North melbourne 'lose' Ballarat zone

[keithrichards]

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

They can't have the same clubs working in the same areas... If they didn't have defined 'development zones', all clubs would be doing their community work in the growth areas such as Wyndham, Hume and Casey, and ignoring the current traditional football areas

Also, if given the choice, I'd say North would take Wyndham and/or Hume over Ballarat every day of the week

 

[harmesy 37]

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.

Hang on. Your team - North Melbourne - gets extra milllions year by year in their dividends that other teams don't get and you are complaining about them being "controlling".

If "controlling" means the AFL funds your ground's development, gives you 3-4 million $$$$ each year, and puts money in to ensures that you can go to the max of the salary cap which in turn allows your club to poach players from other clubs then that is the type of "controlling" all clubs could do with.

Every time Carlton plays North they are playing North and the millions the AFL give them..

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

Hang on. Your team - North Melbourne - gets extra milllions year by year in their dividends that other teams don't get and you are complaining about them being "controlling".

If "controlling" means the AFL funds your ground's development, gives you 3-4 million $$$$ each year, and puts money in to ensures that you can go to the max of the salary cap which in turn allows your club to poach players from other clubs then that is the type of "controlling" all clubs could do with.

Every time Carlton plays North they are playing North and the millions the AFL give them..

Such a short memory for a club that was bailed out by the AFL less than 10 years ago.

I'd say it's more like North (and the "millions" we receive from the AFL as equalization for the draw) Vs Carlton (and the "millions" from the AFL for draw equalization AND the $20m in shattered families money from pokies).

Oh.....and Waite.

 

[harmesy 37]

Such a short memory for a club that was bailed out by the AFL less than 10 years ago.

I'd say it's more like North (and the "millions" we receive from the AFL as equalization for the draw) Vs Carlton (and the "millions" from the AFL for draw equalization AND the $20m in shattered families money from pokies).

Oh.....and Waite.

"Bailed out" - that is an interesting definition for a club that was crippled by poor internal management/an atrociously bad president plus AFL imposed sanctions. Carlton then got a loan from the AFL when the club nearly folded and was asked to pay it back asap. Has North been asked to pay back any of their "loans"? Carlton is still in debt and still paying back its AFL loan.

"draw equalisation" - you do realise that any money Carlton makes (and they are still in debt whilst North is not in debt (thanks in large part to the AFL) goes back into an "equalisation" fund?

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

"Bailed out" - that is an interesting definition for a club that was crippled by poor internal management/an atrociously bad president plus AFL imposed sanctions. Carlton then got a loan from the AFL when the club nearly folded and was asked to pay it back asap. Has North been asked to pay back any of their "loans"?

"draw equalisation" - you do realise that any money Carlton makes (and they are still in debt whilst North is not in debt (thanks in large part to the AFL) goes back into an "equalisation" fund?

You do realise that AFL equalisation funds are not allowed to be used on debt and North's debt has been paid off by the supporters?

If you can't make profits from 6 Friday night matches a year then I'm sure we would gladly swap positions.

 

[SugarCoat]

You do realise that AFL equalisation funds are not allowed to be used on debt and North's debt has been paid off by the supporters?

That's bollocks.
North are free to use the AFL funding payment anyway they want to.
Brisbane are currently getting equalisation payments from the AFL to service their debt.

 

[harmesy 37]

You do realise that AFL equalisation funds are not allowed to be used on debt and North's debt has been paid off by the supporters?

If you can't make profits from 6 Friday night matches a year then I'm sure we would gladly swap positions.

The North debt has been largely paid off by with AFL "dividends" to North. 2 million one year, 3 million the next, 4 million the year after. I admire you for sticking by your club, but supporter involvement in paying off the debt would be minimal compared to the AFL "dividends".

All I ask is if "dividends" are given to North - they give them also to clubs in debt - such as Carlton. I am just as nervous about the survival of my club as you are about yours. I don't feel secure about Carlton's long term survival as a club whilst it is still trying to crawl out of the bunker.

Carlton got a lot of Friday night matches last year, and considering their abysmal form it wasn't warranted. I am sure it will be more "equal" this year.

The only clubs that can feel confident about their long term survival in Victoria are
Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong and perhaps Essendon. All others know they will last at least 10 years. Anything after that is up in the air.

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

The North debt has been largely paid off by with AFL "dividends" to North. 2 million one year, 3 million the next, 4 million the year after. I admire you for sticking by your club, but supporter involvement in paying off the debt would be minimal compared to the AFL "dividends".

All I ask is if "dividends" are given to North - they give them also to clubs in debt - such as Carlton.

Carlton got a lot of Friday night matches last year, and considering their abysmal form it wasn't warranted. I am sure it will be more "equal" this year.

"Dividends" are what every club receives from the AFL. Each club is given the same amount.

"The equalisation fund" is paid out where the AFL feels some clubs are penalised by the draw. Such as who plays on what day, return games and derbys etc.

Read the report Geelong commissioned on the topic and aware yourself. Better yet, read the NFL equalisation strategy and find out why they are the strongest sporting code in the world.

 

[harmesy 37]

"Dividends" are what every club receives from the AFL. Each club is given the same amount.

"The equalisation fund" is paid out where the AFL feels some clubs are penalised by the draw. Such as who plays on what day, return games and derbys etc.

Read the report Geelong commissioned on the topic and aware yourself. Better yet, read the NFL equalisation strategy and find out why they are the strongest sporting code in the world.

All clubs are NOT given the same amount.

"Receiving continued financial support from the AFL including Future Funding payments, the continued guarantee
of the Company’s borrowing facilities totalling $4.2m (currently drawn to $2.75m) and the availability of credit
As part of this commitment, the AFL has agreed to continue to provide certain financial assistance to the
Company including funding assistance in 2014 of $2.73 million from the Future Fund"

page 13 - http://www.nmfc.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/NorthMelbourne/Files/NMFC_2013Financials(Final).pdf

 

[hairy biker]

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.

What new markets exactly have North developed?

Flogging games to Sydney, Canberra & the Gold Coast is not developing markets.
It's taking the money until a better offer comes around.

Finally Hobart looks like a lucrative long term deal, but the day the Ballarat pipe dream is over, instead of your CEO publicly embracing the Tassie partnership he still talk wants to talk about a "regional Victorian stronghold".

Perhaps highlight he club's commitment to its Melbourne supporters, whilst also referencing the current Hobart deal.
But instead it's all about the next big hope.

 

[Engimal]

What new markets exactly have North developed?

Flogging games to Sydney, Canberra & the Gold Coast is not developing markets.
It's taking the money until a better offer comes around.

Finally Hobart looks like a lucrative long term deal, but the day the Ballarat pipe dream is over, instead of your CEO publicly embracing the Tassie partnership he still talk wants to talk about a "regional Victorian stronghold".

Perhaps highlight he club's commitment to its Melbourne supporters, whilst also referencing the current Hobart deal.
But instead it's all about the next big hope.

How far in the past are you living? We've been working in Ballarat for 6 years but the stadium simply isn't up to scratch so AFL games can't be played there. Ballarat would have been an ideal place to be playing games. It's Victorian and therefore it relieves worry about being relocated. The Tassie deal is cool, sure. But even as a Tasmanian, I don't want North to do too much down here. If we get too involved and start playing any more than 3 games, we risk relocation and * that noise.

 

[Hawkk]

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".

Wouldn't worry about it...

The AFL have made it be known they'll be punting us out of Tasmania so North will have the whole island to draw support from soon enough

 

[aCunningPlan]

We'll according to today's poll putting Labor well and truly over the top, Ballarat will be getting the beginnings of an AFL standard venue. Wouldn't be so bad for either North or the Bulldogs to play against say GWS and Freo in Ballarat.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Pretty piss poor, the AFL should have no involvement when the secondary catchment areas are – so long as they're wanted. Why does it matter if it's North or the Bullies in Ballarat? Beyond me.

It's pretty bizarre when you think about it that the Hawks are such a well run club and great side, yet play more games at in a secondary state than anyone else. They have enough pull in Victoria to not oversaturate their supporters there. And the implied projection is the Kangas taking over the whole of Tassie, and there's no way the AFL will want to have some weird splicing of a club for too long... it'll be relocation – as someone else said – by stealth.

Stay strong North Melbourne and stay in Melbourne.

 

[hairy biker]

We'll according to today's poll putting Labor well and truly over the top, Ballarat will be getting the beginnings of an AFL standard venue. Wouldn't be so bad for either North or the Bulldogs to play against say GWS and Freo in Ballarat.

Firstly though it needs election promises to translate to actual funding, but assuming Eureka is upgraded it would need the AFL to fixture games there.

Happy to be corrected but even going back to Brumby's promise before the last state election I don't recall the AFL publicly supporting the playing of AFL H&A games at the venue.

 

[Archer_11]

Pretty clear message here from the AFL that you innovate at your own risk.

 

[ManOfClay]

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/...-city-of-ballarat-north-melbourne-gone/?cs=61

AFL scheduling manager Simon Lethlean said the Western Bulldogs and the Ballarat City Council had come to an agreement, with full support of the AFL.
It is not yet known what the agreement entails.
This comes after the City of Ballarat ended North Melbourne's long-standing sponsorship this year, upsetting Kangaroos hierarchy.
"The Bulldogs have entered a relationship with the local council in Ballarat, which is based essentially on their western corridor strategy," Leathlean told AFL.com.au.
"North Melbourne is focused on Tasmania and elsewhere, so they (the Bulldogs) asked whether we would support a game there?
"We were certainly keen to support the Dogs and the Ballarat City Council, who are starting off a new relationship.
"If you look across the natural areas of Victoria – the hot spots to develop the clubs – that western strategy certainly extends to Ballarat for the Bulldogs.
"We're keen to help them with that strategy as it extends down there and again support councils who want to support our clubs."
North Melbourne is seething at the move, claiming it did all the groundwork in Ballarat for six years, only to be told to make way for another club.

 

[DaVillaBlues]

Yes i think North have been shafted on this issue. Still think the AFL have it on for them since they rejected relocation to the Gold Coast.
No wonder some North fans have a chip on the shoulder, i would too if Carlton were constantly jerked around by the AFL.

 

[Hawkk]

Pretty piss poor, the AFL should have no involvement when the secondary catchment areas are – so long as they're wanted. Why does it matter if it's North or the Bullies in Ballarat? Beyond me.

It's pretty bizarre when you think about it that the Hawks are such a well run club and great side, yet play more games at in a secondary state than anyone else. They have enough pull in Victoria to not oversaturate their supporters there. And the implied projection is the Kangas taking over the whole of Tassie, and there's no way the AFL will want to have some weird splicing of a club for too long... it'll be relocation – as someone else said – by stealth.

Stay strong North Melbourne and stay in Melbourne.

Off topic perhaps but this is our schedule of home / away games at the MCG before, during and after signing the 2007 agreement to play 4 games in Tasmania

2000 - 10 / 2 (12)
2001 - 9 / 3 (12) (1 game in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2002 - 8 / 5 (13) (2 games in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2003 - 8 / 4 (12) (2 games in Tasmania)
2004 - 8 / 3 (11) (2 games in Tasmania)
2005 - 8 / 2 (10) (2 games in Tasmania)
2006 - 5 / 1 (6) *Commonwealth Games reduced the number of home / away games at the ground

...and since

2007 - 7 / 1 (8) (4 games in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2008 - 7 / 3 (10) (4 games in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2009 - 7 / 3 (10) (4 games in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2010 - 7 / 5 (12) (4 games in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2011 - 7 / 4 (11) (4 games in Tasmania, exclusivity)
2012 - 7 / 6 (13) (4 games in Tasmania, North takes the South)
2013 - 6 / 3 (9) (4 games in Tasmania, North takes the South)
2014 - 7 / 4 (11) (4 games in Tasmania, North takes the South)
2015 - 6 / 3 (9) (4 games in Tasmania, North takes the South)

I believe that the AFL is feathering Hawthorn to sign a similar MCG / Ethiad home game deal to what was offered to Carlton in 2014 (6 MCG / 5 Ethiad) when our current contract expires in 2017.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The long term plan for the AFL is to relocate North to Tassie, it's pretty obvious.

 

[Engimal]

The long term plan for the AFL is to relocate North to Tassie, it's pretty obvious.

I hope their backup plan involves McLachlan fisting his cornhole with a pair of Hulk hands, because their last plan to relocate us went arse up.

 

[TedDougChris]

Surely people aren't suggesting the AFL makes their strategies up as they go along with no evidence of consistency, practicality or fairness ??

Surely not.....

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

What new markets exactly have North developed?

Flogging games to Sydney, Canberra & the Gold Coast is not developing markets.
It's taking the money until a better offer comes around.

Finally Hobart looks like a lucrative long term deal, but the day the Ballarat pipe dream is over, instead of your CEO publicly embracing the Tassie partnership he still talk wants to talk about a "regional Victorian stronghold".

Perhaps highlight he club's commitment to its Melbourne supporters, whilst also referencing the current Hobart deal.
But instead it's all about the next big hope.

I think committing a 3rd game to Tasmania in 2015 and beyond is "embracing the Tassie partnership" enough, don't you?

North have developed a partnership with a regional community of Victoria that has been neglected by AFL clubs since the inception of the competition. Not one club has reached out to Ballarat and proposed to play games there in 117 years. 6 years of hard work by the club has been for nothing now that the AFL has stepped in and gifted it to the Bulldogs, a club who has failed to capitalise on its position in the biggest growth area in the state for many years. The result will be no different, Ballarat will be neglected the same way they neglected Werribee/Wyndham and North's work in the area will all be for nothing.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Everybody would be better off if the AFL just gave North Melbourne the Manus Island growth corridor and took all their games off FTA and put onto that new AFL.com subscription thing

 

[Lavy_Panther]

Everybody would be better off if the AFL just gave North Melbourne the Manus Island growth corridor and took all their games off FTA and put onto that new AFL.com subscription thing

If they did that to the Pies we still could have seen all of the finals matches on FTA