BREAKING: Bulldogs to Ballarat

[cammo78]

North make a profit playing 3 so why lift the number to 6?

Higher membership numbers than 3 other Melbourne teams, currently playing finals.

Still perplexed at the morbid curiosity of the Fyfie_ sucks demise. 2-3 Melbourne clubs in worse position than North.

What if Tasmania and the AFL tell you it's 6 or none?

How's your profit look then?

And membership?

Take off the rose coloured glasses, my friend.

You may believe you're in a better state than other clubs - those other clubs haven't mortgaged their future on an interstate venture.

 

[telsor]

Yes, they would.

I realise they aren't big by global standards - they are big by Australian standards. The infrastructure is inadequate to support the growth that will occur. And governments don't seem to have the money/inclination to future proof by investing in such infrastructure. Something these jobless morons who protest against East/West Link fail to realise. It WILL be built at some point - better done in 2014 dollars than 2034 dollars. As is the desal plan that will be seen as a prudent investment in 30 years time, I have no doubt.

Perth and QLD may seem more attractive on face value - but incentives can make anything attractive.

Where would those incentives come from? WA/VIC/NSW already get narky about the amount of GST going to Tas/SA, so the feds would be hard pushed to make the far larger investment to make them sufficiently attractive and it would be tough to see enough votes in it to provide that incentive.

 

[Hawkk]

You would be running loss after loss without significant AFL distribution of the equalisation fund.
That isn't sustainable.
Again, I don't know why North supporters turn their nose up against it.
Hawthorn did it and they turned out ok.

Except the Hawks didn't sell 5 or 6 games (it was 4). The Hawks used the MCG fixtures (8 in 2007, 10 in 2008, 11 in 2009, 12 in 2010, 11 in 2011, 12 in 2012, 9 in 2013 and 11 in 2014) as a basis to build its Melbourne membership. That and the 3 flags have most certainly helped

 

[bombersfan4000]

Punt road is actually public land, you actually have no legal right to fence it off. We had a lifetime lease on the area around the oval and facilities but in exchange for increasing our control over th entire recreational reserve we had to make it open to the public.

For us it is now impossible for us to fence it off, however, I am not sure what other clubs have gained in order to lose their right to fence off the oval.

the clubs cannot buy the land, but can buy the right to lease the land & they can fence it off.
the MCG is on public land, so does that mean we can break in & have a kick, when ever we choose to do so?

 

[Hawkk]

The point is that the members/supporters were sold a Scenario where they knocked back relocation to remain a Melbourne club.

All now points toward their financial future being increasingly underpinned by a Hobart presence. They generate no revenue from pokies or other initiatives which might shore up their Melbourne future and they've now been backed into a corner where when the AFL decides it wants a heavier/permanent presence in Hobart - guess who that is. So membership grows - sure - but at some point comes a tipping point where they remove themselves from he situation (and lose all this extra membership/revenue) or they end up with 7-8 games a year down there. They have no assets to generate any revenue outside this - this is it for them.

The more realistic of the Norh fans see this happening. The Kool-aid drinkers (ie the majority around here) continue With her JB party line and ignorant of the truth.

It's the realists I feel sorry for.

The W Bulldogs evidently...

1997 - 26,094 (18 games)
1998 - 32,166 (18 games)
2001 - 30,552 (17 games)
2007 - 34,388 (17 games)
2008 - 35,666 (14 games)
2009 - 37,193 (16 games)
2010 - 38,032 (15 games)
2011 - 31,442 (15 games)
2012 - 26,321 (15 games)
2013 - 27,551 (15 games)
2014 - 26,026 (15 games)

The Dogs had a higher peak in 2008 - 2010 but have dropped away far more than North

 

[cammo78]

The W Bulldogs evidently...

1997 - 26,094 (18 games)
1998 - 32,166 (18 games)
2001 - 30,552 (17 games)
2007 - 34,388 (17 games)
2008 - 35,666 (14 games)
2009 - 37,193 (16 games)
2010 - 38,032 (15 games)
2011 - 31,442 (15 games)
2012 - 26,321 (15 games)
2013 - 27,551 (15 games)
2014 - 26,026 (15 games)

The Dogs had a higher peak in 2008 - 2010 but have dropped away far more than North

Team bottoms out - crowds decline.

Hardly news.

 

[Tas]

Tas You keep mentioning restraint of trade - which does occur in the AFL all the time, most obviously being in the case of the draft, which would be scrapped in a heartbeat if anyone were to challenge it in court, ala the former NSWRL draft (which was very short lived).

The AFL may not (I have no idea if they do) control all aspects of fixturing, but even if they don't, they own the licences to all merchandise, and the right to play in the competition - no club can sneeze without AFL permission.

AFL do not own the licenses, they only own the Sydney Swans one because they acquired it. Clubs own the licenses, AFL only has 2 year restricted rights over names, colours, emblems, song, etc. If all clubs left the AFL (other than Swans) they would not be able to use these for two years, after that clubs would retain full control over them.

It is important to remember that there is scope to collectively bargain away rights in employment contracts, courts take a very dim view normally when it comes to restraint of trade when it comes to business transactions. Generally contracts which diminish your legislative rights are veto almost automatically because there is a hierarchy and contracts can't override legislation generally speaking. You would have to prove the restraint was reasonable and the party was being compensated significantly for that restraint which I doubt the AFL can prove.

 

[Hawkk]

Team bottoms out - crowds decline.

Hardly news.

Probably a fair point. Although the disparity between North's peak and trough (36,532 in '98 (15 games) and 28,054 in '09 (17 games)) is much less than the Dogs (38,032 in '10 (15 games) and 26,026 in '14 (14 games))

That said as a Hawthorn fan (53,148 in '08 (14 games) and 30,369 in '04 (16 games) I'm definitely not one to throw stones at glass houses.

Still the point still stands, I struggle to see how selling a package of home games in another market does anything to alienate or prevent the club from growing its primary market.

It definitely hasn't prevented Hawthorn or North Melbourne (post Gold Coast)

North lost 10 years of growth by alienating their fan base with the whole Kangaroos FC name change + the instability that ensued from the NSW and Gold Coast relocation chatter. Not because they sold a package of home games to Manuka and now Tasmania...

 

[telsor]

AFL do not own the licenses, they only own the Sydney Swans one because they acquired it. Clubs own the licenses, AFL only has 2 year restricted rights over names, colours, emblems, song, etc. If all clubs left the AFL (other than Swans) they would not be able to use these for two years, after that clubs would retain full control over them.

It is important to remember that there is scope to collectively bargain away rights in employment contracts, courts take a very dim view normally when it comes to restraint of trade when it comes to business transactions. Generally contracts which diminish your legislative rights are veto almost automatically because there is a hierarchy and contracts can't override legislation generally speaking. You would have to prove the restraint was reasonable and the party was being compensated significantly for that restraint which I doubt the AFL can prove.

After the superleague break in NRL, the AFL got the rights to a lot of things to ensure that couldn't happen to them, and I highly doubt it's 'just' for 2 years.

Not sure why you're in favor of things going to the free market though, considering your club would die far quicker than most (indeed, if there was a breakaway, you probably wouldn't be involved).

 

[Hawkk]

After the superleague break in NRL, the AFL got the rights to a lot of things to ensure that couldn't happen to them, and I highly doubt it's 'just' for 2 years.

Not sure why you're in favor of things going to the free market though, considering your club would die far quicker than most (indeed, if there was a breakaway, you probably wouldn't be involved).

That said its ironic that the last time the competition veered towards the free market that North were one of the major beneficiaries of the mid 70's 10 year rule...

 

[telsor]

That said its ironic that the last time the competition veered towards the free market that North were one of the major beneficiaries of the mid 70's 10 year rule...

True.

 

[MickyG]

Tas You keep mentioning restraint of trade - which does occur in the AFL all the time, most obviously being in the case of the draft, which would be scrapped in a heartbeat if anyone were to challenge it in court, ala the former NSWRL draft (which was very short lived).

The AFL may not (I have no idea if they do) control all aspects of fixturing, but even if they don't, they own the licences to all merchandise, and the right to play in the competition - no club can sneeze without AFL permission.

I understand that the way the AFL and AFL contracts are structured would make it very hard for any restraint of trade case against the draft. Players are contracted to play AFL with the club coming second. Players are not restrained from playing in another competition.

 

[cammo78]

I understand that the way the AFL and AFL contracts are structured would make it very hard for any restraint of trade case against the draft. Players are contracted to play AFL with the club coming second. Players are not restrained from playing in another competition.

This is correct.

Players are employed by the AFL on the understanding and basis they can be drafted to any of the 18 clubs and are bound by the league's rules regarding trade and free agency.

They know the deal before agreeing to enter the draft and if they choose to do so waive any claim of trade restraint.

 

[Tas]

After the superleague break in NRL, the AFL got the rights to a lot of things to ensure that couldn't happen to them, and I highly doubt it's 'just' for 2 years.

Not sure why you're in favor of things going to the free market though, considering your club would die far quicker than most (indeed, if there was a breakaway, you probably wouldn't be involved).

The 2 year restraint and forming an independent commission was added in to protect the league from a potential break-away league, it is the only reason why the license restraint exists.

NMFC, like most clbus, are a separate legal entity, AFL have no ownership and very limited temporary control of these entities.

I am not promoting anything other than clubs should not let their rights be taken away only to see other clubs profit from dubious AFL policy. I am not promoting a 'free market', just a fair market.

 

[telsor]

The 2 year restraint and forming an independent commission was added in to protect the league from a potential break-away league, it is the only reason why the license restraint exists.

NMFC, like most clbus, are a separate legal entity, AFL have no ownership and very limited temporary control of these entities.

I am not promoting anything other than clubs should not let their rights be taken away only to see other clubs profit from dubious AFL policy. I am not promoting a 'free market', just a fair market.

I can just imagine the AFL reply to North making such demands....Presumably something along the lines of "Love it or Leave"

 

[keeno 111]

Well lucky for you there's no senior players to have that culture anymore. Scorched earth policy.

We'll be up joining North in the pinnacle that is preliminary finals soon enough. Only difference is we'll want for more while you are happy to jack off over your VHS tapes from the 90s.

At least we can watch our achievements in colour, can't say the same for you buddy.

 

[ManOfClay]

At least we can watch our achievements in colour, can't say the same for you buddy.

You can watch the achievements of 22 blokes who happen to play footy for the club you like.

I tend to live out my own achievements

 

[Stratton_Gun]

I am happy we are out of there. I didn't want to go to Ballarat, don't want to be in Tasmania.

You'll be in Tassie more when the AFL squeeze us out and magically start giving you 5 or 6 Hobart home games a year

 

[Tas]

I can just imagine the AFL reply to North making such demands....Presumably something along the lines of "Love it or Leave"

It wouldn't be North though, there are about 4 clubs that get a free ride, 2 that are around for the time being until they drop off at any given time and 12 that get scraps. I don't think any club individually would threaten the AFL, it doesn't need to come down to threats. AFL as little as 5 years ago had a very hostile view on smaller clubs in Melbourne, that view has turned around considerably due to the politics that occurs behind the scenes.

It would only take a handful of clubs that would prevent the AFL from being able to meet their obligation to third parties, to broadcasters, they would never let it get to court because they know they are in the wrong, the AFL functions largely on goodwill that everyone is in it for the good of the game and the long-term good of their club.

Stopping the dogs say playing at Whitten Oval in no way would conflict with the AFL's general objectives and agenda, there would have to be an alterior motive for them not to support their financial wellbeing.

 

[KillaKanga]

You can watch the achievements of 22 blokes who happen to play footy for the club you like.

I tend to live out my own achievements

Pedantic much?

You know exactly what he means.

Why are you on here 24 hours a day spouting on about the Bulldogs? Shouldn't you been living your own achievements?

He meant the pleasure of watching the team he loves win a premiership. Would you get nothing out of a Doggies Premiership?

 

[ManOfClay]

He meant the pleasure of watching the team he loves win a premiership. Would you get nothing out of a Doggies Premiership?

I'd probably get a fair bit drunk etc at the time but come 2025 I'd be a bit over it. Certainly wouldn't be using "oh I can watch a DVD of my club's flag" as some mark of achievement. Reflect on the past and celebrate it by all means, but not at the expense of the now and the future.

 

[KillaKanga]

I'd probably get a fair bit drunk etc at the time but come 2025 I'd be a bit over it. Certainly wouldn't be using "oh I can watch a DVD of my club's flag" as some mark of achievement. Reflect on the past and celebrate it by all means, but not at the expense of the now and the future.

That comment was made to YOU and it was a shot that you guys have only won one and it was in '54. It was also made because of the vitriol you spew about North all the time.

North winning a flag in 99 IS an achievement. For the team we love.

 

[ManOfClay]

That comment was made to YOU and it was a shot that you guys have only won one and it was in '54. It was also made because of the vitriol you spew about North all the time.

North winning a flag in 99 IS an achievement. For the team we love.

Yeah great. But does that 99 flag really change anything today when you watch your side?

 

[The_Wookie]

the clubs cannot buy the land, but can buy the right to lease the land & they can fence it off.
the MCG is on public land, so does that mean we can break in & have a kick, when ever we choose to do so?

This is probably not the case. Fencing off a public park is a council decision, which is why venues are typically council owned, particularly the suburban grounds. As far as Im aware only St Kilda ever owned the Freehold on their land.

 

[Tas]

This is probably not the case. Fencing off a public park is a council decision, which is why venues are typically council owned, particularly the suburban grounds. As far as Im aware only St Kilda ever owned the Freehold on their land.

I can't think of anything that was, we have a lifetime lease on the reserve, we would still need to get council approval to fence it. Not that we want to or would, but a lot of public land is fenced off, a public park near me has one of the ovals with a grandstands fenced and locked, they need a special council permit to do that.