Roos may continue coastal existence

[Rob]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23718420-23211,00.html

NORTH Melbourne may yet fulfil their three-year contract to play AFL games on the Gold Coast, despite the threat of more poor attendances such as the decade-low crowd at Carrara for the match against West Coast.

What are the odds Roos V Collingwood and Roos v Hawthorn/Geelong are scheduled at Carrara next year?

[Fire]

I seriously doubt that the NMFC will be playing on the coast come 2009.

Its just a stunt to tell the AFL they will have to pay us out of the contract, and that we wont be giving anything up.

The AFL will be more desperate to pull the pin than we are. 6k crowds are an embarrassment to them.

[The Teflon Dean]

What are the odds Roos V Collingwood and Roos v Hawthorn/Geelong are scheduled at Carrara next year?

Zero.

I applaud Arocca for exercising our rights in the contract to grab the 1.2 million on offer. After all, we are only honoring our original agreement.

Telstra Dome musn't have budged on it's stadium arrangements.

[Gibbke]

North aren't a stupid organisation. There's no way on God's green earth that they would ever move a home game against Collingwood away from Melbourne unless it was going to cost the GC a fortune - and if they're getting their own side, why would they pay...?

[Rob]

North aren't a stupid organisation. There's no way on God's green earth that they would ever move a home game against Collingwood away from Melbourne unless it was going to cost the GC a fortune - and if they're getting their own side, why would they pay...?

The AFL sets the fixturing, not North Melbourne.
I'd imagine the AFL will give North the opportunity to pull out of the arrangement should they wish to. If the decline, i'd think the AFL will then set the fixtures in a way so that the embarassingly poor turnout at Carrara will not happen again. So the 3 games will involve Brisbane as well as 2 other teams with a known large following on the GC. Such as Collingwood.

[The Teflon Dean]

The AFL sets the fixturing, not North Melbourne.
I'd imagine the AFL will give North the opportunity to pull out of the arrangement should they wish to. If the decline, i'd think the AFL will then set the fixtures in a way so that the embarassingly poor turnout at Carrara will not happen again. So the 3 games will involve Brisbane as well as 2 other teams with a known large following on the GC. Such as Collingwood.

Rubbish.

Actually we have a huge say in our fixturing re-powerful Victorian teams in order to get our membership figures up and running.

I can virtually garauntee you that we will be playing Essendon and Collingwood in the first 8 rounds of the 2009 season, IN MELBOURNE.

But, seeing as you're "Rob" from "Fremantle" I may have to bow to your superior knowledge in matters relating to NMFC.:rolleyes:

If we choose to honor our contract, and the AFL want to promote another club at Carrara, then the AFL can just pay us to play in Melbourne against lower drawing clubs. Suits us fine.:thumbsu:

[Rob]

Rubbish.

Actually we have a huge say in our fixturing re-powerful Victorian teams in order to get our membership figures up and running.

I can virtually garauntee you that we will be playing Essendon and Collingwood in the first 8 rounds of the 2009 season, IN MELBOURNE.

But, seeing as you're "Rob" from "Fremantle" I may have to bow to your superior knowledge in matters relating to NMFC.:rolleyes:

So tell me, o Teflon Dean, you really think the AFL will just hand over a $1.2 million cheque and either schedule no games on the GC or schedule crowd drawing disasters like last night?

What do you think is going to happen here?

[The Teflon Dean]

So tell me, o Teflon Dean, you really think the AFL will just hand over a $1.2 million cheque and either schedule no games on the GC or schedule crowd drawing disasters like last night?

What do you think is going to happen here?

I doubt there would be no games. How stupid would that be?

They may as well get something for their money.

A North game against Brisbane would be a lock in, and two games against an interstate, or lower drawing Melbourne clubs. Mix it up.

NO CHANCE we will get drawn against Essendon or Collingwood up there. None. Our home games in Melbourne against these clubs are crucial.

[pharro]

The AFL sets the fixturing, not North Melbourne.
I'd imagine the AFL will give North the opportunity to pull out of the arrangement should they wish to. If the decline, i'd think the AFL will then set the fixtures in a way so that the embarassingly poor turnout at Carrara will not happen again. So the 3 games will involve Brisbane as well as 2 other teams with a known large following on the GC. Such as Collingwood.

Chances of Dimwitriou standing up to Eddie and his legions and telling them they won't have 18 games in Melbourne?

[Rob]

I doubt there would be no games. How stupid would that be?

They may as well get something for their money.

A North game against Brisbane would be a lock in, and two games against an interstate, or lower drawing Melbourne clubs. Mix it up.


Won't that just result in what we saw last night? Maybe the Swans might get a decent turnout.

I just can't believe the AFL will risk such a bad crowd next year by scheduling similar type matches.

[The Teflon Dean]

Won't that just result in what we saw last night? Maybe the Swans might get a decent turnout.

I just can't believe the AFL will risk such a bad crowd next year by scheduling similar type matches.

So the AFL will overtly damage the fightback of a club that it categorically states will not move to the Gold Coast for 5 or 6,000 seatfillers?

We will just sit back and let that happen?

We are going to be punished for the AFL's incompetence?

Get real.

[RoyalBlue]

I must say I am surprised to see a Fremantle fan preoccupying himself with something other than the fortunes of his club at that moment.

[The Teflon Dean]

I must say I am surprised to see a Fremantle fan preoccupying himself with something other than the fortunes of his club at that moment.

Hahaha, no chance of the AFL drawing them up North as a "showpiece".

[fairdinkum]

This from Jill Lindsay (as reported in The Age), the AFL's ground operations manager...

"The ground manager told me that to push the button to turn the generator off, you'd have to know what effect it would have."

Just think about that for a moment....

[The Teflon Dean]

The tower's energy source was being supplied by a generator because the transformer was damaged in a storm two months ago.

TWO MONTHS and they can't fix a bloody transformer.

This joint has far bigger issues than bums on seats.

[pharro]

This from Jill Lindsay (as reported in The Age), the AFL's ground operations manager...



Just think about that for a moment....

I'm tipping the button had clearly marked lettering ON/OFF

[NICK_ROOBOY83]

I must say I am surprised to see a Fremantle fan preoccupying himself with something other than the fortunes of his club at that moment.

I think his just trying to forget that his team is sitting equal last with 1 win, 7 losses.

[Rob]

I must say I am surprised to see a Fremantle fan preoccupying himself with something other than the fortunes of his club at that moment.

Pfft, if I thought too much about that, i'd probably top myself.

[NICK_ROOBOY83]

Pfft, if I thought too much about that, i'd probably top myself.

Good to admit it, ay?;)

[Doctor Jolly]

Rubbish.

Actually we have a huge say in our fixturing re-powerful Victorian teams in order to get our membership figures up and running.

I can virtually garauntee you that we will be playing Essendon and Collingwood in the first 8 rounds of the 2009 season, IN MELBOURNE.

But, seeing as you're "Rob" from "Fremantle" I may have to bow to your superior knowledge in matters relating to NMFC.:rolleyes:

If we choose to honor our contract, and the AFL want to promote another club at Carrara, then the AFL can just pay us to play in Melbourne against lower drawing clubs. Suits us fine.:thumbsu:

Yes, this is what the AFL should do. They need to prepare the GC for the new GC club and that means building up interest in AFL as much as they can in the preceeding years.

North, but not wanting to leave the coast, are giving the AFL an easy schedule for one of the teams, then mix it with the biggest drawing teams to play against. Collingwood, Carlton (who might be good by 2009) and Brisbane would be a good trio.

The AFL has to look at the big picture, not pander to some renegrade club. For too long the AFL has proped up North. Time to deliver some payback. Its obvious after this weekend, North on its own cant deliver any interest in the GC.

[jacko57]

Yes, this is what the AFL should do. They need to prepare the GC for the new GC club and that means building up interest in AFL as much as they can in the preceeding years.

North, but not wanting to leave the coast, are giving the AFL an easy schedule for one of the teams, then mix it with the biggest drawing teams to play against. Collingwood, Carlton (who might be good by 2009) and Brisbane would be a good trio.

The AFL has to look at the big picture, not pander to some renegrade club. For too long the AFL has proped up North. Time to deliver some payback. Its obvious after this weekend, North on its own cant deliver any interest in the GC.
LOL, you really are upset that North is staying put in melbourne, and getting its act together, aren't you? Diddums. :)

[AngelEyes]

Yes, this is what the AFL should do. They need to prepare the GC for the new GC club and that means building up interest in AFL as much as they can in the preceeding years.

North, but not wanting to leave the coast, are giving the AFL an easy schedule for one of the teams, then mix it with the biggest drawing teams to play against. Collingwood, Carlton (who might be good by 2009) and Brisbane would be a good trio.

The AFL has to look at the big picture, not pander to some renegrade club. For too long the AFL has proped up North. Time to deliver some payback. Its obvious after this weekend, North on its own cant deliver any interest in the GC.
I think this is just negotiating. However, I dont know if I'd want to be that heavy handed with the AFL. I suspect that Arocca is just trying to get some pay off for abandoning their Gold Coast games now that he has a bit more leverage due to the poor crowd.

The problem I see is that the AFL is a spiteful and aggressive organisation when it wants to be. I suspect the AFL would at best offer no financial compensation but home games against Essendon and Collingwood or something like that. The Roos trying to get anymore out of the deal would probably see the AFL start to get aggressive. I suspect that if the Roos don't co-operate that the AFL would schedule Kangaroos home games in Queensland against you're bigger drawing clubs such as Collingwood and Essendon.

I could see it just to spite the Kangaroos that the AFL would play games up there against Essendon and Collingwood. I suspect most Kangaroo fans overate the generousity of the AFL in terms of their future survival. While I don't suspect they will try kill you, they aren't going to give you any favours. I suspect the AFL would have justification for giving the Kangaroos a bad draw next year as this year, they have home games against:

v Essendon
v Hawthorn
v Geelong
v Collingwood

Possibly the four higgest drawing Vic team this year.

[The Teflon Dean]

Crikey, a measured intelligent post. Well done.:thumbsu:

I think this is just negotiating. However, I dont know if I'd want to be that heavy handed with the AFL. I suspect that Arocca is just trying to get some pay off for abandoning their Gold Coast games now that he has a bit more leverage due to the poor crowd.

The problem I see is that the AFL is a spiteful and aggressive organisation when it wants to be.

Agree with all that.

I suspect the AFL would at best offer no financial compensation but home games against Essendon and Collingwood or something like that.

At the end of the day North have a contract and could hold the AFL to it, if North decided to do that. We are entitled to a home game against one of these sides irregardless of the Gold Coast contractual obligations.

The Roos trying to get anymore out of the deal would probably see the AFL start to get aggressive. I suspect that if the Roos don't co-operate that the AFL would schedule Kangaroos home games in Queensland against you're bigger drawing clubs such as Collingwood and Essendon.

What is the logic in that? Why would the AFL want to promote North on the Gold Coast whilst minimising gate revenue? The AFL would make much more revenue out of with these games in Melbourne. The people running the AFL are businessmen after all, isn't this is blatant fiscal irresponsibility?

I could see it just to spite the Kangaroos that the AFL would play games up there against Essendon and Collingwood.

The AFL is a business. Spite doesn't come in to it.

I suspect most Kangaroo fans overate the generousity of the AFL in terms of their future survival.

How can we overrate an entity that tried to date rape us?

While I don't suspect they will try kill you, they aren't going to give you any favours.

Nothing new about that.

I suspect the AFL would have justification for giving the Kangaroos a bad draw next year as this year, they have home games against:

v Essendon
v Hawthorn
v Geelong
v Collingwood

Possibly the four higgest drawing Vic team this year.

As I tried to explain elsewhere, this is in line with our clubs draw application. Clubs actually have a big say in the most important criteria surrounding the draws of upcoming seasons. Ours involves getting Collingwood/Essendon/Carlton in Melbourne in the first 8 rounds, in order to pump up membership. That won't be changing just to fill 6000 seats on the Gold Coast.

If it did, we would have every reason to expect 2 million bucks from the CBF.

As for this years draw, we play Richmond only once this season and that was an away game in round 2, we get Geelong once in round 11 and the home game against Collingwood is in round 16 when memberships close. We only play Carlton once and that is an away game in round 20.

No huge favors there, in fact our draw stinks this year.

I'd like to see the AFL attempt to justify taking away the few breaks we actually get in the draw. That would provide excellent comedy.

[AngelEyes]

Crikey, a measured intelligent post. Well done.:thumbsu:

Agree with all that.

At the end of the day North have a contract and could hold the AFL to it, if North decided to do that. We are entitled to a home game against one of these sides irregardless of the Gold Coast contractual obligations.



What is the logic in that? Why would the AFL want to promote North on the Gold Coast whilst minimising gate revenue? The AFL would make much more revenue out of with these games in Melbourne. The people running the AFL are businessmen after all, isn't this is blatant fiscal irresponsibility?



The AFL is a business. Spite doesn't come in to it.



How can we overrate an entity that tried to date rape us?



Nothing new about that.



As I tried to explain elsewhere, this is in line with our clubs draw application. Clubs actually have a big say in the most important criteria surrounding the draws of upcoming seasons. Ours involves getting Collingwood/Essendon/Carlton in Melbourne in the first 8 rounds, in order to pump up membership. That won't be changing just to fill 6000 seats on the Gold Coast. If it did, we would have every reason to expect 2 million bucks from the CBF.

As for this years draw, we mplay Richmond only once this season and that was an away game in round 2, we get Geelong in round 11 and the home game against Collingwood is in round 16 when memberships close. We only play Carlton once and that is an away game in round 20. No huge favors there, in fact our draw stinks this year.

I'd like to see the AFL attempt to justify taking away the few breaks we actually get in the draw. That would provide excellent comedy.
You are correct that the Kangaroos have a contract. I don't think you understand that means that the Kangaroos are playing home games on the Gold Coast. I don't see how you think that you will automatically get a home game against Essendon or Collingwood gaurenteed in Melbourne?

You have home games against both in Melbourne this year and you probably could expect that to drop to one home game against Essendon or Collingwood (due to the high number of requests for such games). What you fail to consider is that the Gold Coast is a home game for the Kangaroos so if you play the Pies in Queensland then you have had a home game against them. The AFL likes to play with words and I have no doubt that its possible, in order to get better figures in QLD, that they play a better drawing team there. I don't see why this is not possible especially considering Collingwood expressing an interesting in going up there.

The AFL has never been about making money in QLD thats why they paid you so much to go there. Its about development. I don't suspect the losses will be an issue for the AFL. However, an easy way to make less of a loss in QLD is to send a bigger drawing team there. I can understand that the AFL would want the bigger crowds in Melbourne because of greater revenue. However, I don't see why the Kangaroos playing Collingwood and drawing 45,000 is so attractive to the AFL? The Dome would make its money and the Roos may pocket $250k or something like that. The AFL may get a little bit but its hardly significant in the scheme of things. I suspect it would be worth every cent in giving greater exposure in QLD that a Collingwood would bring. Its a reasonable "marketing" expense.

I like how you say spite doesn't come into the AFLs thinking yet say they tried to rape you? Surely the trying to rape you would be fairly spiteful and/or aggressive?

Clubs do have input on what games they play. However, just because you request it doesn't mean it happens. Geelong have requested not to play home games at Telstra Dome for a long time - doesn't mean it happens. Surely you cannot complain about this year's draw? If anything its spectacular. To suggest that the AFL has to keep the same draw is silly and has no logic at all. The draw is changed every year and it would be hardly "comedy" if the AFL changed it around again next year. You can say what you like about then deserving extra CBF money but its irrelevant, that money is gone in 2010 onwards. Only the Kangaroos could get $2.7m off the AFL in a season and still want to ask for more!

You play home games against possibly the four biggest drawing Victorian teams in 2008 and are complaining about this years draw?!?! Thats a fantastic draw. Most clubs would kill to play those teams at home.

[Doctor Jolly]

I think this is just negotiating. However, I dont know if I'd want to be that heavy handed with the AFL. I suspect that Arocca is just trying to get some pay off for abandoning their Gold Coast games now that he has a bit more leverage due to the poor crowd.

The problem I see is that the AFL is a spiteful and aggressive organisation when it wants to be. I suspect the AFL would at best offer no financial compensation but home games against Essendon and Collingwood or something like that. The Roos trying to get anymore out of the deal would probably see the AFL start to get aggressive. I suspect that if the Roos don't co-operate that the AFL would schedule Kangaroos home games in Queensland against you're bigger drawing clubs such as Collingwood and Essendon.

I could see it just to spite the Kangaroos that the AFL would play games up there against Essendon and Collingwood. I suspect most Kangaroo fans overate the generousity of the AFL in terms of their future survival. While I don't suspect they will try kill you, they aren't going to give you any favours. I suspect the AFL would have justification for giving the Kangaroos a bad draw next year as this year, they have home games against:

v Essendon
v Hawthorn
v Geelong
v Collingwood

Possibly the four higgest drawing Vic team this year.

Thats a very Victorian centric view of the situation.
Come the next couple of years, the Gold Coast is the principal interest of the AFL, and it will (or should) be providing the best possible base for the new team. Having heavy-weight teams like Pies, etc play there is the best prep it can get.

You'd hope, that old approach of plonk a team in an new area with no support, and no lead-up time is gone. You only have to look at the NRL who seem to have actually worked out the best way of doing it with Titans and Storm. If the AFL again do a "bears" or "swans"...drop in and abandon, then the lot should be sacked.

[AngelEyes]

Thats a very Victorian centric view of the situation.
Come the next couple of years, the Gold Coast is the principal interest of the AFL, and it will (or should) be providing the best possible base for the new team. Having heavy-weight teams like Pies, etc play there is the best prep it can get.

You'd hope, that old approach of plonk a team in an new area with no support, and no lead-up time is gone. You only have to look at the NRL who seem to have actually worked out the best way of doing it with Titans and Storm. If the AFL again do a "bears" or "swans"...drop in and abandon, then the lot should be sacked.
I agree that playing a variety of teams up there is the best way to go and the Collingwoods are the best type of teams to play due the publicity. I would probably add another couple or three games up there for 2009 and make it a 5 to 7 game package.

Its very possible that a membership base of say 5,000-10,000 could be built up before the end of 2010. I genuinely think the AFL will increase the number of games even if it costs a fair bit to begin with. Its worth it to help establish the new club and its avoid the attention from one particular club.

I could see the Demons and Bulldogs both playing upto two home games up there in 2009. I think both playing two games and the AFL selling a say a 7 game package in 2009 as a good step towards establishing a membership base. The thing is that with that many games up there - all teams would be close to playing up there at some stage. This could then be increased to say 9 games in 2010. It would be worth it to develop the Gold Coast and help the new side out a little bit!

This would also enable the AFL to pay the Bulldogs and Demons a fair bit more cash as a one off to stablise them. Of course, the Kangaroos rejected this.

[The Teflon Dean]

You are correct that the Kangaroos have a contract. I don't think you understand that means that the Kangaroos are playing home games on the Gold Coast. I don't see how you think that you will automatically get a home game against Essendon or Collingwood gaurenteed in Melbourne?

You have home games against both in Melbourne this year and you probably could expect that to drop to one home game against Essendon or Collingwood (due to the high number of requests for such games). What you fail to consider is that the Gold Coast is a home game for the Kangaroos so if you play the Pies in Queensland then you have had a home game against them. The AFL likes to play with words and I have no doubt that its possible, in order to get better figures in QLD, that they play a better drawing team there. I don't see why this is not possible especially considering Collingwood expressing an interesting in going up there.

The AFL has never been about making money in QLD thats why they paid you so much to go there. Its about development. I don't suspect the losses will be an issue for the AFL. However, an easy way to make less of a loss in QLD is to send a bigger drawing team there. I can understand that the AFL would want the bigger crowds in Melbourne because of greater revenue. However, I don't see why the Kangaroos playing Collingwood and drawing 45,000 is so attractive to the AFL? The Dome would make its money and the Roos may pocket $250k or something like that. The AFL may get a little bit but its hardly significant in the scheme of things. I suspect it would be worth every cent in giving greater exposure in QLD that a Collingwood would bring. Its a reasonable "marketing" expense.

I like how you say spite doesn't come into the AFLs thinking yet say they tried to rape you? Surely the trying to rape you would be fairly spiteful and/or aggressive?

Clubs do have input on what games they play. However, just because you request it doesn't mean it happens. Geelong have requested not to play home games at Telstra Dome for a long time - doesn't mean it happens. Surely you cannot complain about this year's draw? If anything its spectacular. To suggest that the AFL has to keep the same draw is silly and has no logic at all. The draw is changed every year and it would be hardly "comedy" if the AFL changed it around again next year. You can say what you like about then deserving extra CBF money but its irrelevant, that money is gone in 2010 onwards. Only the Kangaroos could get $2.7m off the AFL in a season and still want to ask for more!

You play home games against possibly the four biggest drawing Victorian teams in 2008 and are complaining about this years draw?!?! Thats a fantastic draw. Most clubs would kill to play those teams at home.

Oh well, at least I tried.

You seemed to miss a lot of my points, downright hijacked some others and unfortunately fell back in to your standard empty headed trolling.

No point getting drawn into this as I am certain you are incorrect in all your assumptions.

If North play in Carrara next year they will only be playing interstate sides, Melbourne, St Kilda or the Bulldogs. Bookmark it.

[walhawk]

If the AFL wants games on the GC in 2009 & 2010, the should go to 23 rounds with each club playing a neutral game there (i.e. 8 games).

[Rob]

Oh well, at least I tried.

You seemed to miss a lot of my points, downright hijacked some others and unfortunately fell back in to your standard empty headed trolling.

No point getting drawn into this as I am certain you are incorrect in all your assumptions.

If North play in Carrara next year they will only be playing interstate sides, Melbourne, St Kilda or the Bulldogs. Bookmark it.

Come on TD, that post wasn't a troll and you know it.

Put yourself in the shoes of the AFL - if they have to schedule games at Carrara next year, obviously 1 will be the Lions. The other 2? Why *wouldn't* you schedule Collingwood there? You get a guaranteed sellout, great local publicity for the game, the league and GC17, live coverage back into Melbourne and you avoid the poor turnout of the other night.

What's the downside from the AFL's perspective? 30k more people in Melbourne? Which may be the case, but you're going to get that no matter what game you schedule at Carrara.

[The Teflon Dean]

If the AFL wants games on the GC in 2009 & 2010, the should go to 23 rounds with each club playing a neutral game there (i.e. 8 games).

This has been mentioned before and it is the best bloody idea for the whole GC scenario.:thumbsu:

Aside from our 3 games, should we care to activate the AFL's contractual obligations, the AFL should play 22 games on the Gold Coast next year and really get the place buzzing as a lead in to any GC home team.

[Hawkk]

It has happened before...

Round 22 2001
North vs. Collingwood Manuka Oval

[NICK_ROOBOY83]

It has happened before...

Round 22 2001
North vs. Collingwood Manuka Oval

Yes, but in those days Collingwood were shit & there fans weren't turning up as much as now.

[telsor]

As people have said, it's a commercial decision for the AFL to make.

Option 1)
Nth Vs Coll at GC. crowd ~20K
Benefit..develops the 'brand' at the ground and helps build for the new team.
Cost. Less money in the short term ( for both AFL & North ).

Option 2)
Nth Vs Coll in Melb. Crowd ~50K
Benefit..More money/higher crowd figures.
Cost. No long term benefits...opens potential for another 'embaressing' turnout against a low drawing club on GC.

I suppose the commercial decision is if they make the short term or long term option.

Yes, North's wishes would come into it, but the AFL could always point to option 3...No home game against Collingwood. ( after all, you only get to play 11/15 teams at 'home' in any given year ).

Also ( although it would be denied of course ), would the AFL be in any way vindictive about North spoiling their plans?

NB. Collingwood is used purely as an example. Feel free to substitute any 'high drawing' team.

[Doctor Jolly]

Yes, but in those days Collingwood were shit & there fans weren't turning up as much as now.

Didnt Collingwood play in a grand final in 2002. Some 12 months after this game. Couldnt have been that shit.

[Rob]

As people have said, it's a commercial decision for the AFL to make.

Option 1)
Nth Vs Coll at GC. crowd ~20K
Benefit..develops the 'brand' at the ground and helps build for the new team.
Cost. Less money in the short term ( for both AFL & North ).


I wouldn't have thought the AFL would lose money. Don't they get all the gate receipts from GC matches in return for the $400k payment to the Roos? And all of the people that show up (which would be around 15k - being the reported capacity) would buy a ticket. At an MCG game, you've got club members, AFL members, MCC members and opposition 16 game pass members that don't pay extra, and AFAIK all the gate receipts go to the home club anyway.

[fairdinkum]

I wouldn't have thought the AFL would lose money. Don't they get all the gate receipts from GC matches in return for the $400k payment to the Roos? And all of the people that show up (which would be around 15k - being the reported capacity) would buy a ticket. At an MCG game, you've got club members, AFL members, MCC members and opposition 16 game pass members that don't pay extra, and AFAIK all the gate receipts go to the home club anyway.

Really? I heard they were being given away by the AFL.

[SweetLeftFoot]

The AFL sets the fixturing, not North Melbourne.
I'd imagine the AFL will give North the opportunity to pull out of the arrangement should they wish to. If the decline, i'd think the AFL will then set the fixtures in a way so that the embarassingly poor turnout at Carrara will not happen again. So the 3 games will involve Brisbane as well as 2 other teams with a known large following on the GC. Such as Collingwood.

I agree there, but I think that a deal will be come to whereby the AFL lean on Telstra Dome to get us a better deal there and payout some of the contract too.

[SweetLeftFoot]

Won't that just result in what we saw last night? Maybe the Swans might get a decent turnout.

I just can't believe the AFL will risk such a bad crowd next year by scheduling similar type matches.

If they do have North games up there, I reckon you can be sure they won't schedule them in direct competition with Brisbane games.

[SweetLeftFoot]

t.

Put yourself in the shoes of the AFL - if they have to schedule games at Carrara next year, obviously 1 will be the Lions. The other 2? Why *wouldn't* you schedule Collingwood there? You get a guaranteed sellout, great local publicity for the game, the league and GC17, live coverage back into Melbourne and you avoid the poor turnout of the other night.


I'm sure they'd love to, but there is no way in hell Collingwood would wear it.

[NICK_ROOBOY83]

Didnt Collingwood play in a grand final in 2002. Some 12 months after this game. Couldnt have been that shit.

Well they didn't make the finals, so yes they were shit.

[Father Jack]

Looks like North are out of the GC after this year anyway, so we can all be happy about that, can't we? I know I am.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23733807-23211,00.html

North's Coast fling is over

By Damian Barrett
May 21, 2008

THE AFL has decided to release North Melbourne from the final three matches of their Gold Coast contract.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has admitted the league, the Kangaroos and the Gold Coast would all remain in a no-win position if the 2009 part of a three-year contract to play matches in the region was enforced.

Officially, 6354 spectators attended Saturday night's North-West Coast game at Carrara, but many football people familiar with the stadium have argued the figure was closer to 4000.

Asked if North would be playing on the Gold Coast next year, Demetriou said: "No. They are saying to us they don't want to play there next year, they want to play as many games in Melbourne as possible, they want to be the North Melbourne Football Club, so we respect that."

North and the AFL signed a contract that decreed at least nine, and a maximum of 10, matches be played at Carrara in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The Roos receive $400,000 for each match.

They have been trying to negotiate with the AFL as to how best to receive that money, which equates to $1.2 million in 2009, and yet play the three games in question in Melbourne.

The AFL has told North it will not sign any commercial deals with it unless shareholders return control to the club. It is believed the Roos are as close as ever to resolving that complicated issue.

North Melbourne matches scheduled on the Gold Coast this season against St Kilda (round 14) and Brisbane Lions (round 18) will remain.

Demetriou indicated intense negotiations with the Roos lay ahead as the Gold Coast contract is renegotiated.

"It will be interesting to see if that is what will happen (North receiving the full $1.2 million owed to them). They have requested for us to assist them with some issues around fixturing and scheduling, which I think we can accommodate them with," Demetriou said.

"We will work through those issues with them in coming months."

Demetriou said North's rejection in December of an offer to relocate to the Gold Coast meant its 2008 Carrara matches would be adversely affected.

One of those games, a round four match against Melbourne, was transferred to the MCG.

"But we are where we are," Demetriou said.

"It is sort of a no-win situation for the Kangaroos and the Gold Coast and the AFL for this year, given we are going to play three Kangaroos games there this year.

"The crowd wasn't flash the other day, which we were expecting. The St Kilda crowd, I am sure, will be a lot better.

"We have already sold more corporates for it than we did last weekend, and it's five weeks out.

"The game against Brisbane will be good because Brisbane is in it."

Demetriou said the North Melbourne issue would not affect the Gold Coast consortium GC17, which has an October deadline to prove it can run a 17th team by the 2011 season.

"We are where we are, but it doesn't make any difference to us whatsoever as far as planning and our commitment to going forward with GC17," Demetriou said.

"They are doing great things with their bid at the moment, probably going a bit better than what even we expected.

"Corporate sales, the amount of people signing up, the amount of interest, all of it has been excellent.

"It doesn't make any difference. We understand what happened with the Kangaroos.

"If we got 8000 to the next game (against the Saints), or 9000, we'd be happy, and I am sure we will get more to the Brisbane Lions game."

North Melbourne have played a diplomatic card on the 2009 Carrara matches, saying they were happy to honour the deal.

[The Teflon Dean]

I don't care as long as we get compensated.

[littleduck]

I don't care as long as we get compensated.

Well your $1.2mil guaranteed for 3 games is off the table. Soon all your other special assistance packages from the AFL will be off the table as part of the belt tightening to fund long-term expansion plans in the short-term. Your training wheels will be removed soon and the AFL will push the Norths boat out to sea and then its up to them to sink or swim. Best of luck for the future is all I can say to Norths.

[The Teflon Dean]

Well your $1.2mil guaranteed for 3 games is off the table.

Garbage.

Are you another of these soft headed individuals that thinks every little piece of allusion in the media is the truth?

Show me proof to support your statement?

Soon all your other special assistance packages from the AFL will be off the table as part of the belt tightening to fund long-term expansion plans in the short-term. Your training wheels will be removed soon and the AFL will push the Norths boat out to sea and then its up to them to sink or swim. Best of luck for the future is all I can say to Norths.

PROOF?

Has Patrick Smith invaded your brain?

Show me absolute proof?

[littleduck]

Garbage.

Are you another of these soft headed individuals that thinks every little piece of allusion in the media is the truth?

Show me proof to support your statement?



PROOF?

Has Patrick Smith invaded your brain?

Show me absolute proof?

1. Patrick Smith is a ******* imbecile.
2. I don't read his dribble.
3. I never will.

My 'statement' relates to the fact that when you introduce 2 new high priority costly commitments into the mix, you need to rejig the pie a bit to ensure said high priority costly commitments succeed and it follows that other areas within the pie must pitch in by way of belt tightening. You may well argue the size of the pie will increase, however you are kidding yourself if you think the increase in the size of the pie will be proportionate to the costly commitments to ensure the success of two new teams. The reality is likely to be that the AFL will rethink current spending commitments and the razor gang will be out to trim some fat off the pie to go towards the new ventures.

[The Teflon Dean]

1. Patrick Smith is a ******* imbecile.
2. I don't read his dribble.
3. I never will.

My 'statement' relates to the fact that when you introduce 2 new high priority costly commitments into the mix, you need to rejig the pie a bit to ensure said high priority costly commitments succeed and it follows that other areas within the pie must pitch in by way of belt tightening. You may well argue the size of the pie will increase, however you are kidding yourself if you think the increase in the size of the pie will be proportionate to the costly commitments to ensure the success of two new teams. The reality is likely to be that the AFL will rethink current spending commitments and the razor gang will be out to trim some fat off the pie to go towards the new ventures.

Based on nothing more than your version of reality.

Thanks.

[littleduck]

Based on nothing more than your version of reality.

Thanks.

The expansion teams are highly unlikely to be self-funding and / or funded in proportion to the increase (if any) in broadcast rights. This means spending priorities and commitments will need to change within the AFL world. It follows that all areas might have to tighten the belt a little or lose their allowance so that the AFL may fund the expansion teams.

Where is the controversy in that? I think you might be with me at this point.

At this point, I believe the allowances and benefits enjoyed by Norths over and above other teams will be removed and / or significantly reduced. Obviously you're against me on this point, but I suspect you might be with me on the point above.

[1jasonoz]

Well your $1.2mil guaranteed for 3 games is off the table. Soon all your other special assistance packages from the AFL will be off the table as part of the belt tightening to fund long-term expansion plans in the short-term. Your training wheels will be removed soon and the AFL will push the Norths boat out to sea and then its up to them to sink or swim. Best of luck for the future is all I can say to Norths.

Well your $1.2mil guaranteed for 3 games is off the table.

Rubbish we have a contract to play 3 games on the GC in return for the $1.2 million-if the AFL do not want us to play their, it is up to them to still provide us the $1.2 million.

Soon all your other special assistance packages from the AFL will be off the table as part of the belt tightening to fund long-term expansion plans in the short-term.

We and all other clubs are guareented the ASD till the end of 2009.

[littleduck]

Rubbish we have a contract to play 3 games on the GC in return for the $1.2 million-if the AFL do not want us to play their, it is up to them to still provide us the $1.2 million. Yeah, this year its a done deal but next year you won't get it now that your coast games have been scrapped.



We and all other clubs are guareented the ASD till the end of 2009.

Exactly my point.

[1jasonoz]

Yeah, this year its a done deal but next year you won't get it now that your coast games have been scrapped.




Exactly my point.

Yeah, this year its a done deal but next year you won't get it now that your coast games have been scrapped.

Who scrapped the GC games for next year-the AFL then we are still entitled to the money!

[Father Jack]

If North want to keep the 1.2 mil then I guess us up here on the GC will be seeing games against Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton next year.

[1jasonoz]

If North want to keep the 1.2 mil then I guess us up here on the GC will be seeing games against Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton next year.

No we want to play on the GC next year and get the $1.2 million-the AFL has been making noises about playing the 3 GC games from next year as extra home games in Melbourne.

[Father Jack]

No we want to play on the GC next year and get the $1.2 million-the AFL has been making noises about playing the 3 GC games from next year as extra home games in Melbourne.

Yes, but instead of getting the high-drawing games in Melbourne, you'll have to play them up here, somewhat negating the payoff. The AFL don't want you up here it would seem, and if the Roos don't go along with what the AFL want, well, I wouldn't put it past them to manipulate the fixture a bit.

[1jasonoz]

Yes, but instead of getting the high-drawing games in Melbourne, you'll have to play them up here, somewhat negating the payoff. The AFL don't want you up here it would seem, and if the Roos don't go along with what the AFL want, well, I wouldn't put it past them to manipulate the fixture a bit.

The high drawing games, you mean the AFL is going to tell either the Pies, Essendon, Carlton, etc that they will have to play us on the GC?? You do realise whom employees AD?

[Father Jack]

The high drawing games, you mean the AFL is going to tell either the Pies, Essendon, Carlton, etc that they will have to play us on the GC?? You do realise whom employees AD?

For their away games I don't think they'll care.