rodgerfox wrote:Did I?degruch wrote:
Well, you had respect for RB, so I thought I'd raise you in the ridiculous stakes with a 'poor Archie'.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Without going off topic - you're wrong. I didn't say anything at all about respecting Rod Butterss.degruch wrote:rodgerfox wrote:Did I?degruch wrote:
Well, you had respect for RB, so I thought I'd raise you in the ridiculous stakes with a 'poor Archie'.Comparitively
You did...sorry. I agree with you to a point re: RB too...although I always thought he looked like an insencere git.rodgerfox wrote:Without going off topic - you're wrong. I didn't say anything at all about respecting Rod Butterss.degruch wrote:rodgerfox wrote:Did I?degruch wrote:
Well, you had respect for RB, so I thought I'd raise you in the ridiculous stakes with a 'poor Archie'.Comparitively
I simply said I believe he cared about the club, and had it interests at heart - not his own. Then I said, that changed.
So did every other CEO before Archie. So why is he the villain?rodgerfox wrote:Absolutely I have a 'beef' with the AFL.degruch wrote:Sounds like your beef is with AFL manipulation, double standards and 'corruption'...send Dimwit a letter about it, poor Archie has to deal with his screwed up league.
In my view, they've turned a very enjoyable sport into one that I can no longer sit through.
As for 'poor Archie', why would he care? He still gets paid if we win, lose or draw.
If we win, lose or draw as per the AFL's planning, he'd probably even get paid more and/or guarantee himself a job when he leave the Saints.
'Poor Archie'! Give me a break.
If you actually read my post I stated the new package was not going to cost me an extra cent.Banger2Plugger wrote: I would argue the club did give you a choice and you chose it. You had the choice to take up the new package at an additional cost - which many may have the finances to afford to do so - or review your own finances and take a lower grade of membership - you chose the lower grade of membership.
Where did i say that? I think you are very confused about the issue. I have a problem with the fact that the STKFC rabble under Westaway and Frasier forced this on every single reserved seat holder on L2. Not one bit of notice, just pay up or F*** off, you are not welcomed.Banger2Plugger wrote:Yes I agree you are passionate - but you can't argue that any of those who are taking up the option as being less passionate, or less loyal.
Please give me details of where this was published. The only thing published was that the Corp Dinners were no longer going on and then L2 reserved holders got hit with $125 more for one game less.Banger2Plugger wrote:It could be argued - they have listened to a section of passionate Stkilda suppporters who want such a package, and are prepared to pay the $$$ to get it.
Where in hell do you get this fanciful idea that i think I am more passionate than any other supporter???Banger2Plugger wrote:Bad news for average punters or families who can't afford it anymore (I would be included in that category) but good news for those who can and are prepared to pay for it. - but to argue that you are more loyal and passionate than they are doesn't stack up.
In Fox's case I could say that. he went over to Carlton for a while. But that the type of supporter you would welcome. The type that changes alligence but has money????Banger2Plugger wrote:For an example - you cannot argue that Lindsay Fox isn't as loyal or passionate about the StKilda football club than yourself - the only point of difference is, he is prepared to pay extra $$$ to get the best seats in the house if he desired to do so.
A very, very good post.evertonfc wrote:Can somebody explain to me why football can't be both entertaining to the neutral observer but also stay true to its roots?
Don't get me wrong, I loved the cold, wet and windy days in the outer. But they are gone - and we all accept this.
I'm more than happy for the club to play at the Dome and have a sponsor on the shirt. I get it. In fact, I want the club to make lots of money and become financially viable forever more.
However, I see no reason as to why this should come at the expense of generating a club feel.
I listed a myriad of other reasons in another thread as to how this has happened. The club seems to be out of touch with the supporters.
They seem to treat us with contempt for 11 months a year and then come banging in the off-season, asking us if we've still got the 'passion' to fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The bottom line for me is this. I want the club to make money, but I feel like I get very little for my money. I don't want a crappy keyring, but I do want the club to beam interstate matches at Moorabbin. I don't want Saintscentral that much, but I do want Archie Fraser telling me the truth.
I want the feeling that I'm supporting a club, not a franchise.
The club should be reaching out to its members. But sadly I fear we are not members to them, but customers.
That's a horrible way to look at it if you ask me. If you treat members well, you'll get repeat membership. And then you'll sign their sons and daughters. And then a couple of mates, too.
Why? Because they want to be a part of the club, too. But right now, I'd have a terrible time selling the benefits of the being a member to Saints fan.
Spot on.... and it wouldn't really take that much.evertonfc wrote:Can somebody explain to me why football can't be both entertaining to the neutral observer but also stay true to its roots?
Don't get me wrong, I loved the cold, wet and windy days in the outer. But they are gone - and we all accept this.
I'm more than happy for the club to play at the Dome and have a sponsor on the shirt. I get it. In fact, I want the club to make lots of money and become financially viable forever more.
However, I see no reason as to why this should come at the expense of generating a club feel.
I listed a myriad of other reasons in another thread as to how this has happened. The club seems to be out of touch with the supporters.
They seem to treat us with contempt for 11 months a year and then come banging in the off-season, asking us if we've still got the 'passion' to fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The bottom line for me is this. I want the club to make money, but I feel like I get very little for my money. I don't want a crappy keyring, but I do want the club to beam interstate matches at Moorabbin. I don't want Saintscentral that much, but I do want Archie Fraser telling me the truth.
I want the feeling that I'm supporting a club, not a franchise.
The club should be reaching out to its members. But sadly I fear we are not members to them, but customers.
That's a horrible way to look at it if you ask me. If you treat members well, you'll get repeat membership. And then you'll sign their sons and daughters. And then a couple of mates, too.
Why? Because they want to be a part of the club, too. But right now, I'd have a terrible time selling the benefits of the being a member to Saints fan.
Ditto!!rodgerfox wrote:A very, very good post.evertonfc wrote:Can somebody explain to me why football can't be both entertaining to the neutral observer but also stay true to its roots?
Don't get me wrong, I loved the cold, wet and windy days in the outer. But they are gone - and we all accept this.
I'm more than happy for the club to play at the Dome and have a sponsor on the shirt. I get it. In fact, I want the club to make lots of money and become financially viable forever more.
However, I see no reason as to why this should come at the expense of generating a club feel.
I listed a myriad of other reasons in another thread as to how this has happened. The club seems to be out of touch with the supporters.
They seem to treat us with contempt for 11 months a year and then come banging in the off-season, asking us if we've still got the 'passion' to fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The bottom line for me is this. I want the club to make money, but I feel like I get very little for my money. I don't want a crappy keyring, but I do want the club to beam interstate matches at Moorabbin. I don't want Saintscentral that much, but I do want Archie Fraser telling me the truth.
I want the feeling that I'm supporting a club, not a franchise.
The club should be reaching out to its members. But sadly I fear we are not members to them, but customers.
That's a horrible way to look at it if you ask me. If you treat members well, you'll get repeat membership. And then you'll sign their sons and daughters. And then a couple of mates, too.
Why? Because they want to be a part of the club, too. But right now, I'd have a terrible time selling the benefits of the being a member to Saints fan.
If you only supported the Saints so as to enjoy a flag, or only joined for first choice gf tickets, you're getting a pretty bleak return.terry smith rules wrote:some of you guys need to watch the Seinfeld episode when the "yankees terrorist" aka Jerry asks that all members be rung when the game is called off
how about this for a membership incentive. .. your team makes the grand final and you get first choice of a ticket
isn't that the biggest incentive and rest is just fluff
*I think the point you have proven - that I agree with - is the lack of respect shown to Level 2 reserve seat holders by not advising them by letter prior to memberships renewals, that the board had changed the membership structure for Level 2, and maybe a reason why.joffaboy wrote:If you actually read my post I stated the new package was not going to cost me an extra cent.Banger2Plugger wrote: I would argue the club did give you a choice and you chose it. You had the choice to take up the new package at an additional cost - which many may have the finances to afford to do so - or review your own finances and take a lower grade of membership - you chose the lower grade of membership.
*OK.
Where did i say that? I think you are very confused about the issue. I have a problem with the fact that the STKFC rabble under Westaway and Frasier forced this on every single reserved seat holder on L2. Not one bit of notice, just pay up or F*** off, you are not welcomed.Banger2Plugger wrote:Yes I agree you are passionate - but you can't argue that any of those who are taking up the option as being less passionate, or less loyal.
*I saw it as pay up, we have others who are prepared to pay more - there are cheaper areas to sit in if you can't afford it BUT the lack of consultation to existing seat holders was their downfall.
Please give me details of where this was published. The only thing published was that the Corp Dinners were no longer going on and then L2 reserved holders got hit with $125 more for one game less.Banger2Plugger wrote:It could be argued - they have listened to a section of passionate Stkilda suppporters who want such a package, and are prepared to pay the $$$ to get it.
yes I can see all those members saying please make us pay $125 a year more for one game less
*Milton Friedman suggests that there are always those who are prepared to pay more for a product if there is a demand for it - supply versus demand.
Where in hell do you get this fanciful idea that i think I am more passionate than any other supporter???Banger2Plugger wrote:Bad news for average punters or families who can't afford it anymore (I would be included in that category) but good news for those who can and are prepared to pay for it. - but to argue that you are more loyal and passionate than they are doesn't stack up.the only person I accused of having no passion for the club is the suit Frasier. All he is conncerned about is ripping off the members who he thinks are drones and will put up with anything.
*To single out Frasier is unfair - he is the CEO, but the memberships would have been approved by the entire board.
As for families. Well 50% of crowds are made up of women, a huge % over any other football. I would argue that many families come, father, mother, and kids. A reserved seat guarantees that the family can sit together and get to the game when they chose, they are also safer and less bad language and drunks on L2 - but all you can say is bad luck - family of four (for example) already struggling to make ends meet, who aready pay $2000 for 11 games, pay $600 more next season for one game less.
*Hey I am one of those struggling families who could only dream of sitting on Level 2 with a reserve seat. I pay our memberships, our social clubs, and fight tooth and nail to get a spot on level 3, or if we are lucky on Level 1 - I do understand the club has to do what is required to maximise its revenues. There are only so many seats the club has access to package and sell to members on Level 2.
Yup the cash grab is great for the heart and soul and fabric of whom make up a large majority of football supporters - women and children![]()
*Cash grab is for Level 2 seating - plenty of women and children are sitting on Level 1 and 3 also - so should we increase the cost of the memberships on Level 1 and 3 instead?
In Fox's case I could say that. he went over to Carlton for a while. But that the type of supporter you would welcome. The type that changes alligence but has money????Banger2Plugger wrote:For an example - you cannot argue that Lindsay Fox isn't as loyal or passionate about the StKilda football club than yourself - the only point of difference is, he is prepared to pay extra $$$ to get the best seats in the house if he desired to do so.
*I was unware of any move to Carlton - other than perhaps a sponsorship of the club decided upon by the board of Linfox - or personally assisting his friend and fellow Harvard Business Course attendee Dick Pratt / how much Pratt may have assistant Fox at times when he was Chairman of the Saints I am not privy to.
Thank you for proving my point.
Summed up brilliantly. The club doesn't exist for any other reason than we care about it. Players, coaches, administrators all chop and change for one reason or another. We were there long beforehand, and will be there long after to clean up the mess and start all over again. I don't think those in charge truly understand that. Or if they do, they exploit it.evertonfc wrote:Can somebody explain to me why football can't be both entertaining to the neutral observer but also stay true to its roots?
Don't get me wrong, I loved the cold, wet and windy days in the outer. But they are gone - and we all accept this.
I'm more than happy for the club to play at the Dome and have a sponsor on the shirt. I get it. In fact, I want the club to make lots of money and become financially viable forever more.
However, I see no reason as to why this should come at the expense of generating a club feel.
I listed a myriad of other reasons in another thread as to how this has happened. The club seems to be out of touch with the supporters.
They seem to treat us with contempt for 11 months a year and then come banging in the off-season, asking us if we've still got the 'passion' to fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The bottom line for me is this. I want the club to make money, but I feel like I get very little for my money. I don't want a crappy keyring, but I do want the club to beam interstate matches at Moorabbin. I don't want Saintscentral that much, but I do want Archie Fraser telling me the truth.
I want the feeling that I'm supporting a club, not a franchise.
The club should be reaching out to its members. But sadly I fear we are not members to them, but customers.
That's a horrible way to look at it if you ask me. If you treat members well, you'll get repeat membership. And then you'll sign their sons and daughters. And then a couple of mates, too.
Why? Because they want to be a part of the club, too. But right now, I'd have a terrible time selling the benefits of the being a member to Saints fan.
two great posts and in the interests of developing this great club I suggest the mods go into the locked thread, clean it up and we can get onto discussing how to get the discourse between club and member to an exceptable level....ctqs wrote:Summed up brilliantly. The club doesn't exist for any other reason than we care about it. Players, coaches, administrators all chop and change for one reason or another. We were there long beforehand, and will be there long after to clean up the mess and start all over again. I don't think those in charge truly understand that. Or if they do, they exploit it.evertonfc wrote:Can somebody explain to me why football can't be both entertaining to the neutral observer but also stay true to its roots?
Don't get me wrong, I loved the cold, wet and windy days in the outer. But they are gone - and we all accept this.
I'm more than happy for the club to play at the Dome and have a sponsor on the shirt. I get it. In fact, I want the club to make lots of money and become financially viable forever more.
However, I see no reason as to why this should come at the expense of generating a club feel.
I listed a myriad of other reasons in another thread as to how this has happened. The club seems to be out of touch with the supporters.
They seem to treat us with contempt for 11 months a year and then come banging in the off-season, asking us if we've still got the 'passion' to fork out hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The bottom line for me is this. I want the club to make money, but I feel like I get very little for my money. I don't want a crappy keyring, but I do want the club to beam interstate matches at Moorabbin. I don't want Saintscentral that much, but I do want Archie Fraser telling me the truth.
I want the feeling that I'm supporting a club, not a franchise.
The club should be reaching out to its members. But sadly I fear we are not members to them, but customers.
That's a horrible way to look at it if you ask me. If you treat members well, you'll get repeat membership. And then you'll sign their sons and daughters. And then a couple of mates, too.
Why? Because they want to be a part of the club, too. But right now, I'd have a terrible time selling the benefits of the being a member to Saints fan.
Im with you Gruch. This whole thread has a sense of "step into my orifice" about it.degruch wrote:
Personally, I think there's some extreme over-anal-isation going on here...some punters should just divorce themselves from politics and enjoy their footy. Surely it can't be that hard???
Ask Geelong players and they'll tell you that the improvement was player driven, via their leadership program.Teflon wrote:Im with you Gruch. This whole thread has a sense of "step into my orifice" about it.degruch wrote:
Personally, I think there's some extreme over-anal-isation going on here...some punters should just divorce themselves from politics and enjoy their footy. Surely it can't be that hard???
I can understand the nervousness bout where we are placed at present - particularly on field as there IS a gap between what's coming through.....and whats top line NOW and how quickly we bridge that and how we do this is going to be fascinating to watch in 09. Im personally hoping we dont become a "good old middle of the road Nth Melbourne....always therabouts but never really there.....but with 1 or 2 super players.." if you know what I mean.
To me for the past 5-6 years as supporters we've all had the excitement/expectation/media hype...that St Kilda was THE side with THE talent that was just gonna take the comp by the scruff any moment.........we haven't in "Premiership" language ofcourse. This excitement stemmed from the drafting of some super talent,some good off field success/profits and for once...St Kilda was envied by Essendons, Carltons, Collingwoods et al - we were the "up and coming side" (and didnt Bomber Thompson hate that back then...)
Today thats Carlton/Richmond. Hawthorn flew past us as has Geelong after a stumble. We have to deal with that - some supporters are clearly struggling....
We aren't the new "sexy" team anymore.....maybe that FINALLY kills the dreaded "best potential list cr@p".....and is that such a bad thing?
Maybe THATS the message this playing group needs to understand - "signing off" in GT/marketing speak about "creating your own destiny" is lovely while your being lauded as the "potentially anything list".
Achieving that and the ultimate flag requires something far more real as a TEAM.
I laugh when I hear Geelong supporters tell me now what a superstar Cam Mooney suddenly is......did he grow an extra leg after 2006?........or could it be the REAL transformation down at Geelong after they failed to make finals came as a GROUP.....and when that happens it pulls many along in tbe slip stream? (Mooneys a good player....never been a superstar IMO). Des Headland as a Brisbane Lion could perhaps also atest to that...
Gonna be an interesting year for team/coach/supporter.
Teflon wrote:Im with you Gruch. This whole thread has a sense of "step into my orifice" about it.degruch wrote:
Personally, I think there's some extreme over-anal-isation going on here...some punters should just divorce themselves from politics and enjoy their footy. Surely it can't be that hard???
I've been a member for over 20 years, and the club has never done as much for the supporters in the old days as it does today.I want the feeling that I'm supporting a club, not a franchise.
The club should be reaching out to its members. But sadly I fear we are not members to them, but customers.
That's a horrible way to look at it if you ask me. If you treat members well, you'll get repeat membership. And then you'll sign their sons and daughters. And then a couple of mates, too.
Why? Because they want to be a part of the club, too. But right now, I'd have a terrible time selling the benefits of the being a member to Saints fan.
Absolutely. Perfectly said.markp wrote:Why is it whinging to identify areas that may need addressing to improve the Club?