North Melbourne and Hobart games

[King Corey]

Never as simple as that.

Don't bother mate.

 

[shintemaster]

Club ideally would pre-negotiate the "replacement" games and have actual fixed reserved seats in place - even if they are different ones to our normal home games. Similar to when we played some home games at the G & some at the Dome and we had two different reserved seats on the card. For the die hards that would be a big advantage and potential there to offer more of a "home game" experience even at a replacement game. They could even get a bay similar to the North End and do it that way with pre allocated seats. For some of us the reserved seat is a big advantage that we are losing.

 

[True North]

This is the last year of paying memberships by direct debit (monthly repayments from a non CC)

Hopefully we dont lose too many menbers.

 

[Tas]

Three games.

As long as they give me a seat at replacement games its OK. Three is absolute max however.

It wont be, if it was then why would JB block the changes we wanted to put into our constitution? Why are we only extending for 2 years? We are doing it so our contract lines up with the Hawthorn contract expiry and Gillgan has already shown his hand that he wants one team playing North and South.

Are we only going to build this up for 5 years to give it over to someone else?

They want a team and if we offered co-location again the AFL would take it in a heartbeat, if we do that then we are dead as a Melbourne club. It wont be a matter of if, just when.

 

[shintemaster]

It wont be, if it was then why would JB block the changes we wanted to put into our constitution? Why are we only extending for 2 years? We are doing it so our contract lines up with the Hawthorn contract expiry and Gillgan has already shown his hand that he wants one team playing North and South.

Are we only going to build this up for 5 years to give it over to someone else?

They want a team and if we offered co-location again the AFL would take it in a heartbeat, if we do that then we are dead as a Melbourne club. It wont be a matter of if, just when.

Can't help but wonder if we are playing a high risk game there. Having the contracts expire at the same time also potentially gives us greater bargaining power depending on what happens with Hawthorn. Potentially it is high risk high reward, particularly if the club is doing well on field and in Melbourne.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

It wont be, if it was then why would JB block the changes we wanted to put into our constitution? Why are we only extending for 2 years? We are doing it so our contract lines up with the Hawthorn contract expiry and Gillgan has already shown his hand that he wants one team playing North and South.

Are we only going to build this up for 5 years to give it over to someone else?

They want a team and if we offered co-location again the AFL would take it in a heartbeat, if we do that then we are dead as a Melbourne club. It wont be a matter of if, just when.

Yep, my fear is that we will pass the point of no return.

 

[King Corey]

Club ideally would pre-negotiate the "replacement" games and have actual fixed reserved seats in place - even if they are different ones to our normal home games. Similar to when we played some home games at the G & some at the Dome and we had two different reserved seats on the card. For the die hards that would be a big advantage and potential there to offer more of a "home game" experience even at a replacement game. They could even get a bay similar to the North End and do it that way with pre allocated seats. For some of us the reserved seat is a big advantage that we are losing.

Now that - is a very good post.

 

[scooby1279]

Club ideally would pre-negotiate the "replacement" games and have actual fixed reserved seats in place - even if they are different ones to our normal home games. Similar to when we played some home games at the G & some at the Dome and we had two different reserved seats on the card. For the die hards that would be a big advantage and potential there to offer more of a "home game" experience even at a replacement game. They could even get a bay similar to the North End and do it that way with pre allocated seats. For some of us the reserved seat is a big advantage that we are losing.

that would be the correct way to go about it... We used to be able to reserve away seats many moons ago. Surely the club need to look at doing this because having replacement games does not make one difference to the members who have reserved seats.

 

[Tas]

Can't help but wonder if we are playing a high risk game there. Having the contracts expire at the same time also potentially gives us greater bargaining power depending on what happens with Hawthorn. Potentially it is high risk high reward, particularly if the club is doing well on field and in Melbourne.

Reality is Tasmania wants their own side and AFL has said they are the next to get a side and I doubt they want any more teams in the competition. The AFL knows that we are on the home stretch towards Docklands becoming AFL owned and the probability of getting a Melbourne team in Tasmania will be next to zero after that happens.

So the AFL has a limited window really to get a team trapped in Tasmania, JB is living in the past with his ideal Hawthorn-like Tasmania arrangement, they finally play a low drawing team in Melbourne (GWS) and they get 17,904 to the game, their support level is a figment of the imagination, their crows in Launceston are on the decline, stadium holds 20,000 supporters and they get 12,430 vs Brisbane, 15,504 vs West Coast, 13,178 vs Gold Coast and 14,187 vs Footscray. That is an average crowd of 13,825 per game or 69% of capacity. The same ratio is 34,500 at Docklands. If the Tasmanian government wasn't forking out a fortune for sponsorship that would be a dud root arrangement and there is a lot of pressure to end the government funding of the football games.

If Hawthorn is the window of what we can expect in the future it is not as rosey as it was a few years ago.

JB has done a lot of good things for our club but I haven't seen any innovation at the club that makes any money, the biggest point of difference between us and other clubs is the lack of gaming revenue, but we don't promote it hard to use as a membership tool. At least Euge was trying on the Ballarat front, a front which is now dying and the Dogs want to take from us. We are just lacking any real innovation, JB is like a Chinese manufacturer which takes something someone invents and tries to make it smaller and cheaper but don't invent anything themselves. We need more innovation at the club and from the outside looking in I don't think JB likes anyone who isn't on his page.

I just don't see JB fighting the members to retain what we believe is unrestrained power to flush the club down the toilet unintentionally without having a desire to use said freedom. It is not like he hasn't offered 7 home games in Tasmania before and he has made no promise that he wont offer another deal like that again.

I think his intentions are there, but he lacks the business acumen and has hand picked the board and filled them with yes men. Non-football revenue is still our biggest hole, we would be coming dead last in the AFL in this area and it is something we need to address, I haven't see anything on this front since the JB team came to power other than the failed white knight thing. Clubs around us are pulling 3, 4, 5 million from gaming, pubs and the like. It is great we have morals but it is of little comfort if you are the only one that does and you go hungry because of it.

If the club wants to retain the morality it has to find other sources of revenue other than selling the club interstate.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

I think it's good news, but will we expect to see reserved seat membership prices go down by ~10% to cover the loss of an extra game?

 

[Limerick]

Can't help but wonder if we are playing a high risk game there. Having the contracts expire at the same time also potentially gives us greater bargaining power depending on what happens with Hawthorn. Potentially it is high risk high reward, particularly if the club is doing well on field and in Melbourne.

If the AFL comes out heavy in 2016 to bring Hawthorn back to Melbourne in 2017 then we are in the gun. Suspect that the offer initially will be that we play 8 games in Tassie and have some deal to play around 6 in Melbourne. As long as the Club has Arden St as the NMFC head quarters there is no requirement to seek a member vote on the change. JB leaves the Board at the end of 2016. He has done a great job but on this issue he potentially has left us in the s**t.

 

[Zondor]

Reality is Tasmania wants their own side and AFL has said they are the next to get a side and I doubt they want any more teams in the competition. The AFL knows that we are on the home stretch towards Docklands becoming AFL owned and the probability of getting a Melbourne team in Tasmania will be next to zero after that happens.

So the AFL has a limited window really to get a team trapped in Tasmania, JB is living in the past with his ideal Hawthorn-like Tasmania arrangement, they finally play a low drawing team in Melbourne (GWS) and they get 17,904 to the game, their support level is a figment of the imagination, their crows in Launceston are on the decline, stadium holds 20,000 supporters and they get 12,430 vs Brisbane, 15,504 vs West Coast, 13,178 vs Gold Coast and 14,187 vs Footscray. That is an average crowd of 13,825 per game or 69% of capacity. The same ratio is 34,500 at Docklands. If the Tasmanian government wasn't forking out a fortune for sponsorship that would be a dud root arrangement and there is a lot of pressure to end the government funding of the football games.

If Hawthorn is the window of what we can expect in the future it is not as rosey as it was a few years ago.

JB has done a lot of good things for our club but I haven't seen any innovation at the club that makes any money, the biggest point of difference between us and other clubs is the lack of gaming revenue, but we don't promote it hard to use as a membership tool. At least Euge was trying on the Ballarat front, a front which is now dying and the Dogs want to take from us. We are just lacking any real innovation, JB is like a Chinese manufacturer which takes something someone invents and tries to make it smaller and cheaper but don't invent anything themselves. We need more innovation at the club and from the outside looking in I don't think JB likes anyone who isn't on his page.

I just don't see JB fighting the members to retain what we believe is unrestrained power to flush the club down the toilet unintentionally without having a desire to use said freedom. It is not like he hasn't offered 7 home games in Tasmania before and he has made no promise that he wont offer another deal like that again.

I think his intentions are there, but he lacks the business acumen and has hand picked the board and filled them with yes men. Non-football revenue is still our biggest hole, we would be coming dead last in the AFL in this area and it is something we need to address, I haven't see anything on this front since the JB team came to power other than the failed white knight thing. Clubs around us are pulling 3, 4, 5 million from gaming, pubs and the like. It is great we have morals but it is of little comfort if you are the only one that does and you go hungry because of it.

If the club wants to retain the morality it has to find other sources of revenue other than selling the club interstate.

Great Post Tas.

 

[Wild Kangaroo]

Just came up on the 'coming up next' bit of local news. Will edit with any notes when it comes on.

Negotiating at the moment.
Clear growing fan base down here.
Brad and the rest of the club feel there is unlimited potential in Tasmania.
CEO says clubs focus is on Hobart, not willing to look to Launceston while Hawks are contracted.
Club says the redeveloped Blundstone is fast coming a selling point to committing.
New kids program set up in Hobart.
Looking at 3 games a year in new contract.

Don't mind this at all.

 

[shintemaster]

Reality is Tasmania wants their own side and AFL has said they are the next to get a side and I doubt they want any more teams in the competition. The AFL knows that we are on the home stretch towards Docklands becoming AFL owned and the probability of getting a Melbourne team in Tasmania will be next to zero after that happens.

So the AFL has a limited window really to get a team trapped in Tasmania, JB is living in the past with his ideal Hawthorn-like Tasmania arrangement, they finally play a low drawing team in Melbourne (GWS) and they get 17,904 to the game, their support level is a figment of the imagination, their crows in Launceston are on the decline, stadium holds 20,000 supporters and they get 12,430 vs Brisbane, 15,504 vs West Coast, 13,178 vs Gold Coast and 14,187 vs Footscray. That is an average crowd of 13,825 per game or 69% of capacity. The same ratio is 34,500 at Docklands. If the Tasmanian government wasn't forking out a fortune for sponsorship that would be a dud root arrangement and there is a lot of pressure to end the government funding of the football games.

If Hawthorn is the window of what we can expect in the future it is not as rosey as it was a few years ago.

JB has done a lot of good things for our club but I haven't seen any innovation at the club that makes any money, the biggest point of difference between us and other clubs is the lack of gaming revenue, but we don't promote it hard to use as a membership tool. At least Euge was trying on the Ballarat front, a front which is now dying and the Dogs want to take from us. We are just lacking any real innovation, JB is like a Chinese manufacturer which takes something someone invents and tries to make it smaller and cheaper but don't invent anything themselves. We need more innovation at the club and from the outside looking in I don't think JB likes anyone who isn't on his page.

I just don't see JB fighting the members to retain what we believe is unrestrained power to flush the club down the toilet unintentionally without having a desire to use said freedom. It is not like he hasn't offered 7 home games in Tasmania before and he has made no promise that he wont offer another deal like that again.

I don’t disagree with any of your points or concerns Tas. Just trying to play Devil’s Advocate for the timeline.

I agree 100% that it (Tasmania) is not the land of milk and honey. Realistically, Ballarat is at least plausible long term, but more importantly if we (and this goes for most Melbourne Clubs) can’t make money out of anything bar an almost complete sellout in Melbourne then there is a fundamental issue that no amount of fancy footwork can resolve and requires pressure, leverage and assistance from the competition. I agree that non-football revenue is incredibly important to us – and hope that we have a plan to try and build this post debt eradication, even if it involves continuing the “debt payments” to leave us with a trust fund that can be invested in property, shares, bonds etc.

That said, we should as member clubs of the AFL have a reasonable expectation that an average crowd of 75% capacity and a massive TV deal should fund our teams.

I feel I may be outgunned writing long posts against you though Tas...

I think his intentions are there, but he lacks the business acumen and has hand picked the board and filled them with yes men. Non-football revenue is still our biggest hole, we would be coming dead last in the AFL in this area and it is something we need to address, I haven't see anything on this front since the JB team came to power other than the failed white knight thing. Clubs around us are pulling 3, 4, 5 million from gaming, pubs and the like. It is great we have morals but it is of little comfort if you are the only one that does and you go hungry because of it.

If the club wants to retain the morality it has to find other sources of revenue other than selling the club interstate.

Just on this last bit I think it's slightly off track. I think it is fair to say that in this case our morals have been led by the business side. We lost money on the social club and previous pokies ventures and realistically I don't think we are or were in any position to dip the toe back in yet. The original decision had little to do with morals IMHO, or at least that wasn't the only reason. Perhaps if we eliminate our debt completely we can look to be more creative. I'd quite happily make a tax deductible (or not) donation every now and again to NMFC to go into a trust that is used to invest, particularly if we can see that "war chest" growing constantly. That could then be used to invest in other business, purchase assets & shares and potentially even donate amounts or be used for charitable works / scholarships down the track.

I'm on fire today, club should be paying me for these ideas.

 

[Event Horizon]

My best hope of avoiding the push towards co-location is not in the strength of our own board, but in Hawthorn. I can't see them giving up all the hard work they've put in to Launceston. If they push hard to remain there, we are safe.

I reckon our home attendances have grown this season. There haven't been too many posts on this here, but instead of our usual 15k North supporters at home games, we've gone up to 20-25k, which shows that we are on the right path. If we don't stuff it up by off field commitments intersate (again) and continue to build onfield, we will have grown as a club and become debt free at the same time.

 

[Johnny99]

JB has done a lot of good things for our club but I haven't seen any innovation at the club that makes any money,

How about when Brumby announced the $20.0M funding to get North Ballarat oval up to AFL standard (circa 2010) ?

JB and the Board agreed on North playing 4 games a year.

Wasn't JB's fault Brumby lost the election and the Libs decided not to honor that commitment.

If the Ballarat commitment had been successful, we wouldnt even be talking about Hobart today.

And how hard has JB pushed for GF Football ?

Another venture to increase revenue and exposure, that doesnt involve gambling.

But once again, it's not JB that draws up the fixture, so we have to be patient and hope North are given the green light.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

The way the AFL are going GF football will just be a pipedream anyway.

 

[Event Horizon]

With another state election coming up soon, will Ballarat stadium upgrade again be on the agenda?

 

[Tas]

How about when Brumby announced the $20.0M funding to get North Ballarat oval up to AFL standard (circa 2010) ?

JB and the Board agreed on North playing 4 games a year.

Wasn't JB's fault Brumby lost the election and the Libs decided not to honor that commitment.

If the Ballarat commitment had been successful, we wouldnt even be talking about Hobart today.

And how hard has JB pushed for GF Football ?

Another venture to increase revenue and exposure, that doesnt involve gambling.

But once again, it's not JB that draws up the fixture, so we have to be patient and hope North are given the green light.

Euge who was pushing for Ballarat, which is why it is pretty much dead now. It was innovative when we came in but like everything that doesn't produce instant results, we drop the ball on it.

Our club has been asking for GF footy for forever, it is not innovative in 2014. We can't realistically claim a blockbuster when we don't pull big crowds unless we get a charity case like Melbourne.

Irrespective of that, we need non-football related revenue for diversification reasons, when you are at a low point on-field you are not going to generate the same revenue you do at a high point but your expenditure doesn't also decline, so you need that safety net of revenue so you don't hit tough time, go into massive debt, etc.

 

[Johnny99]

Euge who was pushing for Ballarat, which is why it is pretty much dead now. It was innovative when we came in but like everything that doesn't produce instant results, we drop the ball on it.

I wouldn't say the club has forgotten about Ballarat.

- we do a football camp there every year.
- we have an alignment with Nth Ballarat.

And if you read this article, it sounds like we are still very keen on the two markets, Ballarat and Hobart.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-09/no-tassie-exit-for-roos

 

[GarnerSmash]

Euge who was pushing for Ballarat, which is why it is pretty much dead now. It was innovative when we came in but like everything that doesn't produce instant results, we drop the ball on it.

Our club has been asking for GF footy for forever, it is not innovative in 2014. We can't realistically claim a blockbuster when we don't pull big crowds unless we get a charity case like Melbourne.

Irrespective of that, we need non-football related revenue for diversification reasons, when you are at a low point on-field you are not going to generate the same revenue you do at a high point but your expenditure doesn't also decline, so you need that safety net of revenue so you don't hit tough time, go into massive debt, etc.

Agreed re the necessity of non-footy related revenue. Absolutely. But the old adage of needing money to make money applied here. Our profits at this stage go to paying down debt, positioning our salary cap and keeping us somewhat competitive in relation to football department spend. Going down the pub/pokies route for example requires a significant initial outlay which would be tacked on to our debt and may then provide us with an income stream to pay down that debt and perhaps have a little left over for extra FD spend to keep up with the Joneses. Would this then mean we would then forgo an income stream that does not add to our debts? I doubt it. I would envisage that even if the club did go for pokies that the Tasmania thing would still be a market we would peruse with gusto given we are in a significantly poorer financial situation than most of our direct competitors and that this stream could be used to draw back the debt taken on by the pokies/pub outlay.

In short, I thing a venture like Tassie is the best thing for the club in the long term because it is free cash up front with no debt accrued. The issue is ensuring that the right people are at the club so that we can ensure that whilst we can eat our fill at the trough, that we don't fall in head first in our eagerness to feed. I'm not confident that this is the case right now so we as supporters need to be ever vigilant.

 

[Tas]

I don’t disagree with any of your points or concerns Tas. Just trying to play Devil’s Advocate for the timeline.

I agree 100% that it (Tasmania) is not the land of milk and honey. Realistically, Ballarat is at least plausible long term, but more importantly if we (and this goes for most Melbourne Clubs) can’t make money out of anything bar an almost complete sellout in Melbourne then there is a fundamental issue that no amount of fancy footwork can resolve and requires pressure, leverage and assistance from the competition. I agree that non-football revenue is incredibly important to us – and hope that we have a plan to try and build this post debt eradication, even if it involves continuing the “debt payments” to leave us with a trust fund that can be invested in property, shares, bonds etc.

That said, we should as member clubs of the AFL have a reasonable expectation that an average crowd of 75% capacity and a massive TV deal should fund our teams.

Costs are being driven by the clubs that can afford the most to spend, and non-football revenue impacts in terms of how much they can spend.

Just on this last bit I think it's slightly off track. I think it is fair to say that in this case our morals have been led by the business side. We lost money on the social club and previous pokies ventures and realistically I don't think we are or were in any position to dip the toe back in yet. The original decision had little to do with morals IMHO, or at least that wasn't the only reason. Perhaps if we eliminate our debt completely we can look to be more creative. I'd quite happily make a tax deductible (or not) donation every now and again to NMFC to go into a trust that is used to invest, particularly if we can see that "war chest" growing constantly. That could then be used to invest in other business, purchase assets & shares and potentially even donate amounts or be used for charitable works / scholarships down the track.

I'm on fire today, club should be paying me for these ideas.

We lost money on the pokies because they were in our social club rather than put into a pub in a demographic that is prone to problem gamblers, like what all the clubs are doing now. I believe we were offered some pokies via PDR at a pub in a 'good' location and we declined on moral issues. I commend the move but if you take that stand you can't just let the club die because of it. Forcing us to Tasmania is a death sentence.

We put the investment thing to the club, it was rejected.

 

[Only Forwards]

Agreed re the necessity of non-footy related revenue. Absolutely. But the old adage of needing money to make money applied here. Our profits at this stage go to paying down debt, positioning our salary cap and keeping us somewhat competitive in relation to football department spend. Going down the pub/pokies route for example requires a significant initial outlay which would be tacked on to our debt and may then provide us with an income stream to pay down that debt and perhaps have a little left over for extra FD spend to keep up with the Joneses. Would this then mean we would then forgo an income stream that does not add to our debts? I doubt it. I would envisage that even if the club did go for pokies that the Tasmania thing would still be a market we would peruse with gusto given we are in a significantly poorer financial situation than most of our direct competitors and that this stream could be used to draw back the debt taken on by the pokies/pub outlay.

In short, I thing a venture like Tassie is the best thing for the club in the long term because it is free cash up front with no debt accrued. The issue is ensuring that the right people are at the club so that we can ensure that whilst we can eat our fill at the trough, that we don't fall in head first in our eagerness to feed. I'm not confident that this is the case right now so we as supporters need to be ever vigilant.

I really think if there was a push for Co-Location we would see Euge put together a ticket to oust the board.

 

[Limerick]

My best hope of avoiding the push towards co-location is not in the strength of our own board, but in Hawthorn. I can't see them giving up all the hard work they've put in to Launceston. If they push hard to remain there, we are safe.

I reckon our home attendances have grown this season. There haven't been too many posts on this here, but instead of our usual 15k North supporters at home games, we've gone up to 20-25k, which shows that we are on the right path. If we don't stuff it up by off field commitments intersate (again) and continue to build onfield, we will have grown as a club and become debt free at the same time.

Agree with the bolded statement. However without Jeff being at Hawthorn I can see the AFL steamrolling/bribing them into returning to Melbourne. We should be debt free by the end of 2015. 2016 will be JB & his brother's last year. 2016 could be a very interesting year. i'd be accepting of up to 4 games in Hobart. I can see real problems for any team that takes on Launceston given the work and effort of Hawthorn.

 

[Only Forwards]

Agree with the bolded statement. However without Jeff being at Hawthorn I can see the AFL steamrolling/bribing them into returning to Melbourne. We should be debt free by the end of 2015. 2016 will be JB & his brother's last year. 2016 could be a very interesting year. i'd be accepting of up to 4 games in Hobart. I can see real problems for any team that takes on Launceston given the work and effort of Hawthorn.

I would dare say even a homegrown Tassie side.

Hawthorn's success will have built loyalty which the league will find hard to shake should they choose to put another team there.