Rumour File, Home games in NZ

[saintly]

12 Mill over 5 years was part of the rumour?
thats 2.4 mill per year............ against 0 or minimal at Etihad games,

with replacement games in Victoria to make up the 11 home.-

oh how i wish that is true

[tweedaletomanning]

Again nettlefold masking his incompetence

[Toy Saint]

I used to go to the footy and watch St Kilda every Saturday afternoon at 2:10, regardless if it was a home or away game......but now....too many different times...and too many different locations.....and I only get to about 70% of home games. In 'marketing speak', that means my active participation has dropped off significantly, and it will continue to drop the harder they make it for me.

[Legendary]

A club with money is a more powerful and influential club.

This is a good move in the next 3-5 years if you think we might be headed for somewhat of an on-field decline. Need to shore up our revenues.

If we are in a weak financial postition come the next TV rights deal, we are ripe for relocation or merger.


However if we are financially strong with a strong 2nd home base which gives us an extra 5-10,000 members and some great sponsorship exposure, then we are in a good place to resist the inevitable push to reduce the number of Melbourne clubs.

I reckon it's a great move.

AFL will eventually become the game of AUS/NZ. Maybe not for another 40-50 years, but it will happen.

Imagine in 1966 if I had told you we would have a national competition with 2 teams in Sydney? You would have laughed at me.


Great far-sighted thinking by the club.

Go for it.

[Legendary]

I already know about a dozen people ready to book flights to see the game.

Judging by the response on other forums, it appears as if plenty of Kiwi's are ready to attend too. Many people in NZ like AFL ... much like many people in Melbourne really enjoy Rugby, despite AFL being their #1 sport.

So glad that the club are embracing and pursuing this.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

VS there is so much in your post I disagree with ... We have just come off our second most successful era in history yet we still lost money last year .. As a club in order to keep players and hope to lure potential players we have to be in a situation where we are financially strong especially with free agency coming into play ... Tapping into an unknown resource in NZ could well be the catalyst to keep our club going for the next 50 years .. In my opinion the AFL don't want a 18 team comp so eventually ( in the next decade) two Melbourne clubs will either merge or fold securing our finances secures we will not be one of those two ... Those complaining about seeing one or two less games a year need to suck it up you get the boys most weeks two games that will secure the future is not much to ask ...

[citywest]

A club with money is a more powerful and influential club.

This is a good move in the next 3-5 years if you think we might be headed for somewhat of an on-field decline. Need to shore up our revenues.

If we are in a weak financial postition come the next TV rights deal, we are ripe for relocation or merger.


However if we are financially strong with a strong 2nd home base which gives us an extra 5-10,000 members and some great sponsorship exposure, then we are in a good place to resist the inevitable push to reduce the number of Melbourne clubs.

I reckon it's a great move.

AFL will eventually become the game of AUS/NZ. Maybe not for another 40-50 years, but it will happen.

Imagine in 1966 if I had told you we would have a national competition with 2 teams in Sydney? You would have laughed at me.


Great far-sighted thinking by the club.

Go for it.

Great post Legendary. I agree 100% with everything you said.
The supporters who say this is a wrong move are deluding themselves. If we don't do this our club will be on its knees in the next 4 years. I know supporters will not admit this but I will. We will be in the bottom 4 soon (not this year but by 2014 for sure), and when that happens our membership will drop to 25,000, maybe even down to 20,000 (I hope not). If we still play "ALL" 11 home games in Victoria then I shudder to think what out bottom line will be.

[Moods]

VS there is so much in your post I disagree with ... We have just come off our second most successful era in history yet we still lost money last year .. As a club in order to keep players and hope to lure potential players we have to be in a situation where we are financially strong especially with free agency coming into play ... Tapping into an unknown resource in NZ could well be the catalyst to keep our club going for the next 50 years .. In my opinion the AFL don't want a 18 team comp so eventually ( in the next decade) two Melbourne clubs will either merge or fold securing our finances secures we will not be one of those two ... Those complaining about seeing one or two less games a year need to suck it up you get the boys most weeks two games that will secure the future is not much to ask ...

I can live with seeing 1 or 2 less games a year live. The suggestion earlier in the thread though was that ALL our home games would be in NZ. If we do that we may as well rename ourselves the NZ Saints. I know living in WA you only get to see them twice a year, so where they play there other 20 games probably doesn't concern you too much, but it concerns plenty of us living in Melbourne where the saints heartland is. Losing money last year wasn't good but there appears to be very good reasons why we lost money, ie relocation expenses. The previous 2 seasons before 2011 we made handy profits and out layed far more on our footy department.

[Junction Oval]

Let's shore up our finances while we can. I have said on numerous occasions, that Melbourne cannot in the longer run, support 10 teams, especially with escalating running costs.

There are few if any, genuine interstate opportunities left (Canberra & NT). Let's just hope that we only lose 2 games at most (one an interstate game) and that the scheduling supports the best drawing matches at Etihad.

[skeptic]

12 Mill over 5 years was part of the rumour?
thats 2.4 mill per year............ against 0 or minimal at Etihad games,

with replacement games in Victoria to make up the 11 home.-

oh how i wish that is true

is it my imagination or does that seem like an insanely good offer (if true)

[Legendary]

My take is this: Collingwood are heading for $100m turnover by the end of the decade. They will spend their money on facilities, coaches and use these as leverage to attract free agency players, thus entrenching their own success

If each club in Vic wants to have a $100m turnover, that's $1b in total.

The Victorian economy is not big enough to generate that kind of money. It is not sustainable.

At least 2 clubs will have to leave Victoria in the next two decades, unless we want to end up with the inequality of the EPL and similar competitions

This move will ensure that the Saints are in a better position to resist

[saintbrat]

Figure being looked is $500,000 per game, maybe x 3 = $1.5 mill
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl ... 6341209751
>>>>The Weekend Australian understands that the cost of forgoing the minimum return from a home match at Etihad Stadium is $100,000 and that as much as another $150,000 will have to be spent on related issues, such as arranging for St Kilda members to get access to away games and enjoy their full membership entitlement.>>>

[citywest]

Figure being looked is $500,000 per game, maybe x 3 = $1.5 mill
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl ... 6341209751
>>>>The Weekend Australian understands that the cost of forgoing the minimum return from a home match at Etihad Stadium is $100,000 and that as much as another $150,000 will have to be spent on related issues, such as arranging for St Kilda members to get access to away games and enjoy their full membership entitlement.>>>

$500,000 does not seem enough. Just wondering how much Hawthorn and North get per game in Tassie? I'm still all for it but was hoping that it was closer to $1million per game.

[saintbrat]

$500,000 does not seem enough. Just wondering how much Hawthorn and North get per game in Tassie? I'm still all for it but was hoping that it was closer to $1million per game.

agreement signed in 2007 for 5 years- up this year

In 2007 the Tasmanian Government commenced a five year sponsorship agreement with Hawthorn FC. This agreement included both rights as a co-major partner
and the club playing minimum four home matches each year at Aurora Stadium in Tasmania. The sponsorship agreement can be defined by the following two
components:
1. Naming rights of Hawthorn FC (including branding on the front of playing jersey) $1,800,000 per annum
2. Agreement for a minimum of four Hawthorn FC home matches to be played at Aurora Stadium $1,200,000 per annum.

for 4 games.
http://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/__dat ... xecsum.pdf

[vacuous space]

VS there is so much in your post I disagree with ...

The main point of my argument was that the move puts us at a disadvantage versus other east coast clubs. The more we travel the more that's magnified. We effectively have to travel to Perth to play a neutral game and then come home to play on a short turnaround. Add that to the number of times we have to actually travel to Perth and we'll be the third most travelled side in the competition, without ever enjoying a Subiaco style advantage. Who knows how sympathetic the AFL will be with our fixture. From an on-field perspective, it's a mild inconvenience at best. It probably means we lose games we otherwise wouldn't because of the bonus travel and throwing away our home ground advantage.

The idea that this deal is setting us up for years to come is fanciful. At the end of the day, it brings us down to the level of the handout clubs. The difference is, the AFL subsidise them playing home games in Melbourne, while we proudly go it alone in NZ. Remind me how we're better off. When free agents consider us v the bottom feeders, they'll consider the amount of time they spend away from their homes and families and they'll choose somewhere else. Let's not even pretend that the replacement games will be any better than the non-events that we got during the Tassie deal. As I said previously, this hurts the players, the coaches and the majority of fans that make up the club. The only people whose lives are improved are the board who have an easier time balancing the books.

[defacto]

VS there is so much in your post I disagree with ...

The main point of my argument was that the move puts us at a disadvantage versus other east coast clubs. The more we travel the more that's magnified. We effectively have to travel to Perth to play a neutral game and then come home to play on a short turnaround. Add that to the number of times we have to actually travel to Perth and we'll be the third most travelled side in the competition, without ever enjoying a Subiaco style advantage. Who knows how sympathetic the AFL will be with our fixture. From an on-field perspective, it's a mild inconvenience at best. It probably means we lose games we otherwise wouldn't because of the bonus travel and throwing away our home ground advantage.

The idea that this deal is setting us up for years to come is fanciful. At the end of the day, it brings us down to the level of the handout clubs. The difference is, the AFL subsidise them playing home games in Melbourne, while we proudly go it alone in NZ. Remind me how we're better off. When free agents consider us v the bottom feeders, they'll consider the amount of time they spend away from their homes and families and they'll choose somewhere else. Let's not even pretend that the replacement games will be any better than the non-events that we got during the Tassie deal. As I said previously, this hurts the players, the coaches and the majority of fans that make up the club. The only people whose lives are improved are the board who have an easier time balancing the books.

this has to be the worst post i have ever read on saintsational. thank god you dont have a say at the club.

[BigMart]

There would be some awesome contradictions on this thread, from the same people who supported bailing on Tassie... Supporting selling games to NZ...

Loyalty is one thing, hypocrisy another.....

[skeptic]

There would be some awesome contradictions on this thread, from the same people who supported bailing on Tassie... Supporting selling games to NZ...

Loyalty is one thing, hypocrisy another.....

by the same time BM, you have to allow for a change of opinion

I wasn't too bothered about leaving Tassie (not too fussed about staying either) but with the benefit of himdsight feel it was a poor decision

As you yourself pointed out...

Maybe learning to play at Tassie and addressing the problems we had there... outside the cushy confines of TD, may well have seen us learn to play the MCG better...

plus there was the financial security.

To me, it feels like a second chance at all of that

[Dr Spaceman]

To me it all comes down to whether we want to do this or we need to do it.

If it's just something that the club wants to do then they need to sell it to the players and supporters before they commit. The club will need to limit any negativity from all involved. Everyone will need to be onboard so we don't suffer the problems we had with relocating our training base.

However if the club needs to do it, to survive and/or prosper, then everyone will just have to suck it all up.

[saintkellerm]

Good chance to visit the neighbours

or the whanau (family)

[BigMart]

We have a loyal fan base due to a prominent player history in Tas....

Not sure NZ has many connections with our jumper???

I remember Gehrig hating Tas because it was chilly! It very chilly in kiwi land!

[vacuous space]

this has to be the worst post i have ever read on saintsational.

That's a refreshingly honest self assessment. If you're looking to get better in the future, I'd try refuting a post you disagree with.