View Full Version : Melbourne can’t sustain 10 clubs: Aka
Aquamarinejewel
20 Jan 2008, 00:29
Something from Aka....
Melbourne can’t sustain 10 clubs: Aka (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/general/melbourne-cant-sustain-10-clubs/2008/01/19/1200620281733.html)
The Age
Carley Jellett | January 19, 2008
JASON Akermanis does not believe Melbourne will be able to support 10 football clubs in the future, saying yesterday that seven or eight clubs would be more realistic.
The Bulldogs midfielder, who spent 12 years at the merged Brisbane Lions, believes the Gold Coast could sustain a football club, but he said creating a new team from scratch would be very difficult. ‘‘I think the reality is, Melbourne’s a big town, but financially as the game is costing more, the business community is not able to prop it up any more’’, he said. ‘‘Ten teams is probably going to be too much. So really it is probably eight or seven teams (that can survive).’’
The Kangaroos, who appointed former Collingwood chief operating officer Eugene Arocca as chief executive on Friday, were linked to the Gold Coast before rejecting a lucrative offer from the AFL, mainly due to its inability to secure a stadium deal. Akermanis has no doubt the Gold Coast could sustain an AFL club, whether it be the Kangaroos or another team.
Akermanis admitted the Western Bulldogs were one of the teams that was in danger of relocating or merging, but he said the club was now profitable — it announced a profit of more than $530,000 for 2007. He said the Kangaroos could do the same in the future.
The AFL’s plan to create a new 17th AFL club on the Gold Coast would be difficult, according to Akermanis, who pointed to the former Brisbane Bears as an example. ‘‘I think looking at AFL longterm, if you want to move into a region you may as well have (an already established) club because if you don’t have a club then it is going to be pretty hard, because you have got to get another whole list and that is going to take ages. That is what the Bears had to do. It took them years — years — to get anywhere.’’
#1 Dogs Fan
20 Jan 2008, 10:58
As much as we don't like talking or hearing about it i feel as if it still must be said. I honestly believe after the Kangaroos we are a danger to merging in the up coming years if the AFL wants to relocate a new Melbourne team but that is if we have another 1 or 2 down years like the end of 07.
I honestly cant stand to even here the Western Bulldogs name when people talk about relocation.
So please to any one who has not purchased a membership yet please do so. Every dollar will help :thumbsu:
D Mitchell
20 Jan 2008, 11:11
... ‘‘I think the reality is, Melbourne’s a big town, but financially as the game is costing more, the business community is not able to prop it up any more’’, he said. ‘‘Ten teams is probably going to be too much. So really it is probably eight or seven teams (that can survive).’’
...’’
If that's the case, the business community is going to have to become bigger and more efficient. And Aker (and the Age sub-editors), it's "too many"
Aker's saying what everybody, from the AFL CEO to the bloke in the pub, has been saying for 20 years. There's nothing magic in the clubs per head of population / city / business affordability ratio. Barring extraordinary events, like Australia winning a soccer world cup and the whole community abandoning football (and rugby for that matter), a well run club with sufficient critical mass will survive.
A far better article is the one on page 18 by Carley Jellett.
memberforever
20 Jan 2008, 12:01
Not sure why Aka made these comments?
Not sure why Aka made these comments?
Was asked a question? There's nothing wrong with what he said. Its just his opinion, which is also the view of many other people.
He's probably right, but I also think for the competition to be totally 'balanced' there needs to be fewer Melb teams and more interstate.
Obviously I hope the bulldogs remain as they are, where they are. I think we're in a good location for growth as a business, we just need to ensure we keep the business side of the club improving.
The bottom line is that the AFL want the a team in the Gold Coast and the Kangaroos were going to fill that void. That shows that the Afl thinks the kangaroos are the 'weakest' melbourne team. If the afl decide they wannt another team in sydney we would be next cab off the rank with the kangaroos gone. So basically we have to get ourselves into a better financial positon than another melbourne club before the afl wants another team somewhere else??????
just a question.... if the afl wanted 3 clubs to relocate they would ask us the kangaroos and ????????. Who would be the third club?
RedWhite&Blue
22 Jan 2008, 10:14
just a question.... if the afl wanted 3 clubs to relocate they would ask us the kangaroos and ????????. Who would be the third club?
Hawthorn or Melbourne.
Hawthorn because they have basically been relocated away from their base anyway.
Melbourne because they are a basket case of a club that are going nowhere.
Hawkas_01
23 Jan 2008, 14:23
Hawthorn or Melbourne.
Hawthorn because they have basically been relocated away from their base anyway.
Melbourne because they are a basket case of a club that are going nowhere.
Pffft when you make profits of in excess of 3 million relocation is of no worry.
BOOMA BULLDOGS
23 Jan 2008, 14:29
Pffft when you make profits of in excess of 3 million relocation is of no worry.
yeah whats it like having 3 miilion in the bank and no soul!!!!
Hawkas_01
23 Jan 2008, 16:13
yeah whats it like having 3 miilion in the bank and no soul!!!!
No soul..
Ok footscray, i mean western bulldogs
#1 Dogs Fan
23 Jan 2008, 19:06
No soul..
Ok footscray, i mean western bulldogs
TROLL :rolleyes:
The bottom line is that the AFL want the a team in the Gold Coast and the Kangaroos were going to fill that void. That shows that the Afl thinks the kangaroos are the 'weakest' melbourne team. If the afl decide they wannt another team in sydney we would be next cab off the rank with the kangaroos gone. So basically we have to get ourselves into a better financial positon than another melbourne club before the afl wants another team somewhere else??????
just a question.... if the afl wanted 3 clubs to relocate they would ask us the kangaroos and ????????. Who would be the third club?
Just be wary (or informed) that it wasn't so much a matter of the "weakest" club but rather the most vulnerable due to the unique ownership structure of the NMFC. The AFL reasoned that they would only need to convince a majority of the 27 key shareholders to influence the board to vote for relocation rather than tens of thousands of members at any other club. That turned out to be bogus logic as the shareholders were able to block renegade board members from selling the club out. Whoever turns out to be the AFL's next target must remain a step ahead.
Aquamarinejewel
23 Jan 2008, 20:03
Whoever turns out to be the AFL's next target must remain a step ahead.
Agreed, if anything - the dramas of what what happening to NM would have been watched intently by other clubs who are somewhat struggling financially. The less financial clubs have to get all lapsed members and entice more new members to their respective clubs and plan for the future.
Agreed, if anything - the dramas of what what happening to NM would have been watched intently by other clubs who are somewhat struggling financially. The less financial clubs have to get all lapsed members and entice more new members to their respective clubs and plan for the future.
Beyond lapsed memberships, the other thing to learn from this latest AFL fiasco is their tendency to react to previous campaigns... and fail because of that. Now many of you will remember the efforts to shunt Footscray and Fitzroy together in the late 80's. That effort failed because the AFL (VFL) failed to account for the tin rattling people power. Several years later, the AFL had learnt from their earlier mistake, and when the opportunity came up to wipe out Fitzroy, they did so in a cold and calculated secretive manner, taking the supporters and members out of the equation. They won that battle but lost the PR war because they failed to win over the media, who reported the campaign as a bloody and messy affair. Fast forward to 2007, and the AFL took on the Kangaroos but this time with the media in tow. They expected to have their position reported favourably, and with no opportunity for the supporters to get involved in the debate through lack of media access. Sadly for them, they are a byzantine organisation and were therefore unaware of the emerging potency of the internet as a marshalling ground for supporters. Further to that, the supporters were wise enough to elect a board member who was in the media which then guaranteed a voice despite the best efforts of AFL lackeys like Caroline Wilson, Kevin Bartlett, Dwayne Russell, et al.
So you can guarantee that the AFL will be plotting a means of short circuiting the internet forums and undermining board members with a media presence. They can certainly learn from their mistakes, but they can't sense the winds of change. So like I say, you just have to stay a step ahead.
kookadog
24 Jan 2008, 01:06
I think the internet is a bit bigger than the AFL, It will be almost impossible for the AFL to force a club out, too many people care. It will have to be willing or through some kind of club implosion.
BOOMA BULLDOGS
24 Jan 2008, 09:47
ok hawks, i mean mayblooms