North melbourne 'lose' Ballarat zone

[hairy biker]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-29/norths-loss-is-dogs-gain

NORTH Melbourne is disappointed by a shift in AFL strategy that has seen Ballarat repositioned from a Roos' development zone to Western Bulldogs' territory.

North has also been told by the League it will no longer hold its pre-season community camp in Ballarat.

AFL scheduling manager Simon Lethlean told AFL.com.au that with North now focused on developing its fan base in Hobart the Bulldogs had moved to extend their western corridor growth strategy to Ballarat.

Back in 2012 North's CEO;
http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/61654/north-melbourne-kangaroos-keen-on-eureka-stadium/

Mr Arocca candidly claimed that the opportunity to play football in Ballarat was "bigger" than Tasmania, where the club will host two matches annually over the next three years."It won't be too long before the Kangaroos are playing AFL football out of Ballarat," he said."All we can say about that is stay tuned and hopefully in the next six to 12 months there will be an announcement out of Ballarat that will see North Melbourne play out of there too."

It's been North's problem for a long time.
This revolving door of hope; Canberra, Gold Coast, Ballarat, Tasmania.

Brayshaw back in December 2011;

We need to get the 250,000 people in southern Tasmania to be rusted on North Melbourne fans, and we need to get into the Warrnambool-Bendigo-Ballarat triangle - the fastest growing regional area in Australia - and really spend a lot of time and effort, hopefully getting those people to invest in coming to North Melbourne games in that area.

The AFL has basically said to North, Hobart is your patch.

Yet even today the North CEO had this to say;

The Roos boss said the club could continue to concentrate on its existing Melbourne growth areas Wyndham and Hume, but still needed to establish a regional Victorian stronghold.

The Hawks have sent a clear message to Launceston, the public comment from North always seems as if they want to hedge their bets, hopeful that a new suitor will appear, with more money than the last.

Hobart is a good wicket for North.
I'm sure a number of clubs would be happy to play games down there.
At least publicly embrace it, rather than immediately talking about a "regional Victorian stronghold".

 

[Taylor]

North will still feel the hand on their back pushing them towards the Gold Coast so I can understand the club focusing on local areas.

 

[Hawker81]

The AFL will soon enough give North Launceston as well

 

[Bazzar]

So now I will have to read about the Dogs everyday and not North. Not sure what is worse.

 

[Augustine]

The AFL will soon enough give North Launceston as well

Which I'm confident we'll reject.

I have a suspicion that the AFL is trying to slowly coerce us into playing 6 or 7 home games in Tasmania. Maybe I'm a little bit cynical from the Gold Coast saga but I'm becoming increasingly wary of the idea of relocation by stealth. Ballarat was a better option than Hobart in my opinion, we almost did play there but the Vic government changed and the stadium was never upgraded. I'm annoyed that the AFL has seemingly chosen Dogs for Ballarat (We worked with community groups, schools etc for 8 years there) and us for Hobart. It's unfortunate that this comes on a day where we've discovered that we play Richmond in Hobart.

We already know AFL's preference is one team 7 games in Hobart and Launceston. While we want to grow the fan base in Hobart, we need to be very careful.

 

[Engimal]

Hobart is a good wicket for North.
I'm sure a number of clubs would be happy to play games down there.
At least publicly embrace it, rather than immediately talking about a "regional Victorian stronghold".

Want to take a guess why we want a stronghold in Victoria? Because last time we showed significant interest outside of Victoria, the AFL tried to send us on a one way ticket to the Gold Coast. While we do significant work in Hobart, North can't afford to do what the Hawks do when they market themselves as the 'Tassie Hawks'. We embrace Hobart, sure, but if we embrace it too much then we risk teetering too close to the days of being the 'Kangaroos' in '07.

North has worked with Ballarat for six years and tried bloody hard to get home and away games there. We've held camps, functions and a shitload of events to strengthen our ties to the community. Now the AFL has basically said, "Cheers for that, but the Bulldogs will take over from here fellas."

 

[Augustine]

Want to take a guess why we want a stronghold in Victoria? Because last time we showed significant interest outside of Victoria, the AFL tried to send us on a one way ticket to the Gold Coast. While we do significant work in Hobart, North can't afford to do what the Hawks do when they market themselves as the 'Tassie Hawks'. We embrace Hobart, sure, but if we embrace it too much then we risk teetering too close to the days of being the 'Kangaroos' in '07.

North has worked with Ballarat for six years and tried bloody hard to get home and away games there. We've held camps, functions and a shitload of events to strengthen our ties to the community. Now the AFL has basically said, "Cheers for that, but the Bulldogs will take over from here fellas."

Exactly. The whole thing is a PR balancing act. Ballarat home games would have been perfect and solved everything for us. I'd be thrilled if I was a Dogs fan.

 

[Clark G]

Why should the AFL dictate where clubs hold their community camps? If North want to hold theirs in Ballarat, who cares?

 

[master bate]

Which I'm confident we'll reject.

I have a suspicion that the AFL is trying to slowly coerce us into playing 6 or 7 home games in Tasmania. Maybe I'm a little bit cynical from the Gold Coast saga but I'm becoming increasingly wary of the idea of relocation by stealth. Ballarat was a better option than Hobart in my opinion, we almost did play there but the Vic government changed and the stadium was never upgraded. I'm annoyed that the AFL has seemingly chosen Dogs for Ballarat (We worked with community groups, schools etc for 8 years there) and us for Hobart. It's unfortunate that this comes on a day where we've discovered that we play Richmond in Hobart.

We already know AFL's preference is one team 7 games in Hobart and Launceston. While we want to grow the fan base in Hobart, we need to be very careful.

I think you are right to be fearful.

And I don't trust the AFL 'gifting' Ballarat to the Dogs either. Soon enough that will become a push to play Dogs home games there whether the Dogs like it or not.

The big question is when the AFL owns Etihad are they better off having Dogs and North games with 15-20k or not having the games at all and having those games in Tasmania and Ballarat.

 

[ManOfClay]

Thanks for keeping the seat warm north, but we've got this now.

 

[Augustine]

Why should the AFL dictate where clubs hold their community camps? If North want to hold theirs in Ballarat, who cares?

I've very much come to terms by now with the fact that the AFL is the most controlling league governing body in world sport.

 

[Hawker81]

Which I'm confident we'll reject.

I have a suspicion that the AFL is trying to slowly coerce us into playing 6 or 7 home games in Tasmania. Maybe I'm a little bit cynical from the Gold Coast saga but I'm becoming increasingly wary of the idea of relocation by stealth. Ballarat was a better option than Hobart in my opinion, we almost did play there but the Vic government changed and the stadium was never upgraded. I'm annoyed that the AFL has seemingly chosen Dogs for Ballarat (We worked with community groups, schools etc for 8 years there) and us for Hobart. It's unfortunate that this comes on a day where we've discovered that we play Richmond in Hobart.

We already know AFL's preference is one team 7 games in Hobart and Launceston. While we want to grow the fan base in Hobart, we need to be very careful.

The AFL have tried before to get North to play 7 games in Tassie, before Hawthorn stuffed that up, and it definitely won't be Hawthorn that play 7 games a year there.

Agree that Ballarat is the much better option if they upgrade the stadium there. Easy enough for most Melbourne based supporters to get to a game as well.

 

[joop]

Why should the AFL dictate where clubs hold their community camps? If North want to hold theirs in Ballarat, who cares?

Because it's the AFL....

 

[The Dice Man]

Next year they will be playing home games in mornington. Nothing to see here.

 

[hairy biker]

I think you are right to be fearful.

And I don't trust the AFL 'gifting' Ballarat to the Dogs either. Soon enough that will become a push to play Dogs home games there whether the Dogs like it or not.

The big question is when the AFL owns Etihad are they better off having Dogs and North games with 15-20k or not having the games at all and having those games in Tasmania and Ballarat.

You need an AFL standard venue first in Ballarat.
Before the last Vic Election (2010) the Premier, Brumby, indicated if re-elected Labor would contribute $30 mill to the $80 mill cost of the Eureka Stadium precinct redevelopment.

Now the total cost was about far more than just bringing the ground up to AFL standard.
$25 mill of the $30 mill was 'allocated' to the stadium itself.

Labor this time is offering a $15 mill stadium upgrade, $29 mill in total.

Mind you given the cost of the promises on both sides of politics this time around I think it might be a wait and see,

 

[SugarCoat]

I give it 3 years and North will be playing at least 5 or 6 home games in Hobart.

 

[Augustine]

The AFL have tried before to get North to play 7 games in Tassie, before Hawthorn stuffed that up, and it definitely won't be Hawthorn that play 7 games a year there.

Agree that Ballarat is the much better option if they upgrade the stadium there. Easy enough for most Melbourne based supporters to get to a game as well.

Yeah so you'd expect a very large crowd. Dogs fans Christmas has come early.

I would have hoped the AFL learnt its lesson last time they tried to relocate us. Make no mistake 7 games is a relocation. How reluctant is Hawthorn to give up their hard work at Launceston? Surely a lot. I hope so because it could help us avoid another PR disaster, just when we're finally beginning to get rid of the "cashless, homeless, basket case Kangaroos" reputation.

 

[Augustine]

I give it 3 years and North will be playing at least 5 or 6 home games in Hobart.

It's comments like this that made me want Ballarat home games instead of Hobart.

 

[Hawker81]

Yeah so you'd expect a very large crowd. Dogs fans Christmas has come early.

I would have hoped the AFL learnt its lesson last time they tried to relocate us. Make no mistake 7 games is a relocation. How reluctant is Hawthorn to give up their hard work at Launceston? Surely a lot. I hope so because it could help us avoid another PR disaster, just when we're finally beginning to get rid of the "cashless, homeless, basket case Kangaroos" reputation.

With the AFL making Hawthorn's games in Launceston as unattractive as possible, I'm sure we'll be forced out soon enough.

I'd certainly be very unhappy playing 7 home games there if I was a supporter. As it is, I think 4 is too many.

 

[Tas]

Not sure how it is our fault the AFL is trying to pull the rug from under our feet. Bulldogs abandoned Werribee, nobody was doing community work in Ballarat, we stepped up and not sure what gives the AFL the right to dictate which part of the state we can and can't do community work.

What a bunch of fascist juntas.

 

[Pie_fan92]

I think you are right to be fearful.

And I don't trust the AFL 'gifting' Ballarat to the Dogs either. Soon enough that will become a push to play Dogs home games there whether the Dogs like it or not.

The big question is when the AFL owns Etihad are they better off having Dogs and North games with 15-20k or not having the games at all and having those games in Tasmania and Ballarat.

genuine question, when will the AFL own Etihad stadium?
I believe it wouldn't be bad thing to have the lower drawing games out at Ballarat, it will help market the competing clubs and give them exposure that they might not otherwise get.

 

[millsy29gopies]

genuine question, when will the AFL own Etihad stadium?
I believe it wouldn't be bad thing to have the lower drawing games out at Ballarat, it will help market the competing clubs and give them exposure that they might not otherwise get.

2025 I believe.

 

[Hawkinspired]

You just need to look at the draw released today to see what teams NM draw in Tassie. I'm reasonably sure they have Richmond which is a stark contrast to the Freo/West Coast/North Melbourne/Brisbane/GWS/Gold Coast combination we see every year.

The AFL have an agenda and it does not involve Hawthorn post 2016.

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-29/norths-loss-is-dogs-gain


Back in 2012 North's CEO;
http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/61654/north-melbourne-kangaroos-keen-on-eureka-stadium/


It's been North's problem for a long time.
This revolving door of hope; Canberra, Gold Coast, Ballarat, Tasmania.

Brayshaw back in December 2011;


The AFL has basically said to North, Hobart is your patch.

Yet even today the North CEO had this to say;


The Hawks have sent a clear message to Launceston, the public comment from North always seems as if they want to hedge their bets, hopeful that a new suitor will appear, with more money than the last.

Hobart is a good wicket for North.
I'm sure a number of clubs would be happy to play games down there.
At least publicly embrace it, rather than immediately talking about a "regional Victorian stronghold".

What a load of rot this post is.

I can see that the concept of developing new markets is lost on a supporter of a club who has failed to develop a stronghold in the biggest city in the country in 30 years.

Either that or you are a bitter South supporter waiting for another club to roll over and accept the fingers of relocation up their prostate.

I'll give you a hint, North won't do the same. We'll be here for a while.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Unless a team is playing home games there it's all meaningless anyway