SA Footy

Sturt's radical plan to merge management

DEBT-STRICKEN Sturt wants to be the "crash test dummy" of its radical plan for the SANFL to centralise the administration of all nine clubs in a move it says could save them up to $500,000 a year.

With the Blues remaining on financial life support, chief executive Matt Benson has spoken to the SANFL about a shared services model to manage clubs' bookkeeping, payroll, website and membership database and renewals.

His plan has met with a mixed response from clubs, which say the idea has merit but are keen to retain their identities.

Sturt - which operates on just four full-time employees - outsourced its administration duties 18 months ago.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/sturts-radical-plan-to-merge-management/story-e6freckc-1226583847134

instead of paying pokie tax, why doesn't it get paid to Sturt? and West too. bugger Port though.

CENTURION wrote:instead of paying pokie tax, why doesn't it get paid to Sturt? and West too. bugger Port though.

Where's the LIKE button?

Bloody great idea - would clubs need a full time CEO then - doubtful as well

Mark_Beswick wrote:Bloody great idea - would clubs need a full time CEO then - doubtful as well

You would be happy with a 3rd party running your club?

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

Mark_Beswick wrote:Bloody great idea - would clubs need a full time CEO then - doubtful as well

You would be happy with a 3rd party running your club?

The board would still run the club.

At least there wouldn't be any salary cap issues or breaches with having the SANFL do your clubs admin.

Not being able to see beyond the obvious and make a tough call with their gaming ie. set up down South Road at say Reynella; well it's killed Sturt hasn't it!

I would have zero confidence in the sanfl or some other 3rd party running the day to day and more of my club. There isn't much being done right in the sanfl running the league, let alone taking over the admin side of the clubs also. Then there is the confidentiality side. The Sanfl is leaky than Indonesian asylum seeker boat.

Seems Sturt wants to throw everyone into the same pot with sharing admin and lowering salary cap.

The suggestion of outsourcing admin and finance operations should be an idea that all clubs should consider from time to time.

I don't see the benefit in all clubs sharing the same agency as there are many options here. Personally I would prefer this to be done by an agent that is physically close to my place of business but in these days of electronic transfer of data it could probably happen anywhere.

The example given of outsourcing payroll is dubious from my experience. A club would be well served using one of the PC based accounting packages that can be purchased cheaply, using a low cost staff member who has reasonable numeric skills oversighted by the club Treasurer who would hopefully havee good accounting skills and be able to provide advice and governance as a volunteer. I doubt a commercial provider could compete with this model.

holden78 wrote:At least there wouldn't be any salary cap issues or breaches with having the SANFL do your clubs admin.

Not being able to see beyond the obvious and make a tough call with their gaming ie. set up down South Road at say Reynella; well it's killed Sturt hasn't it!

Sturt did try a number of options re locations for their pokies including much further South before they settled on their current location as well as getting the lease for Castle Tavern. Their set up is principally the same as North as they followed what we did reth Grand North and the Northern Tavern except our venues are very very good re $$$ returns whereas Sturt's are not. A lot you could put down to locations but also we operate 80 machines verse Sturt who operate 60 in total so that a difference there however if you don't get the patrons then it doesn't much matter whether you have 30 or 40 machines per venue. You can't say Sturt didn't examine all options and to a large degree are a victim of circumstance and locations. Although the Castle Tavern deal they have with the Frickers and the general big drop in return from that venue is a real worry.

Whilst gaming revenue dropped across the board for 98% of venues in SA, the Northern Tavern had a 6% increase which is staggering to say the least in the current climate. Grand North gaming was down but under the industry average but meals etc were up enough to ensure we operated to budget and without a loss. That in itself was remarkable too lose on gaming but make it up on meals etc.

Any way back on topic, I am against sharing admin as I cannot see any area other than membership packages etc. where there would be any synergies to gain or benefit the wealthier clubs? That could be centrally managed by the SANFL I suppose but in reality, how many staff would it save at club like Sturt – 1 maybe and I think at present, their Marketing person is performing that role in a volunteer capacity to help out the club out after they shed staff to reduce overheads?

I'd agree ... I can't see a great saving in doing it and even though this wouldn't be a large arrangement, 'shared service' arrangements are notorious for not producing savings, as the perceived benefit are generally offset by unintended outcomes and problems.

dedja wrote:I'd agree ... I can't see a great saving in doing it and even though this wouldn't be a large arrangement, 'shared service' arrangements are notorious for not producing savings, as the perceived benefit are generally offset by unintended outcomes and problems.

Like, for example, One Port (tm)?