News NMFC & Tassie (the mass debate re our future there, the academy, attending advice)

[Rusty Buckets]

I am sure they were all in each others pocket (NMFC and AFL). Kennets role is interesting in terms of extending the TAS arrangement. I don't trust the AFL one bit.

I shared similar sentiments on another thread gokangas and virtually get run out of Dodge. It really irks me how we've eradicated our debt, whilst upping the football spend and rolling out our own VFL and AFLW/VFLW teams, yet we somehow still seem to be in the gun. The GoDees are still on AFL life support and the Saints are massively in debt and have embarked on reckless trade period spending, but both clubs manage to fly under the radar.

 

[gokangas]

I shared similar sentiments on another thread gokangas and virtually get run out of Dodge. It really irks me how we've eradicated our debt, whilst upping the football spend and rolling out our own VFL and AFLW/VFLW teams, yet we somehow still seem to be in the gun. The GoDees are still on AFL life support and the Saints are massively in debt and have embarked on reckless trade period spending, but both clubs manage to fly under the radar.

I think we are seen as the weakest (most vulnerable) link. We have to have a plan B - if we are not going to grow our Tassy presence then we will probably lose it. So lets get about making the club more sustainable post Tassy. Lets see what the new CEO says.

 

[Rusty Buckets]

I think we are seen as the weakest (most vulnerable) link.

I maintain that Dean Laidley never fully got the credit for an outstanding coaching performance in 2007. I think Sav retired at the end of 2006 and Nathan Thompson went down in the pre-season with an ACL. Things were looking grim and Ron Clarke was carrying on as if relocation was a fair accompli. To play off in a PF, given the list at the time, the fact the club barely had 20K members, a divided board and various other impediments (I think the portables burnt down around that time) was enormous. I shudder to think might have been had we finished mid-table or worse.

 

[Colbys Boots]

I maintain that Dean Laidley never fully got the credit for an outstanding coaching performance in 2007. I think Sav retired at the end of 2006 and Nathan Thompson went down in the pre-season with an ACL. Things were looking grim and Ron Clarke was carrying on as if relocation was a fair accompli. To play off in a PF, given the list at the time, the fact the club barely had 20K members, a divided board and various other impediments (I think the portables burnt down around that time) was enormous. I shudder to think might have been had we finished mid-table or worse.

Finished third last in 2006 and were everyone's choice for wooden spoon in 2007. Mid-table was a "pipedream."

 

[Rusty Buckets]

Finished third last in 2006 and were everyone's choice for wooden spoon in 2007. Mid-table was a "pipedream."

Yes, it certainly ruined Caro's narrative.

 

[buttox]

Screw Tassie
We want an AFL standard stadium in northern melbourne.
30k in size. nothing flashy
we are due. The league has never done a thing for us.
we wont fold like gcs will.
the stadium will not end up a white elephant
investment in the afl's base.

 

[Dan]

Screw Tassie
We want an AFL standard stadium in northern melbourne.
30k in size. nothing flashy
we are due. The league has never done a thing for us.
we wont fold like gcs will.
the stadium will not end up a white elephant
investment in the afl's base.

Every club that commits to a VFL & Women’s team should have a funded seating arrangement at the club.

 

[The Warlord]

Lets face facts. The original AFL plan was to have us play 7 Tassy, 7 home, 4 or 5 other home share and rest around about. I still believe that is their wish. We are still 'based at Arden St' but Tassy gets a stronger presence. This premise has never gone away and the AFL were somewhat set back when Kennet signed an extended deal with his Tassy polly mate which delayed the AFLs plans.

The original AFL plan was also to:

- run us in to the ground until we had to relocate/merge on their terms
- relocate us to Gold Coast
- Etc etc

We've fought this off before and will again.

I suspect the "Move North to Tassie" carousel has moved on, and the next challenge we will face is what to do when a genuine Tassie team comes in and we lose that revenue stream.

 

[gokangas]

The original AFL plan was also to:

- run us in to the ground until we had to relocate/merge on their terms
- relocate us to Gold Coast
- Etc etc

We've fought this off before and will again.

I suspect the "Move North to Tassie" carousel has moved on, and the next challenge we will face is what to do when a genuine Tassie team comes in and we lose that revenue stream.

Fair call but I get the sense the AFL does not think a new team would survive. Thats why I think they may want to return to the 7/7 model with us hoping it would lead to a full move later on.

 

[The Warlord]

Fair call but I get the sense the AFL does not think a new team would survive. Thats why I think they may want to return to the 7/7 model with us hoping it would lead to a full move later on.

They may want to but it is not going to happen.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

Lets face facts. The original AFL plan was to have us play 7 Tassy, 7 home, 4 or 5 other home share and rest around about. I still believe that is their wish. We are still 'based at Arden St' but Tassy gets a stronger presence. This premise has never gone away and the AFL were somewhat set back when Kennet signed an extended deal with his Tassy polly mate which delayed the AFLs plans.

The deal was never '7 tassie, 7 home'...it was 7 tassie and 4 home - it has to be as we can only have 11 home games.

We would be 'promised' additional Melbourne replacement games but they would fall away quickly as they would have to in a national competition - ie other clubs are not going to give up home games for us.

Melbourne based supporters would drop off under this scenario (as they already have under the current 4 games in tassie arrangement).

The idea that we can be a little bit pregnant in both Melbourne and Hobart is a poor business model - it may have delivered some short term financial gains but it has hurt the perception of the club long term - we still look needy, uncertain and are open to media gossip like we see now. (The Hawthorn model is not the precedent for us - they have the mug as a home venue and they are so strong financially because of pokies they will never be a candidate for relocation.)

The new CEO needs to deal with this issue quickly - ie a strong announcement that while we love our partnership with Tassie it is at a maximum of 4 games in 2020 and we will look to wind this back to 2 per year over the coming 3 years. He needs to state clearly that we are turning our attention to growing our presence in Melbourne - using our 'inner city' status as the key for a 10 year plan to double membership and get a core 22-25k North supporters to home games in Melbourne.

If we continue to piss around with the 4-7 model we will continue to drift along on the road to no where. We have made a number of off field moves over the past few months - a strong announcement re a reduced Tassie involvement needs to be made pre Xmas.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Solution: win

 

[gokangas]

The deal was never '7 tassie, 7 home'...it was 7 tassie and 4 home - it has to be as we can only have 11 home games.

We would be 'promised' additional Melbourne replacement games but they would fall away quickly as they would have to in a national competition - ie other clubs are not going to give up home games for us.

Melbourne based supporters would drop off under this scenario (as they already have under the current 4 games in tassie arrangement).

The idea that we can be a little bit pregnant in both Melbourne and Hobart is a poor business model - it may have delivered some short term financial gains but it has hurt the perception of the club long term - we still look needy, uncertain and are open to media gossip like we see now. (The Hawthorn model is not the precedent for us - they have the mug as a home venue and they are so strong financially because of pokies they will never be a candidate for relocation.)

The new CEO needs to deal with this issue quickly - ie a strong announcement that while we love our partnership with Tassie it is at a maximum of 4 games in 2020 and we will look to wind this back to 2 per year over the coming 3 years. He needs to state clearly that we are turning our attention to growing our presence in Melbourne - using our 'inner city' status as the key for a 10 year plan to double membership and get a core 22-25k North supporters to home games in Melbourne.

If we continue to piss around with the 4-7 model we will continue to drift along on the road to no where. We have made a number of off field moves over the past few months - a strong announcement re a reduced Tassie involvement needs to be made pre Xmas.

Not quite as I understood. 7 Tassy, 7 home and 4 share home so we had 11 home in Melbourne and the seven Tassy would be a different membership. Anyway, I agree the new CEO comments on Tassy will be very interesting. Can we find a sustainable funding source to replace the Tassy dollars if we lose that market?

 

[Colbys Boots]

Not quite as I understood. 7 Tassy, 7 home and 4 share home so we had 11 home in Melbourne and the seven Tassy would be a different membership. Anyway, I agree the new CEO comments on Tassy will be very interesting. Can we find a sustainable funding source to replace the Tassy dollars if we lose that market?

The maths on that deal never added up. 7 Tassy games and 7 home games in Melbourne means 14 home games so 3 clubs would have had to give up one of their home games to play this Kangaroos team in Tasmania. The 4 share games was just another way of saying replacement games. They were never "share" games.

 

[gokangas]

The maths on that deal never added up. 7 Tassy games and 7 home games in Melbourne means 14 home games so 3 clubs would have had to give up one of their home games to play this Kangaroos team in Tasmania. The 4 share games was just another way of saying replacement games. They were never "share" games.

FFS - home/share/replacement - call them what you like - you know what I mean. They would be able to market an 11 game membership to members in Melbourne.

 

[Ry009]

FFS - home/share/replacement - call them what you like - you know what I mean. They would be able to market an 11 game membership to members in Melbourne.

Like they did with Brisbane/Fitzroy? Naive to think any deal along those lines would have lasted longer than a couple years.

 

[gokangas]

Like they did with Brisbane/Fitzroy? Naive to think any deal along those lines would have lasted longer than a couple years.

Absolutely. But that is how it would have been sold.

 

[The Warlord]

Given we've paid the debt off - an astounding achievement by the previous admin - the AFL actually has very little leverage over us.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Given we've paid the debt off - an astounding achievement by the previous admin - the AFL actually has very little leverage over us.

Lovely.

So let’s get the * out of * town.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I see that Jean is again

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

Not quite as I understood. 7 Tassy, 7 home and 4 share home so we had 11 home in Melbourne and the seven Tassy would be a different membership. Anyway, I agree the new CEO comments on Tassy will be very interesting. Can we find a sustainable funding source to replace the Tassy dollars if we lose that market?

As long as we are sensible with our exit strategy - ie we don't leave overnight - rather we phase ourselves out over a 4 year period - there will be plenty of opportunity to recoup that revenue.

Bringing in a commercially focussed CEO in BA hopefully means Buckley has this in mind.

A variety of

- better sponsorship deals,
- better stadium deals,
- Melbourne members buying more expensive memberships including reserve seats,
- non football spending being tightened

will be required.

At the end of the day though in Melbourne based supporters don't start turning up in bigger numbers to watch North - ie toward 20k minimum - then we won't have a future in Melbourne.

 

[The Warlord]

I see that Jean is again

Sorry mate, I don't talk kid's language.

EDIT - Oh, I get it, cherry picking.

Cute.

 

[The Warlord]

Lovely.

So let’s get the fu** out of fu** town.

Agree, 100 per cent.

The AFL may WANT us to go to Tassie, it would make their life a lot easier.

But I don't see where their leverage comes from.

Usually, their leverage is debt ... we'll stop underwriting your debt if you don't do what we say.

They can't do that now.

 

[Colbys Boots]

FFS - home/share/replacement - call them what you like - you know what I mean. They would be able to market an 11 game membership to members in Melbourne.

That's the point - it was all marketing double speak. And twisted logic. You said earlier that it was 7 home games in Tasmania, 7 home games in Melbourne and 4 replacement (share) games in Melbourne. I don't dispute that this wasn't floated as the deal but it was nonsense.

The only way it went close to working out for the rest of the clubs is if the Kangaroos (won't call it North Melbourne) played 7 home games in Tasmania and 4 homes games in Melbourne with another 7 "guaranteed" replacement games in Melbourne.

But as others are pointing out, the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger was a clear case of the AFL reneging on guarantees as soon as they felt they could get away with it.

 

[gokangas]

That's the point - it was all marketing double speak. And twisted logic. You said earlier that it was 7 home games in Tasmania, 7 home games in Melbourne and 4 replacement (share) games in Melbourne. I don't dispute that this wasn't floated as the deal but it was nonsense.

The only way it went close to working out for the rest of the clubs is if the Kangaroos (won't call it North Melbourne) played 7 home games in Tasmania and 4 homes games in Melbourne with another 7 "guaranteed" replacement games in Melbourne.

But as others are pointing out, the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger was a clear case of the AFL reneging on guarantees as soon as they felt they could get away with it.

End result - 11 game Melbourne package, which is what I said. Absolutely marketing spin - total bullshit. But that is how they would have sold it. You all know my level of trust of the AFL is zero so I am sure every time the deal was renewed we would lose more. The lies they told Fitzroy folk should never be forgotten.