AFL threatening Roos with CBF withdrawl over Gold Coast Move

[yeah-nah]

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.

[Andyroo]

That would surely mean that the Dogs and Melbourne would lose their extra funding too - unlikely they'd leave three clubs dangling on the edge for the sake of moving one.

[Kangas_Div]

Great news :D

The AFL are absolutely shitting themselves

[giantroo]

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!!

[jacko57]

Arrogant as the AFL are, and desperate as their lapdog is to write a story that relocation is going ahead................despite all that, I can't see them pulling CBF funding. They just wouldn't get away with it.

They can threaten to pull the Gold Coast subsidy (which was $1.2 mil this year). But I'm fine with that. If we have a red hot go at getting members to sign up & sponsors to get on board to make sure we stay based in Melbourne, we won't need the GC subsidy. We'll have more Melbourne-based members, paying more for their memberships as we will have more home games in Melbourne.

Factor in the fact that GC-based memberships went back to the AFL this year, plus the small capacity at Carrara, and the extra costs of going there in the season & pre-season....I'm not at all sure it's such a big blow to the club's finances......certainly not one that we can't absorb.

[windsock]

Arrogant as the AFL are, and desperate as their lapdog is to write a story that relocation is going ahead................despite all that, I can't see them pulling CBF funding. They just wouldn't get away with it.

They can threaten to pull the Gold Coast subsidy (which was $1.2 mil this year). But I'm fine with that. If we have a red hot go at getting members to sign up & sponsors to get on board to make sure we stay based in Melbourne, we won't need the GC subsidy. We'll have more Melbourne-based members, paying more for their memberships as we will have more home games in Melbourne.

Factor in the fact that GC-based memberships went back to the AFL this year, plus the small capacity at Carrara, and the extra costs of going there in the season & pre-season....I'm not at all sure it's such a big blow to the club's finances......certainly not one that we can't absorb.

Finding an extra $1.6m (we have four games there this year) won't be a piece of cake. It's a tough climate out there. We need to ahve a very good plan to counter that shortfall. We probably also need to be prepared to find that CBF money elsewhere too. I'd put nothing past those pricks.

[ChrisFooty]

I just made a thread earlier asking this same question....but oh well

How can the AFL stop the funding for North Melbourne, yet other teams can still obtain it?

Would be a really bad Public relations exercise. You know, how the Kangas were going to get their funding cut, yet other teams can still ask for it and recieve. Seems very odd.

[WA ROO]

If the AFL take the CBF from us they would have to take it from everyone who is also recieving it
Right?

[yioughtta]

Over the next few weeks, Ben Cousins could get caught smuggling drugs into Bali and he would still struggle to get the Back page.

This will be BIG.

[Porthos]

Ridiculous scenario.

Gold Coast Demons wouldn't put up this kind of resistance, pick a real target Demetriou.

[Ron]

Ridiculous scenario.

Gold Coast Demons wouldn't put up this kind of resistance, pick a real target Demetriou.

Exactly.
Roos supporters actually have some passion, even if their board is a bunch of squibs.

Demon and Saints fans wouldn't care less i reckon if their team moved, none of them care about their team now, a move wouldn't change things.

[kookadog]

It's a shocking suggestion..They are f@#king with the fabric of the game, and the balance they have been working into the competition.

[Lidge]

Ridiculous scenario.

Gold Coast Demons wouldn't put up this kind of resistance, pick a real target Demetriou.

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

[Saints Premiers 2006]

come on roos hold strong...noone wants to see you leave melbourne

all the best

[ChrisFooty]

Exactly.
Roos supporters actually have some passion, even if their board is a bunch of squibs.

Demon and Saints fans wouldn't care less i reckon if their team moved, none of them care about their team now, a move wouldn't change things.

Disagree very strongly about the Saints.

Kangaroo fans do care, they just have to voice their thoughts louder. Has the AFL actually said anything? Is there actual quotes in this article? Or is it just caro saying "i think this will happen" stuff again?

[good2bblue]

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

Great point. That's one thing that your club has (that others often lack) is spirit. You fight out the battles and are there for the long haul.

Go the distance!!:thumbsu:

[rusdid24]

They better ****ing well not. There might be a rebellion. They can't take it from one club because they refuse to bend over and take it in the arse when the AFL commands it.

Maybe the Roos should send Glenn Archer down to AFL House to rip Demetriou's arms and legs off. Would he like that?

Come on Roos, stick it up em!

[j flex roo]

Exactly.
Roos supporters actually have some passion, even if their board is a bunch of squibs.

Demon and Saints fans wouldn't care less i reckon if their team moved, none of them care about their team now, a move wouldn't change things.

No team should have to move anywhere.

F-- the AFL and F-- C. Wilson.

Dont mess with the foundations of the game - the Victorian clubs - each as essential to the fabric of the comp as the other in their own way.

[giantroo]

First step: awareness : http://news.realfooty.com.au/kangaroos-group-to-mobilise-members/20070029-16vf.html

[ApplecrossWC]

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m319/pharro/BumperStickerSmall.jpg

Nice work Lidge :thumbsu:

[Lidge]

Nice work Lidge :thumbsu:

That's pharro's handy work. Soon to be seen on a shit load of Mazdas around town,;)

[bulldogrob]

Nice work Lidge :thumbsu:

So we get more stickers like the infamous Up yours Oakley

[SweetLeftFoot]

Great news.

Let the fight begin.

[CaptainDavey]

Melbourne is not going anywhere, horray!

All the best to the Kangas, would be a sad day to see them go

[SweetLeftFoot]

Am just waiting for some flog hawthorn supporters to troll this thread.

[Lidge]

So we get more stickers like the infamous Up yours Oakley

Plus a whole new bag of tricks.:D

The AFL won't have the ticker for this battle.

[ApplecrossWC]

Am just waiting for some flog hawthorn supporters to troll this thread.

I'm shocked that no one has yet. I guess the kind of Hawthorn supporters who post that crap have been tucked into bed by mummy so they get their rest before a big day at school tomorrow.

[yeah-nah]

I think some of you miss the point. AFL cant make Roos move. They have plan B and C and will get a team to the GC one way or another. However if Roos decide to stay, and it will be your clubs decision, the AFL wont go out of their way to help you survive. They might even make it difficult and they have many ways to screw you beyond the CBF $$. So if you stay, you better have a damn good plan to remain viable without assistance or you will fold and the AFL wont bat an eyelid.

[rusdid24]

Am just waiting for some flog hawthorn supporters to troll this thread.

They're all over on the Maxwell v Brown tread abusing anyone who dares think Nick Maxwell is tougher than Campbell Brown.
Don't even dare suggest it...

[SweetLeftFoot]

I think some of you miss the point. AFL cant make Roos move. They have plan B and C and will get a team to the GC one way or another. However if Roos decide to stay, and it will be your clubs decision, the AFL wont go out of their way to help you survive. They might even make it difficult and they have many ways to screw you beyond the CBF $$. So if you stay, you better have a damn good plan to remain viable without assistance or you will fold and the AFL wont bat an eyelid.

This is very true, and a good post.

People are working on those methods as we speak I believe.

FWIW - I think the end result will still see us playing some games on the GC, maybe even a few more - 6 absolute max.

I have always said that Demetrious line about 22 games a year in QLD is a bluff.

Even the AFL knows the SE QLD market won't support that.

[CaptainDavey]

Here is the article...Good ol Caro

THE AFL is losing patience with the leaderless Kangaroos and is on the verge of threatening to withdraw its annual $1.4 million special funding of the club by the end of 2009.

Frustrated at the club's indecisiveness regarding its forecast relocation to the Gold Coast — and increasingly angry at the North Melbourne shareholders' failure to financially support the club while attempting to control its destiny — AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou is tomorrow expected to communicate the league's position to the Kangaroos' board.

Demetriou, along with his AFL colleagues Gillon McLachlan and Andrew Catterall, will attend board talks at which chairman Graham Duff will stand down in the knowledge there is no immediate replacement.

While the Kangaroos' board awaits the Peter Scanlon-led official review of the Gemba report into its future, Demetriou and the AFL Commission have moved to make it clear that league special funding will cease at the end of 2009.

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, which in 2008 included a total $1.2 million towards its three home-and-away games at Carrara.

The board held urgent talks yesterday in a bid to find a solution to its lack of leadership but still appears no closer to a decision on Duff's replacement, with both the AFL and key board members opposed to Mark Dawson and pessimistic that Scanlon — a former AFL commissioner — would take on the job.

No current Kangaroos director appears prepared to take it or has the support.

Despite speculation that the club shareholders will take the final decision on relocation, the board appears resolved that such a historic and momentous move would take place without consultation from its members.

The board itself will not form a view until the Scanlon review is on the table. That is expected in the next week.

A final relocation decision would almost certainly take place in the coming weeks in the knowledge that the club could not survive without AFL support and that the league's proposed relocation package will not improve with time.

The league's other 15 clubs — while not all determined to move the Kangaroos out of Melbourne — are also becoming persuaded by the view that the club has been held to ransom by shareholders who are not attempting to help the club out of its current financial plight.

There is also the threat of legal action from other clubs should the club be given an exclusive Gold Coast zone for a two to three-year period.

Kangaroos major shareholder Peter de Rauch is at odds with the AFL while Bob Ansett is understood to favour a fly-in-fly-out structure in Queensland — a structure strongly opposed by the AFL Commission, which has been working overtime to achieve a profitable stadium deal for the club via Carrara or another proposed venue at Palm Meadows.

The new chairman is expected to steer the club for the next two seasons but could vacate the role for a Queensland-based board leader by the end of 2009.

Ironically, the club's players and coaching staff, including Dean Laidley, are understood to strongly support the relocation in the belief they would no longer be forced to operate using relatively substandard training conditions.

[PowerOfThePussy]

Arrogant as the AFL are, and desperate as their lapdog is to write a story that relocation is going ahead................despite all that, I can't see them pulling CBF funding. They just wouldn't get away with it.

They can threaten to pull the Gold Coast subsidy (which was $1.2 mil this year). But I'm fine with that. If we have a red hot go at getting members to sign up & sponsors to get on board to make sure we stay based in Melbourne, we won't need the GC subsidy. We'll have more Melbourne-based members, paying more for their memberships as we will have more home games in Melbourne.

Factor in the fact that GC-based memberships went back to the AFL this year, plus the small capacity at Carrara, and the extra costs of going there in the season & pre-season....I'm not at all sure it's such a big blow to the club's finances......certainly not one that we can't absorb.


Not having a go, but how would it be any different this time. For years you guys have had a very small supporter base and struggled financially, even when you were winning premierships. What is going to make the difference do you think? If your team starts going downhill on field, I can't see people signing up in a hurry. I know we would all like to think that everyone will dig deep, but I think it's going to be a long tough road ahead for you guys.

I really do hope you guys stay in Vic but it doesn't look too good at the moment IMO.

Hope it all works out for you guys. I feel for you, I really do. I remember a decade or so ago that Geelong were struggling pretty badly financially and were occassionally thrown up as merge possibility and I can recall how that felt. Bloody awful. Not sure how you are going to survive this but I certainly hope that you do.

[SweetLeftFoot]

They're all over on the Maxwell v Brown tread abusing anyone who dares think Nick Maxwell is tougher than Campbell Brown.
Don't even dare suggest it...

And also busily making threads on Bay13 condemning us to extinction before we've gone, but studiously avoiding the fact that their own relocation deal is going wobbly.

[SweetLeftFoot]

Here is the article...Good ol Caro

Not a single source.

I work as a journalist, if I filed shit like that my editor would kick my baws and rightly so.

That's just pro-GC propaganda masquerading as news.

[CaptainDavey]

Not a single source.

I work as a journalist, if I filed shit like that my editor would kick my baws and rightly so.

That's just pro-GC propaganda masquerading as news.

For what it's worth, I was being sarcastic. I am a big critic of Caro's work but I see where you're coming from. But as you know working in the business, a move creates a whoooooooooooooooole lotta interest which is just a goldmine for journos. I don't think there's any vendettas cause it's the Roos, I just think that if it were any club on the move, a journo would be all over it like a rash. Stating the obvious I know but eh

[SweetLeftFoot]

For what it's worth, I was being sarcastic. I am a big critic of Caro's work but I see where you're coming from. But as you know working in the business, a move creates a whoooooooooooooooole lotta interest which is just a goldmine for journos. I don't think there's any vendettas cause it's the Roos, I just think that if it were any club on the move, a journo would be all over it like a rash. Stating the obvious I know but eh

Oh aye, I knew you were, no having a dip at you.

That final line about Laidley and the players being strongly in support of the move.

If they are so strongly in support, why has she never been able to get a SINGLE one to go on the record?

[rusdid24]

That whole article is just bullshit. Could it be any more anti-North if it tried?

[Tas]

I just made a thread earlier asking this same question....but oh well

How can the AFL stop the funding for North Melbourne, yet other teams can still obtain it?

Would be a really bad Public relations exercise. You know, how the Kangas were going to get their funding cut, yet other teams can still ask for it and recieve. Seems very odd.

The club would have legal grounds to sue the AFL for breach of the Trade Practices Act. I wouldn't expect our club to sue though, they have not been renown in recent years for standing up for their rights as one of the 16 licence holders.

[yeah-nah]

People are working on those methods as we speak I believe.

FWIW - I think the end result will still see us playing some games on the GC, maybe even a few more - 6 absolute max.

I have always said that Demetrious line about 22 games a year in QLD is a bluff.

Even the AFL knows the SE QLD market won't support that.

Cant agree. They want a full time team or they wouldnt have allocated GC stadium funding or made the carrot so big for a team to relocate. As for North people working on a Melb survival plan, problem is this has been going on for years and we have yet to see anything self sustainable. A couple of bad years on field and things will be tough whatever is come up with. No easy solution unfortunately. Selfishly I want you to stay so I see more Collingwood games in Melbourne so I hope it works out. Im pessimistic though.

[yeah-nah]

The club would have legal grounds to sue the AFL for breach of the Trade Practices Act. I wouldn't expect our club to sue though, they have not been renown in recent years for standing up for their rights as one of the 16 licence holders.

AFL has too many ways to screw clubs as payback so no individual club will ever sue the AFL or challenge their decisions. A collective of clubs, sure, but one or two - never. North is between a rock and a hard place on this one. I dont envy you one bit. IMHO, when the AFL says go, you gotta go. But its up to your club.

[gandaal]

The Roos wouldn't survive without the CBF and they know it even if the fans wish to believe otherwise. In fact the only way they can survive in Melbourne into the future is if they have more money from the CBF not less.

Game over North Melbourne.

[SweetLeftFoot]

The Roos wouldn't survive without the CBF and they know it even if the fans wish to believe otherwise. In fact the only way they can survive in Melbourne into the future is if they have more money from the CBF not less.

Game over North Melbourne.

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.

[Lidge]

Tune into SEN. This topic is being discussed for the next hour or so.


1116AM or www.sen.com.au

North supporters, jump on and fly the flag.

[FOOOOTY]

I want to hear some AFL bashing

[mulhollanddrive]

CBF commenting.

[Rod Stroker]

Ironically, the club's players and coaching staff, including Dean Laidley, are understood to strongly support the relocation in the belief they would no longer be forced to operate using relatively substandard training conditions

I am yet to see any evidence of players or coaches expressing their desire to move to the GC.

Seriously, can this clueless wench possibly stoop any lower with her gutter journalism? She's making Hutchy look like a PhD.

[medusala]

The club would have legal grounds to sue the AFL for breach of the Trade Practices Act.

How?

Wouldnt the AFL have to provide funds to some clubs but not others re the CBF?

I have heard a few lawyers say your chances of doing so are very poor, particularly in light of cash given to the club previously. The situation is quite a bit different to that of Souths in the NRL.

[moomba]

Not having a go, but how would it be any different this time. For years you guys have had a very small supporter base and struggled financially, even when you were winning premierships. What is going to make the difference do you think? If your team starts going downhill on field, I can't see people signing up in a hurry. I know we would all like to think that everyone will dig deep, but I think it's going to be a long tough road ahead for you guys.

For years now the club has paid lip service to the Melbourne based members, in preference to fluttering their eyelids at Sydney and Canberra and the Gold Coast. Many people jumped off during this period, for some it was a case of "if I'm going to lose my club in a few years I may as well detach myself emotionally from it now".

By making a strong statement that we are a Victorian based team, and we have no intention of that changing, it will encourage those 50/50 supporters back into the fold. With a young developing team, and a real push toward winning back the support from those lapsed members I think we will have a real opportunity to get some decent membership numbers next season. Continue to flirt with the Gold Coast, and continue to do nothing to convince the Melbourne based supporters that they have a board willing to fight to keep the club in Melbourne and we will have a hard time convincing those supporters back.

Also, if we finally give the AFL the finger over this, they might concentrate their very heavy spin campaign (which together with the AFL endorsed Caroline Wilson negative article of the week is costing us members) elsewhere.

[moomba]

How?

Wouldnt the AFL have to provide funds to some clubs but not others re the CBF?

I have heard a few lawyers say your chances of doing so are very poor, particularly in light of cash given to the club previously. The situation is quite a bit different to that of Souths in the NRL.

By propping up one club, but not offering another the same opportunity the AFL would definately be leaving itself open to legal action. The Gold Coast subsidy might go, but there is no way that they could withdraw the CBF without doing the same to the other clubs currently getting it.

[AngelEyes]

Isn't the CBF subject to a number of conditions such as a viable long term business plan?

I think the AFL would have a very strong arguement that North had no viable business plan - long, mediumor short term.

However, the AFL do not need a reason to cancel payments to North of extra monies.

This is probably just being said so it looks like the board has no choice. In 2010, they must die or relocate.

[jacko57]

Disagree very strongly about the Saints.

Kangaroo fans do care, they just have to voice their thoughts louder. Has the AFL actually said anything? Is there actual quotes in this article? Or is it just caro saying "i think this will happen" stuff again?
It's Caro desperately spinning the facts to try to help the AFL put pressure on our board.

[jacko57]

Not having a go, but how would it be any different this time. For years you guys have had a very small supporter base and struggled financially, even when you were winning premierships. What is going to make the difference do you think? If your team starts going downhill on field, I can't see people signing up in a hurry. I know we would all like to think that everyone will dig deep, but I think it's going to be a long tough road ahead for you guys.

I really do hope you guys stay in Vic but it doesn't look too good at the moment IMO.

Hope it all works out for you guys. I feel for you, I really do. I remember a decade or so ago that Geelong were struggling pretty badly financially and were occassionally thrown up as merge possibility and I can recall how that felt. Bloody awful. Not sure how you are going to survive this but I certainly hope that you do.
Fair enough ; what is different is that I think everyone now knows it's make or break time. And we are not going to cave in to the AFL and their media whores.

[jacko57]

In 2010, they must die or relocate.
And in 2007, you can die, STFU, or **** off.

[mick]

By propping up one club, but not offering another the same opportunity the AFL would definately be leaving itself open to legal action. The Gold Coast subsidy might go, but there is no way that they could withdraw the CBF without doing the same to the other clubs currently getting it.


That is simply not true. The AFL has the mandate to give or withhold funding from the CBF as they see fit as long as they believe they are acting in the best interest of the competition. There is no legal recourse for North should the AFL decide to withhold funding.

That being said, most AFL fans would be disgusted if the AFL took this action, I reckon it would be counter productive to the AFL's aim. The last thing the AFL need to do is make another martyr of a footy club, at the moment I think most AFL fans are watching with interest but should the AFL start taking a baseball bat to the Roos then the support for the Roos from the footy public will be enormous.

I would be expecting some NMFC players to come out and refute Wilson's claim that they want to go to the GC, imho that sort of publicity is far more damaging than threats of CBF extortion.

[AngelEyes]

And in 2007, you can die, STFU, or **** off.
That was constructive! :rolleyes:

Alot of North fans really need to wake up. Your club has been on the brink since the 1980s days where you floated the club in order to get cash injected into the club. Your club faces serious long term problems that just didn't arrive over night. You act like you have had one poor financial season and that you are being hard done by when in reality you only exist because of the generosity of the other clubs (who forgoe revenue to support you for many years).

I'm sick and tired of hearing we need a chance to increase membership, boost attendances and eliminate debt. Your money problems are long term and haven't been able to be solved yet - what makes you think they will get solved? Your club has had the time and opportunties and lets face it - it hasn't managed to solve the problem.

North need a serious plan to rectify their lack of support and lack of money not just excuses to prolong their relocation. Bagging the Gold Coast isn't going to acheive anything as the AFL will just talk about growth and their long term prospects.

[robaba]

That was constructive! :rolleyes:

Alot of North fans really need to wake up. Your club has been on the brink since the 1980s days where you floated the club in order to get cash injected into the club. Your club faces serious long term problems that just didn't arrive over night. You act like you have had one poor financial season and that you are being hard done by when in reality you only exist because of the generosity of the other clubs (who forgoe revenue to support you for many years).

I'm sick and tired of hearing we need a chance to increase membership, boost attendances and eliminate debt. Your money problems are long term and haven't been able to be solved yet - what makes you think they will get solved? Your club has had the time and opportunties and lets face it - it hasn't managed to solve the problem.

North need a serious plan to rectify their lack of support and lack of money not just excuses to prolong their relocation.

Thank you Caro - Go back to bed now.

[yeah-nah]

That was constructive! :rolleyes:

Alot of North fans really need to wake up. Your club has been on the brink since the 1980s days where you floated the club in order to get cash injected into the club. Your club faces serious long term problems that just didn't arrive over night. You act like you have had one poor financial season and that you are being hard done by when in reality you only exist because of the generosity of the other clubs (who forgoe revenue to support you for many years).

I'm sick and tired of hearing we need a chance to increase membership, boost attendances and eliminate debt. Your money problems are long term and haven't been able to be solved yet - what makes you think they will get solved? Your club has had the time and opportunties and lets face it - it hasn't managed to solve the problem.

North need a serious plan to rectify their lack of support and lack of money not just excuses to prolong their relocation.

agree

[Manbearpig]

Caro is a clown.

She has been barracking hard for us to relocate for a year.

When we come out later in the week and announce we aren't moving, she will be very disappointed.

[Waverley73]

If this is true then thats very poor form by the AFL. If someone moves to the Gold Coast it should be because the club has decided to do so - not because they were forced by the overpowering league.

[Manbearpig]

If this is true then thats very poor form by the AFL. If someone moves to the Gold Coast it should be because the club has decided to do so - not because they were forced by the overpowering league.

That is a very good summary of the position.

I get the feeling Gillon McLaughlan (who's been given the GC project by the AFL) has a large Christmas bonus riding on it, cause he declared on the weekend that we have to decide on it by then. Despite earlier comments that we had a few years to mull it over.

[jacko57]

That was constructive! :rolleyes:


So was parroting the line about 'relocate or die'.:rolleyes:

[Smyth94]

Some people affiliated with the bigger Victorian clubs (Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton) who think they can come in here and slag off North Melbourne should really STFU.

How dare any one come into this thread and say relocate and die? This is the exact attitude Fonzy is trying to create amongst all the other clubs and supporters. Enough is enough, from the continuous bizarre tampering of our great game, to the equally inconsistent tribunal decisions, the woeful umpiring, un-equal fixtures and now they're trying to ship off one of Victoria's most famous clubs.

I'm going to be supporting the Roos in Vic - this is one of the few chances as the public were we can actually make a difference and tell Vlad and his henchmen to bugger off.

[robaba]

Hey, AngelEyes is really Caro.
Haven't heard from it since I called it Caro.
Must have either taken my advice or is cleaning it's braces now.

[Rich]

Good luck with the fight, North fans....

[Doctor Jolly]

Forgetting all the romantic supporter arguments for a moment, there are two interesting points to come out of that article.

1. The shareholders (owners) of the club are not contributing a cent to make it profitable, yet expect the governing body to prop them up....increasing their share value.

Its a bit like a farmer expecting the government to continue to prop him up, even though the effects of climate change make his land unviable. He may claim, that his family have farmed the land for generations, but that doesnt make much difference to the bottom line.

Fair enough the AFL threaten to withdraw propping them up. The shareholders can then put their money where their mouths are, or watch north go broke and their shares be worthless.


2. The players and coach are so desperate for decent training facilities, they want to move. That sounds like a pretty strong argument.

[AngelEyes]

Hey, AngelEyes is really Caro.
Haven't heard from it since I called it Caro.
Must have either taken my advice or is cleaning it's braces now.
Not at all.

The reason I haven't replied is that no one has said anything worth replying to at this stage.

As for relocating or dying - haven't the AFL threatened to withdraw CBF funding and Gold Coast funding? Are North solvent without this extra $3 million a year? The AFL is holding them hostage - not my call but theirs.

[1jasonoz]

Forgetting all the romantic supporter arguments for a moment, there are two interesting points to come out of that article.

1. The shareholders (owners) of the club are not contributing a cent to make it profitable, yet expect the governing body to prop them up....increasing their share value.

Its a bit like a farmer expecting the government to continue to prop him up, even though the effects of climate change make his land unviable. He may claim, that his family have farmed the land for generations, but that doesnt make much difference to the bottom line.

Fair enough the AFL threaten to withdraw propping them up. The shareholders can then put their money where their mouths are, or watch north go broke and their shares be worthless.


2. The players and coach are so desperate for decent training facilities, they want to move. That sounds like a pretty strong argument.

1. The shareholders (owners) of the club are not contributing a cent to make it profitable, yet expect the governing body to prop them up....increasing their share value.

As a shareholder i can tell you the above is wrong.

2. The players and coach are so desperate for decent training facilities, they want to move. That sounds like a pretty strong argument.

$11 million for a new HQ/training centre at Arden street actually- thats 2 from 2 wrong hey!

[1jasonoz]

Not at all.

The reason I haven't replied is that no one has said anything worth replying to at this stage.

As for relocating or dying - haven't the AFL threatened to withdraw CBF funding and Gold Coast funding? Are North solvent without this extra $3 million a year? The AFL is holding them hostage - not my call but theirs.

If the AFL tried to withdraw the GC funding they would be in breach of contract and liable to be sued.

If they targeted us for the withdrawl of the CBF, then why not the Demons or the Doggies to?

[AngelEyes]

Why don't North try list a few more shares? I.e. if they listed a few million worth of shares, I'm sure they would have the financial burden reduced?

[Manbearpig]

Forgetting all the romantic supporter arguments for a moment, there are two interesting points to come out of that article.

1. The shareholders (owners) of the club are not contributing a cent to make it profitable, yet expect the governing body to prop them up....increasing their share value.

Its a bit like a farmer expecting the government to continue to prop him up, even though the effects of climate change make his land unviable. He may claim, that his family have farmed the land for generations, but that doesnt make much difference to the bottom line.

Fair enough the AFL threaten to withdraw propping them up. The shareholders can then put their money where their mouths are, or watch north go broke and their shares be worthless.


2. The players and coach are so desperate for decent training facilities, they want to move. That sounds like a pretty strong argument.

1. No, its more like there are 16 farmers, 3 of them are poor and they are putting pressure on one of them to move where they want them. They threaten to withdraw funding from them, despite still paying money to the other two poor farmers.

2. We have a $12M redevelopment getting underway around Christmas time that the club has described (perhaps with bias) as the best in the competition. Those on BF who know players say they aren't keen to move. I think Caro just made that part up.

[AngelEyes]

If the AFL tried to withdraw the GC funding they would be in breach of contract and liable to be sued.

If they targeted us for the withdrawl of the CBF, then why not the Demons or the Doggies to?
Not in 2010 and onwards.

[1jasonoz]

Not in 2010 and onwards.

Funny that since thats when the contract ends. How can the AFL withdrawl something; ie GC funding post 2010 if an agreement/contract doesn't actually exist with the club providing GC money in 2010 and after in the first place?

[FOOOOTY]

Why don't North try list a few more shares? I.e. if they listed a few million worth of shares, I'm sure they would have the financial burden reduced?

AFL would just buy them and move them anyway

[AngelEyes]

Funny that since thats when the contract last. How can the AFL withdrawl something; ie GC funding post 2010 if an agreement/contract doesn't actually exist with the club providing GC money in 2010 and after in the first place?
Whatever spin you want to put on it - if they don't agree they will loose $1.6 million in revenue between 2009 and 2010.

[Manbearpig]

Do people realise that the AFL are threatening to withdraw $1.2M of funding to help us stay in Melbourne, but are prepared to spend over $300M (which includes stadium expansions etc) if we went to the GC?

The Melbourne clubs and their supporters, including Fitzroy have been shafted for too long in the pursuit of riches.

[VoR]

Often wondered why a club like North or the Doggies don't sell all their home games against non-Vic teams back to their opponents.

Then the AFL wouldnt need to prop them up, and could use the money for something more productive, like grass-roots footy.

[Waverley73]

Do people realise that the AFL are threatening to withdraw $1.2M of funding to help us stay in Melbourne, but are prepared to spend over $300M (which includes stadium expansions etc) if we went to the GC?

The Melbourne clubs and their supporters, including Fitzroy have been shafted for too long in the pursuit of riches.

Out of curiosity where do you get the $300 mill from? It seems WAY too high, even if they spend heaps on a stadium expansion.

[1jasonoz]

Whatever spin you want to put on it - if they don't agree they will loose $1.6 million in revenue between 2009 and 2010.

What ever spin i put on it!!

You said the AFL would withdrawl funding post 2010 if we didn't agree to move to the GC, as i stated funny we aren;t actaully contracted to play up their post 2010!!

What revenue-i.e is the $1.6 million meant to be for?

[1jasonoz]

Often wondered why a club like North or the Doggies don't sell all their home games against non-Vic teams back to their opponents.

Then the AFL wouldnt need to prop them up, and could use the money for something more productive, like grass-roots footy.

You can't.

The AFL will not allow the selling of games into a mature market such as Perth.

A few years ago we where scheduled to play Freo on mothers day at the G on a sunday. The WACA offered to instead let us play there as did Freo, and we where promised a minimum of $250,000 from them plus a % of the food. The AFL blocked this and forced us to play at the G and as only 15,000 turned up we lost money on the day.

[roorat]

I am not a big fan of Eddie but the following quote rings true. It's in the best interest of all the other clubs to support our fight. The Sydney market is next on the agenda for expansion and if the AFL succeed in the Gold Coast push which club will they target next for Sydney?




Sunday 2 December 2001
Eddie McGuire: At Collingwood are certainly very strongly behind the other Melbourne-based clubs, those that are in danger, which are probably the Western Bulldogs and the Kangaroos, and we'd like to see them survive, we want them to survive. But we believe that this five-year period is a period where football can really get itself going. We don't want to suffer the sins that's happened in the Rugby League, where clubs have been merged and put out of business, and they've lost the fabric of what the game's all about. This is very much a tribal game, and we have only each other. We have 16 teams in this competition, we don't play internationally, we have to look after the teams that are there. All they have to do is make sure that we can generate enough revenue, whether that comes through the TV, some extra help from the AFL - and I think that there's nothing wrong with that. If it is absolutely written in stone, how this will be used, that they should maybe receive a little bit extra money than a dividend, that Collingwood and Essendon and Carlton who can generate their own funds, and maybe what we need to do to compensate that, is allow the bigger clubs to get out and do a little bit more in the marketplace themselves, so we can actually grow the pie and give a bit more to our smaller brothers.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s433170.htm

[AngelEyes]

What ever spin i put on it!!

You said the AFL would withdrawl funding post 2010 if we didn't agree to move to the GC, as i stated funny we aren;t actaully contracted to play up their post 2010!!

What revenue-i.e is the $1.6 million meant to be for?

For example, if North generates $30 million in revenue per year consistently through distributions, sponsorship and merchandising etc, a scenario would look like this:

2009: $30m traditional revenue + $1.4m GC + $1.6m CBF = $33m Total Revenue
2010: $30m traditional revenue + $0m GC + $0m CBF = $30m Total Revenue

Profit = Total Renvenue less Total Expenses

If your revenue decreases by $3m you have to make up the short fall somewhere. It does effect your club whether you are contracted or not. Its a revenue source, its a bit like saying its okay if our major sponsor leaves in 2009 because they weren't contracted after then anyway. Of course it effects you because you have to replace that money and North cannot replace the money the AFL gives them at all. Sponsors can be replaced but the AFL's cash can't because they don't get much for it value wise.

[VoR]

Geez, is the AFL run by a bunch of Victorian ********s?

[1jasonoz]

For example, if North generates $30 million in revenue per year consistently through distributions, sponsorship and merchandising etc, a scenario would look like this:

2009: $30m traditional revenue + $1.4m GC + $1.6m CBF = $33m Total Revenue
2010: $30m traditional revenue + $0m GC + $0m CBF = $30m Total Revenue

Profit = Total Renvenue less Total Expenses

If your revenue decreases by $3m you have to make up the short fall somewhere. It does effect your club whether you are contracted or not. Its a revenue source, its a bit like saying its okay if our major sponsor leaves in 2009 because they weren't contracted after then anyway. Of course it effects you because you have to replace that money and North cannot replace the money the AFL gives them at all. Sponsors can be replaced but the AFL's cash can't because they don't get much for it value wise.

I see you can't answer the question?

What revenue-i.e is the $1.6 million meant to be for?

[Waverley73]

Geez, is the AFL run by a bunch of Victorian ********s?

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.

[MarkT]

AD can say what he wants. If the crap hits the fan he’ll be running into the wind. The AFL can and will make it hard for North but when push comes to shove the AFL will cave IMO. The only real question is do North have the leadership and stomach for the fight? All the Shinboner Spirit shown on the field by the likes of Archer was just warm up. Let's see what he can do off the field. I really hope the Shinboner of the century can be Don Scott and Irene Chatfield. I can’t see what Pagan can bring to the table though. Forget Pagan and get Schimma.

Sooner or later the AFL will win its war of attrition though and some one will go. That won’t be the end of it either. It is really just a battle to see who goes where and how. Said it a million times but Fitzroyism is not dead it is (was) just resting. Maybe it is Southism really but whatever it is it will end up with 2 of Kangaroos, Dogs (the two identity changed clubs!) or Melbourne being dramatically different. I’ll back North, if they go back to being North, to win that 3 way battle.

[AngelEyes]

I see you can't answer the question?

What revenue-i.e is the $1.6 million meant to be for?
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.

[FOOOOTY]

Often wondered why a club like North or the Doggies don't sell all their home games against non-Vic teams back to their opponents.

Then the AFL wouldnt need to prop them up, and could use the money for something more productive, like grass-roots footy.

I beleive that is the reasoning behind the Gold Coast/Canberra games, they sell off their home games in return for a guaranteed income, originally i think they were told they would still be guaranteed home games against the bigger drawing Victorian crowds but as the AFL tighten the screws this seems to have dried up.

To automatically sell games back to WC, Adel, etc would make it next to impossible for the Roos to play finals, not really a path to go down if their main objective is to attract new supporters.

[Manbearpig]

Out of curiosity where do you get the $300 mill from? It seems WAY too high, even if they spend heaps on a stadium expansion.

The $300M was what was quoted for the stadium. There will obviously be other money too they will give us, but I'm not sure how much in total that is. Probably in the ball park of $10M.

[Manbearpig]

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.

You're a clown.

When has anyone threated the Central Balance Fund being withdrawn?

Even Collingwood, West Coast and Adelaide (ie, the rich clubs) get that.

[The Zebra]

For example, if North generates $30 million in revenue per year consistently through distributions, sponsorship and merchandising etc, a scenario would look like this:

2009: $30m traditional revenue + $1.4m GC + $1.6m CBF = $33m Total Revenue
2010: $30m traditional revenue + $0m GC + $0m CBF = $30m Total Revenue

Profit = Total Renvenue less Total Expenses

If your revenue decreases by $3m you have to make up the short fall somewhere. It does effect your club whether you are contracted or not. Its a revenue source, its a bit like saying its okay if our major sponsor leaves in 2009 because they weren't contracted after then anyway. Of course it effects you because you have to replace that money and North cannot replace the money the AFL gives them at all. Sponsors can be replaced but the AFL's cash can't because they don't get much for it value wise.

It is $1.4 M ASD.
$1.2M GC in 2007

We have yet to see whether we will make a loss or profit.
The $1.2M is not special funding and isn't just written off if the AFL say they will not pay us to play in the GC after 2009 becuase those games are then sold to another market or become Melbourne home games and North will keep gate receipts (and get membership flow on due to an increase in the number of games played in Melbourne covered under a membership and obvious flow on from making an obvious commitment to the Melbourne market).

With a further commitment to the Melbourne market (and rejection of the Gold Coast) membership would definitely rise above 25,000 - which it was last year - and would most likely hit 28,000+.

So ou simple balance sheet ain't so simple.

And the ASD is compensation for the inequities of the draw and is received by two other clubs (who have received more in special AFL funding than North over the last 3 years) - it will not be removed.

[Waverley73]

The $300M was what was quoted for the stadium. There will obviously be other money too they will give us, but I'm not sure how much in total that is. Probably in the ball park of $10M.

OK - $300 mill obviously means that they'd be building a brand spanking new one then. Is that what they're proposing? I thought they were going to just touch up Cararra.

Are you sure thats right? The new stadium they're going to build in Melbourne (for Victory soccer team) will hold 31,000 people and cost $270 mill.

[AngelEyes]

You're a clown.

When has anyone threated the Central Balance Fund being withdrawn?

Even Collingwood, West Coast and Adelaide (ie, the rich clubs) get that.
We are talking about the former Competitive Balance Fund. Did you read the title of the thread? To quote the actual article:
THE AFL is losing patience with the leaderless Kangaroos and is on the verge of threatening to withdraw its annual $1.4 million special funding of the club by the end of 2009.

You are right all teams get an annual special distribution (new CBF) - some get a fair bit more i.e. North gets an extra $1.4 million.

[Manbearpig]

OK - $300 mill obviously means that they'd be building a brand spanking new one then. Is that what they're proposing? I thought they were going to just touch up Cararra.

Are you sure thats right? The new stadium they're going to build in Melbourne (for Victory soccer team) will hold 31,000 people and cost $270 mill.

"AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said last night that the club was aware of the broad details but not the specifics of the relocation package, which also includes the redevelopment of the Carrara Stadium to the tune of at least $300 million."

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-pressures-roos-over-gold-coast/2007/10/10/1191695990902.html

[Hearts to hearts]

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating stuff you know - but the official threat is that if we don't make the long term commitment to the GC, they will stop paying us $400,000 per game to play there after this contract ends at the end of 2009. At the moment, while we get that cash, the AFL keeps all Qld membership income and all game income, plus we play all our own expenses - so it's hardly a gift.

Threatening the CBF, which many clubs receive and is the recompense and natural outcome of the uneven fixturing, is another kettle of fish altogether, and a fight which would go well beyond North Melbourne's interests. They can't take it from one club and not others, and they can't remove it altogether without addressing the fixturing issue at the same time.

Still, it's fun seeing a bit of panic from the AFL. Gillon and Andy are two of the most self-satisfied guys in the business, so even setting my views on the Gold Coast aside, if they don't get what they want, it would be a huge bonus.

[Waverley73]

"AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said last night that the club was aware of the broad details but not the specifics of the relocation package, which also includes the redevelopment of the Carrara Stadium to the tune of at least $300 million."

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-pressures-roos-over-gold-coast/2007/10/10/1191695990902.html

: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.

[celtic_pride]

I hate to say it guys, but North Melbourne will be relocating to the Gold Coast, perhaps as early as next week.

I am sorry, but the hard cold reality (and perhaps the AFL is partly to blame) but the Roos have to relocate to the Gold Coast, or simply put, they will not exist in ten years time.

I can't see any way now how the Roos can stop the relocation...
BTW I don't think it should be a problem with Roos fans anyway, as they are travelling nearly every second week right now with their fixture anyway.

I think if they are allowed a minimum of 7/8 games in Melbourne in each year though, perhaps the move won't be so bad, but god I would like them to stay in Melbourne, but common sense says that the Gold Coast is the Roos only hope.

[AngelEyes]

It is $1.4 M ASD.
$1.2M GC in 2007

We have yet to see whether we will make a loss or profit.
The $1.2M is not special funding and isn't just written off if the AFL say they will not pay us to play in the GC after 2009 becuase those games are then sold to another market or become Melbourne home games and North will keep gate receipts (and get membership flow on due to an increase in the number of games played in Melbourne covered under a membership and obvious flow on from making an obvious commitment to the Melbourne market).

With a further commitment to the Melbourne market (and rejection of the Gold Coast) membership would definitely rise above 25,000 - which it was last year - and would most likely hit 28,000+.

So ou simple balance sheet ain't so simple.

And the ASD is compensation for the inequities of the draw and is received by two other clubs (who have received more in special AFL funding than North over the last 3 years) - it will not be removed.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tess]

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.

[moomba]

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.

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 ACT government came close to matching that amount, and we would have kept corporate/membership income. It might not be AFL money, and we may not get the full $400k a game, but there is no way in the world that we'd have to find the full amount if the AFL pulls out.

And it's a bit disingenuous of you to infer that we would.

[Manbearpig]

: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.

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.