Rich club, poor club

[Fidelis]

In today's Age, Jake Niall writes a thought provoking piece on 4 key decisions which have seen the off field fortunes of St KIlda and Hawthorn diverge in the years since they were struggling co-tenants at Waverley in the late 90s. He argues that Hawthorn have made 4 savvy decisions which have turned them into a financial powerhouse and that the Saints, while they have done a lot of things right, have taken less strategic options. His 4 pivotal decisions are:

Firstly, the decision to embrace/reject the Tasmanian partnership

Secondly, the decision to move to the MCG/Docklands as home base

Thirdly, the decision about home base; Hawthorn moved from Glenferrie and bought the freehold to the Waverley training base from the AFL for $1 while St Kilda swapped Moorabbin for Seaford

Fourthly, Hawthorn invested wisely and reaped millions from pokies at Waverley Gardens while we've got into two losing stoushes with both Moorabbin and Frankston councils.

End result, says Niall, Hawks have vaulted themselves to be one of the moneyed clubs of the AFL while we find ourselves in the soup kitchen.

Worth a read: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/h ... 2zcsl.html

[saintsRrising]

Firstly, the decision to embrace/reject the Tasmanian partnership

All because GT refused to embrace the move. Supposedly the "great" business minded person at the time!!

[Fidelis]

Apparently the 4 games now earn the Hawks $3.5 mill a season

plus the losses they don't make from 4 poorly attended home games in Melbourne

plus income from Tasmanian memberships

Financially, in retrospect, a no brainer.

I guess we have to remember that the context at the time was that we felt we'd lost games in Tassie we would have won in Melbourne and there were years where those losses cost us finals or top four. The decision was part of our decision at the time to beef up our onfield emphasis after a phase where it was felt that the footy dept had suffered too long at the expense of too much emphasis on the dollar

[satchmo]

I guess we have to remember that the context at the time was that we felt we'd lost games in Tassie we would have won in Melbourne and there were years where those losses cost us finals or top four.

I think that was the bottom line. There seemed to be a fair amount of pressure at the time from supporters to abandon Tas due to losing games. In the end, we can only guess that we might have been as successful as the Hawks down there in the long term, but who knows.

[mr six o'clock]

Our problem with Tasmania was how poorly we played there !
We had a 50/50 record there and most of our wins we by small margins .
This at a time when all our talented players were reaching there peak .

[oh when the]

and ten flags since we met in 1971

[casey scorp]

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.

[spert]

The Saints have been a badly run club for decades, and members have tolerated mediocrity. I feel that we are finally looking at the long-term for once at St Kilda...I hope

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Here's the thing about that article .. To me it's pretty lazy reporting to again flog out the old St Kilda failings of the past story .. What relevance does it have to today ? The article talks of buttress -that's two presidents ago ... It talks of Thomas - that's three coaches ago .. Those decisions rightly or wrongly have been made there is no time machine to change them so why get all bent up about them ? Surely the reporter could talk about our new players ? Our new coach ? Our training camp ? Our work with Soldier on ? Our clubs work to engage with the Seaford community ? Our work with NZ ? Our first NZ scholarship player ? Our new American international rookie ? Our new high performance training coach Adam Basil ? Our marquee games we have now secured every year in the ANZAC game the Monday game the reconciliation game ... But nah lets just rehash the same old same old story

[evertonfc]

A really good read by Niall which crystalises all the things we've done wrong.

Infuriatingly, so many of our supporters are prepared to accept the club's lazy approach to becoming a financially stable enterprise.

It is one thing to support the club blindly; but the true value of supporters is when their loyalty gives energy to enact positive change. Our lazy supporter base is too complacent to see that we're slipping behind.

We should be a "have" club, not a "have not", and certainly not one reliant on the handouts from the AFL.

I find it embarrassing that Geelong and Hawthorn, two rivals of ours, have surged ahead.

The quicker we find a way to re-energise and re-connect with our supporters, the quicker we get to a position of strength. From strength, we can agitate for premierships.

Until then, I suppose we'll be content sitting in a half-full stadium watching a club that exists/operates in the middle of nowhere fighting for survival. Why this is an acceptable scenario to so many is beyond me.

[stinger]

Here's the thing about that article .. To me it's pretty lazy reporting to again flog out the old St Kilda failings of the past story .. What relevance does it have to today ? The article talks of buttress -that's two presidents ago ... It talks of Thomas - that's three coaches ago .. Those decisions rightly or wrongly have been made there is no time machine to change them so why get all bent up about them ? Surely the reporter could talk about our new players ? Our new coach ? Our training camp ? Our work with Soldier on ? Our clubs work to engage with the Seaford community ? Our work with NZ ? Our first NZ scholarship player ? Our new American international rookie ? Our new high performance training coach Adam Basil ? Our marquee games we have now secured every year in the ANZAC game the Monday game the reconciliation game ... But nah lets just rehash the same old same old story

great post....


and i refuse to read the scum journo's article....not interested in rehashing negatives.....

[PADDLEPOP1001]

The truth hurts unfortunately!

[Enrico_Misso]

Should NEVER have left Moorabbin for Scumford.
There is absolutely NO connection there.
We are effectively HOMELESS.

[Spinner]

f*** I hate docklands.

So easy for me to get to from home. Even easier from work. State of the art roof. And I still hate it.



No atmosphere. Can't make money. Turf is s***. MCG every day of the week.

[resaintlee]

Now we have New Zealand and we need to really get behind it. The club are offering NZ memberships. Everyone who possibly can should attempt to go over for the game (and a few days in Wellington), it was great last year and would be a big disappointment if supporters become too lethargic to make the effort. Much friendlier than the Robert Harvey Room by a mile.

[Waltzing St Kilda]

I'm not convinced that the Tassie games are a no-brainer. Sure, the Hawks have won two flags ... but they may have won four if they weren't burned out by unnecessary travel. I certainly wasn't upset when the Saints pulled out ... seemed to me we were losing games against teams like Freo and PA that we would have won at Docklands.

So I hope the admin doesn't say there's no risk involved and start playing more games out of NZ.

[Johnny Member]

I really don't know why supporters care about where their club sits off-field.

I find it utterly irrelevant.

[Bernard Shakey]

Excellent article tracking the fortunes of two teams in similar situations, one gets lucky, the other flounders.

[70s sainter]

This story hurts because I can't remember the last time we had a "positive" or a good news story financially . It would literally be years. I wouldn't call n.z a win either by the way because a saints supporter is looking at least $800 to go there. Every other team seems to be kicking goals off field and were constantly putting band aids on our previous f$#k ups .
One positive story can't be too much to ask . Just one.
What about the so-called "projects" that were in the pipeline that were due to be announced weeks ago.
Nettledfold and co couldn't organise a root in a brothel.

[BigMart]

And the very fact that our players needed the cosy environment of the docklands to win games against two teams who travelled farther is the point!

Sometimes you need to stop using venues and comfort levels as excuses for losses and look at effort....

Some people expressed these views many moons ago and were shot down... Especially by one bloke who said we owe Tassie people nothing, and they were that selfish they wanted to be able to see 16 games than 15 (only 5 interstate trips was the Tas deal) and that was the base of the argument... Oh, and we couldn't win outside ... On a grass oval?!

Seaford move.... Well, that's just a training base... But negotiations were poorly handled....

Docklands is a great place to play home games... The deal is disgraceful.

Not all (or any) of this is in retrospect

[bobmurray]

Firstly, the decision to embrace/reject the Tasmanian partnership

All because GT refused to embrace the move. Supposedly the "great" business minded person at the time!!

He bailed because we couldn't win, which as a coach is his main priority, i thought you would have understood that much well before you gave it to GT...

[Sainternist]

Jesus H. Christ! Why doesn't Niall just fill out prescriptions for Prozac and send them to every St Kilda supporter?

I mean, f****** hell... do we need to be constantly reminded of how our club has failed since the dawn of time.

Meanwhile, Hawthorn supporters are <edited by mods> to this article and covering the page with <edited by mods> because after all they are a HAPPY TEAM AT HAWTHORN.

[onlooker2]

I thought the Age article was on the mark and it's not just those decisions on their own but the spinoffs from those decisions in areas like sponsorship from Seaford, central supporter access from Seaford, a clear financial advantage from playing in Tassie, limited commercial operations creating decent revenue. The list goes on and its depressing me to think more about it. The one decision I am not sure that we can completely level at the Club (or perhaps they should have seen through it) was the relocation from Waverly for home games. It's been discussed in other threads recently that the financial basis for us moving to Docklands as provided by the AFL was and is s***t and in effect we and a couple of other clubs are effectively paying the ground off for the whole competition. Maybe the financial basis wasn't total s**t at the time but it certainly is now.

A real concern for me that has been raised before on this site is the next TV deal and will the AFL continue to support ALL struggling clubs to maintain the comp as it is?

These decisions (and their implications) as they were described in the Age article may have mammoth consequences. As the article implied we have to get the big decisions right from here on.

[casey scorp]

The one decision I am not sure that we can completely level at the Club (or perhaps they should have seen through it) was the relocation from Waverly for home games. It's been discussed in other threads recently that the financial basis for us moving to Docklands as provided by the AFL was and is s***t and in effect we and a couple of other clubs are effectively paying the ground off for the whole competition. Maybe the financial basis wasn't total s**t at the time but it certainly is now.

Two clubs, both with long term agreements to play matches at Waverley, are told the ground will no longer be available for matches and that a glittering new facility will be available at Docklands. The Saints succumb to AFL pressure, let their Waverley agreement go and sign upto what's on offer at Docklands. The Hawks, on the other hand, stand their ground and maintain they have a legally binding agreement and demand that the AFL honours it. The AFL, having got rid of one tenant cheaply, can afford a greater "compensation" for the other. Result - AFL landsale to Mirvac includes provision for oval and part of adjacent building to be transferred to the Hawks.

Negotiation is a part of business - an art that the Ian Dicker led Hawks understood and managed, but something we just didn't have a handle on at all.

[Sainternist]

Re Waverley, that argument is completely redundant. St Kilda FC should never have moved to that f****** s*** hole in the first place. Obviously it was a place Hawthorn could call home since Glenferrie was never an option and them already have a decent supporter base in the outter East around it.

A shame we got absoluetly burnt by the promise that Colonial Stadium...Telstra Shed...Jihad Oval (or whatever the f*** they call it) would bring us a good turnover. Thanks AFL ...you bastards!