Five years on ...

[jacko57]

Would it?
Whole premise of thread is flawed.

Hard to gauge how many fans thought this was the case. It may well be that those who either wanted to see North fold, or didn't want to see North fold but believed some of the more negative 'experts' in the media, weren't in the majority.............but made enough noise to convey the impression that they were.

 

[Slattery_20]

Yes, but they thought getting Judd would be teh answer - and it wasn't.

Now they think getting Mick will be the answer.

They clearly thought getting Cloke would be the answer too.

Did they, really?
Or is that just your reading of the situation?

Maybe they're not quite as simplistic as you, don't view the world in absolutes, and view those guys purely as improvements on their predecessors - rather than messiahs.

Or maybe they're sketching up FLAG 2013 merch, and cracking open the cigars as we speak, and twiddling their waxed moustaches. Because that's what dem 'big clubs' do in your world view; or at least that's how it seems.

 

[basashi]

As a general rule of thumb, clubs in WA, SA and Vic should not be receiving AFL top up money. If the AFL is to be laying out coin in subsidy then it should be in "new territories" clubs. The return on investment is the expansion of the game.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Apart from the last line, thoroughly agree.

I think the last five years have shown us also that some big Melbourne clubs have yet to adjust to the reality of the evened out competition: they still believe big name signings, either onfield or off, can provide a short cut to success when in this footy world, the only way to enjoy success is by a period of good to excellent drafting and more importantly, development of players.

Be serious... North offered Buckley their senior coaching gig on the back of a year doing TV special comments.

 

[boncer34]

The afl gave money to essendon as well you realise

Where'd I say they didn't?

 

[The King!]

Where'd I say they didn't?

Just seemed you thought north were propped up and essendon get no assistance, but sorry if i read way too much into it

 

[mufassa]

It is an interesting about face from fifteen-twenty years ago. I'm no master economist, but if you compare the debts of clubs like North, Carlton and Port now, to how they compare in relative (i.e. inflation adjusted) terms to the debts of Fitzroy, Footscray and Hawthorn in the mid 1990s, which is worse?

Surely the debts of the clubs today are worse. Fitzroy was reportedly a little over a million in debt, was it not? I think it's great the AFL has adjusted their approach, don't get me wrong. But I imagine Fitzroy types might look on today's situation and be, well, miffed.

But in the mid 90's their was not a Billion dollar TV deal. They missed the boom and now the AFL is a cash cow - if it is not helping out clubs what else will they do with the money? I have some ideas!

1) Start a national Women's league and they play before the men on game day. After the game they can be the cheer leaders to help jazz things up a bit.
2) They can start a national AUS kick team that play before the AFL teams on game day. After the game they can help to run the water.
3) They can start a national Super rules team that can play before the AFL teams on game day. After the game they can have a sleep or help tie boot laces.
4) They can use 1 million dollar a year deals to lure Slater, Cronk and Smith across from League.
5) They could use 1 million dollar a year to lure O'Connor, Quade Cooper, Beale from Union.
6) Vlad can double his salary every 2nd year.
7) They can have a money booth set up at each day with 1 million in it. After every goal a lucky supporter gets to go in it until another goal is kicked and pocket what they can grab.

 

[footscore]

Tasmanian Demons has a nice ring to it.

Tassie Sheep Grazers!

 

[Doss]

But in the mid 90's their was not a Billion dollar TV deal. They missed the boom and now the AFL is a cash cow - if it is not helping out clubs what else will they do with the money? I have some ideas!

You're right about the TV rights, but it's not like the AFL was so cash-strapped in the mid 1990s that they couldn't have saved Fitzroy if the will had been there. Clearly saving the roys did not fit the longer term agenda of guys like Ross Oakley and Ian Collins.

As for your ideas, I especially liked the last one!

 

[MaddAdam]

It is an interesting about face from fifteen-twenty years ago. I'm no master economist, but if you compare the debts of clubs like North, Carlton and Port now, to how they compare in relative (i.e. inflation adjusted) terms to the debts of Fitzroy, Footscray and Hawthorn in the mid 1990s, which is worse?

Surely the debts of the clubs today are worse. Fitzroy was reportedly a little over a million in debt, was it not? I think it's great the AFL has adjusted their approach, don't get me wrong. But I imagine Fitzroy types might look on today's situation and be, well, miffed.

Good post. I think that Fitzroy certainly have the right to feel shafted. Be aware that by posting this you have summonsed Roylion from wherever it is here lurks to post his giant screeds about Fitzroy.

I think though that in terms of debt to revenue/turnover, the debts probably aren't worse.

But yeah, people need to get over the idea that the AFL wants any club to fold or that the AFL is going to "get rid of two small Melbourne clubs".

The AFL is paying off the debt of the most vulnerable clubs.

What we have learned in the last five years is that the era of the AFL "killing off" clubs is gone, almost certainly forever.

People who believe that are the footy equivalent of flat earthers.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Hard to gauge how many fans thought this was the case. It may well be that those who either wanted to see North fold, or didn't want to see North fold but believed some of the more negative 'experts' in the media, weren't in the majority.............but made enough noise to convey the impression that they were.

Within 3 years though?

I mean sure lots of fans may not think North has a future as a Melbourne based team and they may be being propped up by AFL. But with Demetrio being the AFL's CEO, and the AFL committed to propping up teams following the Fitzroy debacle. How many supporters would have genuinely believed North would be dead within 3 years?

Or to go one step further, some supporters may have thought, "If the AFL stop propping North up they'll be dead within 3 years", given their "if" condition hasn't been met, it would seem to me that this thread is based on a flawed idea that supporters of all other clubs are morons.


As it is, North have found funding from Tassie, and had/have a plan for Ballarat, which may enable them to succeed, the challenge will be consolidating gains made this year, into the future.

 

[MaddAdam]

So you admit the AFL helps keep the Roo's afloat.

Cool thats my argument done.

Prop up Roo's and Suns or just Gold Coast Roo's?

Should've moved.

No, the AFL doesn't keep us afloat any more than it keeps Essendon afloat.

 

[Bluelegs]

And the era of free agency shows us that freedom of player movement could well condemn clubs like Melbourne to "feeder" status in perpetuity unless they can engineer drastic changes in culture and image.

We lose one player to FA and suddenly the sky is falling. How's Hamish McIntosh going?

 

[MaddAdam]

Your the one saying they don't. You started this thread based on the idea that North are now financially strong.

Prove it.

I never said that. North have a long way to go and North will always be one of the smaller teams financially.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It suited the AFL’s purposes to kill Fitzroy, so they did it. It certainly doesn’t seem to be part of the current regime’s approach. However, I’d never rule out the AFL doing an about-face on anything.

The only thing I can really see happening to North is a forced relocation to Tassie. I think the AFL showed their hand a bit here with the attempts at 7 home games last year. Could happen, though I’m not completely convinced it will. Depends on the circumstances.

 

[mufassa]

You're right about the TV rights, but it's not like the AFL was so cash-strapped in the mid 1990s that they couldn't have saved Fitzroy if the will had been there. Clearly saving the roys did not fit their longer term of guys like Ross Oakley and Ian Collins.

As for your ideas, I especially liked the last one!

I think Fitzroy are stiff - it could have been a few clubs back then. The TV right has secured long term future of the AFL and right now they are so flush they can put 2 new teams into the AFL in 2 years - how much would they have spent on each team?? 100 mill?? The couple we get is found at the back of Vlads couch.

We push through until the Dome agreement is re-negotiated, clear our debt and continue to grow our membership our long term future will be bright. I can take my kids to 12-14 games a year - how many games did the Lions get in Melbourne? 5 or 6? Yuck - no thanks!!!

 

[Burzum]

I don't remember anyone saying North would fold in three years.

 

[MaddAdam]

We lose one player to FA and suddenly the sky is falling. How's Hamish McIntosh going?

Scully as well. I said "could" by the way, I didn't say "was".

As for Hamish, he's doing well. In the US on holiday I believe.

 

[MaddAdam]

I don't remember anyone saying North would fold in three years.

You should go back and read the threads.

 

[boncer34]

No, the AFL doesn't keep us afloat any more than it keeps Essendon afloat.

Would you care to provide proof of that?

But ok lets go with that.

Keep North and the Suns afloat or keep the Gold Coast Kangaroos afloat?

Which makes more sense from the AFL perspective?

Should've moved.

 

[Bluelegs]

Scully as well. I said "could" by the way, I didn't say "was".

As for Hamish, he's doing well. In the US on holiday I believe.

Scully wasn't a free agent and was a completely different circumstance that we'll probably never see again. Essentially the same circumstances as Gary Ablett leaving Geelong except he was far younger. Thinking back to the fact that GWS offered this guy six million dollars just makes me laugh now, they pinned their hopes on development that might happen.

 

[jacko57]

Within 3 years though?

I mean sure lots of fans may not think North has a future as a Melbourne based team and they may be being propped up by AFL. But with Demetrio being the AFL's CEO, and the AFL committed to propping up teams following the Fitzroy debacle. How many supporters would have genuinely believed North would be dead within 3 years?

Or to go one step further, some supporters may have thought, "If the AFL stop propping North up they'll be dead within 3 years", given their "if" condition hasn't been met, it would seem to me that this thread is based on a flawed idea that supporters of all other clubs are morons.


As it is, North have found funding from Tassie, and had/have a plan for Ballarat, which may enable them to succeed, the challenge will be consolidating gains made this year, into the future.

But you're being rational. Some of the more rabid trolls / uninformed fans (some overlaps there) actually thought North would be dead inside a year. No doubt fuelled by media experts (!) like Patrick Smith who wnet so far as to say on-air during 2008 that North wouldn't survive to the end of the year. Anyone who actually read The Age and believed what Wilson wrote would have easily been led to think North were set for the high jump within a year or two.

I don't think that all supporters of other clubs are morons............just some, and they don't know who they are.

 

[MaddAdam]

Would you care to provide proof of that?

But ok lets go with that.

Keep North and the Suns afloat or keep the Gold Coast Kangaroos afloat?

Which makes more sense from the AFL perspective?

Should've moved.

I can provide proof in that without an AFL competition to play in, the Essendon Football Club wouldn't exist. The AFL also owns all the trademarks to your imagery.

As regards "making sense from an AFL perspective" having more clubs equals more games equals higher TV revenue.

Can you comprehend that?

 

[mufassa]

And all those who complained about our "easy draw" - our finance department would have been shattered!!

1) GWS - are the lowest drawing interstate team.
2) Suns - 2nd lowest drwaing interstate team.
3) Dogs - would be in the bottom 2 lowest drawing Vic sides. Woof Woof!!
4) WCE - thanks - another interstate team!!!

5) Ess - well thanks for that!! One decent Vic team we get to play twice.

Soft yes - but little help to our bottom line. We would prefer in 2013 to have a harder draw as long as it includes the Pies, Blues, Rich, Hawks and Ess.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

It would be fair to say that the consensus of many at BigFooty and in the wider footy community was: "they'll fold in three years".

Did anyone actually believe North would have folded by now? A club hasn't folded in almost 100 years. That was just bigfooty bullshit, like Heppell being called soft.