The extent of St Kilda’s dependence on the AFL has been laid bare in financial statements that reveal the league’s three-pronged guarantee to Westpac that the club can service its $4.5 million debt, as the Saints received an increase in funding.
While it was known that the Saints have received additional millions of dollars from the AFL (second only to North Melbourne among Victorian clubs), their annual report provides a frank accounting assessment of the club’s reliance on the league to remain solvent as a company and meet the club’s debts if pressed to do so.
St Kilda will have the two highest-paid players in the AFL in 2026.Credit: Stephen Kiprillis
The Saints received $7.915 million in variable funding from the AFL in 2025, an increase of $750,000 on the previous year. Variable funding is the extra funding provided by the league on top of the base amount that all clubs receive.
St Kilda president Andrew Bassat told this masthead in March he wanted the club to get off welfare, and the Saints have said they would be prepared to receive less money from the AFL if they could play more games at the MCG. They have also just completed a multimillion-dollar recruitment spree and spent big to retain star Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera and satisfy new skipper Cal Wilkie.
In announcing an operating profit of $2.781 million for the year (ended October 31), the Saints also revealed that they had paid down $1.5 million of their debt to Westpac, which was reduced from $6 million to $4.5 million, after total revenue rose to $63.077 million on the back of increases in membership, merchandise, fundraising/donations (25 per cent) and match returns (13 per cent).
But in their report, the Saints also explained that the “group” (the club) was “dependent” on the AFL to provide support to ensure that they were “a going concern” – able to meet their debts when they fell due, a definition of solvency in accounting.
The AFL, in the club’s description, provided a bank guarantee of up to $6.75 million. The AFL also provided a letter of financial support to the club, and third, the AFL was able to provide working capital, such as “periodic advances of monies to pay its creditors, should it be required”.
A number of rival clubs, such as the Brisbane Lions of the recent past, have had similar backing from the AFL when carrying a sizeable bank debt. The Saints’ debt had racheted up to more than $12 million at one stage. The Lions have wiped out theirs and have millions in the bank.
Few clubs carry much debt in 2025, largely due to the socialised variable funding model. St Kilda chief executive Carl Dilena confirmed that the club’s priorities were to maximise their football spending in “both caps” (salary cap and soft cap) and then address their financial position; effectively, they prioritised on-field progress.
“You want to reach your football spend of both caps. Then after that, we’re looking to our financial (position).”
The Saints will likely have the two highest-paid players in the competition next year, having re-signed Wanganeen-Milera on nearly $2 million per season for two years. They poached free agent Tom De Koning from Carlton on a monster deal worth an estimated $1.7m a season for eight years, in a spree that also netted Jack Silvagni from the Blues, Eagle Liam Ryan and Sam Flanders from Gold Coast.
The Saints had spent under the salary cap over the past two or three years, Dilena said, and this allowed them to spend up to 105 per cent in other seasons under the “banking” rules.
While North Melbourne now receive slightly above $1 m more than in variable funding than St Kilda, the Kangaroos did not specify their need for AFL guarantees in their financial statements because they are debt free.
Dilena said the “going concern” clause was “pretty standard” and a requirement of the auditor, but the club would prefer not to have it in their statements. “You get guaranteed by the AFL anyway.
“That’s been there forever and a day, that clause. You just have to repair your balance sheet if you like, to get that removed. We’ll get to that point.”
Dilena said that the extra $750,000 in variable funding was needed because the AFL had cut the club’s variable funding too quickly, leaving “a $2.3 million hole”. The club suffered a loss of $2.045 million in 2024.
He said the Saints had paid off all their debt to the AFL this year and there was “no specific timetable” on wiping the bank debt. “Certainly, as part of our 2030 strategy, it’ll be gone.”
In their financial statements, St Kilda’s directors said the club was “a going concern” due to a number of factors, such as the positive cash flow, net assets of $38.077 million and their forecasts for 2026.
In statements about their ability to meet debts, the Saints said:
“The group’s ability to continue as a going concern and meet its debts as and when they fall due is dependent on the group receiving continued financial support from the AFL including:
“1. The continued guarantee of the group’s borrowing facilities with Westpac totalling $6.75 million (drawn to $4.5 million at 31 October 2025). The guarantee extends to 31 January 2027.
“2. Continued support under the conditions set out in a letter of financial support provided by the AFL;
“3. Working capital capacity with the AFL enabling the group to receive periodic advances of monies to pay its creditors, should it be required; and
“In the directors’ opinion, there are reasonable grounds to believe that such funding and support will continue to be available.”
The Saints benefited, as all clubs did, from an increase in base funding from the AFL (from $14.132 million to $16.314 million), and from variable funding rising from $7.165 million to $7.915 million.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
Most Viewed in Sport
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: www.smh.com.au
