View Full Version : Expansion Kangaroos relocation - why so much excitement from opposition fans?
Flag Man
18 Apr 2006, 23:14
Ill tell Claremont to prepare a submission then? :(
Bloody oath mate.
Money killed your comp too, and it is a disgraceful turn of events.
We have to change the whole thinking about football to the point where we factor in culturally significant aspects ahead of market forces.
Then we re-establish the Lions back in Fitzroy and the Swans back to the Lakeside oval and humbly beg their forgiveness for not protecting them in their hour of need.
We have to stop being slaves to economic dogma.
Our football clubs are more important to us than piles of paper.
Ah, the last desperate attempt.....talk about how we are a slave to the money.
I'll tell you what, go and convince your clubs creditors to tear up those pieces of paper that say money is owed to them. Otherwise there's a league for those clubs that dont believe in paying back their debts. The amateurs.
I'm not going to entertain the possibility that North will relocate but for the club that eventually is forced to do so, the minimum deal would have to be 8 home games GC, 3 home games Telstra Dome and 8 away games Telstra Dome with full reserved seating privileges. There would be a Gabba away game derby and then the remaining 2 away games split between Sydney, Adelaide and Perth. Deal or no deal.
you would imagine that the first few years would be something like that. im not so sure about the victorian home games but pretty much all but one or two interstate away games would be in victoria, for sure.
i personally would like the AFL and southport to fork out for one year of interstate memberships for every single victorian member that put up their hard earned cash in the final year before relocation. that way, any old members can get along to the victorian games in the first year for free. should really encourage alot of the old members to get behind the new team.
i would think that keeping the colours and logo how it is now would be essential.
you would think that all the GC home games would be at the Gabba, with the exception of 3 or 4 at carrara, whatever the AFL can negotiate out of the QLD sporting organization that paid for the gabba.
Id love nothing more than for the mighty Monties to get a slot in the AFL. Perhaps the commision should subsidise thier entry and ongoing success?
No. Perhaps not. Claremont continue to battle it out in the lesser leagues... where North belong.
I know you're just trying to be a funny bugger with that twee comment but of course you know that no AFL club can ever go join a lesser league. The only reason for them to relinquish the only valuable commodity they own (an AFL licence) would be bankruptcy, and they would prevent them from operating at any level.
I think this is entirely realistic. But as a question to Kangas / Dees fans - Would you rather support a merged team in the AFL, or retain all your heritage and drop back to the VFL?
I'm sorry, I apologise for the earlier accusation - you are not twee, you just don't know any better. See my post above as to why an AFL club cannot join the VFL.
Seems to make sense eh?
You folks have to remember that we went through this exact same dilemma 20 years ago. We all had long standing loves of our WAFL clubs, and it really was a bumper league. Massive sold out crowds every weekend, rivalries, all the good footy stuff that you bleat on about losing with the impending league rationalisation.
We had to decide our way forward, and we had to accept that we would support a new team in the new national code while retaining a soft spot for our fading flame. And the AFL did rout our long standing clubs. But we never had sooky la-la's, we just got on with it. Moving forwards and all.
We traded our heritage for the good of the future of the national competition. Time for you guys to pull your heads out of the clouds and repay the effort with same.... for the good of all.
Selfish bastards.
Once again, I aplogise for the above post where I said you don't know any better. Now I see that you are a git.
We have to change the whole thinking about football to the point where we factor in culturally significant aspects ahead of market forces.
Then we re-establish the Lions back in Fitzroy and the Swans back to the Lakeside oval and humbly beg their forgiveness for not protecting them in their hour of need.
We have to stop being slaves to economic dogma.
Our football clubs are more important to us than piles of paper.
see, its sensible, practical ideas like that that make your defence of the roos in melbourne so convincing, flag man
woosh_era
18 Apr 2006, 23:21
Once again, I aplogise for the above post where I said you don't know any better. Now I see that you are a git.
Excellent rebuttal.
But I guess you are right, WAFL tradtion is worth nothing and best left to rot while yours is propped up... ironically, by the remains of ours.
Flag Man
18 Apr 2006, 23:23
see, its sensible, practical ideas like that that make your defence of the roos in melbourne so convincing, flag man
I'm sorry, but your infatuation with me has also incurred you a $50 fee for replys.
woosh_era
18 Apr 2006, 23:24
Bloody oath mate.
Money killed your comp too, and it is a disgraceful turn of events.
It did. And I guess in a utopian world we could all cast aside all these nasty things like 'financial viability' & 'economic reality' and live in peace and harmony etc etc.
Unfortunately this is the real world.
Claremont is dead as a force. I go for the Eagles. Thats life.
Flag Man
18 Apr 2006, 23:25
It did. And I guess in a utiopian world we could all cast aside all these nasty things like 'financial viability' & 'economic reality' and live in peace and harmony etc etc.
Unfortunately this is the real world.
Claremont is dead as a force. I go for the Eagles. Thats life.
If enough people didn't willingly accept their cages, then the world would be a far different and better place.
Utilising market forces as the sole reason for being, means that sooner or later our competition will become a joke like english soccer.
Enjoy.
Also we invite in the traditionally best teams from every state league, regardless of market size.
Because after all, its not like national leagues spanning a continent need to be economically viable, is it?
The AFL is meant to be an elite competition. It still has a number of clubs from Melbourne in it that are anything but elite.
Define elite, and be careful because your club is certainly not in the top half financially or in terms of support.
you would imagine that the first few years would be something like that. im not so sure about the victorian home games but pretty much all but one or two interstate away games would be in victoria, for sure.
i personally would like the AFL and southport to fork out for one year of interstate memberships for every single victorian member that put up their hard earned cash in the final year before relocation. that way, any old members can get along to the victorian games in the first year for free. should really encourage alot of the old members to get behind the new team.
i would think that keeping the colours and logo how it is now would be essential.
you would think that all the GC home games would be at the Gabba, with the exception of 3 or 4 at carrara, whatever the AFL can negotiate out of the QLD sporting organization that paid for the gabba.
You'd need to throw in a free trip for two to the Gold Coast in April. Again for the poor bastards who support the club that is not North Melbourne of course. ;)
You'd need to throw in a free trip for two to the Gold Coast in April. Again for the poor bastards who support the club that is not North Melbourne of course. ;)
im sure the AFL could rent a hercules off the army to get them all up there :)
I'm sorry, but your infatuation with me has also incurred you a $50 fee for replys.
i thought i was on permanent ignore and that you werent going to reply on these threads anymore...
LongBomb
18 Apr 2006, 23:36
I can't understand other Victorians dancing on the Roos grave.
I'd hate to see my club ever merge or relocate. Ask Fitzroy supporters how they felt. It's a pain I'd wish on no man.
For selfish reasons, it's better for my club to have North stay in Melbourne. More chance of us playing them in Melbourne for one thing.
Also they will never become a powerful foe like they could with Gold Coast dollars behind them. North are an easier 4 points the longer they exist as a Melbourne club.
I think most supporters are sick and tired of seeing the Kangaroos holding their hands out every year for a handout from the AFL. Much like you hate dole bludgers because they are lazy and getting free money we don't like the Kangaroos because they are getting all this free money and have no way of ever making their own.
Quite possibly the dumbest post I've seen in 3+ years on Big Footy (unless you're taking the ********, which I doubt you are).
FFS - The Darwin Dogs, along with the Brisbane/Gold Coast Demons have been taking an extra $500,000 per annum from the CBF.
And if you dislike us now, imagine how much you'd despise us if we did move and were cashed up to the eyeballs.
sdb4884
18 Apr 2006, 23:58
It seems to me that a lot of fans on this site and others are hopeful of the Kangaroos moving to the Gold Coast or folding altogether. I can understand that certain clubs are going to be disliked by every fan but this blood-thirsty attitude is disappointing.
Another team out of Victoria :thumbsu:
im just wondering, (and it would be handy to have Tas around for this question), but how badly do the roos have to go this year for the pressure to approach tipping point.
say the roos have a bad year on the park and end up bottom 4, 5000 dont sign up from the roos memberships last year and the gate takings are down too. you could estimate that they would be over a million down on revenue from last year, and they are pushing into a deep loss and another big hit on their debt.
im wondering what kind of pressures would be exerted on management by creditors and shareholders to go north should a minus million year eventuate.
im just wondering, (and it would be handy to have Tas around for this question), but how badly do the roos have to go this year for the pressure to approach tipping point.
say the roos have a bad year on the park and end up bottom 4, 5000 dont sign up from the roos memberships last year and the gate takings are down too. you could estimate that they would be over a million down on revenue from last year, and they are pushing into a deep loss and another big hit on their debt.
im wondering what kind of pressures would be exerted on management by creditors and shareholders to go north should a minus million year eventuate.
At this stage, it wouldn't appear to be a huge problem. The AFL have upped their handout this year to $1.5m, and it's likely that should they have a financial shocker again, that figure would probably be raised.
Flag Man
19 Apr 2006, 00:17
At this stage, it wouldn't appear to be a huge problem. The AFL have upped their handout this year to $1.5m, and it's likely that should they have a financial shocker again, that figure would probably be raised.
Yes, I think we'll have a crack at $3 Mill next year.
The cheer squad want a pool/spa.
im just wondering, (and it would be handy to have Tas around for this question), but how badly do the roos have to go this year for the pressure to approach tipping point.
say the roos have a bad year on the park and end up bottom 4, 5000 dont sign up from the roos memberships last year and the gate takings are down too. you could estimate that they would be over a million down on revenue from last year, and they are pushing into a deep loss and another big hit on their debt.
im wondering what kind of pressures would be exerted on management by creditors and shareholders to go north should a minus million year eventuate.
IF we did have a crap season as suggested (i.e. bottom 4) I don't think our gate receipts will be much different compared to last year. We averaged 34K+ to home games this year. Having home games against Essendon & Collingwood will probably see that average maintained. Manuka doesn't make a difference, as $250K is guaranteed per fixture.
5,000 memberships equates to $650K (using a $130 per 8 game adult membership ticket). That's a worry, but the club requested an extra $500K in CBF this season (and was AFL approved) - which would pretty much balance that out. Although I suspect we'll finish with 24-25,000 members.
Footy Dept costs, inc wages & bonuses would be lower by not playing finals.
Sponsorship $$ are among the highest in the comp.
All in all, I'd suspect a similiar financial result this year ($50K operating profit in 2005).
Next year, is where you'd see a greater impact (unless we sold off our parcel of 3 home games to the Gold Coast for more coin - or had ACT Govt match their offer in the $450K per game range for the next 3 seasons)
right, i had the estimate of the membership loss as being half and half 8 and 14 memberships (mainly because i didnt know the actual ratio or churn rate), avg to 183 bucks each, or a shortfall of 915000. with last years gate takings representing a fairly big rise, poor performances and a less favourable draw might perhaps a mean 100k down on last year.
even with the extra half a mill from the AFL, you are looking at a half a mill loss, and more importantly you are going backwards with regard to developing your base, which is critically important in any appraisal of the future in melbourne.
im of the opinion that 2 or 3 bad years on field and off at the roos would spell the end, thats why laidley has been topping up instead of trading down for picks.
im just wondering whether the current media pressure, if sustained through a bad, loss making season, could mean the tipping point is reached much sooner.
also, you gotta wonder: how many paying kangaroos members there actually are. currently they have 20000, but how many paying punters does that actually represent? how many have bought 2, 3 or 5 memberships? the roos are using their continual membership growth as evidence that they can survive long term, yet some measure of their growth has to be put down to people desperate to keep their club at home paying more and more per year.
it certainly doesent inspire confidence in the sustainability of the growth.
Copernicus
19 Apr 2006, 07:04
Seems to make sense eh?
You folks have to remember that we went through this exact same dilemma 20 years ago. We all had long standing loves of our WAFL clubs, and it really was a bumper league. Massive sold out crowds every weekend, rivalries, all the good footy stuff that you bleat on about losing with the impending league rationalisation.
We had to decide our way forward, and we had to accept that we would support a new team in the new national code while retaining a soft spot for our fading flame. And the AFL did rout our long standing clubs. But we never had sooky la-la's, we just got on with it. Moving forwards and all.
We traded our heritage for the good of the future of the national competition. Time for you guys to pull your heads out of the clouds and repay the effort with same.... for the good of all.
Selfish bastards.
One thing I've wanted to ask interstate supporters - what exactly happened with the 'domestic' competitions? Both the SANFL and the WAFL seemed to suffer grievously after teams from both states entered the AFL, even though I would have thought there might still be a strong enough supporter base to support both state and national leagues. What's changed, exactly?
I'm genuinely curious, as it's a shame when a strong local league loses popularity so steeply.
Indeed. Thank you for letting us play your Australian Rules Football.
:o
You should be thanking us for inviting you to join the best competition.
I'd be quite happy for you ingrates to p1ss off back to your own tin pot competition.
I'd have no worries at all about renewing the good old VFL pre-1987. I'm sure we'd do okay; better than your WAFL, I'm sure. Our Victorian clubs could prop up your Perth clubs financially by buying every good player you produced, just like in the good, old days. Ahhh... They were the days. Imagine the same amount of raw talent as now, only spread around 12 VFL sides instead of 16 AFL sides.
You should be thanking us for inviting you to join the best competition.
I'd be quite happy for you ingrates to p1ss off back to your own tin pot competition.
I'd have no worries at all about renewing the good old VFL pre-1987. I'm sure we'd do okay; better than your WAFL, I'm sure. Our Victorian clubs could prop up your Perth clubs financially by buying every good player you produced, just like in the good, old days. Ahhh... They were the days. Imagine the same amount of raw talent as now, only spread around 12 VFL sides instead of 16 AFL sides.
ahh, here we go again, we should be grateful of joining your competiton. ******** you mate.
look, you should be thanking us for making your ********ant suburban competition into the country spanning national competition it is. do you think anyone would pay 750 million for melbourne games?
you should be especially grateful we LET you poor victorian clubs join the national competition gravy train, because really it should have been just the successful teams.
it was always going to be a national comp, and by virtue of a quirk of fate, there were 10 clubs from victoria instead of a more appropriate 4, or 6.
the national competition was built by collingwood, essendon, carlton and the interstate clubs. the national competion will be better when there is less broke, unpopular, low drawing and low rating teams in melbourne and more successful interstate clubs.
you dont have a right to be in this competition. just because you were part of the previous, inferior competition doesent garuantee your membership, you need to prove you can survive, thrive, be successful. otherwise, you need to ******** off to the VFL and let someone who can (ie southport) have a go.
Roonaldo!
19 Apr 2006, 08:59
I agree totally. If I was a Demon or a Kanga I would say merge now.
I'd rather North Melbourne die than merge.
Flag Man
19 Apr 2006, 09:05
You should be thanking us for inviting you to join the best competition.
I'd be quite happy for you ingrates to p1ss off back to your own tin pot competition.
I'd have no worries at all about renewing the good old VFL pre-1987. I'm sure we'd do okay; better than your WAFL, I'm sure. Our Victorian clubs could prop up your Perth clubs financially by buying every good player you produced, just like in the good, old days. Ahhh... They were the days. Imagine the same amount of raw talent as now, only spread around 12 VFL sides instead of 16 AFL sides.
That is a brilliant idea chewy.
Its time these ungreatful "johnny come latelys" were sent packing back to their backwater competitions and the swans and lions came home.
North will have Kerr, Pavlich, O'Keefe, Brown, Rutten and Pearce.
That is a brilliant idea chewy.
Its time these ungreatful "johnny come latelys" were sent packing back to their backwater competitions and the swans and lions came home.
North will have Kerr, Pavlich, O'Keefe, Brown, Rutten and Pearce.
sweet.
also, you can get elves from neverland to put 3 mill into the north coffers every year.
its as practical and as likely to happen as any of your other stupid ideas
Don't know if it's the AFL, BF, the government or whatever but what a shame that the general perception is that a side that in the last 10 years has won 2 premierships, played in 3 grand finals, and made the finals in 7 times is considered by some to be weakening the game.
Seems like some have forgotten that football is actually played on the green stuff, not on a balance sheet.
prefer carlton to move or fold
Hearts to hearts
12 Jul 2006, 20:29
IF we did have a crap season as suggested (i.e. bottom 4) I don't think our gate receipts will be much different compared to last year. We averaged 34K+ to home games this year. Having home games against Essendon & Collingwood will probably see that average maintained. Manuka doesn't make a difference, as $250K is guaranteed per fixture.
5,000 memberships equates to $650K (using a $130 per 8 game adult membership ticket). That's a worry, but the club requested an extra $500K in CBF this season (and was AFL approved) - which would pretty much balance that out. Although I suspect we'll finish with 24-25,000 members.
Footy Dept costs, inc wages & bonuses would be lower by not playing finals.
Sponsorship $$ are among the highest in the comp.
All in all, I'd suspect a similiar financial result this year ($50K operating profit in 2005).
Next year, is where you'd see a greater impact (unless we sold off our parcel of 3 home games to the Gold Coast for more coin - or had ACT Govt match their offer in the $450K per game range for the next 3 seasons)
Lidge knows something. Home attendances are actually looking good this year to match last season - thanks largely to big Easter Monday against Pies - and membership went past last year's record despite crap performance.
I reckon they'll hafta see it like this......ultimately it's gunna be better for a team to bite the bullet and move to greener pastures for the long term good, rather than stick around and struggle year to year, relying on handouts, purely because of a tired old thing called 'tradition'. I reckon North will eventually go. Exactly where, I don't know, but the evidence I've seen points to Carrara.....
Howard Littlejohn
12 Jul 2006, 20:40
also, you gotta wonder: how many paying kangaroos members there actually are. currently they have 20000, but how many paying punters does that actually represent? how many have bought 2, 3 or 5 memberships? the roos are using their continual membership growth as evidence that they can survive long term, yet some measure of their growth has to be put down to people desperate to keep their club at home paying more and more per year.
it certainly doesent inspire confidence in the sustainability of the growth.
We aren't Hawthorn. No "Tiddles" or "Fido" listed on our memberships.
Well, probably one or two, but not a plethora like the Hawks had.
Howard Littlejohn
12 Jul 2006, 20:42
I'd rather North Melbourne die than merge.
Merging is death.
Pessimistic
12 Jul 2006, 20:58
Also we invite in the traditionally best teams from every state league, regardless of market size.
Because after all, its not like national leagues spanning a continent need to be economically viable, is it?
The AFL is meant to be an elite competition. It still has a number of clubs from Melbourne in it that are anything but elite.
Like fremantle ?
Perhaps the oppotunities ouside melbourne hve been exhausted.
I'm suere port and freo would love the GC kangas because there'd be a non vic team actualy poorer than theirs
Crow-mo
12 Jul 2006, 21:33
Merging is death.
but you wanted to merge with Fitzroy ;)
Father Jack
12 Jul 2006, 23:20
The solution is obvious: all us 'interstaters' move to Melbourne then everything will be fine, they can have their competition back and the Earth goes back to revolving around the sun.
Luckily for us the Victorians also preventing Aussie Rules from being the dominant code up north a hundred years ago due to their magnamanious parochialism.
We aren't Hawthorn. No "Tiddles" or "Fido" listed on our memberships.
Well, probably one or two, but not a plethora like the Hawks had.
This 'pet' thing really gives me the ****s, if you look at fan numbers and crowds, it backs up that Hawthorn have the following to back up their membership.
If you believe sensis and Roy Morgan, Hawthorn convert 1 member to every 13 supporters (which is actually a very poor conversion vs the other Melbourne based sides) while the Roos convert 1 member to every 8-9 supporters (the best in the league)...funny that :rolleyes:
You have any evidence to back up the claim that Hawthorn's membership isn't legit?
Lidge knows something. Home attendances are actually looking good this year to match last season - thanks largely to big Easter Monday against Pies - and membership went past last year's record despite crap performance.
2006 crowds at the Telstra Dome - 26,450 (15th)
2005 crowds at the Telstra Dome - 27,785 (15th)
Like fremantle ?
Perhaps the oppotunities ouside melbourne hve been exhausted.
I'm suere port and freo would love the GC kangas because there'd be a non vic team actualy poorer than theirs
your kidding right? southport are a financial powerhouse without a national brand to sell, wait till they get one.
if your talking poorer as in on field....well they would have to be pretty bad for a long time to match freos poor record
Don't know if it's the AFL, BF, the government or whatever but what a shame that the general perception is that a side that in the last 10 years has won 2 premierships, played in 3 grand finals, and made the finals in 7 times is considered by some to be weakening the game.
Seems like some have forgotten that football is actually played on the green stuff, not on a balance sheet.
Exactly what i have been thinking while reading everyone's posts.
Don't know if it's the AFL, BF, the government or whatever but what a shame that the general perception is that a side that in the last 10 years has won 2 premierships, played in 3 grand finals, and made the finals in 7 times is considered by some to be weakening the game.
Seems like some have forgotten that football is actually played on the green stuff, not on a balance sheet.
not at all, but when you are talking about expanding into a new market at the expense of the old, then the size of your supporship, your membership numbers, and your gate numbers are the key words, along with your balance sheet. its these parameters that make the roos the sick one that can be picked off the back of the pack.
obviously, if recent success were what decided these things, then there would be a very different order. but the fact is, they arent what decide these things.
your kidding right? southport are a financial powerhouse without a national brand to sell, wait till they get one.
if your talking poorer as in on field....well they would have to be pretty bad for a long time to match freos poor record
As a QLD'er I can't under estimate the value of a Gold Coast in the competition, if you build it, they will come :cool: (including myself)
Pessimistic
13 Jul 2006, 09:19
ahh, here we go again, we should be grateful of joining your competiton. ******** you mate.
look, you should be thanking us for making your ********ant suburban competition into the country spanning national competition it is. do you think anyone would pay 750 million for melbourne games?
you should be especially grateful we LET you poor victorian clubs join the national competition gravy train, because really it should have been just the successful teams.
it was always going to be a national comp, and by virtue of a quirk of fate, there were 10 clubs from victoria instead of a more appropriate 4, or 6.
the national competition was built by collingwood, essendon, carlton and the interstate clubs. the national competion will be better when there is less broke, unpopular, low drawing and low rating teams in melbourne and more successful interstate clubs.
you dont have a right to be in this competition. just because you were part of the previous, inferior competition doesent garuantee your membership, you need to prove you can survive, thrive, be successful. otherwise, you need to ******** off to the VFL and let someone who can (ie southport) have a go.
North and Hawthorn WERE the successful clubs, along with carlton, who are now broke
So whats the criteria ?
Beckers
13 Jul 2006, 09:31
JD, what are you doing here?
You're normally above this crap.
Someone put something in your drink?
Above what crap? The facts?
Beckers
13 Jul 2006, 09:36
As a QLD'er I can't under estimate the value of a Gold Coast in the competition, if you build it, they will come :cool: (including myself)
Hawkk, i actually went to the Carrara game this year and was a bit dissapointed! I know they got around 20k, but a one off with Brisbane Lions i thought would/should have been a sellout. There was plenty of room for about 2 or 3 thousand more fans and the atmosphere was dull (but then again, so was the game!). Most Lions fans i spoke to were the diehards from Brissy and made the trip down.
I think the GC is full of apathetic people who love to lay around in the sun and is a black hole for sporting clubs:eek: .
footyfreak
13 Jul 2006, 10:20
Don't know if it's the AFL, BF, the government or whatever but what a shame that the general perception is that a side that in the last 10 years has won 2 premierships, played in 3 grand finals, and made the finals in 7 times is considered by some to be weakening the game.
Seems like some have forgotten that football is actually played on the green stuff, not on a balance sheet.
Unfortunately playing well doesn't pay the bills these days. Look at how broke you are despite fantastic performances in the last 10 years and glamour teams in the 70's. Imagine how you'd be going if you hadn't performed???
Hearts to hearts
13 Jul 2006, 11:07
2006 crowds at the Telstra Dome - 26,450 (15th)
2005 crowds at the Telstra Dome - 27,785 (15th)
Sorry, you've missed my point. I was just saying that Lidge was right, this year's poor onfield performance hasn't resulted in a drop in crowd or membership numbers. I wasn't claiming we are a league powerhouse like Hawthorn. cough.
Beckers
13 Jul 2006, 11:16
Don't know if it's the AFL, BF, the government or whatever but what a shame that the general perception is that a side that in the last 10 years has won 2 premierships, played in 3 grand finals, and made the finals in 7 times is considered by some to be weakening the game.
Seems like some have forgotten that football is actually played on the green stuff, not on a balance sheet.
Wrong, that IS precisely that problem and AFL footy is played on the balance sheet! If you don't want to play on the balance sheet, the Roos can ply their trade in the VFL or EFL!
If a team can win 2 premierships in 10 years, be hugely successful but struggle to get membership and sponsorship, and ask the AFL for handouts, then a big RED warning light starts to flicker over that organization.
If Collingwood for example had the success the Roos have had over the last 10 years, they would have close to 50000 members.
Contra Mundum
13 Jul 2006, 11:25
I think most supporters are sick and tired of seeing the Kangaroos holding their hands out every year for a handout from the AFL. Much like you hate dole bludgers because they are lazy and getting free money we don't like the Kangaroos because they are getting all this free money and have no way of ever making their own.
And how much is the Federal and State Govenment handing out for the redevelopment of the Western Oval? - your as bad as a farmer bitch about others getting a hand out when you are addicted to hand outs yourself
Non Victorians want the Kangas to move to the Gold Coast because they see it as a further reduction in the power and bias towards Victoria by the media, administration of the game and AFL as a whole. While this might be slightly true, keeping 10 teams in Victoria actually helps the interstate sides. They are generally financially stronger, better run, better facilities, better at travel etc. than most Vic clubs.
Victorian on the other hand in general want to keep the Kangaroos in Melbourne because they believe it maintains their power base, it still feels to them like it's the VFL, the have more derbies in Melbourne etc. The truth of the matter is having 10 teams in Melbourne reduces the potential corporate and public support pool, therefore reduces money available to them, thus less money to spend on administration, facilities etc. They travel less and therefore are unaccustomed to it and have fewer genuine home ground advantages.
Non Victorian clubs should be the ones wanting the Kangaroos to stay in Melbourne. It's the supporters of the other Victorian clubs who should be screaming for them to leave.
Contra Mundum
13 Jul 2006, 11:35
Non Victorians want the Kangas to move to the Gold Coast because they see it as a further reduction in the power and bias towards Victoria by the media, administration of the game and AFL as a whole. While this might be slightly true, keeping 10 teams in Victoria actually helps the interstate sides. They are generally financially stronger, better run, better facilities, better at travel etc. than most Vic clubs.
Victorian on the other hand in general want to keep the Kangaroos in Melbourne because they believe it maintains their power base, it still feels to them like it's the VFL, the have more derbies in Melbourne etc. The truth of the matter is having 10 teams in Melbourne reduces the potential corporate and public support pool, therefore reduces money available to them, thus less money to spend on administration, facilities etc. They travel less and therefore are unaccustomed to it and have fewer genuine home ground advantages.
Non Victorian clubs should be the ones wanting the Kangaroos to stay in Melbourne. It's the supporters of the other Victorian clubs who should be screaming for them to leave.
Tell you what why don't you stop calling them Football Clubs and start calling them Franchises - I am sure that is the way Fos Williams though about PAFC
BUBBALOUIS
13 Jul 2006, 11:40
after just watching an excellent episode of headliners on foxfooty, detailing the then VFL's attempted shafting of the Bulldogs, i wouldnt want any Vic sidee to have to go through that, long live the North Melbourne footy club, oh and they did take Jon Hay off our hands as well!
Tell you what why don't you stop calling them Football Clubs and start calling them Franchises - I am sure that is the way Fos Williams though about PAFC
What has that got to do with my arguement? Just telling it how I see it. I actually see it as an advantage to my club keeping you guys in Melbourne. Is that not what you want as well?
Beckers
13 Jul 2006, 12:07
Victorian on the other hand in general want to keep the Kangaroos in Melbourne because they believe it maintains their power base, it still feels to them like it's the VFL, the have more derbies in Melbourne etc.
I think you are slightly mistaken there! Most Melbourne clubs realize the sooner there is a relocation or merger, the better off financially and more stable the rest of the clubs currently in the spotlight will be!
Contra Mundum
13 Jul 2006, 12:28
What has that got to do with my arguement? Just telling it how I see it. I actually see it as an advantage to my club keeping you guys in Melbourne. Is that not what you want as well?
Sorry mate - have just reread your post - My Bad
Flag Man
13 Jul 2006, 13:09
I think you are slightly mistaken there! Most Melbourne clubs realize the sooner there is a relocation or merger, the better off financially and more stable the rest of the clubs currently in the spotlight will be!
Yeah?
Please provide documentation to support that view.
mightymax
13 Jul 2006, 14:25
I think most supporters are sick and tired of seeing the Kangaroos holding their hands out every year for a handout from the AFL. Much like you hate dole bludgers because they are lazy and getting free money we don't like the Kangaroos because they are getting all this free money and have no way of ever making their own.
Yeah good point EM.
But we are a lot better than a team that in 81 years has won the flag ONCE.
And hasnt really achieved anything in the modern era.
Ricardo
13 Jul 2006, 15:01
Yeah?
Please provide documentation to support that view.
I think it comes down to commonsense really.....
Do you believe the North Melbourne Kangaroos can sustain themselves within Melbourne over the next however many years without payouts from the AFL?
I wouldn't like any side to move, but from an AFL standpoint I can see many positives coming from it, although there are many negatives as well.
As i see it, North just need time (although they've had plenty) to draw their plan up for the future of the club, targeting growth areas where they will be able to get new members...this is probably the most important and with all their success they still haven't flourished in the membership stakes.....i believe they can get their act together and start making a profit, BUT i think it will be too small compared to the other clubs in the AFL...and with the ray of sunshine up on the GC waiting for a new team, i seems the easy option may be taken.
Beckers
13 Jul 2006, 15:07
I think it comes down to commonsense really.....
Do you believe the North Melbourne Kangaroos can sustain themselves within Melbourne over the next however many years without payouts from the AFL?
You won't get an answer from Flag Man (or any of the Roos supporters here) when you ask for common sense.
Its like a political debate and you might get "prove it" at very best:cool:
My North
13 Jul 2006, 15:39
I think most supporters are sick and tired of seeing the Kangaroos holding their hands out every year for a handout from the AFL. Much like you hate dole bludgers because they are lazy and getting free money we don't like the Kangaroos because they are getting all this free money and have no way of ever making their own.
Still not over sunday game. Go the the doggies, one day you get there
My North
13 Jul 2006, 15:42
And how much is the Federal and State Govenment handing out for the redevelopment of the Western Oval? - your as bad as a farmer bitch about others getting a hand out when you are addicted to hand outs yourself
Answer that one Entertainment Machine, has you put it plenty of dole bluders there at the Whitten Ovel/Western Ovel
My North
13 Jul 2006, 15:46
just realize that the dill Entertainment Machine is banned . What a goose. I wonder what name he is using now.
mighty mick
13 Jul 2006, 16:29
I think most supporters are sick and tired of seeing the Kangaroos holding their hands out every year for a handout from the AFL. Much like you hate dole bludgers because they are lazy and getting free money we don't like the Kangaroos because they are getting all this free money and have no way of ever making their own.
yes i know that there have been over a hundred posts since this reply but i find the above comment coming from a doggie supporter the most hypocritical one you could get, or have you forgotten the 20 million dollar handout from the federal government to the bulldogs to try and swing the voters in the area:rolleyes: first and last time i ever saw little johhny with an afl scarf around his neck.
dont spend all the money at once, weve come to see how little johhny keeps his promises in the past few days;)
Forrest Gimp
2 Nov 2007, 22:21
Not much has changed.
Well, im a bit of a traditionalist, therefore I hope the Roos can stay where they are for another hundred-odd years. **** the trolls, nobody should have to lose thier club, and if those who laugh at the North situation felt the same way about thier club(s), and understood what it meant for family's to pass on support over generations, and for that to be lost at the whim of a tyrant, then im sure they wouldn't wish that upon yourselves, or anybody. But alas, this is BF, Vlad is a prick, and the world is a cruel place. Anyways, good luck with the fight Roos supporters, If my team can't win the premiership next year, then I hope you can stick it up Vlad's arse and win it...
I dont think excitement is the right term - I think that the majority of opposition fans can look at the situation objectively and have come to the realisation that the offer to move and all the trimmings that come with it is an incredible offer that The Roos are almost compelled to take, given their situation and how it has manifested itself over the course of the last decade or so. The bottom line is that The Roos have been unable to get themselves into a sustainable position for quite some time and it really doesn't look like changing anytime soon.
All the Roos fans will now probably rubbish me as I am a Saints supporter and we are next on the chopping block etc etc but if the Saints were in the same position, I can honestly say I would rather see them relocate and retain a semblence of themselves than to either merge or fade into obscurity.
Forrest Gimp
2 Nov 2007, 22:36
I dont think excitement is the right term - I think that the majority of opposition fans can look at the situation objectively and have come to the realisation that the offer to move and all the trimmings that come with it is an incredible offer that The Roos are almost compelled to take, given their situation and how it has manifested itself over the course of the last decade or so. The bottom line is that The Roos have been unable to get themselves into a sustainable position for quite some time and it really doesn't look like changing anytime soon.
All the Roos fans will now probably rubbish me as I am a Saints supporter and we are next on the chopping block etc etc but if the Saints were in the same position, I can honestly say I would rather see them relocate and retain a semblence of themselves than to either merge or fade into obscurity.
I understand the points you bring up, however, I believe that the Roos, being part of the AFL system (which, is extremely socialist in nature), should be looked after. The AFL has a shitload of money, and that doesn't look like ending any time soon. If the AFL want to play commie in all aspects of the way the sport is run, then they should take responsibility and pick up the shortfalls of the Roos finances, after all, they contribute as much to the comp as the other 15 teams.
I understand the points you bring up, however, I believe that the Roos, being part of the AFL system (which, is extremely socialist in nature), should be looked after. The AFL has a shitload of money, and that doesn't look like ending any time soon. If the AFL want to play commie in all aspects of the way the sport is run, then they should take responsibility and pick up the shortfalls of the Roos finances, after all, they contribute as much to the comp as the other 15 teams.
What happens when the well does dry up? They all have a bottom......
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 00:00
What happens when the well does dry up? They all have a bottom......
And when do you honestly think that big corporations like toyota and NAB and the television networks are not going to be forking out big bucks to be associated with the AFL?
And when do you honestly think that big corporations like toyota and NAB and the television networks are not going to be forking out big bucks to be associated with the AFL?
It doesn't mean the AFL will always be able to fork out millions to basketcase clubs. It was only 10 years ago when they had no such capacity.
Forrest Gimp
3 Nov 2007, 01:41
It doesn't mean the AFL will always be able to fork out millions to basketcase clubs. It was only 10 years ago when they had no such capacity.
If the AFL is run correctly, then the AFL will always be able to afford it, if it is not, then bigger problems are proberly present...
SweetLeftFoot
3 Nov 2007, 03:09
I think most supporters are sick and tired of seeing the Kangaroos holding their hands out every year for a handout from the AFL. Much like you hate dole bludgers because they are lazy and getting free money we don't like the Kangaroos because they are getting all this free money and have no way of ever making their own.
You do understand Footscray takes money from the AFL to?
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 04:07
It doesn't mean the AFL will always be able to fork out millions to basketcase clubs. It was only 10 years ago when they had no such capacity.
1.5 to North
1 to AD.
Now tell me how many AD club members attend games, purchase food and beverages, buy merchandise, connect to Austar/Foxtel?
You do understand Footscray takes money from the AFL to?
Yes but the Lions are opening up the AFL to a new market which is something the Kangaroos are not doing. People complain about Sydney and Brisbane getting money from the AFL but the fact is that the TV rights deal wouldnt have been nearly as good if it wasnt for the Lions and Swans. I think both clubs have made the AFL alot of money in recent years and what the AFL gained far outweighed what they lost by giving money handouts to the Swans and Lions.
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 11:57
Friday Night Footy is a goldmine and who was the innovative club behind that?
Friday Night Footy is a goldmine and who was the innovative club behind that?
The Swans havent had a Friday night game in years.
Lupton Warchild Pittman
3 Nov 2007, 12:10
Friday Night Footy is a goldmine and who was the innovative club behind that?
It was actually Collingwood.
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 12:15
It was actually Collingwood.
No it wasnt.
Lupton Warchild Pittman
3 Nov 2007, 12:17
No it wasnt.
Incorrect.
Collingwood played in the 1st Friday night game, the idea was first talked about by the VFL, by Jack Hamilton, a former Collingwood official and premiership player.
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 12:21
Incorrect.
Collingwood played in the 1st Friday night game, the idea was first talked about by the VFL, by Jack Hamilton, a former Collingwood official and premiership player.
And who was that against champ? North Melbourne ring a bell.
We didnt get the nick name Friday night specialists because we played alot of games on Sunday.
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 12:22
i dont knwo abotu others, but for me it is because of the lack of respect they have shown my club over time. sure, it is their right to be a little agressive, however, they continually cross the line. Arguably our biggest rivals, essendon, are even able to step back and aknowledge when we have been good.
Lupton Warchild Pittman
3 Nov 2007, 12:24
We didnt get the nick name Friday night specialists because we played alot of games on Sunday.
That doesn't mean you came up with the Friday night concept.
gangsta deluxe
3 Nov 2007, 12:28
i dont knwo abotu others, but for me it is because of the lack of disrespect they have shown my club over time. sure, it is their right to be a little agressive, however, they continually cross the line. Arguably our biggest rivals, essendon, are even able to step back and aknowledge when we have been good.
since when is showing a "lack of disrespect" a problem.
Didn't know you were George W's speech writer
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 12:31
since when is showing a "lack of disrespect" a problem.
Didn't know you were George W's speech writer
my appologies, was meant to be lack of respect
thejester
3 Nov 2007, 12:33
Yes but the Lions are opening up the AFL to a new market which is something the Kangaroos are not doing. People complain about Sydney and Brisbane getting money from the AFL but the fact is that the TV rights deal wouldnt have been nearly as good if it wasnt for the Lions and Swans. I think both clubs have made the AFL alot of money in recent years and what the AFL gained far outweighed what they lost by giving money handouts to the Swans and Lions.
Remind me why the AFL needs to be opened up to a new market?
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 12:35
That doesn't mean you came up with the Friday night concept.
But because Collingwood played in the first night game but never seemed to play in them much at all it means they came up with it?
How long have you been following AFL?
i dont knwo abotu others, but for me it is because of the lack of respect they have shown my club over time.
Over how much time? The last couple of years when Roos have copped heaps from Hawthorn supporters over Thommo and Hay.
It's called banter pal, not worth killing a club over it.
the crane
3 Nov 2007, 13:46
im not excited that the kangaroos are dying/relocating (not much difference really) but i am excited that the AFL is getting off its arse to promote the game in states where AFL is not the dominant code.
I don't know if the AFL will be successful or not (from the outside the prospect looks quite encouraging) but now is going to be the right time to give it a go. just look back at the basket-case that was the VFL in the late eighties and how the interstate teams have helped build the AFL to where it is now (cash coming out its ears).
from this perspective, now is the time to agressively market the brand, not spend the cash propping up teams that have limited capacity for growth or were brought along for a ride by the success of the introduction of a nation wide competition (not just kangaroos). I just can't see the future in giving out handouts for teams that can't support themselves financially in the long term.
I have been an interstate supporter of my team for most of my life now, and that doesn't make me any less passionate or less of a supporter of my team. Granted its different when your team moves state and changes their name but you'll still see them play in melbourne 8 or so times a year, not including finals etc. (i guess the issue here is whether they are still your club or not)
i see this as a huge opportunity for the roos, like a 'get out of jail free' card the afl is throwing at you.
im not excited that the kangaroos are dying/relocating (not much difference really) but i am excited that the AFL is getting off its arse to promote the game in states where AFL is not the dominant code.
Don't have a problem with that point of view.
I don't know if the AFL will be successful or not (from the outside the prospect looks quite encouraging) but now is going to be the right time to give it a go. just look back at the basket-case that was the VFL in the late eighties and how the interstate teams have helped build the AFL to where it is now (cash coming out its ears).
All I ask is you look at the facts, if this venture goes wrong football as a whole will be forking out much more than they ever will supporting a 140 year old club. If we move, I don't think it will matter too much to me whether the new venture succeeds or fails. I suspect it will succeed, but not without tens of millions of the clubs money.
from this perspective, now is the time to agressively market the brand, not spend the cash propping up teams that have limited capacity for growth or were brought along for a ride by the success of the introduction of a nation wide competition (not just kangaroos). I just can't see the future in giving out handouts for teams that can't support themselves financially in the long term.
No real problem with this, but marketing a brand isn't the be all and end all. You wouldn't spend millions marketing ice to eskimo's so surely unless you are convinced that it will be worthwhile you shouldn't market footy to a population that IMO can't sustain it without the aforementioned AFL money.
I have been an interstate supporter of my team for most of my life now, and that doesn't make me any less passionate or less of a supporter of my team. Granted its different when your team moves state and changes their name but you'll still see them play in melbourne 8 or so times a year, not including finals etc. (i guess the issue here is whether they are still your club or not)
I'm probably a bit different to most Roos. I started as an interstate supporter and member, I moved to Vic (North Melbourne by pure coincidence), then I moved away. I only see the team on TV and I had previously thought that I would follow (but not financially support) a relocated team. But the way this has been engineered by the AFL leaves such a sour taste in my mouth I would walk away from footy all together if they get their way.
i see this as a huge opportunity for the roos, like a 'get out of jail free' card the afl is throwing at you.
Maybe so, people may say you will be guaranteed success with the AFL's support, you will be rich as a club.
It was never what we were about.
I used to go to training, I still remember my first trip to Melbourne and going back to the social club after the game. I remember the feeling of pride I have got on so many occasions when we achieved against all odds. Winning a premiership with the AFL's hand stuck up our backside just doesn't appeal to me. So it mau be a huge opportunity for the licence, but it won't be for the football club.
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 16:41
Over how much time? The last couple of years when Roos have copped heaps from Hawthorn supporters over Thommo and Hay.
It's called banter pal, not worth killing a club over it.
it is when it spills beyond that. ALso, having threats on my life by kangaroo fans at the round 3 roos vas hawks game didnt do them too many favours
the crane
3 Nov 2007, 17:02
Don't have a problem with that point of view.
All I ask is you look at the facts, if this venture goes wrong football as a whole will be forking out much more than they ever will supporting a 140 year old club. If we move, I don't think it will matter too much to me whether the new venture succeeds or fails. I suspect it will succeed, but not without tens of millions of the clubs money.
I don't want the AFL not to expand due to the fear it may fail to reach its targets. again though i don't know the feasibility etc. just think it would be great to have teams representing the major populations of australia.
No real problem with this, but marketing a brand isn't the be all and end all. You wouldn't spend millions marketing ice to eskimo's so surely unless you are convinced that it will be worthwhile you shouldn't market footy to a population that IMO can't sustain it without the aforementioned AFL money.
i think your analogy is better suited to the victorian market rather than the Qld one. victorians already know and love the game so having ten teams selling the same product is a bit like selling ice to eskimos. though i know what you're getting at.
Maybe so, people may say you will be guaranteed success with the AFL's support, you will be rich as a club.
It was never what we were about.
I used to go to training, I still remember my first trip to Melbourne and going back to the social club after the game. I remember the feeling of pride I have got on so many occasions when we achieved against all odds. Winning a premiership with the AFL's hand stuck up our backside just doesn't appeal to me. So it mau be a huge opportunity for the licence, but it won't be for the football club.
that is a really interesting point. would you rather the club slowly dies or merges with another victorian team or moves to queensland? is there any chance the roos will be able to keep their 'identity' as a SEQ club? (i know i found it annoying listening to people rabbiting on about the south melbourne bloods as if they had never left when west coast was playing sydney in the GFs).
mighty mick
3 Nov 2007, 17:18
You do understand Footscray takes money from the AFL to?
remember we will never know $$ sydney and brisbane get because they are unable to fail as it would make the afl look like fools and failures, the same would go for north. the afl would be happy to plough cash into the gc team but not one in its own doorstep:mad:
Lupton Warchild Pittman
3 Nov 2007, 17:34
But because Collingwood played in the first night game but never seemed to play in them much at all it means they came up with it?
Like most things in the AFL, Collingwood is/was used to make a league innovation a success.The 1985 game was intially a "showcase" event of Victoria's 150th celebrations by the VFL, the MCG had 1st put lights in over the summer months.
Jack Hamilton a Collingwood premiership player, club official and VFL President came up with the idea to play games on a Friday night, not North Melbourne.
How long have you been following AFL?
I've been attending VFL/AFL games since 1983 (that I can remember).
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 18:26
Like most things in the AFL, Collingwood is/was used to make a league innovation a success.The 1985 game was intially a "showcase" event of Victoria's 150th celebrations by the VFL, the MCG had 1st put lights in over the summer months.
Jack Hamilton a Collingwood premiership player, club official and VFL President came up with the idea to play games on a Friday night, not North Melbourne.
I've been attending VFL/AFL games since 1983 (that I can remember).
You played one night game against North Melbourne and your trying to claim you were the reason it was successful?
You might want to read this aswell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night_Football_%28Australia%29
If the AFL is run correctly, then the AFL will always be able to afford it, if it is not, then bigger problems are proberly present...
All you really need is the next TV rights deal to come in a bit below budget. The AFL won't have as big a surplus as they expected, and they would need to make cuts to expenditure. Now i'm sure you can make a case for cuts to game development, administration, whatever. But you can bet your ass that things like the welfare fund would come under extreme pressure. Because they aren't going to reduce the annual dividend paid to all clubs.
Sometimes the revenue coming in isn't as much as you expect and it's not due to bad management. For the TV rights, if one channel had financial difficulties then it's going to reduce the value, because competition will be reduced. Nothing to do with the AFL itself, just bad luck.
Although you'll get no argument from me if you said Andy D was an imbecile.
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 22:29
All you really need is the next TV rights deal to come in a bit below budget. The AFL won't have as big a surplus as they expected, and they would need to make cuts to expenditure. Now i'm sure you can make a case for cuts to game development, administration, whatever. But you can bet your ass that things like the welfare fund would come under extreme pressure. Because they aren't going to reduce the annual dividend paid to all clubs.
Sometimes the revenue coming in isn't as much as you expect and it's not due to bad management. For the TV rights, if one channel had financial difficulties then it's going to reduce the value, because competition will be reduced. Nothing to do with the AFL itself, just bad luck.
Although you'll get no argument from me if you said Andy D was an imbecile.
If that did occurr then why are the AFL so willing to throw away 300 million dollars for a stadium that is only going to be used by one team?