View Full Version : Why have the Kangaroos struggled to attract new supporters?
It's something I've always wondered.
I know a few North fans, who have meemberships, but am wondering why they have struggled to get a strong supporter base and become a big crowd drawing team.
During their strong period in the 70's, surely many kids growing up decided to follow North. You'd assume that these people would all be supporters of the Kangas.
Didn't they pick up many new followers during the 90's? A great player like carey would surely attract new supporters, not to mention their stong performance and 2 flags during that period.
Why has this not translated? This is a club that has just had another strong season, and hasn't really bottomed out for many years
Paddy_Mac
2 Nov 2007, 15:48
It's something I've always wondered.
I know a few North fans, who have meemberships, but am wondering why they have struggled to get a strong supporter base and become a big crowd drawing team.
During their strong period in the 70's, surely many kids growing up decided to follow North. You'd assume that these people would all be supporters of the Kangas.
Didn't they pick up many new followers during the 90's? A great player like carey would surely attract new supporters, not to mention their stong performance and 2 flags during that period.
Why has this not translated? This is a club that has just had another strong season, and hasn't really bottomed out for many years
Ummm it's only been 8 years since we won it. When do people start watching footy. 5? 6? 7? They'd be 15 now. I'm 15 and i'm getting a membership this year for the first time. In a couple of years (or even now, when they're 15 - 18, we'll increase our membership.
blues4flag
2 Nov 2007, 16:03
Ummm it's only been 8 years since we won it. When do people start watching footy. 5? 6? 7? They'd be 15 now. I'm 15 and i'm getting a membership this year for the first time. In a couple of years (or even now, when they're 15 - 18, we'll increase our membership.
96 was what? :confused:
96 was what? :confused:
3 years before they won in 99' :confused:
ARDENSTREETforever
2 Nov 2007, 16:14
Yeh Its a tough subject really as in the 70's, North Melbourne was the place to be and all the people I have spoken to who were around to watch them then said they were one of the bigger clubs in the era.
We attracted big crowds during our golden era of the 90s, but have really struggled in recent times to convert fans into members.
Maybe it has something to do with us only being shown on FTA TV once a month or getting on FNF once per season.
If we were given a fair go during Prime time tv slots, the younger kids would want to watch the Kangas (provided we were winning).
Yeh Its a tough subject really as in the 70's, North Melbourne was the place to be and all the people I have spoken to who were around to watch them then said they were one of the bigger clubs in the era.
We attracted big crowds during our golden era of the 90s, but have really struggled in recent times to convert fans into members.
Maybe it has something to do with us only being shown on FTA TV once a month or getting on FNF once per season.
If we were given a fair go during Prime time tv slots, the younger kids would want to watch the Kangas (provided we were winning).
A few years back when Eddie and Sheedy promoted the war on the SC and got most the Vic teams to support them, I remember saying to a few lower clubs supporters "you should be more worried about what Eddie and Sheedy are going to try take away from you"
Funny how things turn out. :cool:
FishingRick04
2 Nov 2007, 16:52
Yeh Its a tough subject really as in the 70's, North Melbourne was the place to be and all the people I have spoken to who were around to watch them then said they were one of the bigger clubs in the era.
We attracted big crowds during our golden era of the 90s, but have really struggled in recent times to convert fans into members.
Maybe it has something to do with us only being shown on FTA TV once a month or getting on FNF once per season.
If we were given a fair go during Prime time tv slots, the younger kids would want to watch the Kangas (provided we were winning).
You know that's a great point about FTA.
There was a story in the Adelaide paper this week. Port is only getting 4 FTA games this up coming season, with the lowest Vic club getting ten, Collingwood is getting 18 or 19.
I don't have a gripe about Vic versus the rest stuff like alot of people, BUT I say fair go, surely all clubs could have an equal amount or close too it.
The bias that it provides the clubs with greater exposure is huge to future sponsorship and membership drives.
Well all know there is inequities in the AFL but this is ridiculous. I mean where do we draw the line to attact more dollars instead of equity?
ARDENSTREETforever
2 Nov 2007, 16:59
You know that's a great point about FTA.
There was a story in the Adelaide paper this week. Port is only getting 4 FTA games this up coming season, with the lowest Vic club getting ten, Collingwood is getting 18 or 19.
I don't have a gripe about Vic versus the rest stuff like alot of people, BUT I say fair go, surely all clubs could have an equal amount or close too it.
The bias that it provides the clubs with greater exposure is huge to future sponsorship and membership drives.
Well all know there is inequities in the AFL but this is ridiculous. I mean where do we draw the line to attact more dollars instead of equity?
Totally agree with you.
On Friday Nights, I absolutely hate the system!!!
North used to be on Friday Nights all the time in the 90s.
I think EVERY CLUB should get two games on FNF, then the left over matches should be divided equally amongst the top 8 from the previous season.
I really can't think of a fairer way.
But until the AFL stops putting TV Ratings before Club/Fixture fairness this won't happen.
I don't know about you, but I watch Friday Night Footy every week, no matter who's playing. I'm sure alot of other fans would do the same, so really it's about time we had a fair FNF draw.
blues4flag
2 Nov 2007, 17:17
3 years before they won in 99' :confused:
Thanks Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:
The point went WAY over your head.
Terry Tan
2 Nov 2007, 20:17
It's hard to understand. They were one of the top clubs in the 70's with Barassi as the super coach and a team of star studded players - Blight, Cable, Dench, Greig, Schimma, Breidis, Baker, Keka, Alves, Gasometer, Keenan, etc, etc.
In the 80's they were still pretty good with Schimma, Krak bros, Glendenning.
They were the team of the '90's with Pagan, Carey and co.
That's 30 years+ of good footy so where are all the supporters???! The only thing I can think of is that the club wasn't marketed well enough over the years.
You want supporters NM? There are 1000 new migrants coming to Victoria every week. Be at the airport, get their details, give them a jumper and greet them with tix to some Roos games. The sad thing is they should have been doing this a decade ago.
The Chad
2 Nov 2007, 20:21
ironically, an elitist attitude.
kangaroos fans always say opposition fans "know nothing" about footy. that their kids are underrated because other fans "know nothing". that their finances are fine because opposition fans "know nothing". that their coach who publically humiliates fans is actually a good one and opposition fans "know nothing".
they're an unpleasant bunch, it appeals to one type of personality. mercifully not much of society fits into that category.
SweetLeftFoot
2 Nov 2007, 20:32
There is also the fact that North Melbourne is very small, and traditionally low population area.
Take say Hawthorn - there's a good depth of two suburbs around hawthorn which is their natural territory - Balwyn, Camberwell etc etc.
Directly west of North Melbourne is Footscray, north is Essendon and carlton, then there is the city.
What I reckon would have been a goer - if we hadn't managed to bugger them off - is an officiall merger type deal with Port Melbourne. That way we get a proper seconds team, an expanded supporter base for revenue raising etc etc
SweetLeftFoot
2 Nov 2007, 20:32
ironically, an elitist attitude.
kangaroos fans always say opposition fans "know nothing" about footy. that their kids are underrated because other fans "know nothing". that their finances are fine because opposition fans "know nothing". that their coach who publically humiliates fans is actually a good one and opposition fans "know nothing".
they're an unpleasant bunch, it appeals to one type of personality. mercifully not much of society fits into that category.
No, its just you who we say knows nothing Chud.
The Chad
2 Nov 2007, 20:36
No, its just you who we say knows nothing Chud.
right....i wasn't a registered user pre-season when people were tipping the kangaroos for the wooden spoon
you'll struggle to find kangaroos fans saying that opposition fans "knew nothing" when they made those particular tips.
so that rolls your argument, better luck next time. but hey, feel free to report my post to a moderator for simply having a difference of opinion, that's what you whiny dobbers do.
SweetLeftFoot
2 Nov 2007, 20:40
right....i wasn't a registered user pre-season when people were tipping the kangaroos for the wooden spoon
you'll struggle to find kangaroos fans saying that opposition fans "knew nothing" when they made those particular tips.
so that rolls your argument, better luck next time. but hey, feel free to report my post to a moderator for simply having a difference of opinion, that's what you whiny dobbers do.
Look, you've followed me around about 6 threads in ten minutes here. Its a bit creepy Chud.
I'm flattered by the attention, but let's say I'm a bit more Glenn Archer than Shane Crawford in this regard, so, yes its flattering, and I do hope you find someone and can work up the courage to break the news of your life choices to your folks, but I'm not your man OK.
The Chad
2 Nov 2007, 20:44
Look, you've followed me around about 6 threads in ten minutes here. Its a bit creepy Chud.
I'm flattered by the attention, but let's say I'm a bit more Glenn Archer than Shane Crawford in this regard, so, yes its flattering, and I do hope you find someone and can work up the courage to break the news of your life choices to your folks, but I'm not your man OK.
all kangaroos football club supporters bleat the same to me
i didn't even know its been the same user each time
and again, feel free to go down the path of cheap shots against The Chad. it just shows i have you covered when it comes to talking football.
I posted most of this on the main board, but it probably belongs here too.
North's issues with attracting a fan base stem from a couple of things. Locationally, they're sandwiched between Carlton (who dominate the supporter base of the inner North) and Essendon (who dominate the outer North and Western suburbs like no other team geographically in Melbourne) - two of the powerful clubs. That made it hard in the early days, especially considering both were foundation clubs with established supporter bases by the time North joined the league. Given how often teams run in families, its not surprising they had a low base to start with.
More importantly, they're just a boring team to follow. The biggest factor in keeping a team interesting is rivalry. Who are North's main rivals? Carlton, because they once tried to buy them? Perhaps, but Carlton fans would probably rate them well down the list - probably behind Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, West Coast, Port Adelaide, St Kilda and Hawthorn. Losing to North just doesn't mean the same as losing to any of those teams.
Even in their time at the top, they didn't develop any rivals. Geelong were also consistently good, but despite a few great games, nothing really developed. There was a bit of interest in the Carey/Jackovich thing with West Coast, but West Coast are up with the big boys really and their rivals (in order) are probably Freo, Collingwood, Carlton, Sydney and Adelaide. The natural rivalry was with Essendon over the whole Marshmellow thing; given locations, it might have been their only chance. Problem was, Essendon lost the 96 and 99 grand finals by a point, costing the teams the 2 grand final matches they would have played against each other, which might have sparked the rivalry. In the mean-time, Essendon and Collingwood grew out of the ANZAC day game, Essendon/Carlton fired up from the 99 prelim, and Essendon/Richmond started the dreamtime thing - North just missed the boat on Essendon.
As a result, is there any game involving North that neutral fans would want to watch next year? They were 4th on the ladder this year - but I can't think of anyone I might be interested in seeing them play. Geelong? Not after the finals thrashing. Port? Ditto. Hawthorn? Probably the best matchup for them next year, and the only candidate I can think of.
The biggest problem North face stems from that. They just aren't interesting to watch from a neutral point of view. They aren't even the underdogs you want to see win any more; the whole Carey/arrogance era just obliterated that. We're sick of hearing about the 'shinboner' spirit, sick of Archer and Stevens and completely uninterested in the new generation. At least the Bulldogs and Saints get some sympathy vote for their unsuccessful pasts. North have no major rivalries, very little crowd support and play half their home games interstate. For a top 4 team to be so boring is phenomenal. Kids growing up get sucked in by watching a match with 80,000 passionate fans, knowing that this game matters more than anything - until the following week when you repeat it all again in another huge game. They don't get sucked in by sitting scattered with 12,000 fans and 80,000 empty seats on a cold winters day, ignoring the match against Freo and instead discussing how likely it is the team will relocate interstate. Tough, but true unfortunately. And I don't know how you fix it, at least not in the short term...
KevinCat07
3 Nov 2007, 15:21
I think it has something to d owith selling out their name. They are like drifter gypsies with no real home so no one wants to commit to them in case they leave. They should have always kept "North Melbourne" in their name.
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 15:54
I posted most of this on the main board, but it probably belongs here too.
North's issues with attracting a fan base stem from a couple of things. Locationally, they're sandwiched between Carlton (who dominate the supporter base of the inner North) and Essendon (who dominate the outer North and Western suburbs like no other team geographically in Melbourne) - two of the powerful clubs. That made it hard in the early days, especially considering both were foundation clubs with established supporter bases by the time North joined the league. Given how often teams run in families, its not surprising they had a low base to start with.
More importantly, they're just a boring team to follow. The biggest factor in keeping a team interesting is rivalry. Who are North's main rivals? Carlton, because they once tried to buy them? Perhaps, but Carlton fans would probably rate them well down the list - probably behind Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, West Coast, Port Adelaide, St Kilda and Hawthorn. Losing to North just doesn't mean the same as losing to any of those teams.
Even in their time at the top, they didn't develop any rivals. Geelong were also consistently good, but despite a few great games, nothing really developed. There was a bit of interest in the Carey/Jackovich thing with West Coast, but West Coast are up with the big boys really and their rivals (in order) are probably Freo, Collingwood, Carlton, Sydney and Adelaide. The natural rivalry was with Essendon over the whole Marshmellow thing; given locations, it might have been their only chance. Problem was, Essendon lost the 96 and 99 Preliminary finals by a point, costing the teams the 2 grand final matches they would have played against each other, which might have sparked the rivalry. In the mean-time, Essendon and Collingwood grew out of the ANZAC day game, Essendon/Carlton fired up from the 99 prelim, and Essendon/Richmond started the dreamtime thing - North just missed the boat on Essendon.
As a result, is there any game involving North that neutral fans would want to watch next year? They were 4th on the ladder this year - but I can't think of anyone I might be interested in seeing them play. Geelong? Not after the finals thrashing. Port? Ditto. Hawthorn? Probably the best matchup for them next year, and the only candidate I can think of.
The biggest problem North face stems from that. They just aren't interesting to watch from a neutral point of view. They aren't even the underdogs you want to see win any more; the whole Carey/arrogance era just obliterated that. We're sick of hearing about the 'shinboner' spirit, sick of Archer and Stevens and completely uninterested in the new generation. At least the Bulldogs and Saints get some sympathy vote for their unsuccessful pasts. North have no major rivalries, very little crowd support and play half their home games interstate. For a top 4 team to be so boring is phenomenal. Kids growing up get sucked in by watching a match with 80,000 passionate fans, knowing that this game matters more than anything - until the following week when you repeat it all again in another huge game. They don't get sucked in by sitting scattered with 12,000 fans and 80,000 empty seats on a cold winters day, ignoring the match against Freo and instead discussing how likely it is the team will relocate interstate. Tough, but true unfortunately. And I don't know how you fix it, at least not in the short term...
EFA.
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 15:55
they have struggled because a kangaroo is not known to children as an aggressive animal. Teams with Animals as mascots need to be aggressive, or have some connection with kids.
Adelaide - The Crow is one nasty animal, you see it on a street and you will get a fright
Brisbane - The Lion is the King of the Jungle
Collingwood - Not so much agressive as Magpies are ferrals that breed and breed, and the blood forever remains in the family
Geelong - The Cat is the common household pet, not to mention the fact they have virtually half that side of the state to market to
Hawthorn - The Hawk hunts it preyand swoops when they dont expect (one of the reasons i was attracted to the hawks at the age of 7 when i began to watch footy)
Richmond - Tigers are very aggressive animals, kids will often go "rahh, im a tiger!"
Sydney - The swans really dont have the largest support, but have had the bonus of marketing to the entire NSW public.
West Coast - Eagle very simmilar to a hawk
Western Bulldogs - the dog is a household pet, and the bulldog is often known as a savage dog, and is often mentioned in the news.
while what does the kangaroos do? Jumps around a little bit.
Also, they have had limited success in this era. Most of the children from their 1996-1999 era who would have been influenced are now in their teens, while the new generation is being attracted to the latest batch of clubs. This sort of contradicts my statement on the pies, but they have hit form, as have the hawks of late, and when they werent winning, were still in the news.
MiamiGroup
3 Nov 2007, 16:31
they have struggled because a kangaroo is not known to children as an aggressive animal. Teams with Animals as mascots need to be aggressive, or have some connection with kids.
Adelaide - The Crow is one nasty animal, you see it on a street and you will get a fright
Brisbane - The Lion is the King of the Jungle
Collingwood - Not so much agressive as Magpies are ferrals that breed and breed, and the blood forever remains in the family
Geelong - The Cat is the common household pet, not to mention the fact they have virtually half that side of the state to market to
Hawthorn - The Hawk hunts it preyand swoops when they dont expect (one of the reasons i was attracted to the hawks at the age of 7 when i began to watch footy)
Richmond - Tigers are very aggressive animals, kids will often go "rahh, im a tiger!"
Sydney - The swans really dont have the largest support, but have had the bonus of marketing to the entire NSW public.
West Coast - Eagle very simmilar to a hawk
Western Bulldogs - the dog is a household pet, and the bulldog is often known as a savage dog, and is often mentioned in the news.
while what does the kangaroos do? Jumps around a little bit.
Also, they have had limited success in this era. Most of the children from their 1996-1999 era who would have been influenced are now in their teens, while the new generation is being attracted to the latest batch of clubs. This sort of contradicts my statement on the pies, but they have hit form, as have the hawks of late, and when they werent winning, were still in the news.
Hows the pot?
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 16:34
Hows the pot?
sorry? youve lost me? All i said was that when you werent winning, you were not getting much media attention. when the pies and hawks werent winning we were both still in the papers.
philhawk
3 Nov 2007, 16:38
There is also the fact that North Melbourne is very small, and traditionally low population area.
Take say Hawthorn - there's a good depth of two suburbs around hawthorn which is their natural territory - Balwyn, Camberwell etc etc.
Directly west of North Melbourne is Footscray, north is Essendon and carlton, then there is the city.
What I reckon would have been a goer - if we hadn't managed to bugger them off - is an officiall merger type deal with Port Melbourne. That way we get a proper seconds team, an expanded supporter base for revenue raising etc etc
Very good point. 'North Melbourne' as a region is effectively sandwiched between Carlton and Essendon, thus making it extremely difficult to find a large 'fan base' to draw from.
As others have pointed out though, there are still regions in the Northern parts of Victoria that really don't have an affiliation with any club. North should be looking to them as potential members.
KevinCat07
3 Nov 2007, 16:39
they have struggled because a kangaroo is not known to children as an aggressive animal. Teams with Animals as mascots need to be aggressive, or have some connection with kids.
while what does the kangaroos do? Jumps around a little bit.
Are you serious? Do you not know how dangerous kangaroos can be? They would castrate a man with ease, more dangerous than a magpie, cat, bulldog thats for sure. And i doubt that has anything to do with it anyway.
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 16:43
Are you serious? Do you not know how dangerous kangaroos can be? They would castrate a man with ease, more dangerous than a magpie, cat, bulldog thats for sure. And i doubt that has anything to do with it anyway.
read what i wrote. I didnt say they are not aggressive. I said children do not see them as aggressive. I know very well they are dangerous, infact, i was attacked by one at gumbya park(luckily there are rangers there). Most children are nto told at school "Kangaroos are dangerous." do you see my point?
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 16:46
they have struggled because a kangaroo is not known to children as an aggressive animal. Teams with Animals as mascots need to be aggressive, or have some connection with kids.
Adelaide - The Crow is one nasty animal, you see it on a street and you will get a fright
Brisbane - The Lion is the King of the Jungle
Incorrect. There is no such thing as King of the Jungle. Tigers, Hippos and Elephants are all big enough to give a lion a touch up.
Collingwood - Not so much agressive as Magpies are ferrals that breed and breed, and the blood forever remains in the family
Geelong - The Cat is the common household pet, not to mention the fact they have virtually half that side of the state to market to
Hawthorn - The Hawk hunts it preyand swoops when they dont expect (one of the reasons i was attracted to the hawks at the age of 7 when i began to watch footy)
Richmond - Tigers are very aggressive animals, kids will often go "rahh, im a tiger!"
Sydney - The swans really dont have the largest support, but have had the bonus of marketing to the entire NSW public.
West Coast - Eagle very simmilar to a hawk
Western Bulldogs - the dog is a household pet, and the bulldog is often known as a savage dog, and is often mentioned in the news.
while what does the kangaroos do? Jumps around a little bit.
Also, they have had limited success in this era. Most of the children from their 1996-1999 era who would have been influenced are now in their teens, while the new generation is being attracted to the latest batch of clubs. This sort of contradicts my statement on the pies, but they have hit form, as have the hawks of late, and when they werent winning, were still in the news.
Kangaroos arent aggressive?
w5Ujf_VQXYo
0ryH2VJdENA
1jasonoz
3 Nov 2007, 16:54
I'd say we would/are a marketing text book example of how to destroy a brand.
In the 90's on the back of onfield success and the 96 flag we where really starting to draw some good crowds and our membership was starting to pick up.
What did we do, we decided to distance ourselfs from our successfull brand and supporters/ potential supporters by informing the football world we where playing games in Sydney.
Then after a couple of years it was the ACT, now the GC!!
I no so many people who are north supporters who scratch their heads and ask who the hell are we now- who or what happened to the North Melbourne football club, as the club since 98 seems to have done everything they could to distance themselves from the NMFC brand!
since82eags
3 Nov 2007, 16:59
north is an enigma that is soon heading for the Gold Coast they don't pull crowds their fans are hard core they don't attract neutrals very well
Errol Street
3 Nov 2007, 19:10
ironically, an elitist attitude.
kangaroos fans always say opposition fans "know nothing" about footy. that their kids are underrated because other fans "know nothing". that their finances are fine because opposition fans "know nothing". that their coach who publically humiliates fans is actually a good one and opposition fans "know nothing".
they're an unpleasant bunch, it appeals to one type of personality. mercifully not much of society fits into that category.
You have no life, all you do is slag everyone off. You are pathetic and are surely an embarassment to the Hawthorn FC and its members.
Mitchell Madness
3 Nov 2007, 19:11
DarwinRoo, i never said kangaroos werent agressive. FFS, read what i write! I said children do not see them as agressive animals!
As for the king of the jungle, it is a ****ign figure of speach!
You have no life, all you do is slag everyone off. You are pathetic and are surely an embarassment to the Hawthorn FC and its members.
And you, leave us hawk fans and members out of it! Somebody says the truth and you get all prissy abotu it! FFS, i will love to see how you act when your unstable piece of crap finally gets the boot because the AFL doesnt want to keep a shit club liek it in the competition.
The Chad
3 Nov 2007, 19:16
You have no life, all you do is slag everyone off. You are pathetic and are surely an embarassment to the Hawthorn FC and its members.
your factually incorrect accusations about The Chad went no closer to disproving anything The Chad said.
Kangaroos Football Club fans are unable to address The Chad's posts lately becuase The Chad is presenting arguments that have no rebuttal. Instead fans are playing the man and not the ball. it is no surprise and The Chad sees every deviation from points The Chad raises as a victory.
like i said. elitist, arrogant, unpleasant.
just look at de rauch's comments. cake-and-eat-it club.
Richmond - Tigers are very aggressive animals, kids will often go "rahh, im a tiger!"
hahahahah
Is the Chad talking about the Chad in the third person as a result of a bet that the Chad made, or is the Chad a bit simple?
Terry Tan
3 Nov 2007, 21:18
From what I've noticed, there doesn't seem to be many kids who barrack for the roos. Most supporters seem to be middle aged guys. This may be that the Kangaroo moniker does not appeal that much to kids.
North had a massive rivalry with the Hawks in the '70's and Essendon in the '90's - they failed to build on them. They had a powerful president in the '70's but have had few genuine heavyweight administrators lately. As such they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the afl into bad fixturing, name changes, travelling ACT & Tassie. They have had to prostitute themselves.
They need a Eddie McGuire type Prez to save them now. Can Brayshaw be that person? So far Rick Allert has done nothing for the Roos.
DarwinRoo
3 Nov 2007, 21:23
From what I've noticed, there doesn't seem to be many kids who barrack for the roos. Most supporters seem to be middle aged guys. This may be that the Kangaroo moniker does not appeal that much to kids.
North had a massive rivalry with the Hawks in the '70's and Essendon in the '90's - they failed to build on them. They had a powerful president in the '70's but have had few genuine heavyweight administrators lately. As such they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the afl into bad fixturing, name changes, travelling ACT & Tassie. They have had to prostitute themselves.
They need a Eddie McGuire type Prez to save them now. Can Brayshaw be that person? So far Rick Allert has done nothing for the Roos.
Please explain?
ARDENSTREETforever
5 Nov 2007, 04:08
North had the 3rd highest junior membership in the league in 2007 IIRC?
but hey, feel free to report my post to a moderator for simply having a difference of opinion, that's what you whiny dobbers do.
Gee I think I'm gonna cry.
My mate is a primary school teacher and when he asks the kids why or how they barrack for teams he said half them pick them on pure colour.
The bright colours are the key to half their chioces he tells me.
He is amazed how many Bulldogs & Dockers jumpers are running around and he lives in North east Vic.
He says the Hawks & Roos jumpers are hardly ever seen and not as many Collingwood or Carlton jumpers either it seems too boring.
So the message seems jazz up the jumpers and get some colour into them.
I laughed at him initially but he says this is simply how half the kids think.
It's about looking good.
greennick
5 Nov 2007, 23:20
North had the 3rd highest junior membership in the league in 2007 IIRC?
Junior membership can often be easily inflated as hard core supporters buy memberships for their "kids" to jack up the club's membership. You wouldn't think that would be too much though, but you never know.
SweetLeftFoot
6 Nov 2007, 00:03
read what i wrote. I didnt say they are not aggressive. I said children do not see them as aggressive. I know very well they are dangerous, infact, i was attacked by one at gumbya park(luckily there are rangers there). Most children are nto told at school "Kangaroos are dangerous." do you see my point?
The point seems to be that you are a barely-literate mouthbreather who once got atacked by a kangaroo at Gumbaya Park.
If kids really did go for the most dangerous sounding mascot, why don't Melbourne have more fans?
Surely a supernatural immortal personification of evil like a demon would be more intimidating than a hawk, or an eagle?
Following your logic - more for the amusement than anything else - wouldn't it make more sense for Port and Freo to have called themselves something harder.
See if qwe do move the Gold Coast, hopefully we change our name to something more intimidating, like the Goal Coast Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the Carrarra Suicide Bombers.
The point seems to be that you are a barely-literate mouthbreather who once got atacked by a kangaroo at Gumbaya Park.
If kids really did go for the most dangerous sounding mascot, why don't Melbourne have more fans?
Surely a supernatural immortal personification of evil like a demon would be more intimidating than a hawk, or an eagle?
Following your logic - more for the amusement than anything else - wouldn't it make more sense for Port and Freo to have called themselves something harder.
See if qwe do move the Gold Coast, hopefully we change our name to something more intimidating, like the Goal Coast Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the Carrarra Suicide Bombers.
I wouldnt wanna play them.
SweetLeftFoot
6 Nov 2007, 00:39
I wouldnt wanna play them.
Yeah, they could really blow the game apart in the vital third quarter.