View Full Version : If I barracked for North I would prefer to merge rather than relocate to the GC!!!
NeXus_Helen
22 Jun 2007, 00:59
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
Cheshire Cat
22 Jun 2007, 01:09
I don't think so
thejester
22 Jun 2007, 01:13
It's hard to imagine two clubs less suited to a merger than Melbourne and North.
The Majestic
22 Jun 2007, 01:14
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
Their relocation is only a temporary one, I doubt they will ever fully move to the Gold Coast unless there is a drastic need to. A merger will however be a permanent thing and can never be undone. A temporary relocation seems to be the best thing for the club they keep their club, their heritage as do Melbourne.
Melbourne supporters will already be lining up for the chance to vote their club out of existence once again.
There's no such thing as a merger. There are only take overs. My dad a Fiztroy supporter hates Brisbane with a passion. They're not Fixtroy reincarnate as they like to say, they are the Bears who took over and killed the Roy Boys.
If Hawthorn had merged with the Dees in 1997 then the Hawks would be dead. Re-location is better than merger for the smaller club. If Fiztroy had the option of relocating to the GC then they would have embracced it, but they were F*d big time.
Roos, better off on the Coast than apart of the Demons!
Thewlis Dish
22 Jun 2007, 01:36
You don't barrack for North though.
estibador
22 Jun 2007, 01:39
Their relocation is only a temporary one, I doubt they will ever fully move to the Gold Coast unless there is a drastic need to.
I doubt the AFL shares your view. I've got no doubt we'll see a GC team sooner rather than later. And it will either be the GC Kangas or the AFL will start pushing for 2 Melbourne clubs to merge to free up a licence.
My guess is they'd prefer the former. Less messy since it only involves one club instead of 3.
The Majestic
22 Jun 2007, 01:40
You don't barrack for North though.
Could probably be a good thing too.
The Majestic
22 Jun 2007, 01:44
I doubt the AFL shares your view. I've got no doubt we'll see a GC team sooner rather than later. And it will either be the GC Kangas or the AFL will start pushing for 2 Melbourne clubs to merge to free up a licence.
My guess is they'd prefer the former. Less messy since it only involves one club instead of 3.
I am guessing so as well, I have heard a lot about the Southport Sharks wanting into the AFL, and could probably take their chance if two Melbourne sides were to merge. I am not sure if a relocated team is going to really survive on the Gold Coast for any great length of time.
Though I suppose many would have said the same about South Melbourne prior to their moving to Sydney. I suppose I would rather see a club keep it's identity then to merge and lose it all. Moving would still be losing a part of the club, but it's not as big as merging.
That's just my take on it.
Maybe North should merge with Brisbane . . . at least your not going to the Gold Coast. Techincally you still would be north.
D Mitchell
22 Jun 2007, 08:13
I.... I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
What about they merge with St Kilda ?
jacko57
22 Jun 2007, 08:59
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
My thoughts ?
a) I'm glad that dills like you barrack for St Kilda, and not for North Melbourne
b) You have accepted that North Melbourne will cease to exist ? Good for you, Caro.
c) How about a merger between St Kilda and the Kestrels ? They play a better brand of netball, but you would have some seniority in the partnership, having the one VFL flag to your credit.
grayham
22 Jun 2007, 09:32
You don't barrack for North though.
Who does ?
grayham
22 Jun 2007, 09:36
I am guessing so as well, I have heard a lot about the Southport Sharks wanting into the AFL, and could probably take their chance if two Melbourne sides were to merge. I am not sure if a relocated team is going to really survive on the Gold Coast for any great length of time.
Though I suppose many would have said the same about South Melbourne prior to their moving to Sydney. I suppose I would rather see a club keep it's identity then to merge and lose it all. Moving would still be losing a part of the club, but it's not as big as merging.
That's just my take on it.
You would have to hope that the AFL has learnt a lot of lessons about starting up in new areas. If they repeat the same mistakes they did with the swans and bears which was to abandon them, then we really are run by incompetents. They have the Storm in their backyard showing them a relatively successful model, although a long way from self sufficient, not dieing.
Any move to the GC needs to be backed to the hilt. Any team in the GC needs a "club" and thats why a Southport merger is the best option. They bring a huge amount of infrastructure and brand awareness to the table which
cant be underestimated. Oh how the swans struggled without a "home". They used to have to use the Moore Park Bowling club FFS!
I think relocation is the only way for North to trully compete for a flag in the future. It will provide the much needed cash and secure its future.
I would not only prefer this to a merger but I would be pushing my club towards it as its the only way to see premierships in the future and thats what its all about.
nb.
Many USA teams relocate when needed. Doesnt mean you should stop following them. It hurts, but thats economics.
Hearts to hearts
22 Jun 2007, 09:51
I think relocation is the only way for North to trully compete for a flag in the future. It will provide the much needed cash and secure its future.
I would not only prefer this to a merger but I would be pushing my club towards it as its the only way to see premierships in the future and thats what its all about.
nb.
Many USA teams relocate when needed. Doesnt mean you should stop following them. It hurts, but thats economics.
Much as I hate to give this thread any time at all, I'd have to ask how you think North won the premierships it did? We've been too poor for this competition since 1896, and we've still found ways to survive and succeed at a level several current clubs would kill for.
Speaking of which... if I was a St Kilda supporter, would I enjoy taking idiotic potshots at another club to take my mind off my perennial underachievers slipping back into the mire?
Nexus_Helen, you can take your firm views and shove them. You don't know enough about our club or anything else and you're embarrassing yourself and real St Kilda supporters with this drivel.
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
Kill off the oldest known clubs in the world - 1858 Nup.. wouldn't and shouldn't happen. Even from a Geelong supporters perspective, that would be a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Football_Club
Could you imagine the outrage if that was to happen? Too much history there to see that occurr.
Kill off the oldest known clubs in the world - 1858 Nup.. wouldn't and shouldn't happen. Even from a Geelong supporters perspective, that would be a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Football_Club
Could you imagine the outrage if that was to happen? Too much history there to see that occurr.
This is such a shit arguement. Melbourne, being the oldest club, with huge amounts of early success have had every opportunity to become a powerhouse, but they have failed dismally. The "We're the oldest club so we have every right to be around even if we are a totally underperforming club" does not wash with me. Melbourne, frankly are as ****ed as the Kangaroos.
If I were a North supporter I would rather my team stay put. I would hate to see any more of the traditional clubs merge or re-locate. You hear about some of the old-school Fitzroy supporters who just dont follow football anymore because their club is gone :(. It sucks.
Although I barrack for a team that has re-located I can understand the pain this must cause for fans. At the 2005 GF there were many Sth Melbourne supporters who were absolutely elated about the Swans being Premiers but it was obvious that the re-location to Sydney still hurt for these supporters.
I have a lot of respect for Nth Melbourne and the traditions of this club. I hope that the issues that Nth Melbourne face can be solved as soon as possible to avoid all this uncertainty for the supporters and people close to the club.
Demonheart
22 Jun 2007, 10:52
Melbourne supporters will already be lining up for the chance to vote take over another club once again.
Edited for accuracy
Much as I hate to give this thread any time at all, I'd have to ask how you think North won the premierships it did? We've been too poor for this competition since 1896, and we've still found ways to survive and succeed at a level several current clubs would kill for.
Speaking of which... if I was a St Kilda supporter, would I enjoy taking idiotic potshots at another club to take my mind off my perennial underachievers slipping back into the mire?
Nexus_Helen, you can take your firm views and shove them. You don't know enough about our club or anything else and you're embarrassing yourself and real St Kilda supporters with this drivel.
I agree with the embarrassed part, merging kills the club....Fitzroy is no longer anything but a memory and something occassionally remembered by the "Lions" at most as maybe why they changed the name.
Personally I would prefer the Saints to relocate if circumstances forced it rather than merge as I would no longer have any interest in the frankenstein like construction that a merged club becomes. It was alright for the Bears as they didnt have any real history to lose but I dont know many Fitzroy supporters that changed their alegiance at the time other than youngsters who didnt realise it was the obliteration of a long history.:thumbsd:
Demonheart
22 Jun 2007, 10:54
Much as I hate to give this thread any time at all, I'd have to ask how you think North won the premierships it did? We've been too poor for this competition since 1896, and we've still found ways to survive and succeed at a level several current clubs would kill for.
Speaking of which... if I was a St Kilda supporter, would I enjoy taking idiotic potshots at another club to take my mind off my perennial underachievers slipping back into the mire?
Nexus_Helen, you can take your firm views and shove them. You don't know enough about our club or anything else and you're embarrassing yourself and real St Kilda supporters with this drivel.
Being poor ten years ago is completely different to being poor now, and it will only get worse, our clubs are only surviving because of the CBF and if the AFL were to change their stance on that then we'd be in trouble.
This is such a shit arguement. Melbourne, being the oldest club, with huge amounts of early success have had every opportunity to become a powerhouse, but they have failed dismally. The "We're the oldest club so we have every right to be around even if we are a totally underperforming club" does not wash with me. Melbourne, frankly are as ****ed as the Kangaroos.
What a load of rubbish. If the AFL want to get rid of a club to create another one elsewhere maybe they could get rid of the more recent additions to the AFL (e.g. PORT).
Demonheart
22 Jun 2007, 11:01
This is such a shit arguement. Melbourne, being the oldest club, with huge amounts of early success have had every opportunity to become a powerhouse, but they have failed dismally. The "We're the oldest club so we have every right to be around even if we are a totally underperforming club" does not wash with me. Melbourne, frankly are as ****ed as the Kangaroos.
When has the club ever taken this stance?
You're entitled to your opinions but next time back them up with facts.
When has the club ever taken this stance?
You're entitled to your opinions but next time back them up with facts.
This is the arguement that Mr GFC put up and you hear it a lot. You can't get rid of Melbourne because they are the oldest club or you can't get rid of Melbourne because they are called "Melbourne". It is a silly arguement and not backed up by any fundamental or rational criteria. If you look at Melbourne situation, it is not much different to the Kangaroos, yet for some reason, mainly it seems to me for the reasons above, they escape merger/ relocation glare.
This is the arguement that Mr GFC put up and you hear it a lot. You can't get rid of Melbourne because they are the oldest club or you can't get rid of Melbourne because they are called "Melbourne". It is a silly arguement and not backed up by any fundamental or rational criteria. If you look at Melbourne situation, it is not much different to the Kangaroos, yet for some reason, mainly it seems to me for the reasons above, they escape merger/ relocation glare.
I dont think it's silly to argue this point at all. Tradition is what makes this game great, otherwise we would be like sport in the USA where teams move every couple of years and players have no loyalty to a club. The history and tradition of the AFL should be preserved. I follow the oldest team in the NRL and when they were booted from the league it cut deep. I did not watch another game until my team were reinstated. No more mergers or re-locations
Roylion
22 Jun 2007, 12:58
They're not Fixtroy reincarnate as they like to say,
And when have Brisbane said this? Via the merger, the Lions regard themselves as the representatives of the spirit and traditions of Fitzroy in the VFL-AFL, but nowhere have they claimed they ARE Fitzroy. Indeed the Brisbane Lions regard themselves as a separate club from both Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears.
they are the Bears who took over and killed the Roy Boys.
And who do you support again? Unless it's North Melbourne or Fitzroy, your club voted in favor of the Brisbane Bears - Fitzroy merger. Your club also voted against the preferred Fitzroy merger with North Melbourne. That would have formed a new club...the "North Fitzroy Kangaroos"
If Hawthorn had merged with the Dees in 1997 then the Hawks would be dead.
And not Melbourne? I was under the impression that a new club would have been formed.
If Fiztroy had the option of relocating to the GC then they would have embracced it, but they were F*d big time.
In 1995 Fitzroy put forward a proposal to the AFL to relocate to Canberra (they were prepared to play 8 home games up ther), but were knocked back by the AFL.
Much as I hate to give this thread any time at all, I'd have to ask how you think North won the premierships it did? We've been too poor for this competition since 1896, and we've still found ways to survive and succeed at a level several current clubs would kill for.
Speaking of which... if I was a St Kilda supporter, would I enjoy taking idiotic potshots at another club to take my mind off my perennial underachievers slipping back into the mire?
Nexus_Helen, you can take your firm views and shove them. You don't know enough about our club or anything else and you're embarrassing yourself and real St Kilda supporters with this drivel.
Dont get me wrong - North are my second favourite team but the footy landscape has changed with the professionalism. You need money for medical, fitness, recruiting, coaching.
If North cannot continue to pay the full salary cap they will miss out on the 1 or 2 players needed to snare a flag.
If they are lucky enough to snare another Carey then maybe they will not need the cash to help with the other facets. But Careys do not come along every day.
Mervyn Beasley
22 Jun 2007, 13:08
If there is one Melbourne based team that you can be assured of coming to the party on a merge it will be the Dees.
Speaking from experience of course!
But Careys do not come along every day.
1 in 40,150 days (of the AFL/VFL) to be exact.
Roylion
22 Jun 2007, 13:13
Fitzroy is no longer anything but a memory.
I don't agree with that at all for a whole host of reasons.
and something occassionally remembered by the "Lions" at most as maybe why they changed the name.
I don't agree with that either, once again for a number of reasons.
I dont know many Fitzroy supporters that changed their alegiance at the time other than youngsters who didnt realise it was the obliteration of a long history.
The Lions had 3,200 Victorian members in the first year of merger, so it's clear a number of Fitzroy people did start supporting the Lions. At times the Victorian membership has approached 6,000. It's also clear that there are a larger number of Fitzroy people than the actual Lions membership in Victoria that support the Brisbane Lions.
1 in 40,150 days (of the AFL/VFL) to be exact.
To all Kanga fans...
Do you agree or disagree with what Im saying? It is easier for me being in Sydney as I rarely get to see the Kangaroos live so if they are in the GC or Melb it doesnt matter to me as I watch them on the box.
BUT
Would you prefer..
The Gold Coast Kangaroos being a powerhouse like some of the other interstate teams, being flushed with cash, attracting top players and winning premierships
OR
The Kangaroos, being regarded as the poor cousin, struggling for money and propping up the top teams?
OR
Is there another scenario? Dont know - just want a serious discussion about this and I do actually care for the mightly blue and whites. :)
Hearts to hearts
22 Jun 2007, 13:30
To all Kanga fans...
Do you agree or disagree with what Im saying? It is easier for me being in Sydney as I rarely get to see the Kangaroos live so if they are in the GC or Melb it doesnt matter to me as I watch them on the box.
BUT
Would you prefer..
The Gold Coast Kangaroos being a powerhouse like some of the other interstate teams, being flushed with cash, attracting top players and winning premierships
OR
The Kangaroos, being regarded as the poor cousin, struggling for money and propping up the top teams?
OR
Is there another scenario? Dont know - just want a serious discussion about this and I do actually care for the mightly blue and whites. :)
You might want to visit our board - it's hard to have even a half-serious chat here!
Demonheart
22 Jun 2007, 14:17
This is the arguement that Mr GFC put up and you hear it a lot.
Who the **** is Mr GFC and what does he have to do with Melbourne?
Demonheart
22 Jun 2007, 14:18
If there is one Melbourne based team that you can be assured of coming to the party on a hostile takeover it will be the Dees.
Speaking from experience of course!
This one needed some editing as well.
Roosurgence
22 Jun 2007, 14:22
My thoughts ?
a) I'm glad that dills like you barrack for St Kilda, and not for North Melbourne
b) You have accepted that North Melbourne will cease to exist ? Good for you, Caro.
c) How about a merger between St Kilda and the Kestrels ? They play a better brand of netball, but you would have some seniority in the partnership, having the one VFL flag to your credit.
Don't know if the Aints are ready to embrace the hard brand of netball that the Kestrels play. Fiora would be excited to finally get that chance to wear a skirt though:thumbsu:
Sharkey
22 Jun 2007, 14:25
This one needed some editing as well.
But the facts are melbourne members voted the MFC out of existence.
Simple as that.
Demonheart
22 Jun 2007, 15:32
But the facts are melbourne members voted the MFC out of existence.
Simple as that.
That's incorrect, my source is Don Scott, who's yours?
Sharkey
22 Jun 2007, 16:07
That's incorrect, my source is Don Scott, who's yours?
So what was yes/ no vote at the melbourne merger meeting?:rolleyes:
The Gold Coast Kangaroos being a powerhouse like some of the other interstate teams, being flushed with cash, attracting top players and winning premierships
Yep you've thought this one out well Wallsy.
It really is just a matter of signing on the bottom line and suddenly Carrara, its prefab surrounds and 11,000 supporters will instantly form an irresistable force that will explosively knock the Eagles and Crows off their perches as one time AFL superpowers. All we'll have to do is sit back and watch the flags roll in.
Inferno
22 Jun 2007, 17:11
I don't understand why all this pressure is on North Melbourne to relocate. The Demons have less supporters, smaller crowds (in a bigger stadium) and neither club has much money. I could care less if they were the first club ever made or that they are called 'Melbourne' (we don't have a team called Perth and both WA teams are going fine). The Dees should be made to relocate before the Kangaroos because they are less viable as a club in Melbourne.
That said, I would rather my team relocate then merge.
NeXus_Helen
22 Jun 2007, 23:57
In the end, the determination/stubborness of the Kangaroos could very well spell the end of the club.
The AFL really don't care, as long as they get a team permanently based up at the GC by 2010 they will be happy. If it means North folding and then letting in Southport, they will be fine with that.
Take my advice North, decide on whether you want to merge or relocate now. If you don't you can bet that the AFL will.......
1. Abolish the CBF.
2. Grant a license to Southport, which in turn means North will have nowhere to sell games.
I don't envisage the AFL implementing the above 2 until 2009. But when they do,North will be in big strife.
SweetLeftFoot
23 Jun 2007, 00:04
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
In order of preference -
1 - stay based in Melbourne but acknowledging we'll have to flog a few games.
... considerable distance ...
2 - play 10 games on the Gold Coast as the Northern Kangaroos wearing blue and white stripes, another 10 in Melbourne with NMFC members getting home game rights for entry etc
.... considerable distance ....
3 - Completely relocate. I probably would still follow the Gold Coast Kangas, wearing blue and white, but it wouldn't be the same.
... consierable distance ....
4 - Merge with anyone except Melbourne.
.... considerable distance ...
5 - Eat a skip full of rancid monkey shit.
... considerable distance ...
6 - Merge with a bunch of twats like Melbourne.
chris86
23 Jun 2007, 00:07
Will not follow North if they relocate to GC or merge. There alot of members that feel this way, and I'm sure if either happened they will lose alot. Bulldogs have increased their members via a stance focused on staying in Melbourne. There is no reason why the North administration cant follow their lead.
SweetLeftFoot
23 Jun 2007, 00:10
If I were a North supporter I would rather my team stay put. I would hate to see any more of the traditional clubs merge or re-locate. You hear about some of the old-school Fitzroy supporters who just dont follow football anymore because their club is gone :(. It sucks.
Although I barrack for a team that has re-located I can understand the pain this must cause for fans. At the 2005 GF there were many Sth Melbourne supporters who were absolutely elated about the Swans being Premiers but it was obvious that the re-location to Sydney still hurt for these supporters.
I have a lot of respect for Nth Melbourne and the traditions of this club. I hope that the issues that Nth Melbourne face can be solved as soon as possible to avoid all this uncertainty for the supporters and people close to the club.
Top post. Seriously, top work.
I live in Scotland, but, like the sad bastard I am, get up at 5AM to listen to North games on the Internet.
Would I do that if North went to the GC?
Probably if we were the Northern Kangaroos and still had a real base at Arden St.
Maybe .. maybe ... if we were the Gold Coast kangas. Maybe.
If we went out of business would I get up at 5Am to listen to the Bulldogs on the grounds that they are North's nearest 'equivalent' as an AFL team in Melbourne?
No way.
paul scholes
23 Jun 2007, 01:22
Much as I hate to give this thread any time at all, I'd have to ask how you think North won the premierships it did? We've been too poor for this competition since 1896, and we've still found ways to survive and succeed at a level several current clubs would kill for.
Speaking of which... if I was a St Kilda supporter, would I enjoy taking idiotic potshots at another club to take my mind off my perennial underachievers slipping back into the mire?
Nexus_Helen, you can take your firm views and shove them. You don't know enough about our club or anything else and you're embarrassing yourself and real St Kilda supporters with this drivel.
Well stated agree 100%:thumbsu::thumbsu:
paul scholes
23 Jun 2007, 01:24
Top post. Seriously, top work.
I live in Scotland, but, like the sad bastard I am, get up at 5AM to listen to North games on the Internet.
Would I do that if North went to the GC?
Probably if we were the Northern Kangaroos and still had a real base at Arden St.
Maybe .. maybe ... if we were the Gold Coast kangas. Maybe.
If we went out of business would I get up at 5Am to listen to the Bulldogs on the grounds that they are North's nearest 'equivalent' as an AFL team in Melbourne?
No way.
Don't worry my wee friend i wouldn't wake at that time to watch our poor soulmates
jacko57
23 Jun 2007, 09:56
In the end, the determination/stubborness of the Kangaroos could very well spell the end of the club.
The AFL really don't care, as long as they get a team permanently based up at the GC by 2010 they will be happy. If it means North folding and then letting in Southport, they will be fine with that.
Take my advice North, decide on whether you want to merge or relocate now. If you don't you can bet that the AFL will.......
1. Abolish the CBF.
2. Grant a license to Southport, which in turn means North will have nowhere to sell games.
I don't envisage the AFL implementing the above 2 until 2009. But when they do,North will be in big strife.
Gee, why commission Gemba to do a full analysis when the club could just get your expert opinion ? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
thejester
23 Jun 2007, 10:10
The Sharks look like a bunch of corporate-driven wankers (http://www.southportsharks.com.au/). Give me North any day of the week.
They will get the best of both worlds, a relocation and merger.
Say hello to the Southport Kangaroos. :thumbsu:
Bonuspoints
23 Jun 2007, 12:02
I think its a shame that clubs like North have to look at mergers or relocating in order to survive but the way the game is going it looks like they will struggle to find the revenue to stay alive. Melb. just isn't big enough to sustain that many clubs at elite level, particularly as the costs for running a team is going up.
If they go to the GC then they have to be supported by the AFL for a long period (possibly 10-20yrs). A merger with the Southport would be the best as it gives them a local footing. Its a shame that people would fall away from their club just because it relocates. I've supported Collingwood all my life despite never living in Melbourne so I don't see what the big deal is, but I guess if you've grown up going to games weekly then I can sort of understand why you'd want to switch clubs.
Inferno
23 Jun 2007, 12:05
Will not follow North if they relocate to GC or merge. There alot of members that feel this way, and I'm sure if either happened they will lose alot. Bulldogs have increased their members via a stance focused on staying in Melbourne. There is no reason why the North administration cant follow their lead.I don't get it. They will be the same club except for the fact they will be playing out of another city if they do move.
DarwinRoo
23 Jun 2007, 13:12
If we move to the Gold Coast watch how many Melbourne based supporters drop off. Then merge(read: takeover) with Southport and then see the rest gone. And after 10 years as playing as either the Gold Coast Kangaroos (which is the only name i would support and no affiliation with Southport) or the Southport Kangaroos you will suddenly see a change back to the Southport Sharks.
The North Melbourne Kangaroos will be lost forever.
If North and the Doggies merged you would at least get supporters of both clubs honouring the history of the old clubs. Southport would pay lip service to Norths history.
Yep you've thought this one out well Wallsy.
It really is just a matter of signing on the bottom line and suddenly Carrara, its prefab surrounds and 11,000 supporters will instantly form an irresistable force that will explosively knock the Eagles and Crows off their perches as one time AFL superpowers. All we'll have to do is sit back and watch the flags roll in.
Wallsy? The ultimate insult:)
It will take time but GC is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. And who are going there? Vics, NSW, SA etc. Many will already follow a club but will as many do when they move, start to follow the new club in the area. (Its maybe their second favourite team but they will still follow)
Many Swans/Lions fans are ex-pats from other states.
Plus the AFL would give a helping hand so I dont think it would be too long that your team would be a powerhouse.
It will take alot of work (Like it did for the Swans) but its a viable option and it beats struggling.
strategy
23 Jun 2007, 16:30
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
Why cant the Roos , Carlton and Richmond merge ?
2 less teams in the competition , scrap the pre season cup , each side plays each other at their home ground and have 6 teams in the finals ?
woosh_era
23 Jun 2007, 16:45
If we move to the Gold Coast watch how many Melbourne based supporters drop off. Then merge(read: takeover) with Southport and then see the rest gone. And after 10 years as playing as either the Gold Coast Kangaroos (which is the only name i would support and no affiliation with Southport) or the Southport Kangaroos you will suddenly see a change back to the Southport Sharks.
The North Melbourne Kangaroos will be lost forever.
If North and the Doggies merged you would at least get supporters of both clubs honouring the history of the old clubs. Southport would pay lip service to Norths history.
Spot on. North will retain more long-term history keeping its cups alongside Melbourne's at the MCG than at Carrara.
But not southport. Needs to be a new startup gold coast team with no affiliations to anyone. That alienates groups of potential supporters. A team for the whole gold coast.
NeXus_Helen
30 Oct 2007, 09:08
I thought it might be appropriate to bump this thread I started way back in June. Now that relocation is getting close I think merging would be a better option.
Manbearpig
30 Oct 2007, 09:13
Stay tuned... an announcement is close, but relocation is not.
We're staying.
Australia
30 Oct 2007, 09:30
I don't understand why all this pressure is on North Melbourne to relocate. The Demons have less supporters, smaller crowds (in a bigger stadium) and neither club has much money. I could care less if they were the first club ever made or that they are called 'Melbourne' (we don't have a team called Perth and both WA teams are going fine). The Dees should be made to relocate before the Kangaroos because they are less viable as a club in Melbourne.
That said, I would rather my team relocate then merge.
Now now now I hate the Melbourne footy club like I hate all teams that aren't my own but this is just not true.
The Demons had over 25,000 members this year. The kangas had 20,000.
The Melbourne Victory had more members than the Kangas this year, and there is the problem, that is why the kangas are in trouble.
It is shit cause I love the kangas (3rd fav) but The above comment that they are in the same situation is completely untrue. People, like me, just hate Melbourne because they are Melbourne, they started football and will most likely always be around. They have lasted 150 years. Obviously they do ok when it seems something is about to kill them off.
And also the Melbourne merger vote, I don't even know if it is true but it has been over 10 years. There are alot of new fans who wouldn't vote for a merger in a second. If you go to Melbourne games and see the fans there. They love their club. Just because they don't have many fans, it doesn't mean the ones who are there don't bleed for their club.
This being said, it applies for the Roos. But this is the AFL, a multi-million dollar business. If your team has the lowest membership by over 6,000 you are the scapegoat 10 times out of 10.
Manbearpig
30 Oct 2007, 09:36
Now now now I hate the Melbourne footy club like I hate all teams that aren't my own but this is just not true.
The Demons had over 25,000 members this year. The kangas had 20,000.
The Melbourne Victory had more members than the Kangas this year, and there is the problem, that is why the kangas are in trouble.
It is shit cause I love the kangas (3rd fav) but The above comment that they are in the same situation is completely untrue. People, like me, just hate Melbourne because they are Melbourne, they started football and will most likely always be around. They have lasted 150 years. Obviously they do ok when it seems something is about to kill them off.
And also the Melbourne merger vote, I don't even know if it is true but it has been over 10 years. There are alot of new fans who wouldn't vote for a merger in a second. If you go to Melbourne games and see the fans there. They love their club. Just because they don't have many fans, it doesn't mean the ones who are there don't bleed for their club.
This being said, it applies for the Roos. But this is the AFL, a multi-million dollar business. If your team has the lowest membership by over 6,000 you are the scapegoat 10 times out of 10.
We had about 22,300 members this year. Apparently there were 5,000 people who were members the year before who failed to sign on. Reasons would obviously be the poor form of 2006, the looming GC issue and the lower value for money of our membership package as it only gets you access to 8 games.
According to Roy Morgan research, we have 228,000 supporters to Melbourne's 212,000.
P-MONEY
30 Oct 2007, 09:36
If North merge with the Doggies, Does that mean we won a preimership in the last 20 years?
I was very young when we re-located. However, all of my family followed South Melbourne, and still love the club just as much as they did then.
It'd be interesting to hear from Fitzroy fans, but I'd think relocation would be easier to deal with than a merger.
Australia
30 Oct 2007, 09:53
We had about 22,300 members this year. Apparently there were 5,000 people who were members the year before who failed to sign on. Reasons would obviously be the poor form of 2006, the looming GC issue and the lower value for money of our membership package as it only gets you access to 8 games.
According to Roy Morgan research, we have 228,000 supporters to Melbourne's 212,000.
Well that settles it, Roy Morgan research said so.
I actually would be heartbroken to see either the Kangas, Demons or anyone else for that matter have to re-locate. I would rather see a new license. But would hate 17 teams. Therefore a relocation must happen purely because it seems all these VIC teams will not survive.
It is a large decision to be made by the kangas board and the members. The logical decision for any club is to not piss off the AFL, do as we are told and be rewarded. However the heart wants to stay. I could deal with re-location, merger, wouldn't bother me at my club, however it would but only because I would want to see my team play everyweek like usual.
The question for fans is, whats more important, me seeing my team every week.... or the possibility of the team being shut down.
Either way you don't really win. The problem facing the Kangas is that the AFL have their mind made up, they would have done the research, it is all set. Melbourne aren't going anywhere. The dogs are a chance but like Melbourne, I doubt will move. Not because of more dedicated fans and a club etc. I don't believe any club feeds off their heart more than the roos. But what the AFL want, they will get. The bottom line is that the Kangas get cash hand outs. The AFL can give 3 options. Go nicely and be looked after. Cancel the kangas license. Or make the roos prove that they can last, take away their handouts. It's going to be a very tough decision.
Doctor Jolly
30 Oct 2007, 11:23
I think we all have come to accept that North Melbourne will cease to exist at the end of the 2009 season. I firmly believe that they should merge with Melbourne and form the "Melbourne Kangaroos", rather than relocate to the GC.
Your thoughts?
I perfect reason why supporters shouldnt have any say. A GC move guarantees that the Kangaroos in Blue and White maintain their tradition, history and entity INDIVIDUALLY in the AFL. Anyone who values those things must support a move to the GC to save that tradition. 100 years of tradtion
Selfish supporters who have only been following the club for 20 years (1/5th of its life) who want them to stay where they are and risk death just because its convenient for them, are NOT working for the benefit of the Kangaroos.
A Merger is a guaranteed way to irreversably lose identity and tradition.
DarwinRoo
30 Oct 2007, 19:10
I perfect reason why supporters shouldnt have any say. A GC move guarantees that the Kangaroos in Blue and White maintain their tradition, history and entity INDIVIDUALLY in the AFL. Anyone who values those things must support a move to the GC to save that tradition. 100 years of tradtion
Selfish supporters who have only been following the club for 20 years (1/5th of its life) who want them to stay where they are and risk death just because its convenient for them, are NOT working for the benefit of the Kangaroos.
A Merger is a guaranteed way to irreversably lose identity and tradition.
Who the **** is South Melbourne?
Who the **** is South Melbourne?
Dr J. is from Sydney, he wouldnt understand!
I liek the talk of mergers without actually having any team to merge with. The dogs wouldnt go for it and the dees probably wouldnt, its a kinda silly conversation cos people are thinking its a very legitimate alternative when really, it probably isnt.
FOOOOTY
30 Oct 2007, 19:50
We had about 22,300 members this year. Apparently there were 5,000 people who were members the year before who failed to sign on. Reasons would obviously be the poor form of 2006, the looming GC issue and the lower value for money of our membership package as it only gets you access to 8 games.
According to Roy Morgan research, we have 228,000 supporters to Melbourne's 212,000.
Yet we have 28k club members.
We also have 20k+ MCC Melb supporters (MFC receives money from MCC)
This in our worst on field year since 99
admittedly some of those are double ups but there is a big latent support for Melbourne out there. We are a proud club that was once a powerhouse of the VFL, its been toolong without a flag and having followed MFC closely over the last 20 odd years when we are having a good year and look a chance to snag a flag we have the biggest bandwagon support of any club, 1 flag is all it would take and a monster would be unleashed.
Anti Gold Coast
30 Oct 2007, 22:27
Lucky you don't barrack for North.
jacko57
31 Oct 2007, 15:25
I perfect reason why supporters shouldnt have any say. A GC move guarantees that the Kangaroos in Blue and White maintain their tradition, history and entity INDIVIDUALLY in the AFL. Anyone who values those things must support a move to the GC to save that tradition. 100 years of tradtion
Absolute BS. A move to the Gold Coast, even if it involves appropriating the colours of NMFC, would create a new club that could not maintain or replicate the atmosphere and culture of NMFC. It would be a different club. Full stop.
DarwinRoo
31 Oct 2007, 18:29
I perfect reason why supporters shouldnt have any say. A GC move guarantees that the Kangaroos in Blue and White maintain their tradition, history and entity INDIVIDUALLY in the AFL. Anyone who values those things must support a move to the GC to save that tradition. 100 years of tradtion
Selfish supporters who have only been following the club for 20 years (1/5th of its life) who want them to stay where they are and risk death just because its convenient for them, are NOT working for the benefit of the Kangaroos.
A Merger is a guaranteed way to irreversably lose identity and tradition.
Relocated team = South Melbourne to Sydney
Merged team = Fiztroy to Brisbane
Now tell me which club still has its name still included in the team song?
Which clubs supporters held up a sign "Who the **** is South Melbourne?"
Relocated team = South Melbourne to Sydney
Merged team = Fiztroy to Brisbane
Now tell me which club still has its name still included in the team song?
Which clubs supporters held up a sign "Who the **** is South Melbourne?"
Others held up signs 'The Bloods' etc, please dont taint us all with the same brush, you might be in the same boat one day! Even as close as two years time according to Archer, if you dont step up!:thumbsu:
Others held up signs 'The Bloods' etc, please dont taint us all with the same brush, you might be in the same boat one day! Even as close as two years time according to Archer, if you dont step up!:thumbsu:
I should change that post, if you dont step up, you might not be in the boat at all! Vlads starting a team, with or without you!
Jumpin' Jimmy
31 Oct 2007, 18:55
If Datt Prick had not stumbled into Carlton a few months back the logical alternative would have been for the AFL to throw big incentives at a Carlton/Kangaroos merger. Both clubs have been financial cot cases in recent years and require major investment in facilities etc. The Kangaroos would have been in a stronger bargaining position also. Now, unless Pratt falls off his perch soon, this option has virtually disappeared. The only other remote possibility is a Kangas/Bulldogs merger which would be very hard to get off the ground.
The AFL seems hell-bent on offering big dollar support for the Kangas to shift to Qld and bugger all, if any, support to stand alone in Victoria. Basically they are holding a loaded shotgun over the Kangas head. Very sad.