View Full Version : Expansion AFL threatening Roos with CBF withdrawl over Gold Coast Move
Manbearpig
30 Oct 2007, 10:45
It would be nice to think the AFL would withdraw all top up funding from all Clubs. Let the Clubs sink or swim. Why should say North or Melbourne get funding when Southport have run their Club into profit and success. If Port Adelaide didn't get the 2nd SAnFL license would the AFL sponsor moving North into Adelaide?
It just doesn't make sense.
Southport is primarily a venue, not a football club. People quote 60,000 members, but these are simply people who pay $5 to get a membership at the eatery and bar, just to get a 5% discount like we would at the local RSL or Bowls club.
Waverley73
30 Oct 2007, 10:47
A week ago, that last statement would have been more true.
The tide has turned at board and shareholder level in favour of staying.
If Glenn Archer is elected to the board tomorrow (and will take a brave board to not elect him, considering the potential supporter backlash), then the pro-Melbourne push, as well as the 2008 membership campaign will get an almighty push.
Yeah, but is all that just going to postpone it all? The AFL have clearly said that if you blokes don't go North that they'll just go for a 17th license while at the same time pull the rug from under you. Very, very dodgy but it seems they will look to bully you up there or say good luck without our assistance. I can only imagine what deals have already been made between the AFL and the Qld government over this. When these people (people who run leagues or head up a government) get dollar $igns in thier eyes nothing else will matter.
In regards to Glenn Archer - probably the most respected player going around in recent memory (and probably beyond) but probably unfortunately not enough to stop whatever Vlad et al are planning (or have already planned).
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 10:50
For those North fans saying it is due to draw inequities why does the AFL press release say extra ASD funding is for "clubs with long term financial difficulties". I don't see where it says about having a bad draw.
To be a conspiracy theorist - I also notice the AFL set aside $82 million for "unforseen circumstances" and "investment in assets and capital growth". To be honest it sounds like the AFL has already set aside the funding for its share of the new Gold Coast Stadium.
Source: AFL Media Release, September 2006
Yeah, thats why they want to get a team out of Victoria - they all Victorian and thats why they're doing it....
Ease up on the Vic bashing - it's clearly not whats going on here.
Its hardly Vic bashing.
But all this thread mentions is Victorian teams, and Victorian fabric and Victorian history.
Its an AFl comp, its no longer the VFL. I know that sucks for you because its exactly what happenned to the sanfl and wafl and tassie
can victoria support ten teams, without extra support, in the long term?
if it can't, then what's the solution?
rockape
30 Oct 2007, 10:53
why would the kangas want to go to the gold coast, there aint nuffin there cept theme parks and big brother.
Waverley73
30 Oct 2007, 10:56
Its hardly Vic bashing.
But all this thread mentions is Victorian teams, and Victorian fabric and Victorian history.
Its an AFl comp, its no longer the VFL. I know that sucks for you because its exactly what happenned to the sanfl and wafl and tassie
can victoria support ten teams, without extra support, in the long term?
if it can't, then what's the solution?
It doesn't suck for me - I love the AFL and the fact it's truely national. I was responding to the Perth person who asserted that the AFL is run by Victorians. Not really the issue here - expecially seeing that these supposed all Victorians are railroading a team into Queensland which is a whole other state.
hellfire
30 Oct 2007, 11:07
The bullies picked on the wrong club again. We've been fighting above our weight forever and nothing's about to change (pound for pound we surely are the toughest club going around:thumbsu:). They should have picked a softer target.
This is yet another scrap that we will win.
Shinboner Spirit, Est. 1869
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m319/pharro/BumperStickerSmall.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m319/pharro/BumperStickerSmall.jpg
Who?
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 11:24
Peter whoever he is just said AFL wants full relocation but the Kangaroos are trying to get a deal in the vicinty of 7 or 8 games on the Gold Coast per year at the cost of 600k each. 7 or 8 games is as good as gone. Its just a slow gradual death.
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 11:27
You recieve 400k a game from the AFL to play on the Gold Coast - which is nearly twice what Canberra paid and alot more than you make at Telstra Dome (if you actually make any money there - bad stadium contract you signed).
You are delusional if you cannot see, whether contract exists or not, if the AFL does not wish to fund any further games - your club is in alot of trouble and will have to find a way to replace that extra $1.6 million a year that won't be gifted to them from then onwards.
Your club will be even more insolvent.
Interesting your own figures contradict your own post!
Sorry we are gifted $1.6 million per year from playing on the GC are we?
Funkalicous
30 Oct 2007, 11:28
Southport is primarily a venue, not a football club. People quote 60,000 members, but these are simply people who pay $5 to get a membership at the eatery and bar, just to get a 5% discount like we would at the local RSL or Bowls club.
Southport run a great business, both inside and outside of Footy. They've been the dominate club in the AFLQ for a couple of decades now. In fact this year they made their 12th consecutive Grand Final. They also produce the most AFL players anywhere in Queensland. They're not just a social club.
Roughie
30 Oct 2007, 11:30
Exactly how we want it baby. Let him panic. Mr Potsy and his madam Cowro are chickening out now.
Just wait till Tmrows sun article about Arch getting on the board.Oh boy!!
Are you kidding? Sure Arch will have the spirit and the grunt every club needs, but he has no brain cells what so ever :rolleyes:
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 11:30
Interesting your own figures contradict your own post!
Sorry we are gifted $1.6 million per year from playing on the GC are we?
In 2008 and 2009, you will play 4 games x $400,000 per game = $1.6 million.
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 11:34
In 2008 and 2009, you will play 4 games x $400,000 per game = $1.6 million.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9360782&postcount=81
Oh and its 10 games over 3 years; 3 this year, 4 next year leaves 3 the year after there USC.
Also what do you think the club will be doing with the profits from playing games on the GC?
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 11:37
A new calculation has just came in Peter De Rauch said 7 or 8 games per year on the Gold Coast at $600,000 each.
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 11:43
A new calculation has just came in Peter De Rauch said 7 or 8 games per year on the Gold Coast at $600,000 each.
No i heard the AFL will provide us $1 million per game to stay in Melbourne- see its easy i can just pluck stuff out of thin air like you USC.
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 11:44
No i heard the AFL will provide us $1 million per game to stay in Melbourne- see its easy i can just pluck stuff out of thin air like you USC.
Check with your own fans who would have been listening to SEN. Mine has a source, yours does not. An annual fee of $4.8 million isn't bad.
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 11:47
Check with your own fans who would have been listening to SEN. Mine has a source, yours does not. An annual fee of $4.8 million isn't bad.
USC claiming to have a source!!!
Shock horror!
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 11:51
USC claiming to have a source!!!
Shock horror!
My source is confirmed on your own club board.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9361336&postcount=33
Good try none-the-less.
My source is confirmed on your own club board.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9361336&postcount=33
Good try none-the-less.
You still up Caro? Isn't it past bed time for you?
That's pharro's handy work. Soon to be seen on a shit load of Mazdas around town,;)Might I suggest you actually do revert back to North Melbourne first? I’m not being a smart arse – I think it is important.
A new calculation has just came in Peter De Rauch said 7 or 8 games per year on the Gold Coast at $600,000 each.
You do realise that Peter De Rauch is not a board member, or staff member of the club do you not?
Might I suggest you actually do revert back to North Melbourne first? I’m not being a smart arse – I think it is important.
I think it is too. Not a huge decision to make, but I'm pretty sure it would increase memberships by a decent amount.
Freo Big Fella
30 Oct 2007, 12:27
I have a lot of sympathy for Roos fans in this situation. We were on the brink of something similar (although not as calamitous as this obviously) in 2001, and have completely turned ourselves around, so there's really not a lot of stopping them if they can get a decent membership drive going and some serious financial backing.
My question is; If the board is so bloody limp-wristed why don't the roos fans/shareholders vote them out?
It would be nice to think the AFL would withdraw all top up funding from all Clubs. Let the Clubs sink or swim. Why should say North or Melbourne get funding when Southport have run their Club into profit and success. If Port Adelaide didn't get the 2nd SAnFL license would the AFL sponsor moving North into Adelaide?
It just doesn't make sense.I am not against the principle of no top up funding but what is the right dividend from the AFL and should the draw impact it? Survival by own steam by all means but let’s not do it while hands are tied. It’s the same argument I use re having our clubs hands tied in order to hold us down. Don’t worry it is official policy. Not just us being bound of course but it is policy.
Rolling draw, even match schedule, take it or leave it TV deal and eat what you kill. If we are to cull/relocate/merge then let it at least be on fair terms with a club like North able to fight in a fair fight. I reckon they will survive. Dees first to go.
NorthBhoy
30 Oct 2007, 12:28
Might I suggest you actually do revert back to North Melbourne first? I’m not being a smart arse – I think it is important.
This was put to previous chairman at a members forum, and he said he agreed, said he didn't know why we (Miller) changed it in the first place and then skipped to the next issue. Has to be changed back.
On the AFL's current tactics, I laugh in their face. Not for one second am I worried that they will even consider following through.
We have cut back our salary cap, halved our spending on the footy department, has an AFL plant inserted as CEO, bent over in the draw and said nothing about it and been an AFL bitch on every other issue because of this money.
We'll win this. We have passion and capacity. They have neither.
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 12:29
You do realise that Peter De Rauch is not a board member, or staff member of the club do you not?
He is the biggest shareholder in the Kangaroos isn't he? I'm sure he would have been kept informed in the discussions especially if they need a vote on it.
He is a powerful man as far as North go and as much as you would want to deny it, I'm sure he is in the know alot more than anyone on here and knows what is going on.
Southport is primarily a venue, not a football club. People quote 60,000 members, but these are simply people who pay $5 to get a membership at the eatery and bar, just to get a 5% discount like we would at the local RSL or Bowls club.True but they do make a bucketload from pokies. It is all relevant in the revenue assessment.
My question is; If the board is so bloody limp-wristed why don't the roos fans/shareholders vote them out?
At this stage the shareholders still have pretty much all the say. It's something that needs to be changed, look on the Roos board for plans on that.
I think it is too. Not a huge decision to make, but I'm pretty sure it would increase memberships by a decent amount.Huge, or at least important, from a symbolic perspective. Symbolism will save North Melbourne. This is an emotional battle not a logic war. The AFL has the logic weapons but they are a supporter less mother organisation. North have the members. AFL has the customers.
This was put to previous chairman at a members forum, and he said he agreed, said he didn't know why we (Miller) changed it in the first place and then skipped to the next issue. Has to be changed back.Sounds like a case of lip service to me. Too many lips doing too much service in recent years. Glad to see a bit of fire coming out.
jacko57
30 Oct 2007, 12:35
2. The players and coach are so desperate for decent training facilities, they want to move. That sounds like a pretty strong argument.
If it's true. Note who made the claim. If you want to take her word as gospel, can I interest you in buying the Sydney Harbour Bridge ?
He is the biggest shareholder in the Kangaroos isn't he? I'm sure he would have been kept informed in the discussions especially if they need a vote on it.
He is a powerful man as far as North go and as much as you would want to deny it, I'm sure he is in the know alot more than anyone on here and knows what is going on.
I'm not so sure, he got voted off the board at the last elections so I doubt his power is as great as you think it is. FWIW, I've got a lot of time for the man, but what he spoke about on radio was very much an ambit claim. I doubt we would get $600k per game, and I doubt the AFL would allow it under the conditions PDR wants.
I wouldn't have thought anyone would be so silly as to use those quotes as some sort of financial evidence. Maybe I'm wrong.
Huge, or at least important, from a symbolic perspective. Symbolism will save North Melbourne. This is an emotional battle not a logic war. The AFL has the logic weapons but they are a supporter less mother organisation. North have the members. AFL has the customers.
What I meant is that the while the decision would have huge significance, it's not that hard to do. I would think one press release and a few angry follow up calls would be all thats required.
I'm baffled why it hasn't been done by now, and I can only think it's the influence of pro-Gold Coast people on the board.
I read something about a large shareholder having additional shares held by another person due to maximum shareholding restrictions. The holder may have been Joseph (not sure). I’d be checking out invalid sharholdings. Could be an angle. Basically though the shareholders won zip if there are no members. How about loading memberships by $20 voluntary to buy our shareholders or something? I just made up the $ but I’m sure someone can work the numbers with the right data.
What I meant is that the while the decision would have huge significance, it's not that hard to do. I would think one press release and a few angry follow up calls would be all thats required.
I'm baffled why it hasn't been done by now, and I can only think it's the influence of pro-Gold Coast people on the board.Doncha love marketing advisors? Shiny new products for something that exists on 95% emotional grounds. Who was it that thought a footy club in a 100 year old market could create a new market for itself with a name change. REBRANDING. FFS!
With the CBF payment and the 1.2 million from the GC North still made a loss this year. Something radical on the financial side would be required to keep North in Melbourne, $3 million plus radical
Nothing on the GC is going to work at 8 games a year it has to be a GC team or a Melbourne team
The Zebra
30 Oct 2007, 12:50
Its $1.2m and $1.4m in 2007 but $1.6m and $1.4m in 2008 and 2009. So my figures relating to 2009 are relevant.
It depends on what our balance sheet looks like this year.
If we are in the black, then the extra $400,000 we receive from the extra game in 2008 is profit.
The $1.2/$1.6m is revenue none the less and revenue you will not be able to match if you don't play games on the Gold Coast. You wouldn't play games up there if you could get close to that anywhere else. The AFL pays you well over market rate for your games on the Gold Coast even if you were to relocate them somewhere else. Its going to hurt nonetheless and there is no denying that. You also have to deal with the AFL on scheduling and apporpriateness of any ground for AFL is you choose to play somewhere else but I doubt they will support it.
Again - we will se what happens this year. If we were to bring all home games back to Melbourne it is totally reasonable that 1. coming off a prelim in 2007 with a very young team 2. playing 11 home games in Melbourne again 3. on the back of a campaign emphasising the importance of membership to save the club 4. With Glenn Archer driving the membership campaign (as he has alreeady committed to do) - that we could get 2,00 more members than we had in 2006. That is conservative. That would be a 5,000 increase in members and an extra $1,000,000 on this years figures.
If we are in the black this year, or make a small loss you can take away the $1.2 Million received from Gold Coast games but add $1 million from increased membership. That leaves a difference of $200,000. The gate reveune from three extra games would surely cover that. For one it would ensure the Telstra Dome attendance bonus, which co-incidently is $200,000.
To see exactly where we are at depends on the prfoit/loss this year, but it certianly doesn't look as dire as many make out and with the right management in place is workable.
If it were that feasible your membership rise by those numbers - they would have done that years ago if that was they key to making North viable but not even your own board thinks this is the case and has for many years elected to play games interstate to make money.
Our own board has made that many bad decisions it is not funny. We have only picked from those who are shareholders - severely limiting the pool to choose from - and they have made one bad decsion after another.
Hawthorn was on the brink of a merger in 1996, yet the idea of death sparked some thing that saw a huge membership surge (also on the back on a younger membership built up through a dominant era finally coming to the age of financial independence). It can and has been done. Their is a silent majority out there that have been made to think relocation is inevitable by the lines pushed by the likes of Wilson (through the AFL) and not properly challenged by the board of the NMFC. If these people come to realise that relocation is death and it is not the only option (which it isn't) then figures of 28,000+ are more than acheivable.
You can argue about draw inequities for whatever you like - reality is the AFL has signalled their intention to withdraw this extra money so its largely irrelevant and I'm sure the AFL know more on this than any of us.
Wilson has chopped and changed her view that many times it is clear she is confused over what is ASD and what is part of a commercial GC deal. Using her as your source does not give you credibility. They could not, and would not pull the ASD while it is offered to other clubs. They may threaten it, but they would never do it. It would be a disaster for them in so many ways and they know that.
Basic logic should tell you this.
The same article says "expected to run at a loss this season despite the annual financial boost" which means despite $3m in AFL money they can't make a profit this season. Its game, set, match as far as relocation is concerned if this is true.
We'll see if we run at a loss and what the size of the loss is. If it is a smallish loss given membership levels this year, then it is not a huge issue that cannot be fixed.
If it is a massive loss then we are in trouble.
But again, Wilson has an agenda and is hardly a reliable source for this kind of thing. When we see the balance sheet we will have a better idea, but I doubt we are talking a massive loss here and there is every chance we will see a small profit in 2007.
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 12:53
With the CBF payment and the 1.2 million from the GC North still made a loss this year. Something radical on the financial side would be required to keep North in Melbourne, $3 million plus radical
Nothing on the GC is going to work at 8 games a year it has to be a GC team or a Melbourne team
Eight games a year is a Gold Coast team. I reckon the AFL will agree for say a period of 10 years for the Kangaroos to have 3 games in Melbourne/8 on the Gold Coast. In this time, Melbourne support for the Kangaroos will decrease and Gold Coast support for the Kangaroos will increase and the AFL will then pull the games out of Melbourne as they aren't viable.
I have no doubt that the AFL and Southport will be buying up shares in North Melbourne to eventually have the Southport Football Club own the North Melbourne Kangaroos. Perhaps they will keep the name just as the Kangaroos or perhaps they will become the Southport Kangaroos. Nonetheless, there is a huge scope to join the Kangaroos identity with a strong financial backing. I presume Southport Football Club is owned by members too and this then reverts the Kangaroos back to a member-owned organisation rather than a shareholder-owned one - which I think is more desirable.
This is a win for the AFL, Southport and the Gold Coast.
NorthBhoy
30 Oct 2007, 12:57
Doncha love marketing advisors? Shiny new products for something that exists on 95% emotional grounds. Who was it that thought a footy club in a 100 year old market could create a new market for itself with a name change. REBRANDING. FFS!
And I shudder to think how much they charged for this wonderful service. What it did was dilute the footy club. No-one doesn't support Collingwood or Essendon in Sydney, the Gold Coast or fricking Townsville because they carry a name of a Melbourne suburb.
And regarding lip service, that's all we've had from the current board and the ex-chairman. Without voting rights, the hardcore support has been treated like dirt, relied upon to back up each year and support the club for no return from the admin.
We have been poorly run, in almost every area, for far too long. Terrible to admit, but it gives me hope that if done right, things can be turned around.
This is a win for the AFL, Southport and the Gold Coast.
Southport has to convince a third of their members to spend an extra $100+ on their membership to support a game most of them clearly aren't interested in.
The AFL has to fork out the difference when most of the Southport members decide they'd rather keep their $5 memberships and play pokies. The AFL will also have to fork out a fair proportion of the £30m cost of upgrading the stadium.
Gold Coast will have to play the rest, just to get another professional team to come to their region. Unlike the other teams that have all failed dismally, this one will be a team playing a sport very few care about, and which will bring next to no support or infrastructure with them from Melbourne.
Win, win, win. Don't make me laugh.
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 13:07
My source is confirmed on your own club board.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9361336&postcount=33
Good try none-the-less.
Yes its very good USC, no wonder your ratted as a hack journo!
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 13:09
With the CBF payment and the 1.2 million from the GC North still made a loss this year. Something radical on the financial side would be required to keep North in Melbourne, $3 million plus radical
Nothing on the GC is going to work at 8 games a year it has to be a GC team or a Melbourne team
Care to provide a link to that since our financial year doesn't finish till tommorrow?
Doncha love marketing advisors? Shiny new products for something that exists on 95% emotional grounds. Who was it that thought a footy club in a 100 year old market could create a new market for itself with a name change. REBRANDING. FFS!
Sickening I know. It's why when people say what will change this time, that I know there is things that we have done really badly in the past, and if we can set them right, we will make gains at the club without a white knight, or some divine intervention. Changing the name won't save us, but it will make a bloody good start.
Care to provide a link to that since our financial year doesn't finish till tommorrow?
The club has been told it could not survive without the AFL funding and is expected to run at a loss this season despite the annual financial boost
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/pressure-builds-on-kangaroos-to-move-or-lose-funding/2007/10/29/1193618795971.html
Happy to be proved wrong, but if you make a loss on top of 1.4 mil from the CBF and 1.2 from the GC, the future aint bright
Hearts to hearts
30 Oct 2007, 13:25
Eight games a year is a Gold Coast team. I reckon the AFL will agree for say a period of 10 years for the Kangaroos to have 3 games in Melbourne/8 on the Gold Coast. In this time, Melbourne support for the Kangaroos will decrease and Gold Coast support for the Kangaroos will increase and the AFL will then pull the games out of Melbourne as they aren't viable.
I have no doubt that the AFL and Southport will be buying up shares in North Melbourne to eventually have the Southport Football Club own the North Melbourne Kangaroos. Perhaps they will keep the name just as the Kangaroos or perhaps they will become the Southport Kangaroos. Nonetheless, there is a huge scope to join the Kangaroos identity with a strong financial backing. I presume Southport Football Club is owned by members too and this then reverts the Kangaroos back to a member-owned organisation rather than a shareholder-owned one - which I think is more desirable.
This is a win for the AFL, Southport and the Gold Coast.
Much more desirable for the club to become member-owned at least in part now. That way there's no guarantees any underhand deals or long range AFL plans can be followed through. If we can buy time and opportunity, members and supporters can join up, turn up - and vote, for the first time in a very long time.
Win for North Melbourne Football Club, its members, real football people and the game - not the organisation - of AFL.
Hearts to hearts
30 Oct 2007, 13:26
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/pressure-builds-on-kangaroos-to-move-or-lose-funding/2007/10/29/1193618795971.html
Happy to be proved wrong, but if you make a loss on top of 1.4 mil from the CBF and 1.2 from the GC, the future aint bright
All the dark roads lead back to Caro, don't they?
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/pressure-builds-on-kangaroos-to-move-or-lose-funding/2007/10/29/1193618795971.html
Happy to be proved wrong, but if you make a loss on top of 1.4 mil from the CBF and 1.2 from the GC, the future aint bright
Mate, on that website stop when you read the letters C , A, R and O. You know that anything that follows it is just AFL PR, spin and propaganda.
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 13:27
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/pressure-builds-on-kangaroos-to-move-or-lose-funding/2007/10/29/1193618795971.html
Happy to be proved wrong, but if you make a loss on top of 1.4 mil from the CBF and 1.2 from the GC, the future aint bright
Thats a Caroline Wilson article!
Our financial year finishes tommorrow so we will have to see.
Get rid of all extrodinary funding and give all clubs an equal chunk of the TV rights and an equal draw for good measure :thumbsu:
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 13:40
Southport has to convince a third of their members to spend an extra $100+ on their membership to support a game most of them clearly aren't interested in.
The AFL has to fork out the difference when most of the Southport members decide they'd rather keep their $5 memberships and play pokies. The AFL will also have to fork out a fair proportion of the £30m cost of upgrading the stadium.
Gold Coast will have to play the rest, just to get another professional team to come to their region. Unlike the other teams that have all failed dismally, this one will be a team playing a sport very few care about, and which will bring next to no support or infrastructure with them from Melbourne.
Win, win, win. Don't make me laugh.
What like all members at other clubs pay the same price? There would simply be different levels of members with different voting rights and different prices and entitlements. I'm sure many other clubs have memberships and pokie venues such as like at Southport.
I'm sure the AFL has budgeted for the possiblity of a stadium on the Gold Coast. Infact, they set aside $82m from the last TV rights for "unforseen circumstances". I'd say that cash is a given.
They may not be popular at first but a merger with Southport's financial strength and the AFL's financial backing of games in Queensland mean that the club could survive for a fair while even if not particularly popular. Don't Southport make like $5m a year profit?
We have been poorly run, in almost every area, for far too long. Terrible to admit, but it gives me hope that if done right, things can be turned around.Been saying this for years and been clobbered by North fns for it. Finally the forest for the trees.
Infact, they set aside $82m from the last TV rights for "unforseen circumstances". I'd say that cash is a given.Unforseen circumstances. I love it. Withhold funds from the clubs, make some of them borderline in the process and offer the “unforseen” circumstances fund to get them out of the “unforseen” hole. It is magnificently self justifying on so many levels.
What like all members at other clubs pay the same price? There would simply be different levels of members with different voting rights and different prices and entitlements. I'm sure many other clubs have memberships and pokie venues such as like at Southport.
I'm sure they do, but if you want to go to the games you will be expecting to pay $100+ minimum on top of your pokie membership. If you think 20k will do that (remembering the ground doesn't hold that many yet) you would be severely mistaken.
I'm sure the AFL has budgeted for the possiblity of a stadium on the Gold Coast. Infact, they set aside $82m from the last TV rights for "unforseen circumstances". I'd say that cash is a given.
So if the AFL has that much money, why the urgency to move clubs? People are whinging about the Roos getting $1m odd assistance each year, but don't bat an eyelid at them getting many more times than that up at the Gold Coast. And I suspect the AFL will need to come up with much more than $80m to upgrade Gold Coast Stadium, after all footy (including the North Melbourne Football Club) paid pretty much all of the redevelopment of the MCG, as well as the building of Waverley and Docklands.
They may not be popular at first but a merger with Southport's financial strength and the AFL's financial backing of games in Queensland mean that the club could survive for a fair while even if not particularly popular. Don't Southport make like $5m a year profit?
What makes you think they'll be popular at all. Brisbane are struggling for members and they have had a phenomenal last five years or so. And if p&l is the only requirement for having a football team we better get rid of the lot of them and send them over to America and Asia where the really profitable businesses are run. Only thing is to some of us, it's not a business, it's a sport.
Been saying this for years and been clobbered by North fns for it. Finally the forest for the trees.
I've had this debate with you for a few years now (and they have been good debates). I've always probably erred on the side of defending the club, but I think we have always been a club that has had to take more risks than others. I don't really have a huge problem with our administrators trying something and failing (although I have been opposed to the name change, Sydney and Gold Coast moves), but I think the bigger mistake we're making now is not correcting some of those big errors, and also losing touch with the heartland supporters.
I've not given up on the board yet, and am hoping RJ, Arch and maybe one or two others will lead us down the right path. But I couldn't say I have confidence in 100% of the board any more.
yioughtta
30 Oct 2007, 13:58
^^^ Well said, moomba :thumbsu: (post 155)
Doctor Jolly
30 Oct 2007, 13:58
What like all members at other clubs pay the same price? There would simply be different levels of members with different voting rights and different prices and entitlements. I'm sure many other clubs have memberships and pokie venues such as like at Southport.
I'm sure the AFL has budgeted for the possiblity of a stadium on the Gold Coast. Infact, they set aside $82m from the last TV rights for "unforseen circumstances". I'd say that cash is a given.
They may not be popular at first but a merger with Southport's financial strength and the AFL's financial backing of games in Queensland mean that the club could survive for a fair while even if not particularly popular. Don't Southport make like $5m a year profit?
If the AFL reserves a certain proportion of money each year for stadium investment, then the GC stadium should be assured. I mean, is there anywhere else that needs a new stadium? Victoria has a modern ones. Sydney has two(!) modern ones, Brisbane has a good one, Perth, Adelaide are usually funded by local leagues.
Whever money is in the stadium fund can be channelled directly to the GC without hurting anyone else.
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 14:03
I'm sure they do, but if you want to go to the games you will be expecting to pay $100+ minimum on top of your pokie membership. If you think 20k will do that (remembering the ground doesn't hold that many yet) you would be severely mistaken.
So if the AFL has that much money, why the urgency to move clubs? People are whinging about the Roos getting $1m odd assistance each year, but don't bat an eyelid at them getting many more times than that up at the Gold Coast. And I suspect the AFL will need to come up with much more than $80m to upgrade Gold Coast Stadium, after all footy (including the North Melbourne Football Club) paid pretty much all of the redevelopment of the MCG, as well as the building of Waverley and Docklands.
What makes you think they'll be popular at all. Brisbane are struggling for members and they have had a phenomenal last five years or so. And if p&l is the only requirement for having a football team we better get rid of the lot of them and send them over to America and Asia where the really profitable businesses are run. Only thing is to some of us, it's not a business, it's a sport.
I never said 20,000 would join up to the Kangaroos game day memberships? I never said that at all. Three crowds of 11k aren't bad for a start. North on the GC would be a long term move not a short term one. Could the crowds be increased to 20k with a new stadium similar to a Skilled Stadium model where they make a bucket load of cash despite having a small crowd? Probably. Its not alot - when and if they move people will take ownership in the Roos and the crowds will improve.
I'm sure the AFL have their own finances and funding under control. Completely their decision and I'm sure they are comfortable with what they must outlay.
Its not necessarily a business i.e. I don't think a profit of $900k + no Premiership is more important than a profit of $100k + premiership. Its about winning flags and your club doesn't have to make huge profits but it needs to break even at least. Once you start making lots of losses your destiny becomes in the hands of others.
NorthBhoy
30 Oct 2007, 14:19
Been saying this for years and been clobbered by North fns for it. Finally the forest for the trees.
Not by me you haven't. I've agreed with you every time.
Doctor Jolly
30 Oct 2007, 14:50
Been saying this for years and been clobbered by North fns for it. Finally the forest for the trees.
Not every business can be profitable no matter who runs it.
North surviving in Melbourne runs too pretty big IF's in my opinion.
1). If North can be run extremely well and efficiently.
2). If Melbourne can support 9 (10 in reality) teams.
North would need point 1 to happen for at least 20 to 30 years to catch up to the other teams, and would require successive boards to be continually best-practice. ie. A long shot with no supporting historical evidence.
As far as point 2 is, I dont think it can.
The Teflon Dean
30 Oct 2007, 15:09
article by Caro tomorrow that Vlad and his cronies are threatening the Roos with not giving them any more CBF $$$ over the move to the Gold Coast. Its hotting up.
The AFL can't do that.
Next.
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 15:13
The AFL can't do that.
Next.
Why can't they do it? Surely they wouldn't threaten it if they couldn't do it because North would be smart enough to know they couldn't so what would be the point?
The Teflon Dean
30 Oct 2007, 15:27
Why can't they do it? Surely they wouldn't threaten it if they couldn't do it because North would be smart enough to know they couldn't so what would be the point?
Caroline Wilson is to sports journalism what Geoffrey Dahmer is to Vegans.
We would sue them for non-compensation of the unfair business practices of a lop sided draw (Collingwood 18 Melbourne games, North 14 Melbourne games), and we would win.
I suggest you look up the words "competitive" and "balance". It isn't a gift. It is a fund for concessions we make in the draw.
Why can't they do it? Surely they wouldn't threaten it if they couldn't do it because North would be smart enough to know they couldn't so what would be the point?
True, a conidition of getting the CBF money anyways is a good business plan, north is still losing money with the funding, not a sign of a good business plan.
(the condition might have disappeared, but it was definitely there a couple of years ago...)
AngelEyes
30 Oct 2007, 15:35
Caroline Wilson is to sports journalism what Geoffrey Dahmer is to Vegans.
We would sue them for non-compensation of the unfair business practices of a lop sided draw (Collingwood 18 Melbourne games, North 14 Melbourne games), and we would win.
I suggest you look up the words "competitive" and "balance". It isn't a gift. It is a fund for concessions we make in the draw.
Your definition is fine but the Competitive Balance Fund doesn't exist anymore, its the Annual Special Distribution - which was $31m fund set up over 5 years to help the poorer clubs. Source: AFL Press Release. I'm sure they could just not extend the fund past the five years.
Do North get 11 home games a year? Yes. Do they choose to sell four next year and have they choose to sold a number games over many years? Yes. You get your 11 home games - what you choose to do with them is not the AFL's fault. I don't know how you could sue them for something your club has choosen to do. You have home games in Melbourne next year against Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong. Thats pretty reasonable. They are possibly the three biggest drawing Victorian teams next year so I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself.
P.S. The CBF/ASD has nothing to do with the draw but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Source: AFL Press Release.
Caroline Wilson is to sports journalism what Geoffrey Dahmer is to Vegans.
We would sue them for non-compensation of the unfair business practices of a lop sided draw (Collingwood 18 Melbourne games, North 14 Melbourne games), and we would win.
I suggest you look up the words "competitive" and "balance". It isn't a gift. It is a fund for concessions we make in the draw.
You sell some games interstate, wouldnt help.
(i would like to add i dont want to see north go, but im rather unattatched so am trying to think more rationally...)
The Teflon Dean
30 Oct 2007, 15:38
Your definition is fine but the Competitive Balance Fund doesn't exist anymore, its the Annual Special Distribution - which was $31m fund set up over 5 years to help the poorer clubs. Source: AFL Press Release. I'm sure they could just not extend the fund past the five years.
Do North get 11 home games a year? Yes. Do they choose to sell four next year and have they choose to sold a number games over many years? Yes. You get your 11 home games - what you choose to do with them is not the AFL's fault. I don't know how you could sue them for something your club has choosen to do. You have home games in Melbourne next year against Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong. Thats pretty reasonable. They are possibly the three biggest drawing Victorian teams next year so I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself.
P.S. The CBF/ASD has nothing to do with the draw but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Source: AFL Press Release.
I don't care what they call it, until the draw is equal (Anzac Day etc.) it is unequal and liable to litigation.
We would sue them for non-compensation of the unfair business practices of a lop sided draw (Collingwood 18 Melbourne games, North 14 Melbourne games), and we would win.
I suggest you look up the words "competitive" and "balance". It isn't a gift. It is a fund for concessions we make in the draw.
LOL, so why don't non Victorian clubs get the same compensation for only 11 games in their home town? :confused:
Not every business can be profitable no matter who runs it.
North surviving in Melbourne runs too pretty big IF's in my opinion.
1). If North can be run extremely well and efficiently.
2). If Melbourne can support 9 (10 in reality) teams.
North would need point 1 to happen for at least 20 to 30 years to catch up to the other teams, and would require successive boards to be continually best-practice. ie. A long shot with no supporting historical evidence.
As far as point 2 is, I dont think it can.
It only took Hawthorn 2-3 years to catch up when they were in almost identical trouble in the mid 1990’s - I'd be amazed if the Kangaroos survive this AND would still be 20-30 years behind the other Melbourne based clubs. At the end of the day, this could be the thing that either makes North or kills it. What better then a relocation threat to stire up the supporters, unite them and gauge if the club has enough latent support to support a club in Victoria in the long term? In many ways this could actually be good for the North Melbourne Kangaroos as a Melbourne entity.
In the long run it will kill North if general AFL fans donate significantly to the cause, this is a battle North has to fight and continue to fit for the rest of their history. What's the point if 10,000 AFL fans buy a Kangaroos membership only for the membership to again dip below 25,000 3 years later?
The Kangaroos need 30,000+ North Melbourne members year in, year out and 25,000+ Kangaroos fans showing up to games...its really that simple
LOL, so why don't non Victorian clubs get the same compensation for only 11 games in their home town? :confused:
TV coverage of those teams games are better.
FOOOOTY
30 Oct 2007, 15:45
Yeah, but is all that just going to postpone it all? The AFL have clearly said that if you blokes don't go North that they'll just go for a 17th license while at the same time pull the rug from under you. Very, very dodgy but it seems they will look to bully you up there or say good luck without our assistance. I can only imagine what deals have already been made between the AFL and the Qld government over this. When these people (people who run leagues or head up a government) get dollar $igns in thier eyes nothing else will matter.
have already planned).
There was a reason that the AFL have been working behind the scenes trying to get this done on the sly instead of selling the GC proposal on its merits, namely they dont want the AFL brand damaged by a long drawn out fight with passionate kangaroo fans, that is the only thing that will make them let up with this.
Thats a Caroline Wilson article!
Our financial year finishes tommorrow so we will have to see.
We will, but given the board movements it must be a bit of a chance
FOOOOTY
30 Oct 2007, 16:12
Unforseen circumstances. I love it. Withhold funds from the clubs, make some of them borderline in the process and offer the “unforseen” circumstances fund to get them out of the “unforseen” hole. It is magnificently self justifying on so many levels.
This is a much bigger argument, 82mil/5/16 = 1mil a year to each club that this "unforseen circumstances fund is taking away.
The AFL also spend massive amounts on game development, advertising, studys, etc etc.. but that is their role, i would be interested in seeing howmuch the AFL spend in all areas if anyone has some figures
Not every business can be profitable no matter who runs it.
North surviving in Melbourne runs too pretty big IF's in my opinion.
1). If North can be run extremely well and efficiently.
2). If Melbourne can support 9 (10 in reality) teams.
North would need point 1 to happen for at least 20 to 30 years to catch up to the other teams, and would require successive boards to be continually best-practice. ie. A long shot with no supporting historical evidence.
As far as point 2 is, I dont think it can.My view from the outside is this:
There is no guarantee North can run profitably, particularly if they have a bad run for a while on field. However they stand a much better chance as North Melbourne with the emotional pull and playing to their strengths than they do as the Kangaroos with a marketer’s version of a logo that appeals to non footy fans and kids who don’t have their own money. Sydney are not South Melbourne and Brisbane are not Fitzroy. Relocation is death (my view and not shared by all).
It goes further than logos and names it goes to what they stand for and how they place themselves in the football landscape. The football department are fine but the board followed a path that lead to where they are now. For ages I have been saying that unless they came out and said we stay or die they would leave. I hope it isn’t too late. I hope Archer is the saviour because they need one.
They need a board who view relocation as death. The first mutterings of “if we have no choice and the deal is good we will look at” have to result in stoning. The best chance to live as North is to risk death as a club IMO.
I am on the outside though so I don’t have all the facts. As far as point 2 is, I dont think it can.It can and it is. There is a crapload of money. There are numerous ways to skin a cat. There are variables like the AFL cash retention ratio, restrictions on clubs earning revenues directly, scheduling, gate sharing and all sorts of things that make definitive statements difficult. Change the parameters, change the result. I don’t subscribe to the theory that North can’t make a bunch due to the draw etc but it doesn’t help. Ultimately there is far more to it. Nevertheless IMO you either have a rigged draw and revenue redistribution of more “equity” and less “assistance”.
gandaal
30 Oct 2007, 17:35
Not so.
You wouldn't have survived with 8m from the AFL.
With the right staretgy and motivation, we can remain a Melbourne club, albeit one that flogs some games interstate.
8 million from the AFL?
I support Carlton not North or the Demons.
The Zebra
30 Oct 2007, 17:50
8 million from the AFL?
I support Carlton not North or the Demons.
Interest free loan?
1jasonoz
30 Oct 2007, 17:52
8 million from the AFL?
I support Carlton not North or the Demons.
Forgotten your own history?
The Teflon Dean
30 Oct 2007, 17:56
Forgotten your own history?
There is no Carlton History between 1995 and 200Judd.
The Chad
30 Oct 2007, 18:10
Forgotten your own history?
arguing about carlton's financial history gets you no closer to saving the kangaroos
same way st. kilda arguing about how carlton winning wooden spoons is comparable to their 26 spoons gets them no closer to winning a premiership
Sir_Adrian84
30 Oct 2007, 22:28
:thumbsu: Thanks for finding that. Looks like they are tipping in the big $$'s. The $300 mill is the total amount which includes the redevelopment of Carrara.
Looks like a done deal no matter what to be honest. The league will probably end up getting what it wants no matter what the Kanagroos say. Unfortunately money talks.
I think carrara will also be used for cricket or at the very least a bargaining opponent (for Cricket Australia) for bidding against the Gabba (similar to MCG/Telstra Dome; SCG/Telstra Stadium; WACA/Subiaco and Adel. Oval/AAMI).
ChrisFooty
31 Oct 2007, 01:49
Southport run a great business, both inside and outside of Footy. They've been the dominate club in the AFLQ for a couple of decades now. In fact this year they made their 12th consecutive Grand Final. They also produce the most AFL players anywhere in Queensland. They're not just a social club.
So Southport charge 5 bucks a membership annual fee. How many of their 40,000 members will pay a full AFL membership that is worth between $130-150 a pop. A very small portion. If Southport come in, the AFL will basically fund the whole joint for the short-medium term.
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 02:00
8 million from the AFL?
I support Carlton not North or the Demons.
Your interest free loan.
You are obviously not a keen follower of Carlton.
Another Carlton lightweight.
So Southport charge 5 bucks a membership annual fee. How many of their 40,000 members will pay a full AFL membership that is worth between $130-150 a pop. A very small portion. If Southport come in, the AFL will basically fund the whole joint for the short-medium term.
indeed, and they will get the money back 3-fold from the next TV rights agreement. the reason the AFL is keen to sacrifice the roos for this is because they generate so little of the value of the TV rights.
and they will be working in a much wider population than the 40000 trying to get members. southport already run a very successful and profitable operation, with big revenues and profits, already in the millions a year. if they came into the league they would instantly achieve a national level brand, they would be able to court big sponsorship dollars in addition to getting the dividend from the AFL.
people overstate how much monetary southport would need, imo. i think they would be pretty financial pretty quickly. especially because they would have the AFL funding their advertising and promotion for the first few years from the northern development cash.
the main thing they would have real problems with is carrara. it needs a shitload of work, and if they entered it would take 10 years of AFL and QLD government support to get the thing up to scratch.
but thats not going to happen with no team, so get them in there, i reckon.
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 02:48
indeed, and they will get the money back 3-fold from the next TV rights agreement. the reason the AFL is keen to sacrifice the roos for this is because they generate so little of the value of the TV rights.
Apart from the fact that we broke and developed the lucrative Friday night football market ...
Apart from the fact that we broke and developed the lucrative Friday night football market ...
indeed.
unfortunately, just because you pioneered it doesent mean you are any more attractive to TV networks who want to show games on TV.
friday night football is about TV, ratings and promotion of the game, and the fact is that north games rate far lower than most teams
as it stands now you contribute less to the ratings than any other team, and hence less to the value of the TV rights... which is the AFLs number 1 source of income.
this is the core reason why you are on the chopping block, because in the TV schedule you are basically filler, you are draw fodder, your value is in giving the popular teams someone to play against.
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 03:06
indeed.
unfortunately, just because you pioneered it doesent mean you are any more attractive to TV networks who want to show games on TV.
friday night football is about TV, ratings and promotion of the game, and the fact is that north games rate far lower than most teams
as it stands now you contribute less to the ratings than any other team, and hence less to the value of the TV rights... which is the AFLs number 1 source of income.
this is the core reason why you are on the chopping block, because in the TV schedule you are basically filler, you are draw fodder, your value is in giving the popular teams someone to play against.
Do you have a source for your claim about us contributing less to the ratings?
Or is it just more of this received wisdom that gets punted about but is actually bullshit?
What drives ratings is successful teams playing attractive footy - as we did this year - and will next year.
Do you have a source for your claim about us contributing less to the ratings?
Or is it just more of this received wisdom that gets punted about but is actually bullshit?
What drives ratings is successful teams playing attractive footy - as we did this year - and will next year.
whether or not you play attractive football, whether or not you have superstars playing for you, games rate mainly because of the teams involved, teams with alot of supporters rate highly. im sorry mate, you are not going to become as popular a TV product as collingwood overnight just by playing good football. essendon playing the most boring football in the world is still going to outrate a roos game, no matter the quality, because ALOT more people care about it.
any network that is trying to put on games of football will take any other side and any other game before the roos games, simply because they are going to get more people watching, in any market.
the reason you guys are relegated to sunday games, the reason you are on foxtel all the time, the reason you dont get blockbusters, is because you draw the lowest ratings of just about all sides
and because of this, you contribute less to the value of the TV rights than any other team. except the other least popular clubs, the bulldogs and demons
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 03:22
whether or not you play attractive football, whether or not you have superstars playing for you, games rate mainly because of the teams involved, teams with alot of supporters rate highly. im sorry mate, you are not going to become as popular a TV product as collingwood overnight just by playing good football. essendon playing the most boring football in the world is still going to outrate a roos game, no matter the quality, because ALOT more people care about it.
any network that is trying to put on games of football will take any other side and any other game before the roos games, simply because they are going to get more people watching, in any market.
the reason you guys are relegated to sunday games, the reason you are on foxtel all the time, the reason you dont get blockbusters, is because you draw the lowest ratings of just about all sides
and because of this, you contribute less to the value of the TV rights than any other team.
So you have no source, just yet more of the recieved bullshit that has been endlessly sprouted by anyone.
If you can post ratings figures demonstrating this, go for it. If not, then all we have is yet more crap.
So you have no source, just yet more of the recieved bullshit that has been endlessly sprouted by anyone.
If you can post ratings figures demonstrating this, go for it. If not, then all we have is yet more crap.
so you honestly believe that roos games are an attractive TV stations to show? that more people want to watch roos games than, that you actually rate through the roof? that they would rather show a roos game than a hawthorn, geelong or saint kilda game? is this what you believe?
if this is the case, tell me, why are you on foxtel, why are you on sunday? why dont you get friday night games and blockbusters?
im wondering exactly at the level of self delusion here.
how many members do you think you have? 50000?
sorry to break it to ya mate, but north melbourne isnt that popular. turns out some things that are endlessly spouted are actually true
so you honestly believe that roos games are an attractive TV stations to show? that more people want to watch roos games than, that you actually rate through the roof? that they would rather show a roos game than a hawthorn, geelong or saint kilda game? is this what you believe?
if this is the case, tell me, why are you on foxtel, why are you on sunday? why dont you get friday night games and blockbusters?
im wondering exactly at the level of self delusion here.
how many members do you think you have? 50000?
sorry to break it to ya mate, but north melbourne isnt that popular. turns out some things that are endlessly spouted are actually true
Would we be any more popular to the TV viewer playing on the Gold Coast in front of 10k a week?
If you believe we would be you are kidding yourself.
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 03:42
so you honestly believe that roos games are an attractive TV stations to show?
They certainly were in the 90s, when we made Friday night footy what it is.
that more people want to watch roos games than, that you actually rate through the roof? that they would rather show a roos game than a hawthorn, geelong or saint kilda game? is this what you believe?
If North are 3rd and playing Hawthorn who are 4th in a late round, and 14th places Essendon play 16th placed Carlton at the same time, who are the neutrals going to watch?
Obviously the game between two top sides that can have an effect on the make up of the 8.
if this is the case, tell me, why are you on foxtel, why are you on sunday?
Because we had a shit 2006, and we tipped widely to have a shit 2007.
how many members do you think you have? 50000?
Members attend games.
sorry to break it to ya mate, but north melbourne isnt that popular. turns out some things that are endlessly spouted are actually true
I know we are not immensely popular.
However what you fail to understand is that what drives ratings isn't how many members you have.
Seriously, people don't sit down and think 'I will watch Collingwood and Essendon play tonight as they have the most members', they want to watch the best game.
As I said, your inability to produce ANY figures to back up your assertions demonstrates they are just more received bullshit.
Would we be any more popular to the TV viewer playing on the Gold Coast in front of 10k a week?
If you believe we would be you are kidding yourself.
well, you would be alot more popular a TV product to people on the gold coast and SEQ. noone cares about you guys up there right now, and why should they?
and in terms of the 5-city ratings and the value of the TV rights contract, you being up there makes you alot more valuable to the AFL than just filling the schedule in melbourne.
of course, i dont see why we cant just give southport a license and have both
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 03:59
well, you would be alot more popular a TV product to people on the gold coast and SEQ. noone cares about you guys up there right now, and why should they?
and in terms of the 5-city ratings and the value of the TV rights contract, you being up there makes you alot more valuable to the AFL than just filling the schedule in melbourne.
of course, i dont see why we cant just give southport a license and have both
I thinkwe should give the Unlisted Unicorns a license.
They seem to have lots of fans on BF, and are never short of something to say about everyone else's teams.
so you honestly believe that roos games are an attractive TV stations to show?
They certainly were in the 90s, when we made Friday night footy what it is.
im breaking alot of news to ya tonight it seems, but it is no longer the the 90s.
the roos just dont have the pulling power that they used to
that more people want to watch roos games than, that you actually rate through the roof? that they would rather show a roos game than a hawthorn, geelong or saint kilda game? is this what you believe?
If North are 3rd and playing Hawthorn who are 4th in a late round, and 14th places Essendon play 16th placed Carlton at the same time, who are the neutrals going to watch?
neutrals will watch the movie. very, very few football fans watch games other than their own team. only tragics like us on this board watch other games for the hell of it.
north vs hawks up against ess vs carlton is going to get blown away every day of the week and twice on sundays, no matter what the ladder positions.
Because we had a shit 2006, and we tipped widely to have a shit 2007.
sorry to break it to ya mate, but north melbourne isnt that popular. turns out some things that are endlessly spouted are actually true
I know we are not immensely popular.
However what you fail to understand is that what drives ratings isn't how many members you have.
Seriously, people don't sit down and think 'I will watch Collingwood and Essendon play tonight as they have the most members', they want to watch the best game.
no they dont, what you are willfully ignoring is that fact that ratings depend precisely on how many SUPPORTERS you have, no members, but supporters. people sit down to watch their team, not the best game. and for exactly the reason why you arent happy to see the roos go north, because you love you team not football in general.
people do say "im will watch the collingwood and essendon game tonight because i am a collingwood/essendon supporter"
and the reason they rate is because there is ALOT of those people, and the reason you dont rate is because there are very few of you
As I said, your inability to produce ANY figures to back up your assertions demonstrates they are just more received bullshit.
<yawn>
you can block your ears and yell "show me sources" till you are blue in the face, it wont change the fact that
north melbourne have very few supporters and they rate poorly on TV
well, you would be alot more popular a TV product to people on the gold coast and SEQ. noone cares about you guys up there right now, and why should they?
So we gain a few thousand interested TV viewers on the Gold Coast, and lose tens of thousands of traditional supporters. Smart.
and in terms of the 5-city ratings and the value of the TV rights contract, you being up there makes you alot more valuable to the AFL than just filling the schedule in melbourne.
Unless you can find some sort of evidence on this I say bollocks. The Gold coast TV market is next to insignificant in the grander scheme of things. There just isn't the number of interested footy supporters for the TV companies or corporates to get too interested.
of course, i dont see why we cant just give southport a license and have both
Or we could leave the structure of the comp as it is. Is the AFL in that dire straits at the moment that we have to make drastic changes?
I thinkwe should give the Unlisted Unicorns a license.
They seem to have lots of fans on BF, and are never short of something to say about everyone else's teams.
heaven forbid someone on a football opinion forum expressing an opinion about football :rolleyes:
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 04:11
Zero - you still have no evidence to back up your case. None. Nada. Zilch.
Very appropriate user name.
SweetLeftFoot
31 Oct 2007, 04:17
heaven forbid someone on a football opinion forum expressing an opinion about football :rolleyes:
Yes, opinion.
Very few facts with you.
Zero in fact.
No team, no facts, you are what makes BF great!
neutrals will watch the movie. very, very few football fans watch games other than their own team. only tragics like us on this board watch other games for the hell of it.
No, I think you'll find that a lot of football supporters will watch at least one game a week not involving their club.
north vs hawks up against ess vs carlton is going to get blown away every day of the week and twice on sundays, no matter what the ladder positions.
Would make interesting stats, personally I suspect the ratings for Carlton Essendon last season would have been pretty low. I'd certainly be more interested watching two smaller sides (particular two Melbourne based ones) competing at the right end of the table in preference to two struggling giants.
no they dont, what you are willfully ignoring is that fact that ratings depend precisely on how many SUPPORTERS you have, no members, but supporters. people sit down to watch their team, not the best game. and for exactly the reason why you arent happy to see the roos go north, because you love you team not football in general.
Do you have discussions about the weekend games on Monday morning at work. Those discussions exist because people watch footy. And they tend to pick and choose the games the watch, some of it is scheduling, some of it is the attractiveness of the teams playing, some of it is the atmosphere at games.
north melbourne have very few supporters and they rate poorly on TV
If you're going to consistently make the argument, why don't you at least try and find some facts to justify your claim. I'll do likewise.
So we gain a few thousand interested TV viewers on the Gold Coast, and lose tens of thousands of traditional supporters. Smart.
well, the idea is that we rope in the entire SEQ region for TV and supportership, and this is a very populous region.
but yes, that is the trade off, not very good for you guys, obviously
Unless you can find some sort of evidence on this I say bollocks. The Gold coast TV market is next to insignificant in the grander scheme of things. There just isn't the number of interested footy supporters for the TV companies or corporates to get too interested.
hmmm, well, im not really in the habit of keeping and indexing news articles from the last 2 rounds of TV rights and football demographics analysis just to win arguments against idiots blinded with rage, but i did read all that stuff and am content with what i have asserted.
im dont think im really saying anything that far out:
1. north dont have many supporters
2. north dont rate that well on TV in victoria, with the WB worst of all, and hardly raise an eyebrow elsewhere
3. by virtue of being included in the 5-city ratings as part of brisbane, the gold coast is over represented in TV advertising revenue valuation
4. a new local side in SEQ and the gold coast in particular will seriously increase the exposure of the sport and the ratings up there
im not trying to be adversarial here, im just trying to explain why the AFL is so happy to push you guys and shift a 100 hear old club with an established (if small) supporter base