News North might be done in Ballarat

[RobZombie]

Selling games interstate has done nothing other than stagnate our growth in Melbourne. I don't really give two figs about playing at Ballarat, at the end of the day we need to have a large enough supporter base wherever we are playing games to succeed.

Don't be such a drama queen. Selling games has helped us make the money to fund the footy department to build the on-field success to push up to 40,000 members. Yes, something like 4,000 of those are Tasmanian members, but would we get an extra 4,000 3-game Melbourne members if we pulled out of Hobart?

The club's handling it pretty well aside from the 7-game thing, and making a much better go of it than the previous tries at Canberra and GC.

 

[Hawkk]

They got 17,904 vs GWS at the MCG and their supporter base is double the size of ours now. They are still vulnerable because they have very rarely had to play the low drawing games in Melbourne. Their crowd numbers at Aurora are on the decline as well. If they weren't a very successful team on-field they wouldn't be that far off where we are now.

Sorry for the intrusion but this isn't right at all...

Since 2007, when we signed the original agreement to shift 4 home games down to Tasmania we have played 23 of 56 games against non Victorian opposition (including 2012, a farcical draw where 5 of our 7 MCG home games were against non Victorian opposition)

Amongst those 23 games we've been scheduled to play the small 4 drawing non Victorian clubs (Fremantle, Port Adelaide, GWS and Gold Coast) in 8 games at the MCG...at the same time that we haven't played a home game against Essendon and Carlton since 2011 and 2009

I reckon you can split Hawthorn's draw into two, before 2010 and beyond 2010. Before 2010, when the AFL supported our foray into Tasmania we had a very accommodating split of Victorian / non Victorian opposition, both at the MCG (5/2 in '07, 5/2 in '08, 4/3 in '09 and 5/2 in '10) and Tasmania (2/2 in '07, 1/3 in '08, 2/2 in '09, 1/3 in '10) but then we knocked back the overtures of the AFL and stuck with Tasmania.

Since 2010 the draw has been far less accommodating...

In 2011 we were scheduled for 4/3 and 1/3 between the MCG and Aurora, 2/5 and 1/3 in 2012, 3/3 and 1/3 (and 0/1 at Ethiad) in 2013, 4/3 and 1/3 in 2014 and 5/1 and 1/3 (and 0/1 at Ethiad) in 2015.

Before 2010 we played something like 19 of 28 MCG home fixtures against Victorian opposition, from 2010 - 2014 we played just 13 of 28 Melbourne fixtures against Victorian opposition (27 MCG, 1 Ethiad)

From 2011 until 2014 I would argue that the AFL has been openly trying to schedule low drawing home games at the MCG and Tasmania (thus hitting our back pocket at the MCG and reducing the commercial benefits of the Tasmanian sponsorship) but this seems to have turned the other way with what would have to be our most appealing fixtures in years for 2015 (just the tonic to push for Hawthorn to return to Victoria full time)

For just the second time (the first, 2 years ago) in our 8 year involvement with the Tasmanian Government, the AFL has failed to guarantee 7 home games at the MCG. For Vic based members this is huge as the club doesn't have a stadium agreement with Ethiad and all our premium membership categories have to pay more for the same seat to watch one less game.

The other thing I dispute is that the Hawthorn attendances against non Victorian clubs has been ordinary. Because we've had bugger all decent home games (Geelong and Collingwood aside) games against the interstate clubs have been some of our marquee games (especially over the last 3 years). Namely:

Hawks v Swans - 72,728 in 2014
Hawks v Dockers - 43,583 in 2014
Hawks v Swans - 54,725 in 2013
Hawks v Eagles - 50,023 in 2012

If it helps, I reckon the AFL is out to screw both clubs over.

I reckon they want you to play 7 home games in Tasmania, 4 at Ethiad (with 7 away games between the MCG / Ethiad Stadium) while the want Hawthorn to play 6 MCG home games, 5 Ethiad home games to make up for the drop in Ethiad matches with Carlton, North and St Kilda all looking at different options.

I believe its in the best interests of Hawthorn and North Melbourne to commit to 4 and 3 games respectively in the North and South of the state...

I just fear there is a sense of inevitability behind all this and whilst it might be in the AFL's self interest, it most certainly isn't in the self interest of either Hawthorn or North Melbourne to budge

 

[mighty mick]

Hawthorn is paid a shitload more by the Tasmanian government to play their four games there. I don't see how an extra 1.5m a year is worth the risk of putting relocation back on the table. Especially when there was a suggestion we play seven games a year there by the current president.

3 games and it covers our arse for etihads costs, could only imagine our debt and inability to keep up with free agency if we didnt.
i here anything about relocation or 7 ggames i may feel different but its not out there,

 

[Greater Gattsby]

Just shows the position the bulldogs are in when they essentially make the AFL push us out of Ballarat...

 

[RobZombie]

The atmosphere against interstate sides is shitful.

Were you at the Port game this year? Atmosphere was brilliant.

The atmosphere against bad teams is shitful.

 

[Greater Gattsby]

Were you at the Port game this year? Atmosphere was brilliant.

The atmosphere against bad teams is shitful.

Would've loved to have been at the WCE game

 

[GarnerSmash]

I reckon the atmosphere against the Swans and Power will be excellent. Hopefully we will get mid to high 20's for those games. Brissy aint too bad.

 

[SMaturin]

Bulldogs and Demons games have the worst atmospheres in recent seasons. Comparable to the GC game last year...

 

[Gasometer]

Were you at the Port game this year? Atmosphere was brilliant.

The atmosphere against bad teams is shitful.

That was a great game. If we had not have scraped that win we would have been in the toilet at the end of the year. And yeh a close finish and we were all up at final siren!

 

[Gasometer]

I reckon the atmosphere against the Swans and Power will be excellent. Hopefully we will get mid to high 20's for those games. Brissy aint too bad.

Swans pull a good crowd. ..always have

 

[Only Forwards]

Swans pull a good crowd. ..always have

Clubs that have Melbourne based history do.

 

[Saintly31]

We are North MELBOURNE. We should be playing all home games in MELBOURNE.

Yep, and that same Melbourne meant the club nearly folded due to lack of membership and other revenue.

Home games are being played, and will continue to be played, outside Melbourne which means you still have the club to support.

It is not just us, multiple teams starting with the reigning premier have taken this path to remain viable and grow.

 

[Tas]

Sorry for the intrusion but this isn't right at all...

Since 2007, when we signed the original agreement to shift 4 home games down to Tasmania we have played 23 of 56 games against non Victorian opposition (including 2012, a farcical draw where 5 of our 7 MCG home games were against non Victorian opposition)

Amongst those 23 games we've been scheduled to play the small 4 drawing non Victorian clubs (Fremantle, Port Adelaide, GWS and Gold Coast) in 8 games at the MCG...at the same time that we haven't played a home game against Essendon and Carlton since 2011 and 2009

I reckon you can split Hawthorn's draw into two, before 2010 and beyond 2010. Before 2010, when the AFL supported our foray into Tasmania we had a very accommodating split of Victorian / non Victorian opposition, both at the MCG (5/2 in '07, 5/2 in '08, 4/3 in '09 and 5/2 in '10) and Tasmania (2/2 in '07, 1/3 in '08, 2/2 in '09, 1/3 in '10) but then we knocked back the overtures of the AFL and stuck with Tasmania.

Since 2010 the draw has been far less accommodating...

In 2011 we were scheduled for 4/3 and 1/3 between the MCG and Aurora, 2/5 and 1/3 in 2012, 3/3 and 1/3 (and 0/1 at Ethiad) in 2013, 4/3 and 1/3 in 2014 and 5/1 and 1/3 (and 0/1 at Ethiad) in 2015.

Before 2010 we played something like 19 of 28 MCG home fixtures against Victorian opposition, from 2010 - 2014 we played just 13 of 28 Melbourne fixtures against Victorian opposition (27 MCG, 1 Ethiad)

From 2011 until 2014 I would argue that the AFL has been openly trying to schedule low drawing home games at the MCG and Tasmania (thus hitting our back pocket at the MCG and reducing the commercial benefits of the Tasmanian sponsorship) but this seems to have turned the other way with what would have to be our most appealing fixtures in years for 2015 (just the tonic to push for Hawthorn to return to Victoria full time)

For just the second time (the first, 2 years ago) in our 8 year involvement with the Tasmanian Government, the AFL has failed to guarantee 7 home games at the MCG. For Vic based members this is huge as the club doesn't have a stadium agreement with Ethiad and all our premium membership categories have to pay more for the same seat to watch one less game.

The other thing I dispute is that the Hawthorn attendances against non Victorian clubs has been ordinary. Because we've had bugger all decent home games (Geelong and Collingwood aside) games against the interstate clubs have been some of our marquee games (especially over the last 3 years). Namely:

Hawks v Swans - 72,728 in 2014
Hawks v Dockers - 43,583 in 2014
Hawks v Swans - 54,725 in 2013
Hawks v Eagles - 50,023 in 2012

If it helps, I reckon the AFL is out to screw both clubs over.

I reckon they want you to play 7 home games in Tasmania, 4 at Ethiad (with 7 away games between the MCG / Ethiad Stadium) while the want Hawthorn to play 6 MCG home games, 5 Ethiad home games to make up for the drop in Ethiad matches with Carlton, North and St Kilda all looking at different options.

I believe its in the best interests of Hawthorn and North Melbourne to commit to 4 and 3 games respectively in the North and South of the state...

I just fear there is a sense of inevitability behind all this and whilst it might be in the AFL's self interest, it most certainly isn't in the self interest of either Hawthorn or North Melbourne to budge

You have to factor that the MCC has 100,000 members and AFL members have 80,000 members or so and they have access to half the stadium, so Hawthorn effectively only has access to little more than the capacity of Docklands at the MCG. If you would remove AFL and MCC members from attendances the figures would be significantly lower.

Swans, Dockers and Eagles in 2012 were considered contenders and that would have drawn a sizeable number of neutrals who go to see decent games at the MCG.

The only non-contender interstate team you have played in recent memory was GWS this year which drew 17,904 to the game. Hawthorn supporters do not go to Docklands for replacement home games in great numbers, there is a massive variance between your supporter base/membership and the number that go to games, particularly at Docklands. Some claim that Hawks supporters don't like Docklands, but reality there aren't 200k MCC/AFL members at Docklands, AFL has access to 3k seats, MCC nothing and Axcess One/Medallion club is 10x the cost of an AFL or MCC membership and seats are reserved so isn't structured in a way that makes it easy for Docklands to fill out from week to week.

I am not having a dig at the Hawks, the club has been run exceptionally well. Just saying if the club wasn't as strong on-field as they have been the last decade or so and had to play out at Docklands where there isn't much in the way of neutral support and had to play all your home games there then I don't think the club would have been massively ahead of where we are today.

I agree that the best thing for both clubs is to divide the game in Tasmania, it is just too much of a burden to host 7 or 8 games for one club away from their heartland. As I said, Hawks suffer the same rockstar syndrome we have developed that your supporters are not used to rocking up against the significantly weaker interstate teams and it is much harder to get the supporters going to those games, selling games and doing so long-term does harm to your supporter base.

The problem for us is that JB sees the Hawthorn Tasmanian model coming from a 2007 point of view, rather than a 2014 point of view looking towards 2020 and beyond. He isn't a visionary, he has just seen something that has worked in the past and is willing to sacrifice a lot to emulate it. It is much better having a leader who can see what the playing field is going to be like in the future than someone who tries to emulate what worked in the past.

 

[Only Forwards]

Even with 7 ' home' games in Tas, would still be far less than the amount of games in Melb for members to see. The packages would have been adjusted accordingly no doubt, but it's a moot point anyway as it didn't happen.

7 games in Hobart would be an absolute disgrace and an insult to the members of the club that fought to keep the club in Melbourne.

I don't care that it would be more than the Tasmainian members would get to see. I would love to live in a place where the Tasmainian members only saw the club when they flew to Melbourne to watch it.

I strongly doubt JB wanted to fly into Tassie every third week based on self interest and relocation by stealth considering he lives and works in Melb, he proposed it based on the evidence presented to him as what is best for the club.

But it is clear that for the "right deal" it is something that the administration is open to. At more Home games interstate than in Melbourne we cease to be a Melbourne club. We become some Hybrid co-located joke.

"Better that we should die on our feet rather than live on our knees"
7 games in Hobart and we are back on our knees with Gillion primed to unzip.

I wasn't able to see either game in Hobart this year due to my family health issues, which will continue, so for me again I don't care where we play. I suspect it is all about the $$ and cents and firmly believe JB and co are heading us in the right direction and I believe our results (on and off field) speak for themselves.

We've had strong on field and off field performances. As I outlined in a previous post 2016 is likely to put a moment of truth before the club. I hope we have strong enough people to say no to the $$ if the AFL come around pushing us towards a co-location model.

 

[Dodecahedron]

why are we not making every effort to grow our market share here?[/B]

Of course North is focusing on growing our market share in Melb. If you take out the Tassie memberships we are still well up. Proof.
The problem with your logic is it puts all eggs in one basket and you forget that there will be 10 competitors also wanting to capture Melbourne's population growth.
Tasmania has one competitor.

 

[Saintly31]

The problem for us is that JB sees the Hawthorn Tasmanian model coming from a 2007 point of view, rather than a 2014 point of view looking towards 2020 and beyond. He isn't a visionary, he has just seen something that has worked in the past and is willing to sacrifice a lot to emulate it. It is much better having a leader who can see what the playing field is going to be like in the future than someone who tries to emulate what worked in the past.

LOL.

So rather than back in the President for following a path that has proven to be successful (Hawks), and which appears at this stage as being equally successful for us, because it is not 'visionary' your alternate path for the future is to choose a Melb based model, however unviable and proven to be unsuccessful, purely because it is different based on a pre-determined future which has happened yet?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Yep, and that same Melbourne meant the club nearly folded due to lack of membership and other revenue.

Home games are being played, and will continue to be played, outside Melbourne which means you still have the club to support.

It is not just us, multiple teams starting with the reigning premier have taken this path to remain viable and grow.

If the club worked hard enough to grow the membership base by treating those in their primary market well, a secondary market wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Hawkk]

You have to factor that the MCC has 100,000 members and AFL members have 80,000 members or so and they have access to half the stadium, so Hawthorn effectively only has access to little more than the capacity of Docklands at the MCG. If you would remove AFL and MCC members from attendances the figures would be significantly lower.

Swans, Dockers and Eagles in 2012 were considered contenders and that would have drawn a sizeable number of neutrals who go to see decent games at the MCG.

Perhaps I disagree with you here, but how many neutrals do you supposed rocked up to these games. 10,000 or 15,000?

Would be interesting to see if all other clubs that play at the MCG were subject to this same phenomena (or for that matter North in the 1990's).

I think such large numbers are fanciful but thats just me...

The only non-contender interstate team you have played in recent memory was GWS this year which drew 17,904 to the game. Hawthorn supporters do not go to Docklands for replacement home games in great numbers, there is a massive variance between your supporter base/membership and the number that go to games, particularly at Docklands. Some claim that Hawks supporters don't like Docklands, but reality there aren't 200k MCC/AFL members at Docklands, AFL has access to 3k seats, MCC nothing and Axcess One/Medallion club is 10x the cost of an AFL or MCC membership and seats are reserved so isn't structured in a way that makes it easy for Docklands to fill out from week to week.

Over recent seasons we have played the following 'non-contender' interstate teams in Melbourne games (contenders in red)

Gold Coast - 28,112 (2013), 23,098 (2012)
West Coast - 29,138 (2008), 50,023 (2012), 32,567 at Ethiad (2013 - you can debate whether or not they were a 'contender' in 2013)
Brisbane Lions - 39,007 (2007), 35,492 (2012)
Sydney Swans - 48,398 (2007), 49,527 (2008), 44,494 (2009), 36,007 (2010), 54,725 (2013), 72,768 (2014)
Port Adelaide - 33,274 (2009), 21,287 (2010), 27,532 (2011)
Fremantle - 31,927 (2011), 43,583 (2014)
Adelaide - 32,583 (2009), 33,524 (2012 - I guess you could say they were a contender, although it was round 3 and they finished 11th in 2011)
GWS - 26,518 (2012), 17,904 (2014)

In that same time we have played the following big clubs in home games at the MCG:

Geelong - 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Collingwood - 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014
Essendon - 2007, 2010, 2011
Carlton - 2009
Richmond - 2007, 2008, 2013

Sure some of those are ordinary (as they are for all clubs that dont have the following of Collingwood) but the GWS figure was quite clearly the exception to the norm.

As for our membership not reflecting attendance,

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/file_uploads/MCC00499_MCG_Trust_Annual_Report_2013-14_PW2V6JbC.pdf

Between 2009 - 2013, the 4 MCG tenants played the following home / away games at the MCG:

Collingwood - 63,891 (from 70 games)
Hawthorn - 50,317 (from 54 games)
Richmond - 48,643 (from 60 games)
Melbourne - 32,407 (65 games)

In that same time Collingwood and Richmond have played 10 MCG games against Carlton / Essendon while Hawthorn / Melbourne played 5 MCG games against Carlton /Essendon respectively

In 2014 (home and away games only):

Collingwood - 56,467 (14 games)
Hawthorn - 52,615 (11 games)
Richmond - 46,891 (12 games)
Melbourne - 32,682 (13 games)

Deduct the 8,700 from Tasmania and our attendances are right in line with our crowd attendance...

I am not having a dig at the Hawks, the club has been run exceptionally well. Just saying if the club wasn't as strong on-field as they have been the last decade or so and had to play out at Docklands where there isn't much in the way of neutral support and had to play all your home games there then I don't think the club would have been massively ahead of where we are today.

I think we can agree to disagree here but I agree with your overall premise. Both clubs need to be vigilant against the AFL who don't have either clubs interests at heart here...

I agree that the best thing for both clubs is to divide the game in Tasmania, it is just too much of a burden to host 7 or 8 games for one club away from their heartland. As I said, Hawks suffer the same rockstar syndrome we have developed that your supporters are not used to rocking up against the significantly weaker interstate teams and it is much harder to get the supporters going to those games, selling games and doing so long-term does harm to your supporter base.

The problem for us is that JB sees the Hawthorn Tasmanian model coming from a 2007 point of view, rather than a 2014 point of view looking towards 2020 and beyond. He isn't a visionary, he has just seen something that has worked in the past and is willing to sacrifice a lot to emulate it. It is much better having a leader who can see what the playing field is going to be like in the future than someone who tries to emulate what worked in the past.

Agreed. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens come 2017. Its in the interests of both clubs to keep the status quo but not in the interest of the AFL...

 

[muttley45]

The Bulldogs have thrown all their eggs into the Pokies at Edgewater development, lets see how that pans out long term, when govt change the tax rules etc, they may not be the cash cow some people think that they are going to be, they seem to think all their current debts are going to disappear once this venture gets up and going, i am sceptical myself

 

[RobZombie]

If the club worked hard enough to grow the membership base by treating those in their primary market well, a secondary market wouldn't be necessary.

Launceston. Cairns. NT. New Frickin Zealand.

We're not the only ones, and we're doing a better job of making it a partnership than a cash grab than most (including ourselves in previous turns).

I agree the original 7 game proposal throws an ominous shadow across the whole thing sometimes, and sure it would be great to have a club that didn't need to do it, but half the Victorian teams do need to, including us and a couple of "big" clubs.

How, exactly, would you have had us grow to 40,000 members without a secondary market?

 

[Zondor]

We are North MELBOURNE. We should be playing all home games in MELBOURNE.

Exactly. It isn't by coincidence that our great club was formed back in 1869 in North Melbourne and called North Melbourne. Modern day Turkeys like Jame Brayshaws don't care for this and I don't think that is very fair. :stern look

 

[Saintly31]

If the club worked hard enough to grow the membership base by treating those in their primary market well, a secondary market wouldn't be necessary.

I don't agree. For mine that's a fanciful and basic point of view based on emotion not commercial reality.

 

[Tas]

LOL.

So rather than back in the President for following a path that has proven to be successful (Hawks), and which appears at this stage as being equally successful for us, because it is not 'visionary' your alternate path for the future is to choose a Melb based model, however unviable and proven to be unsuccessful, purely because it is different based on a pre-determined future which has happened yet?

Visionary just means understanding what is going to be the status quo in the future, not just the present or living in the past. Broadcasting rights will probably push $2b for the next rights, Docklands will soon come into AFL hands and if not clean it will be mostly clean with lucrative revenue steams currently not counted in matchday receipts to become so in the future. The city is growing at a significant rate, yet stadiums are not going to grow, we only need to focus on growing the supporter base to make Docklands a lucrative stadium to play at.

There has also been a significant momentum for greater equality and revenue sharing, we do not exist in the 2007 position any longer, Gemba's prediction that the AFL would be hostile towards us and the environment toxic here just hasn't come to pass. Our desired model is based on circumstances that are changing radically from the time the model was created.

AFL are only after us for one reason, that is because our leadership is gullible, deluded into thinking decade old models are the only solution and that they have kept us vulnerable due to blocking constitutional change where they would be required to get membership approval for a significant shift.

Saints and Dogs prospects are worse than ours, Melbourne even moreso yet why aren't these clubs in the firing site? Because their leadership aren't open to relocation or co-location. The only reason we are vulnerable is because JB has made us vulnerable.

 

[GarnerSmash]

If the club worked hard enough to grow the membership base by treating those in their primary market well, a secondary market wouldn't be necessary.

Sorry mate but that is incredibly simplistic and naïve. We have the lowest number of supporters in Melbourne of all the Melbourne clubs, and as such we have to work harder to convert a greater percentage of supporters to members than any other club, which we do quite well. We have struggled to attract significantly large crowds of our supporters to games for the better part of 14 years despite efforts over the last 7 to engage our supporter base. That may improve next season thanks to the direction in which we seem to be headed but we would be foolish to think that ditching Hobart and the significant $$ it brings will be covered by any such sudden increase in Melbourne based support. Without this Hobart deal there would have been no Dal Santo this year, there would be no Waite or Higgins next year, and we would not be in the position to pay to the cap as we currently can, nor support the team as well as we can.

I agree that we need to be careful with how we proceed going forward from here, but we need this secondary market to not just forge ahead, but to meet the basic standards required in the current AFL environment because the Melbourne supporters have not turned out as strongly as we hoped. It could just be the case that there simply isn’t enough of us here in Melbourne who care enough, or perhaps they just haven't bought in yet, but may do after this year. Either way, Tassie was needed when we signed the deal and it is needed now and over the next few years. Otherwise we can go back to not being able to pay to the cap and have an under resourced football department. I wonder how the members will respond then?

 

[Tas]

Sorry mate but that is incredibly simplistic and naïve. We have the lowest number of supporters in Melbourne of all the Melbourne clubs, and as such we have to work harder to convert a greater percentage of supporters to members than any other club, which we do quite well. We have struggled to attract significantly large crowds of our supporters to games for the better part of 14 years despite efforts over the last 7 to engage our supporter base. That may improve next season thanks to the direction in which we seem to be headed but we would be foolish to think that ditching Hobart and the significant $$ it brings will be covered by any such sudden increase in Melbourne based support. Without this Hobart deal there would have been no Dal Santo this year, there would be no Waite or Higgins next year, and we would not be in the position to pay to the cap as we currently can, nor support the team as well as we can.

I agree that we need to be careful with how we proceed going forward from here, but we need this secondary market to not just forge ahead, but to meet the basic standards required in the current AFL environment because the Melbourne supporters have not turned out as strongly as we hoped. It could just be the case that there simply isn’t enough of us here in Melbourne who care enough, or perhaps they just haven't bought in yet, but may do after this year. Either way, Tassie was needed when we signed the deal and it is needed now and over the next few years. Otherwise we can go back to not being able to pay to the cap and have an under resourced football department. I wonder how the members will respond then?

Well, we could have just taken PDRs pokies, like every other club does here, and compete without having to sell the club off interstate.

I am glad we have taken a moral high ground, I would prefer we don't kill ourselves on principal. I don't like the pokie blood money but getting $5-8m net from pokies would have allowed us to do everything we have currently, if not more.

I do prefer we have high standards and high principals, not if it is going to result in us being a corpse. We should first do what we have to do to survive as the NMFC, then if we have the means then take the moral high ground.