Caroline Wilson's article in tomorrow's Age...
North Melbourne pushes for three games in Hobart
http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/no...for-three-games-in-hobart-20140415-zqv68.html
In particular this passage raised my eye...
Before and after the 2011 'land in the sand'...
Our home attendances between MCG/Aurora since 2006
2013 38419: 52809 in Victoria (4/3), 13237 (1/3)
2012 34105: 44612 in Victoria (2/5), 15687 (1/3)
2011 36363: 48161 in Victoria (5/2), 15716 (2/2)
2010 37876: 50282 in Victoria (5/2), 16159 (2/2)
2009 39635: 52339 in Victoria (4/3), 17403 (2/2)
2008 39975: 52802 in Victoria (5/2), 17526 (2/2)
2007 33186: 42205 in Victoria (5/2), 18152 (2/2)
Ive been saying this for a while but our crowds in Victoria and Tasmania are going in the complete opposite direction from each other. Our crowds and membership are both going gangbusters in Victoria (despite horrid fixtures) while our attendances and membership are dead in the water in Tasmania.
Reading between the tea leaves once 2016 occurs our presence in Tasmania is gone. With the benefit of hindsight could the 2011 rejection of the $7.5m deal brokered by the AFL prove to be one of the worst decisions we've made since the merger. Could this decision cloud Kennett's legacy at the club???
Where would we be today with a (probable) brokered MCG/Ethiad deal, $7.5m in the bank and a far more commercially appealing fixture.
North Melbourne pushes for three games in Hobart
http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/no...for-three-games-in-hobart-20140415-zqv68.html
North Melbourne has confirmed it will push to play three home games in Hobart next year as the AFL appears to have drawn the battle lines over the future of home-and-away football in Tasmania...
In particular this passage raised my eye...
Hawthorn chief Stuart Fox said he would schedule talks with McLachlan this month in a bid to fully understand the AFL’s strategy. ‘‘Today was the first indication of the AFL’s intent into the future,’’ Fox said. ‘‘Our view is that a hybrid eight-game model would be a better option and that it would take a Tasmanian home team being implemented for us to support removing our presence.
‘‘We’d be pretty curious as to whom the AFL sees as going there because we don’t think it’s us and we could not justify that many games there. We have 55,000 members here.’’
In 2011, the AFL offered Hawthorn $7.5 million to vacate Tasmania in favour of North, a move controversially rejected by then president Jeff Kennett.
Before and after the 2011 'land in the sand'...
Our home attendances between MCG/Aurora since 2006
2013 38419: 52809 in Victoria (4/3), 13237 (1/3)
2012 34105: 44612 in Victoria (2/5), 15687 (1/3)
2011 36363: 48161 in Victoria (5/2), 15716 (2/2)
2010 37876: 50282 in Victoria (5/2), 16159 (2/2)
2009 39635: 52339 in Victoria (4/3), 17403 (2/2)
2008 39975: 52802 in Victoria (5/2), 17526 (2/2)
2007 33186: 42205 in Victoria (5/2), 18152 (2/2)
Ive been saying this for a while but our crowds in Victoria and Tasmania are going in the complete opposite direction from each other. Our crowds and membership are both going gangbusters in Victoria (despite horrid fixtures) while our attendances and membership are dead in the water in Tasmania.
Reading between the tea leaves once 2016 occurs our presence in Tasmania is gone. With the benefit of hindsight could the 2011 rejection of the $7.5m deal brokered by the AFL prove to be one of the worst decisions we've made since the merger. Could this decision cloud Kennett's legacy at the club???
Where would we be today with a (probable) brokered MCG/Ethiad deal, $7.5m in the bank and a far more commercially appealing fixture.