News North might be done in Ballarat

[numchuks]

Reading the thread, an outsider could assume that many Melb based people resent the risk of starting in Tasmania, and that Tassie people don't feel the love I thought we had. Maybe the dormant ugly truth is coming out. What a friggin messy stalemate. My suggestion was merely a compromise option which I hadn't seen much of on the thread.

I understand, but as far as history shows the ALF never follow through on such deals im afraid.

 

[Roylion]

Fitzroy is dead, It doesn't matter which clubs own the carcass, those entities are dead.

Nah.

 

[Saintly31]

I agree to a large degree, but l do understand tas' position as a passionate north fan, we all want a strong north Melbourne. Tasmania is critical to our short term interests financially.

We are all passionate Nth fans mate, location doesn't dictate more importance - would rather view the reality as it exists.

 

[Kimbo]

Remember the alliance with Murray Kangaroos. The minute we show an interest in an area it's likely to become attractive to the WB. I'm sure Peter Gordon will come up with an argument that'll convince the AFL to take it off us and give it to them.

Western Bulldogs:
Unoriginality is us. "Whatever the Roos do, only later."
Hellavu strategy.

 

[ZACK WILD]

JB and Carl could grow a pair of balls between the two of them and say we are not leaving, given our alignment with Werribee and North Ballarat and our current heads of agreement with Ballarat.

I agree if this was the pies at least they would be asking for compensation for all the ground work ....pay up afl and dogs $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Tas]

Why is our "home" market shrinking though? You bring this up all the time. It is not fact, just opinion and in fact our membership suggests the exact opposite.

I suspect the average Melb member would much rather us be stronger and more viable (like putting $$ into footy department, chasing free agents etc) by proceeding with a successful partnership, using that extra money for the benefit of not only the future, but the here and now.

There is no reason why the Melb supporter base is "destroyed", that is just silly. For the same reason Hawks do not play more than 4 games, we will do the same long term, and our key admin staff have said exactly that. I am not sure what else can convince you, maybe it's best to sleep with the light off for a while.

If we play 8 home games in Tasmania who do you think is going to be hanging around here?

Our membership stagnated since 1999 despite the premiership win, should have been a massive increase post the flag but we shot ourselves in the foot, barely recovered from that when our membership plunged again just for the threat of relocating, we went from 22k to 34k the following year for giving GC the arse.

Who is going to be a member when we are playing 3 home games plus some slop away games here? How are you going to grow your supporter base when here is going to become your fringe market. Do we have to rely on trying to get seats at skilled stadium or ticketed seats at games like Essendon here as members?

You have to be realistic about what kind of product you are going to be offering to supporters here. We wont last 10 years.

 

[R00StaR]

AFL's plan to squeeze us out of Vic to Tassie? Total BS the AFL can simply come in destroy all the work we've done and hand it to another. FFS we're aligned with in the VFL. I cant come to any other conclusion, they're gonna try to starve us out.

 

[Tas]

AFL's plan to squeeze us out of Vic to Tassie? Total BS the AFL can simply come in destroy all the work we've done and hand it to another. FFS we're aligned with in the VFL. I cant come to any other conclusion, they're gonna try to starve us out.

If they thought we were surging and had strong metropolitan growth and potential growth then they would have picked up the phone and talked to us saying our future was bright and we should focus on metropolitan growth.

The fact nobody at the club knew wtf was going on and coincided with Ballarat and dogs doing a deal it is a major concern that there are still plenty of backstabbers at AFL house.

What is a bigger concern is that there is nobody in Ballarat who had a solid enough relationship with anyone at our club that would have leaked to us what plans were afoot to screw us over.

I hope Carl and JB are doing more than having putting contested, this is dropping the ball big time. They have basically torn up our heads of agreement behind our backs.

 

[R00StaR]

The Albury Wodonga and North East area is the old North zone and there is more kangas fans up here than anywhere I've seen.

I used to be a huge fan of this alignment thinking at some point a fast train would give Melbourne and Albury/Wondonga fans far easier access to games. That was what 10 years ago i think, but thats 10 years closer to a fast train happening! lol

I wonder if this alliance could be reforged in some way, its a great area to get away to and population of 100,000 isnt it? Any stadiums that could be upgraded to hold 15-20k in a few years time?

 

[niko11]

Just heard about this ballarat topic... Surprised and agree with most on the AFLs agenda! But being aligned to two VFL clubs is STUPID if u ask me... And playing more than 3 games in Tassie and less in Melbourne would be a fking DISGRACE!!

 

[Greater Gattsby]

Nah.

Was waiting for that, pretty good effort to find this exact quote. I swear you've got supernatural bigfooty abilities where you can search "Fitzroy" and a link to every post with the word Fitzroy shows up.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Well that was a fun read.....,,,,,

So, Ballarat eh? Those pricks!

 

[Grogg]

I wondered how long it was gonna take before the white screen was put up for the Ballarat carcass.

Right on schedule.

 

[Dan]

Fitzroy is dead

Nice going Tas, you rubbed the Roylion lamp. Only you don't get three wishes, just an explanation as to why Fitzroy didn't fold and still exist.

 

[Devski]

Tassie is contracted for 3 games a year and that won't be increasing any time soon no matter what anyone on the mainland of Australia wants.

The fact people are discussing 7+ games a year in Tassie is a strong indication that there is very little knowledge about the deal that was done.
There will not be any more than 3 games a year played in Tassie. The money simply isn't here. TT line and the HCC do not have the funding base to provide North with the money to play more than 3 games.

The HCC have already stated that they will not be resigning at the end of this new 3 year contract. RACT has stopped it's funding already and the State Gonvernment supports Hawthorn.

Whilst I believe a private firm will take over the HCC's sponsorship at the end of the 3 year deal, there is no one down here that is going to pony up the ~5mil dollars that would be required to play that many games.

The people who run our club are both highly educated and highly experienced. They have undoubtedly done multiple analysis on the Hobart deal and the potential opportunity costs for its Melbourne base.

 

[Dirty_11]

It seems those that are not concerned about playing home games in Tassie are those who are lucky to go to a handful of games every year. Happy to watch us on TV. It is because of these supporters that we have to venture elsewhere to increase revenue.

 

[Tas]

Nice going Tas, you rubbed the Roylion lamp. Only you don't get three wishes, just an explanation as to why Fitzroy didn't fold and still exist.

I think he just wakes up every morning and does a BF search on 'Fitzroy'.

He knows what I meant, as an AFL entity Fitzroy is dead. I know it is out there somewhere in some league. If that happens to us we are dead as well, as an AFL entity.

 

[Johnny99]

I can understand the fear around here, that the move of leaving Ballarat and playing more games in Tassie, smells like the first step in the club's relocation.

But remember this, the NMFC today is nothing like the club 7 years ago. Today :

- The club is consistently making profits every year.
- The club is well on the way to becoming debt free
- The club had 40,000 members this year.
- We have a young team and finished a game away from playing in a GF.
- We are paying close to, or will soon pay 100% of the salary cap (?).
- Fantastic clubrooms and a redeveloped oval at Arden street.

Compare these achievements to the club seven years ago. Do we still look like a desperate club with no future ?

Football is a changing landscape. In the year's to come, Etihad will be owned by the AFL. This will mean we have the possibility of making better money from the stadium. Plus, the smaller VIC clubs may get their wish of a small boutique stadium in Melbourne when playing the interstate teams ie. a redeveloped Optus oval.

There is no doubt Tassie has been good for North (and North has been good to Tassie). And Tassie has an important part to play in the club's future going forwards...

But I just dont think a strong profitable club, debt free, with 40,000 plus members, consistently playing finals, that players want to come to and be part of, can be pushed to play in Tassie, because it is the "AFL's strategy"...

I cant see that happening. I could in 2007, but not today.

 

[Tas]

I can understand the fear around here, that the move of leaving Ballarat and playing more games in Tassie, smells like the first step in the club's relocation.

But remember this, the NMFC today is nothing like the club 7 years ago. Today :

- The club is consistently making profits every year.
- The club is well on the way to becoming debt free
- The club had 40,000 members this year.
- We have a young team and finished a game away from playing in a GF.
- We are paying close to, or will soon pay 100% of the salary cap (?).
- Fantastic clubrooms and a redeveloped oval at Arden street.

Compare these achievements to the club seven years ago. Do we still look like a desperate club with no future ?

Football is a changing landscape. In the year's to come, Etihad will be owned by the AFL. This will mean we have the possibility of making better money from the stadium. Plus, the smaller VIC clubs may get their wish of a small boutique stadium in Melbourne when playing the interstate teams ie. a redeveloped Optus oval.

There is no doubt Tassie has been good for North (and North has been good to Tassie). And Tassie has an important part to play in the club's future going forwards...

But I just dont think a strong profitable club, debt free, with 40,000 plus members, consistently playing finals, that players want to come to and be part of, can be pushed to play in Tassie, because it is the "AFL's strategy"...

I cant see that happening. I could in 2007, but not today.

The problem, Johnny, is that our fearless leader still wont make a promise to not offer co-location up again and fought against the members to protect his ability to do so without our approval. That isn't a very good sign despite the things you have highlighted.

Another negative is while we have this stink of possibly playing a significant number of games in Tasmania, how are we going to attract players in the future who want to come back to Melbourne? What can we tell them? We will still be playing 3 games here?

 

[Johnny99]

The problem, Johnny, is that our fearless leader still wont make a promise to not offer co-location up again and fought against the members to protect his ability to do so without our approval. That isn't a very good sign despite the things you have highlighted.

Back in 2007, the Shareholders owned the club and had the say in the running of the club.

Yes ?

Today the club is owned by its members.

If we dont like the policies of the current Board, we can vote them out.

In theory, Euge could run against the Board with a ticket to play games in Ballarat.

And he could win and oust the current Board.

So wouldn't it be right to say JB answers to the members, not the AFL ?

Because we are the ones that could give him the boot .

(And for the record, I am sure I have heard JB recently say 3 games in Tassie is just about right).

 

[niko11]

If we play 8 home games in Tasmania who do you think is going to be hanging around here?

Our membership stagnated since 1999 despite the premiership win, should have been a massive increase post the flag but we shot ourselves in the foot, barely recovered from that when our membership plunged again just for the threat of relocating, we went from 22k to 34k the following year for giving GC the arse.

Who is going to be a member when we are playing 3 home games plus some slop away games here? How are you going to grow your supporter base when here is going to become your fringe market. Do we have to rely on trying to get seats at skilled stadium or ticketed seats at games like Essendon here as members?

You have to be realistic about what kind of product you are going to be offering to supporters here. We wont last 10 years.

Agreed! I personally wont be a member if North went down that path regardless of the 500k north make frm playing in Tas!

 

[Tas]

Back in 2007, the Shareholders owned the club and had the say in the running of the club.

Yes ?

Correct.

Today the club is owned by its members.

Incorrect, we just have the ability to vote out board members.

If we dont like the policies of the current Board, we can vote them out.

We could, the problem is if JB signs a 30 year deal to play a minimum of 8 games in Tasmania then that contract is legal and binding, even if we call an EGM and boot him and the rest of the board out of office.

A condom is only useful if you put it on before sex. We don't have protection measures in place, only against mergers.

In theory, Euge could run against the Board with a ticket to play games in Ballarat.

He could if he was a member.

And he could win and oust the current Board.

He could, anyone has the right to run for board positions or have the incumbents removed with no-confidence motion.

So wouldn't it be right to say JB answers to the members, not the AFL ?

I don't believe anyone at board level truly believes that they represent the members, if they did there would be more communication between the board and the membership base about our future, our structure, our constitution. We have a very poor constitution which leaves us vulnerable to many forms of hostile takeover, it could be fixed to prevent such actions but we do nothing about it.

Because we are the ones that could give him the boot.

The issue is we would be condemned before you boot him out, all you would achieve is having some satisfaction, if he signs a binding contract we are ****ed if we boot him out after the fact or not.

Our only form of protection is preventative measures. It is why we have merger provisions. Relocation and relocation by stealth are as terminal as a merger. I do not think the board should make a radical decision based on the future without stakeholder approval. JB, and by extension our board in proxy, have fought against members to create that protective layer in our constitution. That isn't a decision made by someone who is representing the members.

(And for the record, I am sure I have heard JB recently say 3 games in Tassie is just about right).

Was that before or after he offered 7 games? We would already be boned if Kennett didn't step in and sink the JB/AFL co-location.

 

[RobZombie]

It seems those that are not concerned about playing home games in Tassie are those who are lucky to go to a handful of games every year. Happy to watch us on TV. It is because of these supporters that we have to venture elsewhere to increase revenue.

Guilty.

I'm an 11-game GA member. Went to 11 games last year including 1 Hobart, 1 replacement, 2 finals and 2 away as an MCC member, 2 more had to pull the pin at the last minute for one reason or another. Took the kids to a couple of open trainings and am an occasional weekday training watcher. I'd count that as more than a handful, but obviously less than a lot of the maniacs on here. It's not a non-negiotiable in my schedule but I go whenever I can. As a GA member, replacement games don't affect me as much as they do reserved seat holders. I bet there are a *lot* of the 40,000 who go to a fair bit less club stuff than me.

So yes, I'm more sanguine about Hobart than members with a deeper commitment to Melbourne games. I might be a bit different since I have Hobart family connections, genuinely enjoy going to games at Blundstone, and a game down there is a good excuse to schedule one of our regular-ish trips. I also know a bunch of non-BF (as far as I know) NM people who have made a Hobart trip an annual event. I just don't reckon the number of people cheated out of great amounts of value from their memberships is that big a slice of the membership pie.

(this is also, a bit tangentially, related to one of the reasons why more than 3 games would be a terrible idea. One of the justifications for the sponsors and HCC is the tourist cash coming in to the local economy on game weekends. There is absolutely no way the number of visiting mainlanders scales up linearly with extra games beyond 2 or 3).

 

[Dirty_11]

Guilty.

I'm an 11-game GA member. Went to 11 games last year including 1 Hobart, 1 replacement, 2 finals and 2 away as an MCC member, 2 more had to pull the pin at the last minute for one reason or another. Took the kids to a couple of open trainings and am an occasional weekday training watcher. I'd count that as more than a handful, but obviously less than a lot of the maniacs on here. It's not a non-negiotiable in my schedule but I go whenever I can. As a GA member, replacement games don't affect me as much as they do reserved seat holders. I bet there are a *lot* of the 40,000 who go to a fair bit less club stuff than me.

So yes, I'm more sanguine about Hobart than members with a deeper commitment to Melbourne games. I might be a bit different since I have Hobart family connections, genuinely enjoy going to games at Blundstone, and a game down there is a good excuse to schedule one of our regular-ish trips. I also know a bunch of non-BF (as far as I know) NM people who have made a Hobart trip an annual event. I just don't reckon the number of people cheated out of great amounts of value from their memberships is that big a slice of the membership pie.

(this is also, a bit tangentially, related to one of the reasons why more than 3 games would be a terrible idea. One of the justifications for the sponsors and HCC is the tourist cash coming in to the local economy on game weekends. There is absolutely no way the number of visiting mainlanders scales up linearly with extra games beyond 2 or 3).

11 is more than a handful RZ, therefore not guilty.

The stigma attached to future relocation alone negates any positives IMO. Who is going to begin supporting a club with questions over its future, accurate or not. The GC saga was only 7 years ago so you can understand peoples perception.

Nothing against Tassie as a place, but I believe I have a right to be disappointed that another home game has been taken away.

 

[Kimbo]

Who is going to begin supporting a club with questions over its future, accurate or not. The GC saga was only 7 years ago so you can understand peoples perception.

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.

If the AFL were to fully or partially relocate us, the way to do it would be to desensitise us to the danger. The GC situation was one of attempting to throw us in boiling water. They had boiled a couple of frogs that way before.