'Should have gone to the Gold Coast' - Let us reflect...

[fairdinkum]

Gee, looks like the 'should have gone to the Gold Coast' brigadiers are back in their boxes.*



That's right folks, even the numpties will not defend the SHGTTGC position when it is pointed out to them that we'd all be worse off had that option been taken.

NMFC support > GCS support >>> GCK support

It is as simple as that. Hopefully one of the more prominent MSM football 'journos' can point this out so that the mouth-breathers (who tend to take their 'knowledge' from 'experts') can become aware of it.

*Note, that is boxes, not boxers. This thread has revealed that there are some people out there so prudish they can't even bare to read an online account of a bloke they've never seen nor met wearing boxer shorts without feeling queasy. How these people survive a trip to the beach without suffering a panic attack, I'm not too sure.

 

[Cap]

with all due respect to North - they hardly pull a crowd at home and they are not the type of team that draws a crowd when they travel either.

so 10k sounds pretty good for the bottom team playing North.

 

[fairdinkum]

with all due respect to North - they hardly pull a crowd at home and they are not the type of team that draws a crowd when they travel either.

so 10k sounds pretty good for the bottom team playing North.

You clearly didn't read the OP.

 

[Cap]

You clearly didn't read the OP.

yeah I did, I don't agree with it but thought I'd still add my 2 cents

As has been put out many times here, wait till GC are up and running, they'll pull the crowds no worries.

I'm as sure as that as I am that there will be a flood of cry babies screaming to put an asterix next to their flag like they do for every non-Victorian team that wins it.

edit - for starters we would never have the problem of a GC v North game not pulling numbers...because they would be one and the same...... so in effect you could have the 10k as a starting number rather the the end product.

Given the 12 games in GC would effectively be the Kangaroos away games, I'm pretty confident a few thousand loyal Kanagroos members would have made the trip regardless.

 

[fairdinkum]

I don't know why I bother.

 

[Cap]

I don't know why I bother.

people are allowed to have an alternate position, from what I understand, the GC offer was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

However I must admit, my opinion is based on information gained whilst listening to 3AW so it could simply be way off the mark....

 

[Papa G]

North would have relocated in 2008 right?

In 2007 North finished top 4. In 2008 North should have finiished top 4, but they lost at home to a lowly Port in the last game of the year, one which they definately should have won.

So if we go on the premise that in 2008 a relocated North were a top or near top 4 side plus given the likely sweeteners from the AFL for player recruitment, player retention plus all the other AFL financial sweetners we can summise that the Gold Coast in 2008 would have been a vastly more successful side at least initially and most probably going forward than the side running around in the last 2 years for the Gold Coast?

Now given these assumptions, would a successful Gold Coast team, winning regularly, be getting bigger crowds home crowds than a team that hasn't won a single game in front of their home fans ever? I think they would. Would a winning side lock in more members? Again almost probably yes. So in reality, if North had become the Gold Coast in 2008 with the side they had plus some, a very good arguement can be made that yes, the Gold Coast might be in a vastly better position than they are currently.

 

[fairdinkum]

Papa G, who do you reckon would get more of their own supporters to their home matches:

Your hypothetical, world-beating Gold Coast Kangaroos, or the woeful 2012 version of NMFC?

More simply, suppose NMFC gets 15,000 of their own supporters to Docklands this weekend. Do you reckon your world-beating Gold Coast Kangaroos would get 15,000 to a match versus Adelaide @ Metricon?

Note that there were perhaps 6,000 GCS supporters at Metricon on Saturday night (as I explained in the OP).

I believe the answer is, quite simply, no, they would not. They already have the best Aussie Rules footballer currently alive and some of the league's best young talent coming through. And they aren't rocking up to watch even when their best chance for a win is presenting itself on a platter.

Back to the more relevant comparison, even if you reckon world-beating GCK would draw more support than the current GCS, you have to ask yourself if this is good enough anyway. It is a position that concedes that the team would need to be successful on-field to draw even a modest amount of support. In a relatively egalitarian 16/17/18-team competition, a club can only be on top for so long, if at all.

NMFC is deplorable on-field this season but I am still backing around 15,000 supporters to rock up this weekend (despite the yucky timeslot). It is small compared to Collingwood but, I would argue, much, much better than what would have rocked up at Metricon to watch the GC Kangaroos run around - world-beaters or not.

 

[Papa G]

Papa G, who do you reckon would get more of their own supporters to their home matches:

Your hypothetical, world-beating Gold Coast Kangaroos, or the woeful 2012 version of NMFC?

More simply, suppose NMFC gets 15,000 of their own supporters to Docklands this weekend. Do you reckon your world-beating Gold Coast Kangaroos would get 15,000 to a match versus Adelaide @ Metricon?

Note that there were perhaps 6,000 GCS supporters at Metricon on Saturday night (as I explained in the OP).

I believe the answer is, quite simply, no, they would not. They already have the best Aussie Rules footballer currently alive and some of the league's best young talent coming through. And they aren't rocking up to watch even when their best chance for a win is presenting itself on a platter.

Back to the more relevant comparison, even if you reckon world-beating GCK would draw more support than the current GCS, you have to ask yourself if this is good enough anyway. It is a position that concedes that the team would need to be successful on-field to draw even a modest amount of support. In a relatively egalitarian 16/17/18-team competition, a club can only be on top for so long, if at all.

NMFC is deplorable on-field this season but I am still backing around 15,000 supporters to rock up this weekend (despite the yucky timeslot). It is small compared to Collingwood but, I would argue, much, much better than what would have rocked up at Metricon to watch the GC Kangaroos run around - world-beaters or not.

Yes but North supporters have seen some success, both this year and in years past. They have some history of succes. They have some crusty and rusted on supporters who've been there forever. Gold Coast have none. Not one single home supporter has witnessed a home victory. Not One!

Crowds come when teams are successful or at least half successful. I look at my own team. In the space of 4 weeks our home crowd went from a pitiful 15,000 after 6 straight losses to 27,000 after 3 straight wins. All teams are the same.

We are speaking in hypotheticals, but the reality is a relocated North Melbourne in 2008 would have been a shitload better side than the Gold Coast is now and who knows with a few top up concessions that were on the table may have been pushing for a flag.

North may have been deplorable at times this year but winning 5 games is far less deplorable than winning zero. I have no doubt that if Gold Coast had won 5 games this year their crowds would be significantly better.

 

[Ketchup]

See this is the great "Gold Coast" Fallacy. There's been winning teams in all major codes up there in the last 10 years and not one has been able to maintain financial security or consistent crowd numbers. The sponsorship money is not there either unless you want to be sponsored by a company that makes fuel pills that magically reduce fuel consumption. (dramatisation, may not have happened)

What winning teams are you talking about in the last 10 years that has been placed smack bang in the middle of GOLD COAST not Brisbane.

 

[fairdinkum]

Papa G: I agree with you on your last point that the GCS would be enjoying much better crowds if they were winning matches. How much better is hard to guess but I would imagine they would be getting similar crowds to last season if they were winning this season (as the same people likely to jump on board for the novelty factor are likely to jump on board for the winning factor). In fact I reckon they'd have even more people come through the gates if they were winning than what they got last season with the hype factor.

The problem as I see it is just how fickle the support-base is. It wasn't until I moved to SEQ and made a habit of chatting with locals about the game (and sport in general) that I came to realise how ingrained bandwagonism is up here. Ask anybody who helps out at a local junior footy club in Brisbane and they will tell you that their player numbers have shrunk - some claim they have halved - since the Lions' days of dominance. They saw a massive spike in player numbers over those few seasons and just as soon they were back down closer to baseline. I haven't had the time to look into it further to see if this is borne out by the stats but I have gotten the same story from different people over and over again so it wouldn't surprise me.

They are a parochial bunch up here. Tell them that a team represents Queensland and it is winning and they are all over it (like, dare I say it, nobodies business). Even blokes who haven't been to a game of AFL in years get afronted when I tell them I reckon the Lions flags weren't won on an even playing field. Those wins were Queensland wins, and you don't denigrate Queensland wins, no matter who or what sport, or even if they guy you are chatting with has little to no interest in whatever sport is in question.

Of course, even if the Gold Coast Kangaroos had have been as successful as you seem to believe (and I disagree with your assertion but will go with it for now), they wouldn't have stayed near the top of the heap forever. And those same bandwagoners would have disappeared very quickly indeed once the wins dried up. I'd argue it would have been worse than what we are seeing with the GCS now because at least the GCS have Ablett and hope. A declining GCK would have had neither.

Even though it would not have been my club, it is kinda scary to think what kind of position the GCK would be in right now and 'going forward' were they in the comp as a 'relocated' entity.

 

[Catfish1975]

What winning teams are you talking about in the last 10 years that has been placed smack bang in the middle of GOLD COAST not Brisbane.

Gold Coast Titans, 35 million in debt, yes due to the centre of excellence debacle but still a basket case
Gold Coast Blaze, Nbl team 12 million in debt and just paid out 7 cents in the dollar to creditors.
Gold Coast United, yeah Palmer savaged them but the fact was they were losing money hand over fist.

Is this evidence enough for you? As I have mentioned before name me one national sporting team that is a financial success operating from the Gold Coast.

 

[Spuddage]

I don't know why I bother.

Neither do we!

 

[Jimi]

Haven't read thread. At the end of the day North missed a massive opportunity. I think in the future their fans will look in to the past and say 'oh what could have been'.

 

[fairdinkum]

Jimi: Very low post content quality to sig quality ratio.

 

[L_W_P]

While I agree that in terms of crowds we would've seen NMK > GCS > GCK I would really be interested to see what kind of revenue the Suns get out of each home game.

Geelong make something like 500k out of a sellout (30-35k crowd) at Simmonds, and would still be pulling in half of that even with the renovations going on. The SA teams on the other hand are bent over with their stadium deal and need close to a sellout to make anything of note. If the Suns have a very profitable stadium deal (and I have no reason to think the AFL wouldn't have put one in place when setting up the GC17 pitch) then as far as actual coin in the bank it could look something more like GCS > GCK > NMK.

North are losing money on 15k-20k at Etihad. It's a shite stadium deal that is forcing the hand of the lower earning clubs. It's why North are selling games to Tassie, the Dogs play in Darwin and the Saints are setting up in NZ. Carlton are also talking about trying to move more games to the G so that they can increase their profit margin on mid sized crowds against these teams.

The questions on my mind are: Do the Suns make money with 10k crowds at Metricon and would the Gold Coast Roos have made money with 8k crowds? If the answer is yes then it may have been the better business move to relocate and secure profitable home games while still keeping some connection to Melbourne through supporter groups and community programs ala the Swans. If the answer is no and the Suns are on total life support from the AFL then they are in no better position off field for the next decade than North. In fact with the take over of Etihad in 2025 the Roos would more than likely end up much more profitable in terms of gate takings than the Suns in the long run!

Once the AFL own Etihad outright the off-field picture of the league changes is ways we probably can't even think of right now. Home games at that stadium will go from breaking even to being almost total profit and teams like North will start to thrive.

There is no point talking about on field matters because North weren't going to get 10 picks, cherry picked 17 year olds and unlimited funds to chase free agents. They would've had a couple of early picks (1+2+3 at the most) and some compensation for players who didn't want to relocate. No super draft plunder. No Zac Smith, Brandon Matera or Trent McKenzie. No Ablett or Bock.

All a move to the Coast would've done is secured them financially before the AFL take over of Etihad and that is only if the Suns are actually making a profit from these small crowds. Long term, off field, North made the right move by staying, eliminating their debt and expanding into Tasmania and regional Victoria. If the State govt ever approves Ballarat Stadium then North (and the Dogs for that matter) probably won't have to sell games again beyond 2025.

The "Big 4" would remain.
Melbourne will always live at the G.
Geelong have their own home.
The Saints (NZ) and Hawks (Tassie) would be set with their expansion.

North and the Dogs would then have home games at an AFL owned Etihad with 3-4 games a year each at a 30k seater in the outer west - prime real estate come 2025.

It's all about the big picture.

 

[Verdun]

The thread tile is “'Should have gone to the Gold Coast' - Let us reflect...”. Up front I’m a North member who fought to keep the NMFC in Melbourne. Ignoring the pissing competition let me make some points.

1. I hope that the GC & GWS develop to be successful and largely sustainable in their own right, although I suspect that some significant level of subsidisation will be required for around 20+ years. Even then they won’t be power houses.

2. Relocation, within the AFL environment, describes the death of one club to enable the birth of a new club. The NMFC wouldn’t exist today if they had accepted the “AFL offer” in 2007/08.

3. Around 25% - 30% of the membership and supporter base will move to follow the new club provided it retains the colours , logo etc. This figure will be impacted upon based on the perception as to whether the “relocation” is club driven or AFL imposed.

4. The nature of the AFL that aims to have an Australia wide even competition means that there will always be some level of cross subsidisation.

5. The subsidies provided by the AFL to the smaller Melbourne based clubs is to cover the necessary allocation of less desirable fixturing e.g. twilight games etc. While annoying, I accept that this is a good business practice.

6. If we are to die at some future point I won’t bemoan the act of rejecting the GC offer as I will view that I had the NMFC for a longer period.

7. Tasmania will ultimately get its own team. However I’m not sure that there is a strong business case for such a club at this point. Sure the Tassie Govt provides funding to Hawthorn and North, but would it be sufficient to support its own club and should it? An AFL club requires in excess of $30m (in 2012) to be sustainable and this is continually growing.

It would be cheaper for Tas to fund its on team than fund North and Hawthorn

 

[Verdun]

Didn't feel like wading through all 6 pages, but have any Queenslanders actually responded to this? The sport is a blip up here when you compare it to Vics talking AFL or Queenslanders talking origin or the Broncos. Even when the Lions had won three in a row, conversation around the barbie, let alone the back pages of the Courier Mail or GC Bulletin, was dominated by RL - still is and always will be. I lived on the GC for four years, and if any of you have too, you'll see how difficult the task is for the Suns. People go to the GC to get sunburnt, get smashed, get laid, escape Victoria (!) - but not to follow sporting teams! More than half the population was born outside Qld - it's amazingly mixed, and finding a common community interest is impossible. You just won't stir up the passion for "the Coast" as you can for Melbourne suburbs, or the common goal that is SA or WA footy taking on Vics. And this is despite the GC Council's constant promo tactic of the last decade, emphasising that the place is one big happy city. GC will never be a footy hotspot, and will always need financial assistance. The quality of the staff will decide if they ever play good finals footy (why not, Brisbane and the Swans have), but in a nutshell, North not selling their souls was the feelgood story of the AFL since the nadir that was Fitzroy, in my opinion...they'll never find it cruisy either, but they'll be fine...all this talk of necessary relocation is b u l l s h i t...there's no need, and they're better off as a footy club (note: I refuse to call them a franchise - that's for people who don't understand what our game is about)...

Gibbke get some passion back in your life and support a AFL team from Tasmania - oh that's right you do not believe in it....you love the north south divide

 

[____]

Papa GDo you reckon your world-beating Gold Coast Kangaroos would get 15,000 to a match versus Adelaide @ Metricon?

Gold Coast SUNS got over 16k to their home game against Adelaide last year...

 

[Ketchup]

Gold Coast Titans, 35 million in debt, yes due to the centre of excellence debacle but still a basket case
Gold Coast Blaze, Nbl team 12 million in debt and just paid out 7 cents in the dollar to creditors.
Gold Coast United, yeah Palmer savaged them but the fact was they were losing money hand over fist.

Is this evidence enough for you? As I have mentioned before name me one national sporting team that is a financial success operating from the Gold Coast.

No it isn't, because you didn't actually answer my question. All you did was list teams that have played up in the Gold Coast, none of the teams you listed have had success on field in the last 10 years. Gold Coast united suffered mainly from the Crowd cap Palmer put on.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Gold Coast United suffered mainly from the Crowd cap Palmer put on.

They suffered heavily from that, yeah. It was self-destruction of a kind I've not seen since the Brisbane Strikers' disgustingly execrable administration.

I saw that unfold first-hand, and the situation became so embarrassingly disastrous I actually teamed up with one of the 'dissidents' within the club to produce a dossier, documenting examples of the incompetence and corrupted behaviour within that administration - and I sent that dossier in to Soccer Australia. One big reason why the Strikers' A-League bid failed, and rightly so.

As to whether GCU could have done far more to ensure a strong support base, there's a clear argument to suggest this too - Palmer's administration was pretty woefully inept when it came to marketing and promotion as well.

But still, it's true that the Gold Coast is something of a graveyard for sporting clubs in general.

 

[Rave Slave]

I love how certain people post about North and say 'you should've jumped at the opportunity to relocate' or 'you missed out on an amazing opportunity'. Feck man, put yourself in their position. There's not a hope in hell that I'd support the Crows if they were based anywhere else (and I'm an interstate based supporter, they could relocate to WA and I still wouldn't follow them.)

How would you feel if it was your team? This is a club you followed from your girl/boyhood and a club that's potentially ingrained in your family and its culture/tapestry.

Whether it's FINANCIALLY the right or wrong decision long term remains to be seen (and I'm sure North fans could answer that one better than most) but the reality for me is that I'd rather watch my club cease to exist than relocate and become part of a new entity.

 

[Catfish1975]

No it isn't, because you didn't actually answer my question. All you did was list teams that have played up in the Gold Coast, none of the teams you listed have had success on field in the last 10 years. Gold Coast united suffered mainly from the Crowd cap Palmer put on.

I'm not sure if you're serious here.
Gold coast united finished top 4 in both of it's first 2 seasons (2008 and 2009) and crowd numbers were still below average. (around 5,000).
Gold Coast Titans finished 3rd in 2008 and 4th in 2009.
Gold Coast Blaze finished 3rd in this year's NBL season and have just paid out 7 cents in the dollar due to being insolvent.
Am I getting closer?

 

[____]

I'm not sure if you're serious here.
Gold coast united finished top 4 in both of it's first 2 seasons (2008 and 2009) and crowd numbers were still below average. (around 5,000).

He did say Clive Palmer put a crowd cap...

 

[Catfish1975]

He did say Clive Palmer put a crowd cap...

Not being a smart arse but crowds weren't capped until late 2009. They were introduced to actually save the club money even though they weren't getting many more than that to the games anyway.