The Best Thing About the 2016 Fixture

[samuraisaint]

Tassie is a completely different market to New Zealand. And we already have an established supporter base there. But even there we chose the wrong location. We should have played in Hobart, not Launceston.
Having said that, I do support us playing games anywhere while we are building and developing for the $$$.

[samuraisaint]

I 100% agree with you that we are going to miss the money. Our deal at the Docklands is appalling. I can't believe that we agreed to it. An example of poor forward planning, I would suggest.
I supported the NZ offensive for the cash, but the on-field results over three years are just too poor to ignore - losing to Brisbane was a joke, and getting thrashed by a very, very poor Carlton side without Judd?!? And all in front of a half-empty stadium? Wellington realised this and that's why they pulled the pin. If we get offered 500 grand to play in Auckland or somewhere, I'm fine with it, but my opinion on whether it is a long term strategy for increased revenue and membership and sponsorship has changed. As a one off, fine, but we are really better to stick to the AFL heartland and let the excitement build as we improve, not off-off-off Broadway in a small regional town in a country five hours away by plane, played at 11 in the morning and not even televised on free to air TV. And all in a country which lives and breathes Rugby and has just won the Rugby World Cup no less.
It's a moot point anyway, because this experiment is done and dusted.
And I do agree with you 100% on this next point though, if anything like this was going to work it was going to be Tasmania, but once again the club made a short sighted decision. We should have been based in Hobart, like what North do now, not Launceston. That decision was right up there with the short sighted decision to move to Frankston, but then end up going to Seaford instead.

[Con Gorozidis]

We only averaged 25,928 at home games last year. The lowest of all clubs bar GC, GWS and Brisbane. So I dont know why anyone would be rejoicing at one more game at Etihad when they facts tell me most people arent turning up to most of them anyway. What is so great about one extra game at Etihad against a crap team where we will make a certain loss? How is that cause for celebration? NZ was at least money in the bank + televised live on FTA but we stuffed up because we couldnt even beat Carlton. Nothing to be proud or happy about imo.

The best thing about the 2016 is obviously that the AFL have given us a home game at the G against Collingwood where we are guaranteed to make money. Easily the best thing about the draw. By a mile.

[Con Gorozidis]

I 100% agree with you that we are going to miss the money. Our deal at the Docklands is appalling. I can't believe that we agreed to it. An example of poor forward planning, I would suggest.
I supported the NZ offensive for the cash, but the on-field results over three years are just too poor to ignore - losing to Brisbane was a joke, and getting thrashed by a very, very poor Carlton side without Judd?!? And all in front of a half-empty stadium? Wellington realised this and that's why they pulled the pin. If we get offered 500 grand to play in Auckland or somewhere, I'm fine with it, but my opinion on whether it is a long term strategy for increased revenue and membership and sponsorship has changed. As a one off, fine, but we are really better to stick to the AFL heartland and let the excitement build as we improve, not off-off-off Broadway in a small regional town in a country five hours away by plane, played at 11 in the morning and not even televised on free to air TV. And all in a country which lives and breathes Rugby and has just won the Rugby World Cup no less.
It's a moot point anyway, because this experiment is done and dusted.
And I do agree with you 100% on this next point though, if anything like this was going to work it was going to be Tasmania, but once again the club made a short sighted decision. We should have been based in Hobart, like what North do now, not Launceston. That decision was right up there with the short sighted decision to move to Frankston, but then end up going to Seaford instead.

Agree. If we were going to go to Frankston then do it properly. Go the Frankston Oval and make something special of it that draws in the community. Heck we could have built a fortress boutique 20,000 seat stadium down there in the long run. I can completely envisage the Andrews govt throwing lots of money at Frankston. As you say - short sighted. But we took a half assed solution out on the freeway that had no future, no community and no hope for expansion. It was a non option from the get go.

[Spinner]

I 100% agree with you that we are going to miss the money. Our deal at the Docklands is appalling. I can't believe that we agreed to it. An example of poor forward planning, I would suggest.
I supported the NZ offensive for the cash, but the on-field results over three years are just too poor to ignore - losing to Brisbane was a joke, and getting thrashed by a very, very poor Carlton side without Judd?!? And all in front of a half-empty stadium? Wellington realised this and that's why they pulled the pin. If we get offered 500 grand to play in Auckland or somewhere, I'm fine with it, but my opinion on whether it is a long term strategy for increased revenue and membership and sponsorship has changed. As a one off, fine, but we are really better to stick to the AFL heartland and let the excitement build as we improve, not off-off-off Broadway in a small regional town in a country five hours away by plane, played at 11 in the morning and not even televised on free to air TV. And all in a country which lives and breathes Rugby and has just won the Rugby World Cup no less.
It's a moot point anyway, because this experiment is done and dusted.
And I do agree with you 100% on this next point though, if anything like this was going to work it was going to be Tasmania, but once again the club made a short sighted decision. We should have been based in Hobart, like what North do now, not Launceston. That decision was right up there with the short sighted decision to move to Frankston, but then end up going to Seaford instead.

Agree. If we were going to go to Frankston then do it properly. Go the Frankston Oval and make something special of it that draws in the community. Heck we could have built a fortress boutique 20,000 seat stadium down there in the long run. I can completely envisage the Andrews govt throwing lots of money at Frankston. As you say - short sighted. But we took a half assed solution out on the freeway that had no future, no community and no hope for expansion. It was a non option from the get go.

The entire board should be sacked for just considering building a stadium in frankston.

When people bring these things up, do they just purposely by pass the fact it would cost millions and millions to build. Or do they think someone else if just going to come out and build it?

That alone - even if it was magically free. Making money from a place 1.5 hours away from the majority of the melbourne population would be impossible.

Oh but Geelong...

Frankston nor any of the South eastern bayside is Geelong. And never will be. Geelong is its own city - and their football club has been there working in that market for 100 years.

We can't even get a training base right - but people want to keep suggesting we committ 100 times more money into a stadium that usually seems like a good idea because they live near or around frankston.

[Con Gorozidis]

I 100% agree with you that we are going to miss the money. Our deal at the Docklands is appalling. I can't believe that we agreed to it. An example of poor forward planning, I would suggest.
I supported the NZ offensive for the cash, but the on-field results over three years are just too poor to ignore - losing to Brisbane was a joke, and getting thrashed by a very, very poor Carlton side without Judd?!? And all in front of a half-empty stadium? Wellington realised this and that's why they pulled the pin. If we get offered 500 grand to play in Auckland or somewhere, I'm fine with it, but my opinion on whether it is a long term strategy for increased revenue and membership and sponsorship has changed. As a one off, fine, but we are really better to stick to the AFL heartland and let the excitement build as we improve, not off-off-off Broadway in a small regional town in a country five hours away by plane, played at 11 in the morning and not even televised on free to air TV. And all in a country which lives and breathes Rugby and has just won the Rugby World Cup no less.
It's a moot point anyway, because this experiment is done and dusted.
And I do agree with you 100% on this next point though, if anything like this was going to work it was going to be Tasmania, but once again the club made a short sighted decision. We should have been based in Hobart, like what North do now, not Launceston. That decision was right up there with the short sighted decision to move to Frankston, but then end up going to Seaford instead.

Agree. If we were going to go to Frankston then do it properly. Go the Frankston Oval and make something special of it that draws in the community. Heck we could have built a fortress boutique 20,000 seat stadium down there in the long run. I can completely envisage the Andrews govt throwing lots of money at Frankston. As you say - short sighted. But we took a half assed solution out on the freeway that had no future, no community and no hope for expansion. It was a non option from the get go.

The entire board should be sacked for just considering building a stadium in frankston.

When people bring these things up, do they just purposely by pass the fact it would cost millions and millions to build. Or do they think someone else if just going to come out and build it?

That alone - even if it was magically free. Making money from a place 1.5 hours away from the majority of the melbourne population would be impossible.

Oh but Geelong...

Frankston nor any of the South eastern bayside is Geelong. And never will be. Geelong is its own city - and their football club has been there working in that market for 100 years.

We can't even get a training base right - but people want to keep suggesting we committ 100 times more money into a stadium that usually seems like a good idea because they live near or around frankston.

Obviously I am not suggesting it now. The horse has long since bolted and I think Moorabbin is a good outcome. I am saying we could have started small at Frankston Oval five years ago with the $10m or whatever we had - and if it was a success and went well we could have upped the ante and expanded over time. It may have been a much different outcome. The City of Frankston has a population of 130,000 and Frankston the suburb alone has 35,000 people. Another 22,000 in Mornington the suburb. Probably over 200,000 catchment area all up. This is a hell of a lot of people if we wanted to grow organically within that community. If it was centrally located and had a groundswell of community support then it is not unreasonable to think it would be the kind of thing that would appeal to the Andrews Govt. $50m from the state govt would not have been out of the question. This is all moot now. I am merely pointing out that Frankston - if done properly and centrally and with the community in mind - would have been an entirely different kettle of fish to the paddock out at Carrum Downs that we have now. So I actually think Frankston proper is more similar to Geelong than you are suggesting. But Carrum Downs/Frankston Freeway Bypass was never going to be any good.

[ripplug66]

I 100% agree with you that we are going to miss the money. Our deal at the Docklands is appalling. I can't believe that we agreed to it. An example of poor forward planning, I would suggest.
I supported the NZ offensive for the cash, but the on-field results over three years are just too poor to ignore - losing to Brisbane was a joke, and getting thrashed by a very, very poor Carlton side without Judd?!? And all in front of a half-empty stadium? Wellington realised this and that's why they pulled the pin. If we get offered 500 grand to play in Auckland or somewhere, I'm fine with it, but my opinion on whether it is a long term strategy for increased revenue and membership and sponsorship has changed. As a one off, fine, but we are really better to stick to the AFL heartland and let the excitement build as we improve, not off-off-off Broadway in a small regional town in a country five hours away by plane, played at 11 in the morning and not even televised on free to air TV. And all in a country which lives and breathes Rugby and has just won the Rugby World Cup no less.
It's a moot point anyway, because this experiment is done and dusted.
And I do agree with you 100% on this next point though, if anything like this was going to work it was going to be Tasmania, but once again the club made a short sighted decision. We should have been based in Hobart, like what North do now, not Launceston. That decision was right up there with the short sighted decision to move to Frankston, but then end up going to Seaford instead.

Agree. If we were going to go to Frankston then do it properly. Go the Frankston Oval and make something special of it that draws in the community. Heck we could have built a fortress boutique 20,000 seat stadium down there in the long run. I can completely envisage the Andrews govt throwing lots of money at Frankston. As you say - short sighted. But we took a half assed solution out on the freeway that had no future, no community and no hope for expansion. It was a non option from the get go.

The entire board should be sacked for just considering building a stadium in frankston.

When people bring these things up, do they just purposely by pass the fact it would cost millions and millions to build. Or do they think someone else if just going to come out and build it?

That alone - even if it was magically free. Making money from a place 1.5 hours away from the majority of the melbourne population would be impossible.

Oh but Geelong...

Frankston nor any of the South eastern bayside is Geelong. And never will be. Geelong is its own city - and their football club has been there working in that market for 100 years.

We can't even get a training base right - but people want to keep suggesting we committ 100 times more money into a stadium that usually seems like a good idea because they live near or around frankston.

Obviously I am not suggesting it now. The horse has long since bolted and I think Moorabbin is a good outcome. I am saying we could have started small at Frankston Oval five years ago with the $10m or whatever we had - and if it was a success and went well we could have upped the ante and expanded over time. It may have been a much different outcome. The City of Frankston has a population of 130,000 and Frankston the suburb alone has 35,000 people. Another 22,000 in Mornington the suburb. Probably over 200,000 catchment area all up. This is a hell of a lot of people if we wanted to grow organically within that community. If it was centrally located and had a groundswell of community support then it is not unreasonable to think it would be the kind of thing that would appeal to the Andrews Govt. $50m from the state govt would not have been out of the question. This is all moot now. I am merely pointing out that Frankston - if done properly and centrally and with the community in mind - would have been an entirely different kettle of fish to the paddock out at Carrum Downs that we have now. So I actually think Frankston proper is more similar to Geelong than you are suggesting. But Carrum Downs/Frankston Freeway Bypass was never going to be any good.

You cant compare Frankston to Geelong at all whatever areas you want to include. Geelong is a city on its own. Even with suburban sprawl there is many bare parts of land between Geelong and the city. As long as I can remember Frankston has been a suburb just like Aspendale or Bonbeach. There are suburbs every metre from the city to Frankston. It is not a city on its own. Its like saying lets have a ground in Bonbeach because the surrounding area has 200K in it. You even want to include the morning peninsula in your population area even though many of the towns are further away from Frankston than Frankston is to Moorabbin, a distance many considered to far in the first place.

As for where the ground is well that's another discussion. Firstly the ground size is far to small for AFL footy and secondly there would be no room for development anyway. They were never going to play AFL games there even if it was a training base. Never. Even if you could build there a 20000 seat stadium would be very close to 200 million dollars, a figure no government would be interested in as it is still a suburban ground just like Moorabbin, Princes Park etc, grounds the AFL didn't want because they wanted games in a central location. Geelong is a city on its own and if there had of been a club based in Ballarat they would have also don't what they have done at Geelong and develop the ground because they are their own cities. Anyway as you say the horse of bolted and luckily for us. We wouldn't want debt on another suburban ground.

[samuraisaint]

I supported the club moving to Frankston initially, but am happy that we are going back to Moorabbin, plenty of development going to happen there, we'll finally get our reserves side back, and we should see some improvement on-field at around the time we move back there in mid-2017, with a bit more optimism around the place.
2016 could potentially be one step backwards from 2015, depending on the WADA outcome and Freeman's hammy, but 2017 could see us winning a few more games and hopefully a mid-table ladder position.
How do most of us think we'll go next season? I think we could beat Carlton and Essendon twice, Brisbane at Etihad, Bulldogs for Roo's 300th, and maybe Melbourne twice as we (surprisingly)play them both times at Etihad. We won't win all of these of course, particularly as we can never count on beating Essendon, and surely Melbourne are going to improve at some point, but think we'll win 5-6 games.
I support the club selling the odd game for financial reward by the way, but we must never lose sight of what our core business is; winning games. Like a lot of people on here, I thought the NZ initiative looked good with potentially great rewards, and I didn't go to the games, but the matches themselves never reached any great heights, and let's be honest, the last two games we played there we absolutely stunk playing like wooden spooners. Let's not kid ourselves, we are not going to build membership over there, but if the NZ Dept Of Tourism want to give us ghalf a mill for one game a year, that is fine by me, but it probably needs to be in Auckland for the critical mass, I think.
I have no idea how Brisbane and Carlton being no better than us managed to come out and play such dominating footy on a ground they had never played at before, and we couldn't, and all in front of a half empty tiny stadium. An omen, I guess. Our 50% winning ratio at Launceston was far superior in that respect.

[Sainternist]

I supported the club moving to Frankston initially, but am happy that we are going back to Moorabbin, plenty of development going to happen there, we'll finally get our reserves side back, and we should see some improvement on-field at around the time we move back there in mid-2017, with a bit more optimism around the place.
2016 could potentially be one step backwards from 2015, depending on the WADA outcome and Freeman's hammy, but 2017 could see us winning a few more games and hopefully a mid-table ladder position.
How do most of us think we'll go next season? I think we could beat Carlton and Essendon twice, Brisbane at Etihad, Bulldogs for Roo's 300th, and maybe Melbourne twice as we (surprisingly)play them both times at Etihad. We won't win all of these of course, particularly as we can never count on beating Essendon, and surely Melbourne are going to improve at some point, but think we'll win 5-6 games.
I support the club selling the odd game for financial reward by the way, but we must never lose sight of what our core business is; winning games. Like a lot of people on here, I thought the NZ initiative looked good with potentially great rewards, and I didn't go to the games, but the matches themselves never reached any great heights, and let's be honest, the last two games we played there we absolutely stunk playing like wooden spooners. Let's not kid ourselves, we are not going to build membership over there, but if the NZ Dept Of Tourism want to give us ghalf a mill for one game a year, that is fine by me, but it probably needs to be in Auckland for the critical mass, I think.
I have no idea how Brisbane and Carlton being no better than us managed to come out and play such dominating footy on a ground they had never played at before, and we couldn't, and all in front of a half empty tiny stadium. An omen, I guess. Our 50% winning ratio at Launceston was far superior in that respect.

It's probably not a bad a idea to have relatively modest expectations for 2016. Winning 11 games would be the ultimate and bring in a great feeling of confidence amongst the personnel. I just hope we see more of the competitiveness of 2015. Another season of winning 5-6 games is probably a little more realistic. The real worry was how we finished late in the second half of the season. By Round 20, the players looked physically spent. Carlisle and Freeman's inclusion is going to be really interesting. It's going to be a fascinating year ahead of Saints footy.

[Sainternist]

P.S. Thanks for bumping my thread on Christmas, CityWest! Happy New Year to you, ya big galah!

[Linton Lodger]

RIP Wellington, NZ Experiment

"Dismember the corpse and send the widow (CityWest) a corsage"

HALLELUJAH! Sanity has prevailed.

We have ANZAC weekend footy back where it belongs!

Don't agree. This is Tassie all over again - impatience and short sighted thinking. We need to keep expanding our base or we'll be left behind. Ok crowds have diminished after losing and some poor games in the wet. But we sometimes struggle to pull 15,000 at our home games in our heartland at the moment. The talk is that Auckland is on the cards next year and I'm assuming it will be us playing. We have to give this time. It gives us money we desperately need and if we can crack the NZ market, then the rewards could be brilliant in the long run.

We should be a better team next year, and then the year after again. If we can get big likable Paddy out there smashing packs like an all black front rower, and Billings dazzling with brilliant tricks and Freeman running like a rocket and Carlisle pulling in huge grabs we could blow those Kiwi's away with our game.

That's all good & well, but there is just no sufficient market for the game over there. It will never fly. We need to plant our feet in Victoria ala Geelong.

The AFL need to develop a boutique stadium (Moorabbin would be nice) for Vic teams to play at in low drawing matches or simply purchase the Docklands outright.

Let Melbourne, Bulldogs, North & perhaps Carlton worry about their viability long term and forget about temporary knee jerk measures like games in NZ.

[Sainternist]

That's all good & well, but there is just no sufficient market for the game over there. It will never fly. We need to plant our feet in Victoria ala Geelong.

The AFL need to develop a boutique stadium (Moorabbin would be nice) for Vic teams to play at in low drawing matches or simply purchase the Docklands outright.

I agree. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be at the top of the AFL's list of priorities. Not sure if they've even lifted a finger in looking to acquiring the ownership of Docklands. Perhaps they're concerned it wouldn't be a worthy investment for them, considering the long term future of the stadium seems to now be in doubt. I wouldn't hold my breath on further funding being siphoned into Moorabbin for a big upgrade. I'm counting my blessings the state government gave us the gift for the up and coming upgrade. It appears the Melbourne based clubs will continue to be at the AFL's mercy for some time to come.

[ripplug66]

That's all good & well, but there is just no sufficient market for the game over there. It will never fly. We need to plant our feet in Victoria ala Geelong.

The AFL need to develop a boutique stadium (Moorabbin would be nice) for Vic teams to play at in low drawing matches or simply purchase the Docklands outright.

I agree. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be at the top of the AFL's list of priorities. Not sure if they've even lifted a finger in looking to acquiring the ownership of Docklands. Perhaps they're concerned it wouldn't be a worthy investment for them, considering the long term future of the stadium seems to now be in doubt. I wouldn't hold my breath on further funding being siphoned into Moorabbin for a big upgrade. I'm counting my blessings the state government gave us the gift for the up and coming upgrade. It appears the Melbourne based clubs will continue to be at the AFL's mercy for some time to come.

As if the AFL would put 200 million into Moorabbin or any ground. It makes no sense to have a ground in the SE suburbs. The city is the place for grounds and it is the only place governments would put huge money into. The AFL could never justify to the other clubs that they put huge money into a suburban ground. The AFL don't put significant money into any ground whether here or interstate. They are to smart for that.

As for Etihad they have obviously done the figures and cant justify an earlier purchase. If they could they would do it obviously.

[borderbarry]

100 years ago Aussie Rules was very big in NZ, it competed with Rugby. There was no such thing as Rugby League then. I dont know why it lost its popularity. I was;nt around then.

[borderbarry]

So it is not a matter of creating an interest in Aussie Rules in New Zealand, but of re-creating one. I believe the AFL would be well served by reminding the New Zealanders of all the Aussie Rule teams that existed in New Zealand a hundred years ago.

[ripplug66]

So it is not a matter of creating an interest in Aussie Rules in New Zealand, but of re-creating one. I believe the AFL would be well served by reminding the New Zealanders of all the Aussie Rule teams that existed in New Zealand a hundred years ago.

They have no interest in the game. We would be better to accept that and move on.

[saintspremiers]

That's all good & well, but there is just no sufficient market for the game over there. It will never fly. We need to plant our feet in Victoria ala Geelong.

The AFL need to develop a boutique stadium (Moorabbin would be nice) for Vic teams to play at in low drawing matches or simply purchase the Docklands outright.

I agree. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be at the top of the AFL's list of priorities. Not sure if they've even lifted a finger in looking to acquiring the ownership of Docklands. Perhaps they're concerned it wouldn't be a worthy investment for them, considering the long term future of the stadium seems to now be in doubt. I wouldn't hold my breath on further funding being siphoned into Moorabbin for a big upgrade. I'm counting my blessings the state government gave us the gift for the up and coming upgrade. It appears the Melbourne based clubs will continue to be at the AFL's mercy for some time to come.

As if the AFL would put 200 million into Moorabbin or any ground. It makes no sense to have a ground in the SE suburbs. The city is the place for grounds and it is the only place governments would put huge money into. The AFL could never justify to the other clubs that they put huge money into a suburban ground. The AFL don't put significant money into any ground whether here or interstate. They are to smart for that.

As for Etihad they have obviously done the figures and cant justify an earlier purchase. If they could they would do it obviously.

Just because the AFL aren't happy with the current buyout figure doesn't mean it's the best option for us Tennent clubs that are getting ripped off. It just means their priorities are elsewhere. Unless of course you believe the way the AFL allocate their money is always right.

[ripplug66]

Just because the AFL aren't happy with the current buyout figure doesn't mean it's the best option for us Tennent clubs that are getting ripped off. It just means their priorities are elsewhere. Unless of course you believe the way the AFL allocate their money is always right.

I didn't say it was or wasn't the best option. None of us would know that. All I know is the last 2 AFL commissions and CEO's want to keep all clubs, the previous ones didn't and that is fact. It really doesn't matter that much if you are a small club because you will basically always be supported by the AFL. Well the current AFL. Owning Etihad as a lowly club may get us less money than the AFL give us now considering how ordinary our crowds have been over the last few years.

[Bluthy]

100 years ago Aussie Rules was very big in NZ, it competed with Rugby. There was no such thing as Rugby League then. I dont know why it lost its popularity. I was;nt around then.

That's interesting. Sport is becoming increasingly globalised with tv, cable, satellite and especially the internet. Aussies rules would never work in Sydney and Qld apparently. A rugby league team would never survive in AFL mad Melbourne. People can find what they want now. This idea of a city following one code is gone. We are close enough to NZ that they can feel part of the club - they get one game over there, they might pop over for a game here while on a cheap holiday to Melbun. I see it as an experiment to continue. If Auckland are willing to host it, I can't see the harm in it. The timing was bad where were a pretty average team for a couple of years but by golly I think we'll be damn exciting by next year. We will be choice!

[borderbarry]

If any of our three Kiwi boys come good, we would be more attractive to New Zealanders. We already have Savage, now we just need to make the most of it publicity wise.

[ripplug66]

If any of our three Kiwi boys come good, we would be more attractive to New Zealanders. We already have Savage, now we just need to make the most of it publicity wise.

Yep and they didn't care about him. New Zealand have no interest in footy. I don't think they would care if Hawthorn played there And I don't see why the AFL care either apart from getting a few players from there. It isn't going to increase the TV value.

[saynta]

Went twice and both times wete great. Wellington got behind the idea and were welcoming, particularly the first year. I look forward to maybe going back to see the Saints in Auckland?

Three games. Three losses. Time to move on.

We should avoid Grand Finals as well.

Well we should avoid me attending them.

1 out of 7 ain't good odds.

[kosifantutti]

That's a better hit rate than most on here.

[ripplug66]

That's a better hit rate than most on here.

Yep I'm 0 from 5 but have luckily only seen 4 losses.

[one point]

Went twice and both times wete great. Wellington got behind the idea and were welcoming, particularly the first year. I look forward to maybe going back to see the Saints in Auckland?

Three games. Three losses. Time to move on.

We should avoid Grand Finals as well.

Well we should avoid me attending them.

1 out of 7 ain't good odds.

I've had the same odds. There are probably still a few of us around.