BREAKING: Bulldogs to Ballarat

[MaddAdam]

Well good luck for next year, will be a great jump from getting belted by 10 goals to jagging a win.

Port vs North GF next year.

 

[cammo78]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...eal-figures-for-your-club-20140506-zr5tt.html

This article? North and the Bulldogs have a nearly identical total amount of 'home games only' and 'home and away games' memberships. Our numbers aren't underpinned by reduced game memberships, they're simply what causes us to earn more from memberships than the Bulldogs do, as the article shows and can be seen below.

View attachment 91055

Ok. Let me word it differently. By the way, appears you've doctored your cutout - the chart in the article shows a clearer difference than the one you present. Regardless, the point remains you have the lowest "home market members of all Vic clubs".

If you are achieving such excellent record membership (which you're all more than happy to remind everyone of at any opportunity), why are your "extra" members all buying 3-game memberships (and clearly reside mainly in Hobart)? Why have you not sold more "home market" memberships than us when you're apparently in "flag mode" and we're a disgrace.

Given you all seem to think Hobart is your short-term cash cow and you'll be out of there sooner rather than later, what happens to your record membership then? The other chart demonstrates that for all these extra members - you made $300k more. Or $60 a pop. Equivalent to the cost of a three game membership. Hardly sustainable when you up and leave them (again), is it?

More Brayshaw spin and rhetoric you all lap up religiously.

 

[the_interloper]

Will be an excuse for Sooz to change clubs again.

 

[KillaKanga]

Will be an excuse for Sooz to change clubs again.

Hopefully she joins the Tiger Army

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Ballarat in winter.

 

[Hawkk]

What those numbers don't tell you is that North (per an Age article published in May) have the lowest number of 11/18 game members of all Victorian clubs (which you would expect to be purchased pretty much solely by Victorians able to attend most Melbourne games). Their membership is increasingly underpinned by "reduced game" or interstate memberships (I.e. 3-game memberships).

Which could go some way to suggesting an alienation of Victorian members as Quivorir suggests.

Below are the home / away North attendances (by season) in Melbourne...

1997 - 33,730 (19 games)
1998 - 36,235 (15 games)
2001 - 33,235 (14 games)
2007 - 33,253 (13 games)
2008 - 33,402 (15 games)
2009 - 28,034 (16 games)
2010 - 28,054 (16 games)
2011 - 28,054 (16 games)
2012 - 30,391 (15 games)
2013 - 31,996 (15 games)
2014 - 30,479 (13 games)

North played home games at the MCG in 1997-98 (and with it drew larger crowds) but from 2001 onwards they have been based at Docklands (the comparison from 2001 onwards is therefore valid).

Playing roughly the same amount of games in Melbourne, North attendances have gone backwards by 9% at a time where league wide crowds are 4% lower than in 2001.

Perhaps you have a point but as long as membership is growing and their revenue base continues to improve does it really matter?

 

[cammo78]

Below are the home / away North attendances (by season) in Melbourne...

1997 - 33,730 (19 games)
1998 - 36,235 (15 games)
2001 - 33,235 (14 games)
2007 - 33,253 (13 games)
2008 - 33,402 (15 games)
2009 - 28,034 (16 games)
2010 - 28,054 (16 games)
2011 - 28,054 (16 games)
2012 - 30,391 (15 games)
2013 - 31,996 (15 games)
2014 - 30,479 (13 games)

North played home games at the MCG in 1997-98 (and with it drew larger crowds) but from 2001 onwards they have been based at Docklands (the comparison from 2001 onwards is therefore valid).

Playing roughly the same amount of games in Melbourne, North attendances have gone backwards by 9% at a time where league wide crowds are 4% lower than in 2001.

Perhaps you have a point but as long as membership is growing and their revenue base continues to improve does it really matter?

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.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The AFL aren't "pushing" North anywhere. We're keen to play more games in Tassie. I'd say 4 a year is ideal. Two against interstate sides - West Coast a permanent fixture as the rich Sandgropers come over to Tassie for a week and spend big, keep the Council and Govt stumping up the cash happy - and a GWS/GC/Brissy where we'd get a crap result at Etihad.

Two against Vic clubs. One a big club to keep punters there happy - Richmond is a good one, and one against a lowly Melbourne side like St Kilda where we'd struggle to get a good Etihad crowd if their fans are sooking about being s**t.

There's never going to be 75 per cent of North members vote for relocation and we'd consider anything above 4 games partial relocation.

Tassie simply cannot support a stand alone team. It is simple economics. The current deals that service both north and south with us and Hawthorn work very well. AFL keeps the market sweet without having to create a white elephant.

It'll happen in stages. I'll say 20 years. Just opinion of course.

As for Ballarat, I can't ever see games being played there. Is there political will and other investment to get it done for a few games a year? I say no. Be wary around election season.

 

[Tex_21]

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.

 

[Engimal]

Ok. Let me word it differently. By the way, appears you've doctored your cutout - the chart in the article shows a clearer difference than the one you present. Regardless, the point remains you have the lowest "home market members of all Vic clubs".

Doctored? No.

If you can provide other statistics, I'll be more than happy to look at them.

If you are achieving such excellent record membership (which you're all more than happy to remind everyone of at any opportunity), why are your "extra" members all buying 3-game memberships (and clearly reside mainly in Hobart)? Why have you not sold more "home market" memberships than us when you're apparently in "flag mode" and we're a disgrace.

Because we're a small club, that's why. Our average crowd numbers have jumped from ~26,000 in 2012, ~28,000 in 2013 to 32,395 in 2014. We're growing, but I don't think anyone's implying that we're Collingwood or Essendon in crowd numbers

Given you all seem to think Hobart is your short-term cash cow and you'll be out of there sooner rather than later, what happens to your record membership then? The other chart demonstrates that for all these extra members - you made $300k more. Or $60 a pop. Equivalent to the cost of a three game membership. Hardly sustainable when you up and leave them (again), is it?

More Brayshaw spin and rhetoric you all lap up religiously.

That's all opinion and not fact. That's cool if you believe that but I wholeheartedly disagree. We're not going after new markets with Tassie like we did with Canberra or Gold Coast, we're going for a market that has supported football since the early days. While it can be argued that this isn't good for growth, southern Tasmania has been hungry for football for a long time.

 

[telsor]

It'll happen in stages. I'll say 20 years. Just opinion of course.

As for Ballarat, I can't ever see games being played there. Is there political will and other investment to get it done for a few games a year? I say no. Be wary around election season.

Unless something significant changes, in 20 years, Tassie will be even more of a backwater and even less attractive as a destination to relocate a club to (or create a new one).

 

[telsor]

Hopefully she joins the Tiger Army

We have standards (unlike North).

KFC boy yes, Sooz no. That's the line.

 

[cammo78]

Unless something significant changes, in 20 years, Tassie will be even more of a backwater and even less attractive as a destination to relocate a club to (or create a new one).

Disagree entirely.

Melbourne and Sydney are growing at unsustainable rates. Roads and transport are already at capacity, and this is only going to get worse.

I think you'll find huge incentives for business to put down roots in places like Adelaide and Hobart in the coming 20-30 years and their rates of growth will far exceed the bigger cities. This is particularly so as technology removes the need for face to face meetings, etc.

It's why I find Norths reliance on Hobart revenue, particularly in light of the Gold Coast bullet they dodged, so staggering.

Make no mistake. There will be a full time team in Hobart in 20 years time.

 

[SugarCoat]

I don't know why North fans are upset about playing 5/6 games in Hobart.
It's the only chance they have of being a sustainable club into the future.

 

[Sherrinator]

I have alot of time for WB and Hawthorn. Giving regional areas football and sticking with it. Pity North see it simply as a means to make cash on the side and treat these markets with contempt as if they owe North.

 

[telsor]

Disagree entirely.

Melbourne and Sydney are growing at unsustainable rates. Roads and transport are already at capacity, and this is only going to get worse.

I think you'll find huge incentives for business to put down roots in places like Adelaide and Hobart in the coming 20-30 years and their rates of growth will far exceed the bigger cities. This is particularly so as technology removes the need for face to face meetings, etc.

It's why I find Norths reliance on Hobart revenue, particularly in light of the Gold Coast bullet they dodged, so staggering.

Make no mistake. There will be a full time team in Hobart in 20 years time.

So these 'huge incentives' would fit with what I said about 'significant changes', right?

BTW. Melbourne and Sydney aren't exactly big cities by global standards. There would need to be changes, but they can grow a lot more. That said, if there was a shift away, Perth & QLD would probably be more attractive options.

 

[master bate]

Disagree entirely.

Melbourne and Sydney are growing at unsustainable rates. Roads and transport are already at capacity, and this is only going to get worse.

I think you'll find huge incentives for business to put down roots in places like Adelaide and Hobart in the coming 20-30 years and their rates of growth will far exceed the bigger cities. This is particularly so as technology removes the need for face to face meetings, etc.

It's why I find Norths reliance on Hobart revenue, particularly in light of the Gold Coast bullet they dodged, so staggering.

Make no mistake. There will be a full time team in Hobart in 20 years time.

I'm not a business expert but I thought the global trend was that big cities keep getting bigger as smaller cities do the opposite. Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane I understand, viable cities for many businesses. Unless there's a logical reason to be in Tassie I'd rather set up a business in Geelong or even Ballarat, that way you have access to Melbourne.

 

[Engimal]

I don't know why North fans are upset about playing 5/6 games in Hobart.
It's the only chance they have of being a sustainable club into the future.

Really? We were told Gold Coast was our only hope, too. We can be sustainable in the future without selling 5/6 games. We won't be a 'big club' like Collingwood are, but it can be sustained. Now I'm not saying that being a full time Melbourne club will be North's future, but it definitely could be.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Good move for the Dogs.

North eventually have to take over all of Tassie and Kick Hawthorn out. They are wealthy enough that they dont need to suckle on the breast of the Tasmanian taxpayer. Tassie will be a success for North if they split their time between Hobart and Launceston. And maybe reform a Tassie VFL team and align with that.

North also have to get a proper VFL alignment not this ridiculous 50-50 split they have been putting up with. Its a blight on them that no VFL team wants to align with them.

 

[SugarCoat]

We can be sustainable in the future without selling 5/6 games

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.

 

[KillaKanga]

I don't know why North fans are upset about playing 5/6 games in Hobart.
It's the only chance they have of being a sustainable club into the future.

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 Norf demise. 2-3 Melbourne clubs in worse position than North.

 

[KillaKanga]

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.

Again, North don't even receive the highest amount from the AFL. Why relocate?

 

[Engimal]

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.

Turn your mind to about 7 years ago. That's why we turn our nose up against it.

I think the hope for clubs like North, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs to stay in Melbourne is to hold out until the Etihad crap can get sorted. Even so, the AFL is years away from buying it outright.

 

[cammo78]

Turn your mind to about 7 years ago. That's why we turn our nose up against it.

I think the hope for clubs like North, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs to stay in Melbourne is to hold out until the Etihad crap can get sorted. Even so, the AFL is years away from buying it outright.

There's also been talk that the AFL may even sell Etihad once it assumes ownership to allow developers to demolish it. Supposedly the land is worth a packet to developers. Meaning a new stadium is required.

This could go one of two ways.

Provide the AFL with enough money to underpin all clubs' futures by building their own, clean stadium, or it could allow them to repeat what's happened over the past 14 years by selling out smaller clubs into a deal with a new stadium.

Either way - I'm not convinced Etihad ownership is the panacea a lot of people seem to believe it to be.

 

[cammo78]

So these 'huge incentives' would fit with what I said about 'significant changes', right?

BTW. Melbourne and Sydney aren't exactly big cities by global standards. There would need to be changes, but they can grow a lot more. That said, if there was a shift away, Perth & QLD would probably be more attractive options.

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.