around in-depth club reporting and will also have to stringently work with AFL-approved parameters with respect to expense management.

“And although the financial backing of the assisted club is guaranteed by the AFL, it is not lost on us that a significant portion of the club’s independence would be compromised.”

I am still a little confused about the reservations commentators have about the financial constraints on the "assisted clubs" - what are the independent clubs able to actually do in terms of gaining off-field or on-field advantages by avoiding the management of expenses by the AFL. Given that every club is limited to the same expenditures for players salaries and football departments etc, can someone please outline the practical problems St Kilda FC will face under this scheme?

[BackFromUSA]

Marketing / community / admin / technology including game analysts etc will have to be slashed.

[Secret Kiel]

Marketing / community / admin / technology including game analysts etc will have to be slashed.

It's like walking through an overbloated corporate office identifying who's output is billable and who's isn't. As an old mentor of mine used to say, if your service cant be invoiced; you are surplus to requirements.

Has our CEO taken a paycut yet?

[Shaggy]

Marketing / community / admin / technology including game analysts etc will have to be slashed.

It's like walking through an overbloated corporate office identifying who's output is billable and who's isn't. As an old mentor of mine used to say, if your service cant be invoiced; you are surplus to requirements.

Has our CEO taken a paycut yet?

Gill took a pay cut according to papers.
Personally I think Gill has saved the Saints. It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.
Coronavirus hit us at our worst point because we are indebted due to the development of Moorabbin with further capital commitments this coming year.
AFL now has given us a cash lifeline but we have to be transparent with expenditure. Really that is not a big deal.
Our Board now needs to work out how to make the Saints profitable again

[saintspremiers]

Couldn’t Bassat just loan the club $15M ?

He could seek repayment at 3.3%

3.3% with no capital return on $15m is a terrible return on a huge sum of money especially with zero security.

No bank would lend us that money on that security for even close to that interest rate.

The AFL can do it (and pass it onto the clubs) because they have a blue chip asset. They are attaching strings but it is all still in negotiations.

I was talking the Bank of AB

[BackFromUSA]

Couldn’t Bassat just loan the club $15M ?

He could seek repayment at 3.3%

3.3% with no capital return on $15m is a terrible return on a huge sum of money especially with zero security.

No bank would lend us that money on that security for even close to that interest rate.

The AFL can do it (and pass it onto the clubs) because they have a blue chip asset. They are attaching strings but it is all still in negotiations.

I was talking the Bank of AB

No bank and no individual would.

[Secret Kiel]

Marketing / community / admin / technology including game analysts etc will have to be slashed.

It's like walking through an overbloated corporate office identifying who's output is billable and who's isn't. As an old mentor of mine used to say, if your service cant be invoiced; you are surplus to requirements.

Has our CEO taken a paycut yet?

Gill took a pay cut according to papers.
Personally I think Gill has saved the Saints. It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.
Coronavirus hit us at our worst point because we are indebted due to the development of Moorabbin with further capital commitments this coming year.
AFL now has given us a cash lifeline but we have to be transparent with expenditure. Really that is not a big deal.
Our Board now needs to work out how to make the Saints profitable again

I must of missed that, how much of a pay cut did they report he was taking, was it similar to the players? It should be if not more.

Has our CEO taken a pay cut?

[asiu]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

[Secret Kiel]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

[Sanctorum]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

I don't agree with the demonising of the AFL, especially when you take into account that it is in reality the child of the 18 member clubs:

"Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions with a two thirds vote." (Wikipedia)

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

To suggest that the clubs (at least 10 or 11) indebted to the AFL are going to be subject to "slash and burn" by "insolvency managers" is a massive overplay and bordering on hysteria....let's wait and see if these prophesies of doom and gloom are correct, personally I'm going to wait and survey the landscape when the dust settles, and remain confident that everything will work out fine.

I also feel encouraged by the thoughts of Kevin Sheedy who is proposing 28 game seasons for 2021 - 2023 as a means of getting the clubs back into profit, there are probably a lot of other creative ideas being thrown around as we speak.

[Secret Kiel]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

I don't agree with the demonising of the AFL, especially when you take into account that it is in reality the child of the 18 member clubs:

"Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions with a two thirds vote." (Wikipedia)

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

To suggest that the clubs (at least 10 or 11) indebted to the AFL are going to be subject to "slash and burn" by "insolvency managers" is a massive overplay and bordering on hysteria....let's wait and see if these prophesies of doom and gloom are correct, personally I'm going to wait and survey the landscape when the dust settles, and remain confident that everything will work out fine.

I also feel encouraged by the thoughts of Kevin Sheedy who is proposing 28 game seasons for 2021 - 2023 as a means of getting the clubs back into profit, there are probably a lot of other creative ideas being thrown around as we speak.

You are referencing old rules and what part of cutting staff by 80%, list sizes by a 3rd, TPP and soft caps by a 3rd is not slash and burn. And as you say the dust hasn't even settled.

I think in principle a longer seaon in 2021 has merrit provided the idea to start this year is abandoned.

Starting footy this year will only hurt next year's season and waste money on dead rubber games.

Put the comp in hibernation for the remainder of 2020 and take the time to put the best plan in place to start back up in 2021.

[Secret Kiel]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

I don't agree with the demonising of the AFL, especially when you take into account that it is in reality the child of the 18 member clubs:

"Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions with a two thirds vote." (Wikipedia)

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

To suggest that the clubs (at least 10 or 11) indebted to the AFL are going to be subject to "slash and burn" by "insolvency managers" is a massive overplay and bordering on hysteria....let's wait and see if these prophesies of doom and gloom are correct, personally I'm going to wait and survey the landscape when the dust settles, and remain confident that everything will work out fine.

I also feel encouraged by the thoughts of Kevin Sheedy who is proposing 28 game seasons for 2021 - 2023 as a means of getting the clubs back into profit, there are probably a lot of other creative ideas being thrown around as we speak.

You are referencing old rules and what part of cutting staff by 80%, list sizes by a 3rd, TPP and soft caps by a 3rd is not slash and burn. And as you say the dust hasn't even settled.

I think in principle a longer seaon in 2021 has merrit provided the idea to start this year is abandoned.

Starting footy this year will only hurt next year's season and waste money on dead rubber games.

Put the comp in hibernation for the remainder of 2020 and take the time to put the best plan in place to start back up in 2021.

[asiu]

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

thats handy

[Sanctorum]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

I don't agree with the demonising of the AFL, especially when you take into account that it is in reality the child of the 18 member clubs:

"Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions with a two thirds vote." (Wikipedia)

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

To suggest that the clubs (at least 10 or 11) indebted to the AFL are going to be subject to "slash and burn" by "insolvency managers" is a massive overplay and bordering on hysteria....let's wait and see if these prophesies of doom and gloom are correct, personally I'm going to wait and survey the landscape when the dust settles, and remain confident that everything will work out fine.

I also feel encouraged by the thoughts of Kevin Sheedy who is proposing 28 game seasons for 2021 - 2023 as a means of getting the clubs back into profit, there are probably a lot of other creative ideas being thrown around as we speak.

You are referencing old rules and what part of cutting staff by 80%, list sizes by a 3rd, TPP and soft caps by a 3rd is not slash and burn. And as you say the dust hasn't even settled.

I think in principle a longer seaon in 2021 has merrit provided the idea to start this year is abandoned.

Starting footy this year will only hurt next year's season and waste money on dead rubber games.

Put the comp in hibernation for the remainder of 2020 and take the time to put the best plan in place to start back up in 2021.

Hang on SK, the "slash and burn" measures you have listed were instituted in response to the 2020 season going into hibernation and are not permanent. I have not seen mention anywhere that those measures will stay in place once the competition resumes. Cutting list sizes by a 3rd is only a suggestion at present, as are the cuts to TPP and soft caps by a similar margin.

It is counter to all the negative stuff you have posted in the past week to say that you would prefer to hibernate the 2020 season. Footy will be back, as Joh BP used to say, "mark my words".

There's no way the AFL or the clubs can afford to cancel this season and there is every prospect that the 17 round competition that has been forecast will eventuate, commencing July at the latest.

If the AFL can complete 2/3rds of a normal season then they will recover 2/3rds of the media broadcast payments, which adds up to big bucks and could well help the AFL to leave the $600 million bank credit line on ice.

[Secret Kiel]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

I don't agree with the demonising of the AFL, especially when you take into account that it is in reality the child of the 18 member clubs:

"Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions with a two thirds vote." (Wikipedia)

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

To suggest that the clubs (at least 10 or 11) indebted to the AFL are going to be subject to "slash and burn" by "insolvency managers" is a massive overplay and bordering on hysteria....let's wait and see if these prophesies of doom and gloom are correct, personally I'm going to wait and survey the landscape when the dust settles, and remain confident that everything will work out fine.

I also feel encouraged by the thoughts of Kevin Sheedy who is proposing 28 game seasons for 2021 - 2023 as a means of getting the clubs back into profit, there are probably a lot of other creative ideas being thrown around as we speak.

You are referencing old rules and what part of cutting staff by 80%, list sizes by a 3rd, TPP and soft caps by a 3rd is not slash and burn. And as you say the dust hasn't even settled.

I think in principle a longer seaon in 2021 has merrit provided the idea to start this year is abandoned.

Starting footy this year will only hurt next year's season and waste money on dead rubber games.

Put the comp in hibernation for the remainder of 2020 and take the time to put the best plan in place to start back up in 2021.

Hang on SK, the "slash and burn" measures you have listed were instituted in response to the 2020 season going into hibernation and are not permanent. I have not seen mention anywhere that those measures will stay in place once the competition resumes. Cutting list sizes by a 3rd is only a suggestion at present, as are the cuts to TPP and soft caps by a similar margin.

It is counter to all the negative stuff you have posted in the past week to say that you would prefer to hibernate the 2020 season. Footy will be back, as Joh BP used to say, "mark my words".

There's no way the AFL or the clubs can afford to cancel this season and there is every prospect that the 17 round competition that has been forecast will eventuate, commencing July at the latest.

If the AFL can complete 2/3rds of a normal season then they will recover 2/3rds of the media broadcast payments, which adds up to big bucks and could well help the AFL to leave the $600 million bank credit line on ice.

My understanding is they are permanent, or at the very least until the $600 million load is paid back. It makes sense don't you think? Or do you think we'll have paid back the debt by 2021?

[Sanctorum]

It helps to have a Saints supporter in charge of the AFL.

one would certainly hope so
... had that thought myself.

It won't make the slightest difference, we are now being managed in a similar way to that of a company which has gone into administration. The banks and the insolvency managers who now own us will slash and burn whereever they need and Gil will be forced to stand aside and watch on helplessly.

I don't agree with the demonising of the AFL, especially when you take into account that it is in reality the child of the 18 member clubs:

"Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions with a two thirds vote." (Wikipedia)

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

To suggest that the clubs (at least 10 or 11) indebted to the AFL are going to be subject to "slash and burn" by "insolvency managers" is a massive overplay and bordering on hysteria....let's wait and see if these prophesies of doom and gloom are correct, personally I'm going to wait and survey the landscape when the dust settles, and remain confident that everything will work out fine.

I also feel encouraged by the thoughts of Kevin Sheedy who is proposing 28 game seasons for 2021 - 2023 as a means of getting the clubs back into profit, there are probably a lot of other creative ideas being thrown around as we speak.

You are referencing old rules and what part of cutting staff by 80%, list sizes by a 3rd, TPP and soft caps by a 3rd is not slash and burn. And as you say the dust hasn't even settled.

I think in principle a longer seaon in 2021 has merrit provided the idea to start this year is abandoned.

Starting footy this year will only hurt next year's season and waste money on dead rubber games.

Put the comp in hibernation for the remainder of 2020 and take the time to put the best plan in place to start back up in 2021.

Hang on SK, the "slash and burn" measures you have listed were instituted in response to the 2020 season going into hibernation and are not permanent. I have not seen mention anywhere that those measures will stay in place once the competition resumes. Cutting list sizes by a 3rd is only a suggestion at present, as are the cuts to TPP and soft caps by a similar margin.

It is counter to all the negative stuff you have posted in the past week to say that you would prefer to hibernate the 2020 season. Footy will be back, as Joh BP used to say, "mark my words".

There's no way the AFL or the clubs can afford to cancel this season and there is every prospect that the 17 round competition that has been forecast will eventuate, commencing July at the latest.

If the AFL can complete 2/3rds of a normal season then they will recover 2/3rds of the media broadcast payments, which adds up to big bucks and could well help the AFL to leave the $600 million bank credit line on ice.

My understanding is they are permanent, or at the very least until the $600 million load is paid back. It makes sense don't you think? Or do you think we'll have paid back the debt by 2021?

Not that I'm aware of, nor do I believe has the AFL drawn down on the line of credit at this time, perhaps BackFromUSA can give some clarification.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, if the competition does in fact play 2/3rds of the games this year, plus finals, then that should ease some of the financial pressures on the AFL and the clubs.

I would also expect that the "line of credit" will in reality be in the form of an overdraft on the aggregate of the AFL bank accounts, with interest only paid on daily balances.

[Dis Believer]

One of the 7 elected Commissioners is Paul Bassat, brother of St Kilda FC president Andrew Bassat, and I would imagine that the St Kilda board would be extraordinarily well briefed on the current changes proposed by the AFL.

thats handy

Extremely.....