BREAKING: Bulldogs to Ballarat

[Matt Stevic]

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

Asking that question simply proves you don't understand football fandom.

 

[Matt Stevic]

Hey, can somebody give me a real reason as to why North will be forced to relocate to Hobart? I haven't seen one yet in this thread.

A real reason. As in not "LOL NORF", "I HATE N0RF", or "Just you watch!!!1!!1"

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

 

[Kwality]

Why would they 'buy votes' by pissing off thousands of people who can't/wont get into a small ground? Seems counter productive.

How much money would the Bulldogs lose on a game at Ballarat - Melbourne fans dont turn up at Etihad, they sure wont pay the train fare to go up to Ballarat more than once. Peter Gordon sees equalisation as the Bulldogs right, does he think other clubs must underwrite more losses?

Are the voters of Ballarat going to buy this? Soon see.

 

[Kwality]

Hey, can somebody give me a real reason as to why North will be forced to relocate to Hobart? I haven't seen one yet in this thread.

A real reason. As in not "LOL Fyfie_ sucks", "I HATE N0RF", or "Just you watch!!!1!!1"

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

Too many teams in Melbourne & North dont have pokies like the other Melbourne clubs, so that equals money is the reason.

 

[ManOfClay]

Good to see Kwality still pushing the barrel. Just when is WA going to secede?

 

[Matt Stevic]

Too many teams in Melbourne & North dont have pokies like the other Melbourne clubs, so that equals money is the reason.

The AFL has exhibited no desire to field a team in Tasmania full time. All we hear about it is from Essendon/Footscray fans wishing death upon North Melbourne, and Geelong fans wishing death upon Hawthorn.

And why are there "too many teams in Melbourne"?? Is it because they're not all making huge profits? They don't have to be, after all, AFL clubs are not businesses. The AFL has exhibited no desire to rationalise a city of 4+ million, all footy mad. And they haven't in years, not since the Oakley horror days, which both Oakley and Samuel (although not Chief Tossbag C*llins) have both expressed regret about. Again, it's just fans of other footy clubs wishing death upon clubs they hate.

And good on them for no pokies. I wish my club would follow their lead.

 

[TradeDraft]

Ballarat Bulldogs?

 

[walhawk]

Two games in Ballarat v SA clubs would be ok.
But spending tens of millions to provide a stadium to save a club a few hundred k each year is a false economy.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The AFL has exhibited no desire to field a team in Tasmania full time. All we hear about it is from Essendon/Footscray fans wishing death upon North Melbourne, and Geelong fans wishing death upon Hawthorn.

And why are there "too many teams in Melbourne"?? Is it because they're not all making huge profits? They don't have to be, after all, AFL clubs are not businesses. The AFL has exhibited no desire to rationalise a city of 4+ million, all footy mad. And they haven't in years, not since the Oakley horror days, which both Oakley and Samuel (although not Chief Tossbag C*llins) have both expressed regret about. Again, it's just fans of other footy clubs wishing death upon clubs they hate.

And good on them for no pokies. I wish my club would follow their lead.

Thank you for a level headed and reasonable post.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL has exhibited no desire to field a team in Tasmania full time. All we hear about it is from Essendon/Footscray fans wishing death upon North Melbourne, and Geelong fans wishing death upon Hawthorn.

And why are there "too many teams in Melbourne"?? Is it because they're not all making huge profits? They don't have to be, after all, AFL clubs are not businesses. The AFL has exhibited no desire to rationalise a city of 4+ million, all footy mad. And they haven't in years, not since the Oakley horror days, which both Oakley and Samuel (although not Chief Tossbag C*llins) have both expressed regret about. Again, it's just fans of other footy clubs wishing death upon clubs they hate.

And good on them for no pokies. I wish my club would follow their lead.

Hate you reckon, rubbish, it might be relevant in your world, not mine. Primary school playground term.

I view the game nationally & the presence of so many teams in Melbourne has seen a number relying on taxpayers interstate to fund their habit. Pokies have filled the void for many clubs, but even they havent been the magic pudding for all. Spending more than you earn is a cry for Mums purse, in this case its equalisation & handouts necessitated by some Melbourne clubs getting fixturing priority over other Melbourne clubs & an expectation that the game nationally subsidises.

I suggest there is an oversupply of footy in Melbourne, so many games that dont pull a decent crowd. Check out this Age article that exposes the folly of cheerleaders celebrating irrelevant membership numbers as if they indicate anything real.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...eal-figures-for-your-club-20140506-zr5tt.html

As for rationalisation in Melbourne it continues albeit too slowly. Think the number of games in Tas, moved from Melbourne.

Business models, understand them. For example Sandgropers pay much more for their footy than Melburnians. Supply & demand.

If you dont understand the point Jake Niall illustrates, read it again.

 

[The_Wookie]

Hate you reckon, rubbish, it might be relevant in your world, not mine. Primary school playground term.

I view the game nationally & the presence of so many teams in Melbourne has seen a number relying on taxpayers interstate to fund their habit. Pokies have filled the void for many clubs, but even they havent been the magic pudding for all. Spending more than you earn is a cry for Mums purse, in this case its equalisation & handouts necessitated by some Melbourne clubs getting fixturing priority over other Melbourne clubs & an expectation that the game nationally subsidises.

I suggest there is an oversupply of footy in Melbourne, so many games that dont pull a decent crowd. Check out this Age article that exposes the folly of cheerleaders celebrating irrelevant membership numbers as if they indicate anything real.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...eal-figures-for-your-club-20140506-zr5tt.html

As for rationalisation in Melbourne it continues albeit too slowly. Think the number of games in Tas, moved from Melbourne.

Business models, understand them. For example Sandgropers pay much more for their footy than Melburnians. Supply & demand.

If you dont understand the point Jake Niall illustrates, read it again.

Financial pressures also see less than ideal finances prevail in SA (BOTH clubs), and Queensland (both clubs) and NSW (Both clubs). In fact two of the worst clubs financially in recent times arent in victoria at all. Guess theres an oversupply of footy in South Australia and Queensland too.

Hell, if it came down to being consistently profitable the league would consist of

• West Coast
• Fremantle
• Collingwood
• Hawthorn
• Geelong

Every other club has skated along either side of the profitability line or is well below it in recent times.

Not every crowd has to be a blockbuster or even reach 30,000 - and the fault for the ones that do likes squarely with the AFL itself where Etihad is concerned. Which is why it will be interesting to see what happens with the new perth stadium, given that its unlikely the WAFC will get the same rent arrangement its had at subiaco.

 

[telsor]

Not every crowd has to be a blockbuster or even reach 30,000 - and the fault for the ones that do likes squarely with the AFL itself where Etihad is concerned. Which is why it will be interesting to see what happens with the new perth stadium, given that its unlikely the WAFC will get the same rent arrangement its had at subiaco.

Strange Kwality would mention "relying on taxpayers interstate to fund their habit" Who is paying for the Perth stadium again?
As opposed to Etihad and the MCG (mostly) which are paid for by the clubs.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Strange Kwality would mention "relying on taxpayers interstate to fund their habit" Who is paying for the Perth stadium again?
As opposed to Etihad and the MCG (mostly) which are paid for by the clubs.

Don't want to be too picky, but the economic surplus generated from a Perth Stadium is much greater than propping up clubs that drain the system.

They wouldn't be such a drain if the TV rights actually got distributed back to them like other sports, but they don't well not in the way it should be done at least.

 

[telsor]

Don't want to be too picky, but the economic surplus generated from a Perth Stadium is much greater than propping up clubs that drain the system.

They wouldn't be such a drain if the TV rights actually got distributed back to them like other sports, but they don't well not in the way it should be done at least.

The ground will cost hundreds of millions.

Just how much do you think taxpayers 'prop up' clubs for?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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

Is that for real???

That's a 30% drop in membership in the last 4 years. That's putrid.

Can't be right.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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.

It's all very nice in theory, unfortunately for this arrangement courts tend to favour substance over form.

The player is a professional footballer and it's about him being able to pursue that career as he chooses, not where some suit decides he should go.

Nobody really knows unless or until it is challenged in court. But the world doesnt exist on paper and judges don't make judgements on paper. It may not be so cut and dry.

It'll happen someday, just a matter of when.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Is that for real???

That's a 30% drop in membership in the last 4 years. That's putrid.

Can't be right.

Directly commensurate with their on-field performances I'd venture to suggest....Losing all of Griffen, Cooney & their coach in the off-season won't serve to improve matters all that much either!

 

[Power Raid]

Didn't realise Ballarat was 2 weeks behind Melbourne...

still 4 weeks ahead of Adelaide

 

[The_Wookie]

Is that for real???

That's a 30% drop in membership in the last 4 years. That's putrid.

Can't be right.

Thats not their membership figures.

Note the table hasnt been updated for 2014 - these are the official figures from the AFL Annual Reports

 

[FootyJunkie]

Two games in Ballarat v SA clubs would be ok.
But spending tens of millions to provide a stadium to save a club a few hundred k each year is a false economy.

7 hour drive from Adelaide.... it's not that close, but closest of the non-Vic sides.

 

[The_Wookie]

7 hour drive from Adelaide.... it's not that close, but closest of the non-Vic sides.

Fly to Melbourne and Bus...Total travel time would be less than 4 hours. Same for Sydney clubs.

 

[Desi Van_83]

This move is gold. Oh wait, they found all the gold 100 years ago.

Bad joke.

 

[Kwality]

Financial pressures also see less than ideal finances prevail in SA (BOTH clubs), and Queensland (both clubs) and NSW (Both clubs). In fact two of the worst clubs financially in recent times arent in victoria at all. Guess theres an oversupply of footy in South Australia and Queensland too.

Hell, if it came down to being consistently profitable the league would consist of

• West Coast
• Fremantle
• Collingwood
• Hawthorn
• Geelong

Every other club has skated along either side of the profitability line or is well below it in recent times.

Not every crowd has to be a blockbuster or even reach 30,000 - and the fault for the ones that do likes squarely with the AFL itself where Etihad is concerned. Which is why it will be interesting to see what happens with the new perth stadium, given that its unlikely the WAFC will get the same rent arrangement its had at subiaco.

Well put Wookie - see the problems facing WA footy:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/wafl/a/25455293/wafl-clubs-stadium-concern/

The supply & demand question is constantly ignored though, & coupled with falling walk up numbers, IMHO it is worthy of consideration. The dynamics are evolving.

 

[Kwality]

Strange Kwality would mention "relying on taxpayers interstate to fund their habit" Who is paying for the Perth stadium again?
As opposed to Etihad and the MCG (mostly) which are paid for by the clubs.

You mean the people who own WA footy, the WA taxpayer, no elitist freeloaders creaming our game like the stadium managers at the MCG. Clearly a big difference is the WA model encourages joining your footy club to go to the footy, no competing offers from the Cricket Club or the AFL Members (there was a WANFL Members Club long ago & it went the way of the dodo, unlike Vic & SA that hang on to anything old, good or bad).
When the clubs that put the game on are shortchanged ...

 

[Dazb86]

You mean the people who own WA footy, the WA taxpayer, no elitist freeloaders creaming our game like the stadium managers at the MCG. Clearly a big difference is the WA model encourages joining your footy club to go to the footy, no competing offers from the Cricket Club or the AFL Members (there was a WANFL Members Club long ago & it went the way of the dodo, unlike Vic & SA that hang on to anything old, good or bad).
When the clubs that put the game on are shortchanged ...

Why don't you like small clubs?