Sturt Football Club AGM

[csbowes]

I'm actually surprised there have been no topics started online concerning the Sturt AGM last Thursday, as there was an interesting, but also disappointing exchange at the AGM that would be of interest to SANFL fans and this no doubt was what Mr.Rucci might have been alluding to on FiveAA last weekend.

Before getting to that its worth noting that Sturt posted a loss of approximately $40,000. This is an improvement on the $260,000 loss the club recorded last season. As some of you may remember, Sturt was reaping in more revenue than expected in the first half of the 2008 season and based on that the club increased spending in a number of areas, including the football department. Alas that increased revenue stream didn't continue and by the end of the season the $260,000 loss was there for all to see. To the credit of the President and General Manager, they were both honest and upfront with that error in judgement. Moving along to 2009, essentially the club went about cutting costs, particularly in administration and even in the football department, where the club is now the 7th highest spending (or 3rd lowest) in the league. Those measures along with another small increase in profits from Castle Tavern and a reduced loss at Baazar helped reduce the loss. While the loss is not something we should all be overjoyed about, it is a step in the right direction.

For those of you interested in some broader details. Castle Tavern made around $250K profit for the club, while the Football Club itself (as in the cost of its facilities at Unley) lost about $100K and a combination of Baazar and the Unley Community Sports Club lost about $190K, hence the $40K loss in total. The Castle Tavern, which we have some sort of small sub-lease arrangement on, is proving very useful to the club and we are around 3-4 years into a 10 year agreement there, which overtime will become more profitable. As for Baazar, the robbery last year destroyed income for 4-6 weeks, which doesn't sound like much, but that essentially wiped many 100s of 1000s in revenue from the bar for the year and considering this year we were ever so close to gaming revenue giving us a profit, that bad period probably cost us. The view for the future is to keep Castle Tavern turning over, but hopefully get another small increase in revenue from gaming at Baazar, which in itself ultimately results in the bar breaking even, which in turn gives us a small profit for the year.

The goal for 2010 is to record a $60K profit or thereabouts...

De Bortolli are no longer the major sponsor. It will be House Brothers...

Now onto some other things in a new post...

[csbowes]

Luke Norman gave (once again) a fantastic speech on the performance of the players. At the beginning of the 2009 season he commented that he believed Sturt needed to put on weight and put on muscle, as he believed that the finals losses the previous season (or at least part of the reason) was that Centrals and Glenelg were physcially stronger and tougher than what we were around the packs.

The team was put on a regime, I suppose, to put on weight and improve strength slightly and there were gains in that area and overall he felt the team performed above expectation and that in the end, unfortunately, we probably played our Grand Final against Glenelg in the Preliminary Final. That said he has been concentrating on putting more strength into the players and noted that leading into last years Grand Final, Central Districts players, on average, could lift 96kgs, while Sturt players could life 86kgs, a 10kgs difference in pure power between the players, now Sturt have reached an average of 93kgs.

Luke then went on to praise various youngsters and put big wraps on the couple of mature recruits we have got from West Adelaide and Glenelg...

I think that probably about does it there... next stop, the controversial part...

[csbowes]

The disappointing part of the AGM came when I posed a question to the President concerning the proposal put to Sturt Football Club by Port Adelaide Football Club. I felt it was of interest to all members what that proposal was or similarly, why our club voted against it.

It was explained by Richard Allen that the club received a 3 hour or so presentation from Port Adelaide and I think something like a 36 page document outlining their strategy for survival. The first point put forward by our President was that saying you could merge one large AFL club that had recorded losses in successive seasons and had projected losses in upcoming seasons with a small SANFL club that had likewise recorded losses in successive seasons and projected losses in future seasons, would somehow gel into a profitable powerhouse just didn't sound right and seemed to be a failure of Business 101. Please note these are NOT the words of our President, this is me para-phrasing and so on, so please DO NOT attribute this or the above email to him, its just my take on what was said.

It was also pointed out that as the SANFL owns the AFL licenses, its the SANFL that guarantees the existence of both Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club. In other words, the SANFL, the 9 clubs, would not allow those two AFL sides to die. If the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was to become a wholey owned subsidiary of the Port Adelaide Football Club, this would essentially mean any loss incurred by the Magpies, would be sucked up by the Power and in turn serviced by the SANFL as a whole. It would mean the SANFL's other 8 clubs, by and large, would be guaranteeing the survival of the Magpies (by doing so with the Power).

No. No. We can't have that...

I'm sure there were other reasons the presentation or proposal was rejected, but in a nutshell, Sturt voted unanimously against the proposal.

We were told the other 7 boards also voted unanimously against it.

The person who didn't cover themselves in glory was Nick House from House Brothers, our ground sponsor and now our major sponsor, should have mentioned that in the previous post. What he did was essentially attack our president saying that if we were not happy with Port Adelaide's proposal, we should have asked for more information on this or that, that by making a decision on what we were given, we made assumptions. I'm sorry, but I interjected here and pointed out to Mr House that it was not the Sturt Football Club's responsibility to help, coach or otherwise Port with their presentation and/or proposal. It is Port Adelaide's responsibility to "sell" their idea to the other 8 clubs.

I would not see it as Sturt's job to help them with that.

Once this was said to Mr House, he made the comment, "well next time your club is in trouble, don't come to me for help". That Mr House, was a poor and unprofessional comment. Being a sponsor, even a major sponsor, does not mean you can dictate how our club votes on SANFL business, you are sponsor because you want exposure or want to help. If you wish to have some level of control, see the door, don't let it hit your arse on the way out. We can get another sponsor and I for one don't see his sponsorship lasting and good riddance with that attitude.

It should be noted that Mr House is a sponsor and/or board member at Port Adelaide, there's some conflict of interest there, others may be more certain of the details than me. From follow on conversations post-AGM, it seems that Mr House may have had issue with our clubs stance before, that may have been discussed in private, settled, but for some reason, aired again in a public forum. This is not good for Sturt, but I'm confident they can find a more friendly and less agitating sponsor in future.

Again, these are all my thoughts and not those of the Sturt Football Club.

[DOC]

Sounds like House is a home wrecker.

[csbowes]

Sounds like House is a home wrecker.

Well certainly not helpful. I don't mind him being disgruntled with Sturt voting against, lets say, "his" preferred club, but I think that disatisfaction with the club can be put across in private to the President, the Board and the General Manager.

By saying it publicly, not only does he attract criticism from the members present and those that find out second hand, but he affects his company brand and overall brings unnecessary embarrassment to the club and really, himself more than anyone else.

[bloods08]

Sounds like House is a home wrecker.

Well certainly not helpful. I don't mind him being disgruntled with Sturt voting against, lets say, "his" preferred club, but I think that disatisfaction with the club can be put across in private to the President, the Board and the General Manager.

By saying it publicly, not only does he attract criticism from the members present and those that find out second hand, but he affects his company brand and overall brings unnecessary embarrassment to the club and really, himself more than anyone else.

He shouldve learnt off Allen Scott.

[bayman]

well done to the sturt board into standing up for what they believed was the right thing to do & not voting anyway they didn't want to by getting pressured into it by mr house (or anyone else for that matter)..to me mr house has a conflict of interest with this issue

[beenreal]

Sounds like House is a home wrecker.

Well certainly not helpful. I don't mind him being disgruntled with Sturt voting against, lets say, "his" preferred club, but I think that disatisfaction with the club can be put across in private to the President, the Board and the General Manager.

By saying it publicly, not only does he attract criticism from the members present and those that find out second hand, but he affects his company brand and overall brings unnecessary embarrassment to the club and really, himself more than anyone else.

An AGM is the perfect forum to air grievances, it happens all the time, including the recent Port Adelaide AGM.

Following a 3 hour presentation, for the Sturt Board to adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. They're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break. Perhaps they wanted a 136 Page proposal presented over 7 hours!

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

[Barto]

I wondered who it was who had the interaction with him at the meeting! Interesting that you didn't know who he was until after. I wouldn't know Nick House if I bumped into him either.

And yes there is a conflict of interest there re Port Adelaide.

[csbowes]

Sounds like House is a home wrecker.

Well certainly not helpful. I don't mind him being disgruntled with Sturt voting against, lets say, "his" preferred club, but I think that disatisfaction with the club can be put across in private to the President, the Board and the General Manager.

By saying it publicly, not only does he attract criticism from the members present and those that find out second hand, but he affects his company brand and overall brings unnecessary embarrassment to the club and really, himself more than anyone else.

An AGM is the perfect forum to air grievances, it happens all the time, including the recent Port Adelaide AGM.

Following a 3 hour presentation, for the Sturt Board to adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. They're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break. Perhaps they wanted a 136 Page proposal presented over 7 hours!

But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

Likewise, if you want something to happen no matter what, its easy to just whine and moan that you didn't get your way for some prejudicial reason.

I'm the last person who could be accused of not liking the Port Adelaide Football Club. I was a member of the club when they joined the AFL and I even wore a Port lace up at the 1994 Grand Final...

<what I do to be against Torrens>

That said, if I come to you for help, its my job to convince you that helping me is the best thing, why is it your responsibility to help me convince you.

Sorry mate, Port Adelaide are entirely responsible for convincing Sturt and the other 8 clubs. If you can't then one can only go home and re-examine where the presentation went wrong. The word is they altered the presentation time and time again as they received negative feedback from clubs. In the end, if you have 8 clubs voting unanimously against you, 80 board members approximately, you've done something wrong.

You can't just whine people were unfair, something obviously didn't add up.

[Barto]

As pointed out to our Port friends in another thread

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26737&start=80

[csbowes]

I wondered who it was who had the interaction with him at the meeting! Interesting that you didn't know who he was until after. I wouldn't know Nick House if I bumped into him either.

And yes there is a conflict of interest there re Port Adelaide.

Yeah I had no idea who he was, so initially I was just amazed a supporter, a member, could be such a twat, but when I found out it was the major sponsor, I was even more disappointed in his attitude.

[gadj1976]

Well done CS, great wrap up of the AGM.

For me, I'm glad we went against the proposal put forward by Port. From what I understood - gleaned only from media of course - there were too many unknowns, hence it would've been negligent to vote "for" the proposal.

FWIW, we need Port in the SANFL IMO.

Anyway, lets hope for a great year!

[Squawk]

It was explained by Richard Allen that the club received a 3 hour or so presentation from Port Adelaide and I think something like a 36 page document outlining their strategy for survival. The first point put forward by our President was that saying you could merge one large AFL club that had recorded losses in successive seasons and had projected losses in upcoming seasons with a small SANFL club that had likewise recorded losses in successive seasons and projected losses in future seasons, would somehow gel into a profitable powerhouse just didn't sound right and seemed to be a failure of Business 101.

Interesting comment, and no doubt a question that many SANFL faithful have pondered themselves. Which leads to my next query:

Is this why Gordon Pickard's initial $1m contribution to the Power consisted of him providing his own personnel to the club to do the work, rather than simply writing out a cheque for the same amount?
Secondly, could this explain why Pickard's philanthropy since the Port scenario unfolded after the SANFL vote is a bit more complex and time consuming that what was perhaps expected? ie, Pickard doesn't want to throw good money after bad, but wants to ensure that if he commits an investment of sorts, then the benefits are most likely to be realised if he still maintains a modicum of his own control over things? Therein may lie the reason for the one month timeframe to work through his offer, (notwithstanding his need to go to London for a short time).

[CUTTERMAN]

It was also pointed out that as the SANFL owns the AFL licenses, its the SANFL that guarantees the existence of both Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club. In other words, the SANFL, the 9 clubs, would not allow those two AFL sides to die. If the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club was to become a wholey owned subsidiary of the Port Adelaide Football Club, this would essentially mean any loss incurred by the Magpies, would be sucked up by the Power and in turn serviced by the SANFL as a whole. It would mean the SANFL's other 8 clubs, by and large, would be guaranteeing the survival of the Magpies (by doing so with the Power).

Well put CS, at first I didn't know where you were going with this thread but commendations to you for all of it, well done.
The above quote pretty well sums up the whole stance that the other clubs have decided to take and for very good reason. IF any other supporters, members, officials, or sponsors from ANY club has an issue with this decision then maybe they aren't looking at a big enough picture, as seems common on this site and on this thread. To add to the above reasoning on the behalf of the 8 SANFL clubs, you can add the probable stance of the AFC in pumping resources into another AFL club. This proposal was always going to be a can of worms, complicated and contrived with conflicts of interest.
DON'T POINT THE FINGER AT THE OTHER CLUBS, TAKE IT ON THE CHIN.
I'm absolutely sick of this PAFC (both of them) finger pointing, chest beating, whining crap. I now have no sympathy for the perpetrators of this myopic narcisim.
And now your vitriol seeps into my club? GET STUFFED!

[Mr Irate]

....has been concentrating on putting more strength into the players and noted that leading into last years Grand Final, Central Districts players, on average, could lift 96kgs, while Sturt players could life 86kgs, a 10kgs difference in pure power between the players, now Sturt have reached an average of 93kgs.....

Don't get too carried away, the average went up 7kgs when Jonathon Giles signed up......and the 'Dogs now have their average up to 105kgs, big unit Cam Milne

[Barto]

....has been concentrating on putting more strength into the players and noted that leading into last years Grand Final, Central Districts players, on average, could lift 96kgs, while Sturt players could life 86kgs, a 10kgs difference in pure power between the players, now Sturt have reached an average of 93kgs.....

Don't get too carried away, the average went up 7kgs when Jonathon Giles signed up......and the 'Dogs now have their average up to 105kgs, big unit Cam Milne

Are you talking the about the players body weight?

[nickname]

....has been concentrating on putting more strength into the players and noted that leading into last years Grand Final, Central Districts players, on average, could lift 96kgs, while Sturt players could life 86kgs, a 10kgs difference in pure power between the players, now Sturt have reached an average of 93kgs.....

Don't get too carried away, the average went up 7kgs when Jonathon Giles signed up......and the 'Dogs now have their average up to 105kgs, big unit Cam Milne

Genuine question, how does one club find out what weights players at another club are lifting? (Other than having a mole in the organisation.)

[on the rails]

Following a 3 hour presentation, for the Sturt Board to adopt that stance in an issue as important as this one was simple pig headedness. They're saying the Port Adelaide delegation was supposed to sit down with their crystal ball and anticipate EVERY question that was going to be asked? Give me a break. Perhaps they wanted a 136 Page proposal presented over 7 hours! But the bottom line is, if you don't want something to happen you will come up with any reason to rationalise your stance.

How is it that all 8 of the other SANFL clubs voted for exactly the same reasons outlined at the Sturt AGM???

Typical sooky Port arrogance to come up with an answer like that! Even in the face of overwhelming fact and evidence that the merger proposal was a failed business model that would disadvantage all the other SANFL clubs we still have idiots like you refusing to accept it and blaming everyone else but your own club for the mess it is in. Geez you wonder why a majority of SANFL supporters find it hard to have sympathy for your club's current plight!

[Booney]

LOL, even in a Sturt FC AGM thread you continue your attack..

Good write up cs, well said. It is noticable where your stance lies in the issues debated but your posts above are well balanced and show both parties points of view.

Perhaps OTR can get you and Rucci together so Rucc at least gets one story right....