Demotriou commits to team on GC in 2010

[FOOOOTY]

Demotriou has given Kangaroos 30 days to move to GC

Demotriou has rejected Kangaroos playing on GC remaining a melb based club

If kangaroos refuse a 17 licence will be issued in 2010

SDF (special distribution fund) will be reviewed after 2009

[happy_eagle]

source ?

[FOOOOTY]

all over the airwaves he spoke to media after the kangaroos board meeting

[jacko57]

Demotriou has given Kangaroos 30 days to move to GC

Demotriou has rejected Kangaroos playing on GC remaining a melb based club

If kangaroos refuse a 17 licence will be issued in 2010

SDF (special distribution fund) will be reviewed after 2009
meh.

[whippersnipper]

Obviously getting ready to kill off the Roos in a few years time. Either take our offer now, and you can be that 16th team, or we will set up a 17th, wait until you die and have 16 teams again.

[FOOOOTY]

Also kills any chance of the Kangaroos developing a membership base in the GC over the next 2 years.

Really putting them in the gun.. if they dont move they are playing 7 games on the gold coast promoting the game for the 17th licence holder, most probably southport

[BlackDouglas]

If he really wants a side to play on the Gold Coast the AFL commission should cut off the SDF now and give the struggling Victorian clubs a reality check on how much money it takes to run an AFL club.

Stop making it easy for clubs to survive in an already saturated market by giving bloody hand outs and make them stand on their own two feet.

Stop pandering to theses piss poor clubs.

[FOOOOTY]

Demitrou on 3aw now being interviewed

[rufus_afc]

As far as most are concerned North have made their decision now they have to make it work in their own.

Vlad should come out now and do an Ivan Drago about North "If they die, they die".

At the end of the day the challenge is there now, no point in three years time crying "OMG North are insolvent, please everyone save them" Noone will care. They have rejected the offer therefore they have to make it work now and forever because the AFL wont help them.

[w00dy]

now or never essentially... well the roos have a choice, will be interesting to see what happens...

[Tas]

Swans getting 1$ million annually from SDF, Bulldogs and Melbourne also getting SDF.

Gold Coast team would also force Brisbane to be on the brink financially unless they can turn things around and be a powerful club on-field.

AFL will be putting teams in "growth" regions in jeopardy if they try and dismantle the SDF.

SDF should always exist where you have an environment where some clubs are not getting an equitable deal. Not just saying this because my club is receiving it, even if we turn things around and become as powerful as Collingwood in the future, there will always be clubs that struggle from time to time and I don't think the answer is letting clubs go out of business during lean periods and creating new licences because eventually, we wont have a sport left that is worth anything and will be overrun by sports with more global appeal.

It is our rich heritage which has allowed us to resist the global domination of sports like soccer, those sports lack the same history and heritage as we do, if we lower ourselves to their level then we will be overrun as millions of abandoned football supporters look elsewhere for entertainment.

[roger explosion]

Gold Coast team would also force Brisbane to be on the brink financially unless they can turn things around and be a powerful club on-field.
no, it wouldn't. Gold Coast and Brisbane are two different markets. i don't understand why people cannot comprehend that.

[FOOOOTY]

Swans getting 1$ million annually from SDF, Bulldogs and Melbourne also getting SDF.

Gold Coast team would also force Brisbane to be on the brink financially unless they can turn things around and be a powerful club on-field.

AFL will be putting teams in "growth" regions in jeopardy if they try and dismantle the SDF.

SDF should always exist where you have an environment where some clubs are not getting an equitable deal. Not just saying this because my club is receiving it, even if we turn things around and become as powerful as Collingwood in the future, there will always be clubs that struggle from time to time and I don't think the answer is letting clubs go out of business during lean periods and creating new licences because eventually, we wont have a sport left that is worth anything and will be overrun by sports with more global appeal.

It is our rich heritage which has allowed us to resist the global domination of sports like soccer, those sports lack the same history and heritage as we do, if we lower ourselves to their level then we will be overrun as millions of abandoned football supporters look elsewhere for entertainment.

Of course the SDF should exist this is blatent blackmail, if they are forced to a 17th side they will only remove it until a team folds/merges then they will reinstate the SDF under another neam will trot out the "we support the current 16 sides line" until western sydney looks ready. Then we go through this again

[Julzo15]

devo

[relapse]

no, it wouldn't. Gold Coast and Brisbane are two different markets. i don't understand why people cannot comprehend that.

I agree and in the long term it will help the Lions to have a rival side, does anyone out there believe that West Coast or Adelaide have been weakened by having an opposition side ???

To a smaller degree the same thing will happen in QLD it will create renewed interest in the game and a rivarly which will encourage more people to be interested.

[Tas]

If he really wants a side to play on the Gold Coast the AFL commission should cut off the SDF now and give the struggling Victorian clubs a reality check on how much money it takes to run an AFL club.

Stop making it easy for clubs to survive in an already saturated market by giving bloody hand outs and make them stand on their own two feet.

Stop pandering to theses piss poor clubs.

Something you dimwits need to realise is the "struggling" Melbourne clubs are the ones facilitating the pay-tv arrangement. Not the fat cat Melbourne clubs, nothing at all from interstate clubs. A signifcant portion of the broadcasting revenue is pay-tv games, and a significant portion of that is live and exclusive games.

Careful what you ask for because if we are gone it wont be Collingwood and Essendon on pay-tv, it will be YOUR clubs that get all your home games sold off to pay-tv.

SA and WA clubs are taking 1/16th of pay-tv revenue and contribute a fat ZERO towards earning the revenue. There are ZERO live and exclusive pay-tv interstate games. The pay-tv income is being facilitated by struggling Melbourne clubs and they are not being adequately compensated for it like those that have the FTA exposure are being rewarded with free advertising, corporate and exposure.

Once we are gone, your clubs will have to start earning your fair share of the income in the league and that comes with a heavy burden for general viewers and supporters.

[The Chad]

awesome news

kangaroos tip in the doggies AND demons as well as hurting themselves

[The Chad]

clubs with fewer FTA games than kangaroos football club easily out-crowded and out-membered them this season

FTA is the future, live and uninterrupted games, bring it on.

[helsy3]

The Chad, you have nothing worthwhile to discuss, this is more important than your petty bs, its not about the Hawks. If you have nothing interesting to add, don't bother wasting the bandwidth.

[Ripper]

Something you dimwits need to realise is the "struggling" Melbourne clubs are the ones facilitating the pay-tv arrangement. Not the fat cat Melbourne clubs, nothing at all from interstate clubs. A signifcant portion of the broadcasting revenue is pay-tv games, and a significant portion of that is live and exclusive games.

Careful what you ask for because if we are gone it wont be Collingwood and Essendon on pay-tv, it will be YOUR clubs that get all your home games sold off to pay-tv.

SA and WA clubs are taking 1/16th of pay-tv revenue and contribute a fat ZERO towards earning the revenue. There are ZERO live and exclusive pay-tv interstate games. The pay-tv income is being facilitated by struggling Melbourne clubs and they are not being adequately compensated for it like those that have the FTA exposure are being rewarded with free advertising, corporate and exposure.

Once we are gone, your clubs will have to start earning your fair share of the income in the league and that comes with a heavy burden for general viewers and supporters.


Scraping the barrel there Tas. How did you come up with that bit of fantasy?

[The Chad]

The Chad, you have nothing worthwhile to discuss, this is more important than your petty bs, its not about the Hawks. If you have nothing interesting to add, don't bother wasting the bandwidth.
nup its not. its about the dogs and dees. "reviewing" SDF would force the doggies to save themselves with a deal that expands the game into darwin and cairns. that is good for the afl.

[helsy3]

helloooo what do you think we've been saying. Brisbane, Port, Sydney, all receive money from the AFL through the SDF as well. The AFL with their threats are putting the whole competition in jeopardy. ALL football supporters should be rallying against this decision.

[The Chad]

helloooo what do you think we've been saying. Brisbane, Port, Sydney, all receive money from the AFL through the SDF as well. The AFL with their threats are putting the whole competition in jeopardy. ALL football supporters should be rallying against this decision.
who said the review was going to take it away from brisbane and sydney? they are expansion areas and 1-team towns. they deserve to be assisted. melbourne has 9 teams. they don't need more. they need less. they need teams committing to play games in areas where an 11-game-per-season franchsie cannot be sustained with ANY amount of AFL assistance. like tasmania, like darwin, like cairns, and like canberra.

unfortunately clubs like kangaroos football club and st. kilda didn't do what the afl wanted, and I, The Chad, have no bearing on the afl so i can't be held to blame for what they're doing, or taking their side

[MightyHawks]

I believe that the shareholders will give the members the power to make the decision. I know they don't have to do this, but I think they will.

North members need to determine their own fate.

A vote to go clearly has AFL support.

A vote to stay in vic will not have AFL support.

However the AFL would come round if there is a big turnaround in memberships AND crowds.

The AFL called the dogs off hawthorn in the late 90s as they saw that we were becoming a viable club.

Make your decisions wisely roo boys.

[RUNVS]

If the Kangaroos go willingly then the AFL will give them draft picks and millions of dollars a year but they may not get those things if the AFL force them to relocate.

[FOOOOTY]

Why would the shareholders let the members decide this when they dont let the members decide anything else?

[FOOOOTY]

AFL do NOT want 17 teams, if they issue a 17th licence their agenda will be to kill off a melb club hoping to merge them with this new 17th franchise ala Fitzroy.

[MightyHawks]

Why would the shareholders let the members decide this when they dont let the members decide anything else?

If the club is going to stay and SURVIVE in melbourne, then the shareholders can't do it on their own.

If you hand the power over to the members to make the decision then many more people have OWNERSHIP over the decision.

There are big consequences for going against the league and deciding to stay, it will require many north supporters to consistently attend games take out memberships upgrade memberships etc.

If I was a shareholder i'd give the power over.

Don Scott had no interest in saving Hawthorn if he wasn't convinced that there were plenty of Hawthorn supporters (not just 3 or 4 rich ones) ready to put their hands in their pockets.

[FOOOOTY]

If the club is going to stay and SURVIVE in melbourne, then the shareholders can't do it on their own.

If you hand the power over to the members to make the decision then many more people have OWNERSHIP over the decision.

There are big consequences for going against the league and deciding to stay, it will require many north supporters to consistently attend games take out memberships upgrade memberships etc.

If I was a shareholder i'd give the power over.

Don Scott had no interest in saving Hawthorn if he wasn't convinced that there were plenty of Hawthorn supporters (not just 3 or 4 rich ones) ready to put their hands in their pockets.

I think the shareholders will certainly guage the members reaction to this and make their decision accordingly, but i would be VERY surprised if they handed over the decision.

[huggy_b]

http://afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=52916

GC here we come, Roos or not.....

[Hit And Rum]

http://afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=52916

GC here we come, Roos or not.....

There is a God

[Alberton_Magpie]

18 Teams is the way to go


1991- 15 teams

2010- 18 team

doesnt seem that hard to me to support 18 teams in 2010!!

[zero]

fan****ingtastic

bring in southport and cut the CBF right back

if the roos are to survive in a rapidly growing AFL economy, they will be doing it with a much smaller CBF and no GC money.
and they will be doing it with their own ingenuity and football management skills, and most importantly they can stop the wishy washy "are we relocating" rubbish that is seriously damaging the club. they can refocus on the melbourne market, and work on building their support there. perhaps move to the outer northern suburbs or something, but whatever they do, they do it in melbourne from now on. with a big commitment and a new, non hopeless board i think they can become a solid melbourne club, and as long as soccer is staved off and there is still alot of money in the game, they there will be enough pie for the roos in melbourne

and if they cant survive and have to merge or die, then fair cop, they had their chance to preserve their colours and history the easy way, they chose the hard way.

good luck roos, your going to need it!

[Wildmanwok]

Just go to 17 teams.

There is enough money in the game to keep Nth in Melbourne.

I dont understand the mentality of killing a teams off.

[Wildmanwok]

Something you dimwits need to realise is the "struggling" Melbourne clubs are the ones facilitating the pay-tv arrangement. Not the fat cat Melbourne clubs, nothing at all from interstate clubs. A signifcant portion of the broadcasting revenue is pay-tv games, and a significant portion of that is live and exclusive games.

Careful what you ask for because if we are gone it wont be Collingwood and Essendon on pay-tv, it will be YOUR clubs that get all your home games sold off to pay-tv.

SA and WA clubs are taking 1/16th of pay-tv revenue and contribute a fat ZERO towards earning the revenue. There are ZERO live and exclusive pay-tv interstate games. The pay-tv income is being facilitated by struggling Melbourne clubs and they are not being adequately compensated for it like those that have the FTA exposure are being rewarded with free advertising, corporate and exposure.

Once we are gone, your clubs will have to start earning your fair share of the income in the league and that comes with a heavy burden for general viewers and supporters.

Just remember there is supporters of WA and SA sides who do not live in SA or WA.

We really almost solely on pay-tv to see our teams play.

So supporters of these teams do contribute to pay-tv.

[Devoid]

As others have said I highly doubt the AFL would want to have 17 teams around for very long if at all so North fans will obviously have to consider this one strongly. It could be a matter of move to the GC now or be removed from the competition entirely in a couple of years. Demetriou has proven in the past once he gets his mind set on something he is unforgiving. Shocking situation for any club to find themselves in anyway.

[jimmy_clement#8]

Haha, either move, or we'll make the Gold Coast team from scratch, stop helping you as much, and you'll become the 17th most prosperous team (off the field) in a league we eventually want to make 16 teams again, somewhere down the line.

Ie, move or die. What a God awful position to be in as a North supporter. It's one of those "let's flip a coin, heads the AFL wins, tails North Melbourne loses".

[zero]

Something you dimwits need to realise is the "struggling" Melbourne clubs are the ones facilitating the pay-tv arrangement. Not the fat cat Melbourne clubs, nothing at all from interstate clubs. A signifcant portion of the broadcasting revenue is pay-tv games, and a significant portion of that is live and exclusive games.

Careful what you ask for because if we are gone it wont be Collingwood and Essendon on pay-tv, it will be YOUR clubs that get all your home games sold off to pay-tv.

SA and WA clubs are taking 1/16th of pay-tv revenue and contribute a fat ZERO towards earning the revenue. There are ZERO live and exclusive pay-tv interstate games. The pay-tv income is being facilitated by struggling Melbourne clubs and they are not being adequately compensated for it like those that have the FTA exposure are being rewarded with free advertising, corporate and exposure.

Once we are gone, your clubs will have to start earning your fair share of the income in the league and that comes with a heavy burden for general viewers and supporters.
ahhh tas, old boy, thats an interesting way of looking at it, because what your talking about is the dregs.

because of the FTA agreement, the three least popular and lowest ratings games each weekend are on foxtel. because the roos are frequently in that bracket, that is the reason you are always on foxtel.

now if you guys move to the GC, (and lets hope you dont) and you rate higher, then you will cease to be in that bracket and more popular clubs will be. this will be good for foxtel, because the dregs they get will rate higher, and more people will get the subscription.

the fact that the roos are always on foxtel doesent mean you contribute more to the value, in fact it shows that you contribute the least in terms of rating, and foxtel would LOVE to drop the roos for more popular teams and better rating games, but they cant.

[Wildmanwok]

Haha, either move, or we'll make the Gold Coast team from scratch, stop helping you as much, and you'll become the 17th most prosperous team (off the field) in a league we eventually want to make 16 teams again, somewhere down the line.

Ie, move or die. What a God awful position to be in as a North supporter. It's one of those "let's flip a coin, heads the AFL wins, tails North Melbourne loses".

You might be right, I hope not.

The competition needs a strong and vibrant Nth Melbourne in Melbourne.

I still feel bad tht Fitzroy was effectively killed off to make way for us. There should have been no reason to destroy a once mighty club off.

Look at the money they have made. Gee to have dropped another $30M from the AFL bottomline to keep Fitzroy alive seems to me it could have very easily been accommodated and still been hugely profitable league.
Without selling the games soul.

[choppy]

WHy does everyone have the impression that its only North under the pump, pull the SDF and Melbourne and the Dogs are just as much under the pump. They are also receiving the similar amounts of money.

The other thing to remember is that North has been run by a bunch of inward looking, old school, unprofessional tuck shop operators for the past 5 years.

membership and involving the supporters could not have been any worse.

Its obviously all a bluff by the AFL, North should call it, revert their name back to North Melbourne engage their members for once, and the North people will return.

ANd then watch the pressure turn to Melbourne and the Dogs.

[A Living God]

You might be right, I hope not.

The competition needs a strong and vibrant Nth Melbourne in Melbourne.

I still feel bad tht Fitzroy was effectively killed off to make way for us. There should have been no reason to destroy a once mighty club off.

Look at the money they have made. Gee to have dropped another $30M from the AFL bottomline to keep Fitzroy alive seems to me it could have very easily been accommodated and still been hugely profitable league.
Without selling the games soul.
The AFL doesn't need Nth Melbourne.
It doesn't need Western Bulldogs and it doesnt need Melbourne.
West Coast, Collingwood, Brisbane, Essendon, Adelaide and Sydney are the teams AFL needs to be strong and Vibranants.
Any of Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong, St Kilda, Richmond and Port adelaide could be killed with minimal damage to the AFL but it wouldn't serve any usefull purpose.

[zero]

The other thing to remember is that North has been run by a bunch of inward looking, old school, unprofessional tuck shop operators for the past 5 years.

thats one way of looking at it.

another is "they are being run by a bunch of cynical assholes who are deliberately trying to run the club into the ground to force a move north"

get some honest people on the board, refocus on their melbourne market, and we will see what happens

[zero]

The AFL doesn't need Nth Melbourne.
It doesn't need Western Bulldogs and it doesnt need Melbourne.
West Coast, Collingwood, Brisbane, Essendon, Adelaide and Sydney are the teams AFL needs to be strong and Vibranants.
Any of Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong, St Kilda, Richmond and Port adelaide could be killed with minimal damage to the AFL but it wouldn't serve any usefull purpose.
not carlton, not geelong and not port.

the rest are ultimately disposable

[jimmy_clement#8]

I'm a passionate Pies man. Go to every Melbourne game, get overly vocal, room covered in Collingwood posters, all that, yet I vividly remember the enthusiasm I had to go to Richmond v Fitzroy in 1996. I had to go, and I, in a funny way, enjoyed the day immensley, because I was so sad to see Fitzroy go. They didn't deserve to. Fitzroy footy club, they had all that history, and a poor, really poor stretch off the field and that was it, gone.

I don't feel that for North. I know its completely individual and subjective, but put it this way, if North was playing its last game before dying, or relocating, or whatever, I wouldn't go. Yet no-one could stop me going to Fitzroy's last game. Maybe its because I believe Fitzroy suffered bad timing, the worst time to be unsuccessful was the 80s and 90s, if you missed out on success, you weren't going to get the revenue, and new fans. Fitzroy chose to have its bad patch then, and fell off the perch coz of the system. North won a flag in 96 and 99. St Kilda hasnt won one since '66, and had a tonne of spoons since. Yet St Kilda is going to be fine, North are in a serious predicament.

That said, if it was up to me, I'd prefer North here in Melbourne. But they've obviously done something to miss the "off field success" bus, and whatever it is, well, it might just be too late now.

A COMPLETELY AWFUL SITUATION THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER ARISEN.

[FOOOOTY]

ahhh tas, old boy, thats an interesting way of looking at it, because what your talking about is the dregs.

because of the FTA agreement, the three least popular and lowest ratings games each weekend are on foxtel. because the roos are frequently in that bracket, that is the reason you are always on foxtel.

now if you guys move to the GC, (and lets hope you dont) and you rate higher, then you will cease to be in that bracket and more popular clubs will be. this will be good for foxtel, because the dregs they get will rate higher, and more people will get the subscription.

the fact that the roos are always on foxtel doesent mean you contribute more to the value, in fact it shows that you contribute the least in terms of rating, and foxtel would LOVE to drop the roos for more popular teams and better rating games, but they cant.

The other relocated melb clubs, lions and swans arent too popular on FTA into Melbourne the roos melbourne fans arent going to get a better FTA deal if they relocate

[zero]

The other relocated melb clubs, lions and swans arent too popular on FTA into Melbourne the roos melbourne fans arent going to get a better FTA deal if they relocate
true, they will be stuck watching the roos on pay, same as now.

the difference is that the game will be on FTA on saturday night into the GC against no FTA league.... and picking up good ratings up there.

[jimmy_clement#8]

The AFL doesn't need Nth Melbourne.
It doesn't need Western Bulldogs and it doesnt need Melbourne.
West Coast, Collingwood, Brisbane, Essendon, Adelaide and Sydney are the teams AFL needs to be strong and Vibranants.
Any of Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong, St Kilda, Richmond and Port adelaide could be killed with minimal damage to the AFL but it wouldn't serve any usefull purpose.
It's true to an extent. The AFL is successful, if the big clubs are. Who you define as a big club then is up to the individual, but there are a few that are widely accepted by everyone as a big club: Collingwood, West Coast, Adelaide, Essendon, Carlton, etc. Then there are those, who may overlap with the big club group, who the AFL wants to be successful, for growth purposes, to maximise potential revenue streams. They are basically all your non-Victorian clubs. Thats where the Gold Coast will slip into in three years time.

In short, as long as Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond and a few others (list again is subjective) are in the main successful (ie Carlton can have an off spell and be covered by Essendon or Collingwood for a short period), then the clubs from Melbourne who aren't considered a big club, are not clubs in the AFL's longterm plan, but numbers: the 14th club, the 15th club, the 16th club.

Thats why Hawks fans, albeit annoyed at losing some MCG home games to Tassie, should be thankful that it has somewhat satisfied the AFL's plans for Tassie, and ensures the Hawks as a Melbourne club. A big Melbourne club, if you like.

[FOOOOTY]

Thats why Hawks fans, albeit annoyed at losing some MCG home games to Tassie, should be thankful that it has somewhat satisfied the AFL's plans for Tassie, and ensures the Hawks as a Melbourne club. A big Melbourne club, if you like.

For the next 30 odd years you would think the Hawks are safe, but if they are TOO successful in capturing the market down there and the Tasmania govt build a big stadium and get the crowds/ratings/sponsers in Tassie the Hawks would be the AFL's choice.

[A Living God]

For the next 30 odd years you would think the Hawks are safe, but if they are TOO successful in capturing the market down there and the Tasmania govt build a big stadium and get the crowds/ratings/sponsers in Tassie the Hawks would be the AFL's choice.
Tasmania is shrinking the cost of an AFL team is growing. It will never happen.

[FOOOOTY]

Tasmania is shrinking the cost of an AFL team is growing. It will never happen.

Is it shrinking?, wasn't aware of that.. though it doesn't surprise me Tassie sucks.. lived there for 3 years when i was a kid.. so goddamn cold

[MightyHawks]

Tasmania is shrinking the cost of an AFL team is growing. It will never happen.

The population is close to stable because retirees are balancing the people leaving.

This is 1 big reason a team won't work permanently in tassie.

The other reason is that not many people from Hobart will travel to support the team in Launceston.

If it was in Hobart, not many people from Launceston, burnie devenport would travel to see it.

If there was one large city of 300,000+ in tassie it would work, but there isn't

[jimmy_clement#8]

And whose to say football fans in the GC are all going to leave behind passionate following of their current AFL club to get behind a local side. Some will, but surely not all of them? And the ones that do, they'll be the ones who are far from loyal, and will only follow financially a successful side at best. What a bloody mess.

[Doctor Jolly]

And whose to say football fans in the GC are all going to leave behind passionate following of their current AFL club to get behind a local side. Some will, but surely not all of them? And the ones that do, they'll be the ones who are far from loyal, and will only follow financially a successful side at best. What a bloody mess.

It will take time, but like I said in another thread the 4 60,000+ crowds that turned up to Western Sydney this year and for most Western Sydney games werent all ex-south melbourne fans.

[zero]

And whose to say football fans in the GC are all going to leave behind passionate following of their current AFL club to get behind a local side. Some will, but surely not all of them? And the ones that do, they'll be the ones who are far from loyal, and will only follow financially a successful side at best. What a bloody mess.
so the team will have some that some passionate people and some not so

just like every other side

[Jimmy's Hot Dogs]

Vlad should come out now and do an Ivan Drago about North "If they die, they die".



I also like how Drago also loses in the end ...... ;)

"He is not human, he is a piece of iron"

Go Rocky! :thumbsu:

[jimmy_clement#8]

It will take time, but like I said in another thread the 4 60,000+ crowds that turned up to Western Sydney this year and for most Western Sydney games werent all ex-south melbourne fans.
True, so what happens initially, and for quite a lengthy inital period also, is that crowds will be poor, so the AFL pumps extra funds into the club to compensate, and eventually when the Gold Coast has a population greater than Adelaide, it'll become a powerhouse footy club with more than a competitive membership figure, made up of supporters who got on board throughout the years, similar to Sydney. A pinch of sense in the overriding madness I guess.

Just if Brisbane only has 25,000 (approx.) members this year, with a population greater than Adelaide's, with recent success, overriding recent success, then why will the Gold Coast be expected to be any different, when, in the same state, it'll have the same demographical conditions, yet more than likely wont have the success of the Lions to build on. If the Lions didn't win three in a row, how many members would they have had this year? And whose to say the Gold Coast by such a time won't plateau at something similar to that figure, perhaps something lower still?

[GoHawkers]

In the ultimatum the AFL gave the Kangaroos, they said at the end of 2009 they would be reviewing the special funding given to struggling clubs.

Could they just cut the funding off at that time and clubs could either sink or swim?

North Melbourne, Melbourne, Bulldogs and maybe St Kilda could be in trouble then.

Can the AFL just decide to do that though? Easy way to free up more licenses for interstate teams by forcing mergers or having them relocate if they can't survive on their own.

[Azzballz Deluxe]

I also like how Drago also loses in the end ...... ;)

"He is not human, he is a piece of iron"

Go Rocky! :thumbsu:

Appollo Creed= North Melbourne :p

[footyfreak]

So the roos have thirty days to make up their mind. The agony of decision!!! If they choose to stay, it really could be the beggining of the end of the club!! It's a massive risk to take coz i'd say once the choice is made, there will be no turning back!

This question was asked many times over the last 6-12 months and roos supporters always said it was not an appropriate time but i think now is:

Would you prefer your club to go to the GC and survive in some form or would you prefer to stay and seriously risk not exsisting in any form at all within 3-5 years?

Think carefully Roos....coz the time is right now!!!

[moomba]

Would you prefer your club to go to the GC and survive in some form or would you prefer to stay and seriously risk not exsisting in any form at all within 3-5 years?

Think carefully Roos....coz the time is right now!!!

I always said that I would very much prefer to stay a Melbourne based club, but would follow (but not financially support) the side if they relocated.

The way this has been done is leaving a very sour taste in my mouth though, and I can't see myself having any involvement in the sport if this is forced through.

So for me, I'll have the 3-5 years and a chance to fight our way out of it. If we fold then, at least we'd fold on our own terms, and not as a puppet of a power hungry AFL.

[SweetLeftFoot]

I agree and in the long term it will help the Lions to have a rival side, does anyone out there believe that West Coast or Adelaide have been weakened by having an opposition side ???

To a smaller degree the same thing will happen in QLD it will create renewed interest in the game and a rivarly which will encourage more people to be interested.

Lolz.

SA and WA are football mad states.

QLD is not.

[RussellEbertHandball]

It will take time, but like I said in another thread the 4 60,000+ crowds that turned up to Western Sydney this year and for most Western Sydney games werent all ex-south melbourne fans.

Firstly it was 3 games in 2007 which triggered the 60,000+ clause in the contract the swans have with the SCG and Telstra Stadium to get a 4th game in 2008.

Secondly you are comparing a population base of 4,300,000 vs 472,000. If you use your straight line extrapolation that's 3 games over 6,000 on the GC per year. It's not that simple to asume if A happens in Sydney then B is guaranteed in the Gold Coast.

People talk about the TV effect and the additional $$ a GC team would add to future TV rights. It would be bugger all because those fans that follow AFL on the Coast already watch AFL or have pay tv subscriptions to make sure they get to watch their existing team. You are not going to get huge number of converts. The true value of AFL TV $$ from the GC region is already factored into the current rights deal. TV executives don't get paid big bucks to misinterpret and lose $$millions of potential TV advertising revenue.

Sydney add the big $$ to the TV revenue as it allows the broadcaster, especially FTA, to sell national advertising packages. The GC isn't going to effect the total value that much. And what happens if a GC team get in, do they get guaranteed FTA TV on the Coast for all 22 games like the other non Vic sides????

Then there is the question of draft concessions to the new team. Now that is going to be a real shit fight. The other 16 clubs aren't going to like that, maybe North Melbourne will let that one get thru. Can you imagine a GC side getting the GC zone for say 5 years???

And what will the membership and average attendance look like? Maybe something like this.

2010 4,000 members, average crowd 11,000
2011 5,000 / 12,000
2012 6,000 / 14,000
2013 8,000 / 15,000
2014 10,000 / 17,000

Do you really reckon that the AFL aren't going to have to throw $30mil+ over these 5 years to help the side survive. Those sorts of figures are unsustainable. If you reckon I am grossly underestimating things, what are your membership and average crowd numbers over the first five years??

It put's the whole Annual Special Distribution into perspective.

From the Next Generation documents covering the AFL's revenue stream between 2007 and 2011. The clubs are budgetted to receive $650mil over these 5 years. This is what the AFL has said about the ASD (referered to as SFD and CBF in prior posts) portion of that $650mil.

• The Annual Special Distribution policy, established by the AFL Commission to support financially disadvantaged clubs, will provide $6.2 million per year or $31 million over five years for clubs with long-term financial difficulties primarily due to issues including the small size of their supporter base and poor returns from their stadium agreements.

Whether it's the Roos or a 17th side the subsidy the AFL will have to give will probably be as big as the total ASD the AFL gives to the whole comp. So much for building up a Future Fund in the next TV rights deal period. The AFL has bugetted to have a Future Fund worth $82mil by the end of 2011, but I think the 17th team will be using some of those funds.

Will the new team have to pay for a licence? Will it cost $4mil or has footy inflation driven it up. I assume it will be paid off over 10 years.

Hang in their Kangaroos you are going to cause the AFL some major headaches by staying at Arden Street. They want you to capitulate because they know how hard the GC market really is to develop.

One other thing to remember, the AFL have already given the Kangaroo's $1.5mil in 2007 to redevelop Arden treet. They will have guaranteed new facilites by 2010, nothing is guaranteed facilities wise on the GC.

AFL ground redevelopments: key facts
10:42:48 AM Wed 7 June, 2006
Australian Football League
...................................

NORTH MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB

Total Project Value: $7.0M

Funding Contributions:

State Government: $2.00m
City of Melbourne: $2.00m (subject to budget process)
North Melbourne Football Club (NMFC): $1.50m
Australian Football League: $1.50m

Proposed Redevelopment / Works details:

- The redevelopment of the North Melbourne Recreation Reserve will seek to provide:
- The provision of suitable office space and an elite level gymnasium to improve training and administration facilities for the NMFC;
- A multi purpose sports hall and meeting rooms to be shared between the North Melbourne Football Club and the local community;
- Improved access to open space in the reserve through the removal of redundant infrastructure on the site;
- Improved opportunities for the NMFC to engage with the local community by creating a ‘community sports hub’.
.....................

[relapse]

Lolz.

SA and WA are football mad states.

QLD is not.

A rivarly still helps the code, it has also massively increased the numbers in both states with football. The same thing to a lesser degree will happen in QLD.

At least come up with a decent counter argument instead of the old "but that wont happen in Queensland". The GC is a perfect enviornment to establish a long term rival for the lions.

At the end of the day North supporters have stood up and made their decision, if they die in 3-5 year which I think is on the cards then so be it, North supporters know the risks so there wont be much sympathy if something happens to them. The AFL offered the club a chance at long term survival and rejected it so its upto all supporters to make it work, the easy part was saying no to North's proposal the hard part starts now.

[A Living God]

And what will the membership and average attendance look like? Maybe something like this.

2010 4,000 members, average crowd 11,000
2011 5,000 / 12,000
2012 6,000 / 14,000
2013 8,000 / 15,000
2014 10,000 / 17,000

Do you really reckon that the AFL aren't going to have to throw $30mil+ over these 5 years to help the side survive. Those sorts of figures are unsustainable. If you reckon I am grossly underestimating things, what are your membership and average crowd numbers over the first five years??

Geelong earns more for 20,000 at Skilled stadium than 40,000 at the Telstra dome. The Kangaroos barely break even for home games on their current agreement. That 17,000 on the gold coast has the potenial to earn them more than a crowd twice that twice at the Telstra Dome.

[Ripper]

Lolz.

SA and WA are football mad states.

QLD is not.

The same arguments (WA and/or SA are not big enough to support two teams) were still made and proven wrong.

WC's membership and attendances actually went up as soon as Freo entered the League.

[Ryz]

A rivarly still helps the code, it has also massively increased the numbers in both states with football. The same thing to a lesser degree will happen in QLD

How do you think another NRL team in Melbourne will fare?