News North eyeing a new Tassie deal – 5 more years (until the end of 2021)

[Roo Beauty]

http://m.nmfc.com.au/news/2015-08-04/north-wants-more-tassie

North Melbourne has opened negotiations to extend its commitment to play in Hobart for a further five years, a proposed deal that would tie the club to Tasmania until the end of 2021.

North's previous two Hobart contracts have been for three and two years respectively, but the Roos are now seeking the security of a longer deal.

The Roos' push follows Hawthorn's announcement last week that it had signed a new five-year agreement with the Tasmanian Government to continue playing in Launceston until the end of 2021.

North chief executive Carl Dilena told AFL.com.au on Tuesday that the club, whose existing Hobart deal expires at the end of 2016, hoped to sign a five-year extension in a few months.

"I think from the start both Hawthorn and ourselves were looking at five-year renewals. That had been standard for Hawthorn, that was just part of their contract, and we're looking to do a similar sort of thing," Dilena said.

"We've been in preliminary discussions and I think they will ramp up over the next few months now that they've got the Hawthorn deal out of the way."

Dilena said North would seek to continue playing three games a season in Hobart under a new agreement.

North first played in Hobart in 2012 as part of an initial three-year deal that saw it play two games a season in the Apple Isle's capital.

The Roos recommitted to Hobart in August last year, signing a two-year contract with the Hobart City Council and the state-owned TT-Line that was due to expire at the same time as Hawthorn's existing deal in Launceston.

It had been speculated that when both deals expired at the end of 2016, the AFL could decide to fixture just one team to play in Tasmania.

Such speculation followed AFL Tasmania chief executive Scott Wade's comments in June 2013 that the ideal model was for one AFL club to play eight matches in Tasmania, splitting those games equally between Hobart and Launceston's Aurora Stadium.

In April last year, then deputy AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan endorsed Wade's push for one team in Tasmania.

"We have an ideal model which is a single team representing Tasmania. Who that is and what format that takes is a complex question," McLachlan said.

The AFL was unavailable for comment on how Hawthorn's new deal had affected its plans in Tasmania.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Oh great.

 

[shintemaster]

Kind of funny article and timing. And nice of North to let Hawthorn bear the brunt of the AFL for upsetting their plans. As much as I would love every game back in Melbourne I can tolerate 3 games. Will be interested to see our financials after this year. We realistically should be planning to be not only debt free at the end of that 5 year deal but ideally would have a million or two put away for potential investments. Never know when the rug might be pulled and want to be in a position to do what is best for the club - not what is best for the AFL.

 

[Hydrurga]

When you're dealing with the Tasmanian government, the club just has talk slowly and clearly so their words drown out the white noise of the government's ineptitude. Some crayon diagrams may just win them over.

 

[Quivorir]

Really hope it doesn't happen.

 

[Dirty_11]

 

[the big lebowski]

5 more years of 3 games per annum would be a god send for the club

 

[SpiderBurton22]

The model has worked for Hawthorn, but we are coming from a fair way back compared to them. Should be able to set up a platform for financial independance if done correctly.

 

[SMaturin]

Benefits both parties. 3 games is the right amount imo. Word is deal will be done soon.

 

[Rockstar6]

I love and hate the Tassie deal. I love it because it is good money and hate it because it takes away from loyal game attending Melbourne based members and replaces them with nose bleed section seats unless you part with more cash on top of your membership costs for a half decent seat. That being said, it would be awesome if the club could sort out what members pay for, e.g. if you sit level 1, aisle 27 during actual home games you should be given a similar seat at the other end of the ground during replacement games.

 

[Dan]

Ohh.....well in that case I'm looking forward to my membership remaining the same price for the next 6 years.

Spare us the 'replacement game(s) propaganda bullshit.

 

[Tas]

I am a lot more comfortable with any prospective deal now that Hawthorn have got a new deal, it means any ridiculous plans for north & south are off the table until after JB's term.

 

[Dugdale2Dwyer]

Would be awesome to play a game in the snow down there one day, make it happen etc.

 

[Zondor]

Booooooooooooooo! :stern look

 

[Roo Beauty]

Booooooooooooooo! :stern look

Racist.

 

[danj]

Racist.

No he's a craniopagusist

 

[RobZombie]

In the context of actual reality this is a good result.

We still need a secondary market as do half the Vic clubs, and Hobart is the best one we could hope for.

Looks like we won't have to give up a 4th game.

Extending by 5 years takes off a lot of pressure. The will-they-or-won't-they crap every 2 or 3 years is a pain.

 

[King Corey]

Not often I'd say this but - go Hawthorn.

They've done more to protect our Melbourne integrity for the next 5 years than the AFL or possibly our own board have.

 

[Wild Kangaroo]

Dont have a problem with this, if it helps financially and having a secondary market.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

Kind of funny article and timing. And nice of North to let Hawthorn bear the brunt of the AFL for upsetting their plans. As much as I would love every game back in Melbourne I can tolerate 3 games. Will be interested to see our financials after this year. We realistically should be planning to be not only debt free at the end of that 5 year deal but ideally would have a million or two put away for potential investments. Never know when the rug might be pulled and want to be in a position to do what is best for the club - not what is best for the AFL.

I'm OK with the three games in Tassie, I just wish the club could work out a better deal for reserved seat members. It's getting to the point where it's not worth having an assigned seat, when I could just pay $50 per game I attend.

 

[Only Forwards]

I have no issue with a longer term agreement, but they need to sort out the replacement games.

* @ Etihad? Richmond @ Etihad? what a load of s**t that is.

 

[shintemaster]

I'm OK with the three games in Tassie, I just wish the club could work out a better deal for reserved seat members. It's getting to the point where it's not worth having an assigned seat, when I could just pay $50 per game I attend.

I hate. Hate. Not having a reserved seat. Don't even need it to be the same one, but need something.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Not often I'd say this but - go Hawthorn.

They've done more to protect our Melbourne integrity for the next 5 years than the AFL or possibly our own board have.

Hawthorn are now a political powerhouse of the AFL. Up there with Collingwood and Eagles. If they decide to play in Tassie for the next 20 years the AFL won't be able to stop them.

 

[Dirty_11]

I'm OK with the three games in Tassie, I just wish the club could work out a better deal for reserved seat members. It's getting to the point where it's not worth having an assigned seat, when I could just pay $50 per game I attend.

The Club can stick there replacement games set up. To suggest those with premium level 2 memberships would be happy to sit in a non reserved seat in the nose bleeds for a replacement and continue to drive up membership prices is an insult. We end up parting with a lot more money for level 2 seats at these 'replacement games'. Crock of s**t.

 

[Phillyroo]

Hey everyone that is bitching about the replacement games..... Cry me a river!
We have a strong viable club that is following a strong business model!