NMFC AGM February 26, 2020

[Gasometer]

I don't mean to single you out on this, but the whole "can't somebody ask a question" thing does my head in. We have many people with strong opinions on this board, but how many have the courage to ask questions of the powerful people at the club? In my experience, the most opinionated among us turn into timid kittens in the presence of authority.

Not the handful I saw giving ScoMo the rounds of the kitchen last night in South Coast NSW

 

[Tas]

Can somebody pull a Stephen Mayne and ask a question about our deal with Tasmania?

What do you expect them to say that hasn't been said recently? What part of what they have said do you dislike/disagree with?

To this day we (the members) still have nfi whether or not the club even makes money playing football at Colonial Stadium.

You mean Docklands? We made nothing at Colonial Stadium. The answer is how long is a piece of string... we have a much improved stadium deal since the AFL bought it out, we have a far more equitable share of the revenue at the gate, but if the only people who rock up are members who have bought memberships and they don't spend much at the game then we have already received the membership revenue. Previously we received 75% of the price of a general admission ticket for corporate boxes or premium seating, when we pulled upwards to a $1m in corporate box revenue we used to got * all of that. We now get 75% of the revenue from corporate box and premium seating count towards the gate. If we pull in decent crowds like we did during the couple of decent years under Brad where there was some expectation of us doing well then we will make good money from our home games. If we pull in sub 20k of mostly paid up members then we are not... but should do better than we used to.

The stadium deal is what a deal should be, there is a considerable incentive for us to get people to the games, previously there wasn't. We need to pull in a lot better numbers to be able to return our Tasmanian games without hurting on the bottom line if that is what you are looking for, we get a significant chunk of cash in Tasmania for just showing up and would make a decent amount of money regardless how many show up to games. We do not have that high base income from Docklands, largely because the state government and corporations that benefit from games being played in Melbourne do not contribute anything for the business activity the AFL generates. Tasmania has to pay to incentivise teams to move games.

This is our 'core business', according to JB circa Dallas Brooks Hall, and we have NFI if the 'core business' makes the club any cash.

The club would be acutely aware, however, Tender Touch wouldn't make much money if nobody comes in through the door, no matter how lucrative it is for them when people do. Our ability to do well is largely determined by how many people we can get to games and that is largely dependant on how well our club performs on-field and how well games are anticipated to be as contested well ahead of time. They can't give you a definitive answer if we will do well or not without making some assumptions. Based on our current numbers at Docklands, we wouldn't do well enough... but most mediocre performing clubs aren't doing great financially.

Meanwhile the Tasmanian jungle drums beat louder and louder, no longer just a faint sound in the distance, but a growing beat.

Three hay yah yah. Four hay yah yah.

I think it is important that our new CEO has mentioned that Tasmania is getting their own side sooner or later and we support them in that. I think that has been the first time as a club we have accepted the obvious. I would assume/hope that it means our new CEO will be looking to aggressively expand our growth here in Melbourne because sooner or later, we will be back here.

That transition is going to be a lot easier if we can put together a team that is performing on-field on a consistent basis.

 

[Tas]

Like who?

Like the people who have posted on this forum who have been rejected without an explanation as to why. They might not be ASX 200 level of candidates, but Archer probably isn't either. If say Archer is the benchmark in terms of minimum business acumen required to be even considered for a board position then there seems to be a lack of consistency or lack of transparency in terms of what someone needs to qualify, it shouldn't be vague or inconsistent.

 

[kelman]

Like the people who have posted on this forum who have been rejected without an explanation as to why. They might not be ASX 200 level of candidates, but Archer probably isn't either. If say Archer is the benchmark in terms of minimum business acumen required to be even considered for a board position then there seems to be a lack of consistency or lack of transparency in terms of what someone needs to qualify, it shouldn't be vague or inconsistent.

I don’t think it is plural. Isn’t it just that one guy who had an amusing surname (I can’t remember it either). I do remember he was pretty borderline in terms of credentials but we perhaps should have handled communications better. It certainly didn’t feel like “blocking” for any sinister reason. The appointment of Dr. Hood also suggests they are not blocking Tassie dissenters/anti-relocationists (unless she has sold her soul).

Archer also has some other experience that most do not have which supplements business qualifications when assembling a diverse board.

 

[Mav]

Yep, I only know of one person blocked and in that instance the committee made the right choice. Seems to be working well as far as I’m concerned.

And not even Tef could argue Archers appointment. True definition of a “football person”.

 

[Tas]

I don’t think it is plural. Isn’t it just that one guy who had an amusing surname (I can’t remember it either). I do remember he was pretty borderline in terms of credentials but we perhaps should have handled communications better. It certainly didn’t feel like “blocking” for any sinister reason. The appointment of Dr. Hood also suggests they are not blocking Tassie dissenters/anti-relocationists (unless she has sold her soul).

Archer also has some other experience that most do not have which supplements business qualifications when assembling a diverse board.

I thought there were a few, perhaps I am including some people who were stiff-armed by the club before this policy came out to legitimise their cherry picking of board positions. I can't be stuffed searching the forum though, happy to be corrected.

Given the lack of people who run for board positions, I'd be surprised if what we see isn't just the tip of the iceberg.

I am well aware of what Archer has done after football. I am not putting him down, I think clubs need more people like him but he would be the first one to put his hand up and say what he isn't capable of doing or what he lacks in terms of qualification or experience. It is why clubs have a different set of rules to normal corporations, what matters to members is more important than what matters to for profit corporations. I don't ever want us to become like West Coast Eagles who put profit ahead of their members. I think we do need competency and we do need people capable of guiding our club towards significant growth, but I feel the disconnect between the executive and the fans/members over a long period of time has been a yoke that has made it harder for our club to grow. A lot of members feel more like season ticket holders than members, even though a club like Collingwood is more corporate elitist, I'd imagine their members feel like their voice matters more/has more impact. As a club we have talked the talk but haven't exactly walked the walk when it comes to putting members first.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yep, I only know of one person blocked and in that instance the committee made the right choice. Seems to be working well as far as I’m concerned.

And not even Tef could argue Archers appointment. True definition of a “football person”.

You got a "like" from me. Treasure it.

Lift your game and it just might happen again.

 

[Mav]

You got a "like" from me. Treasure it.

Lift your game and it just might happen again.

I couldn’t care less.
What I would like is to see you to stop posting so much crap. And the best place to start is stop quoting your own twitter posts. If anyone gave a shyte they would follow you.

 

[Mr north man]

Don’t care who runs for the board as long as he or she with the rest of the board and the CEO find an extra 5+ Million a year to run the club once Tasmania come into the league as the 19th team.
As these are some of the reasons why we need the extra 5+ Million.
1: Take make up the current $2 Million we are currently getting for 4 games in Hobart.
2: With running cost of an AFL , AWFL , VFL and VWFL clubs we will need every extra bit of $$$ to survive and be competitive.
3: More members singing up especially for reserve Seating as a current Level 2 reserve seat holder im sick and Fu(king tired of opposition supporters coming into North membership areas.
4: More supporters signing up as members especially attracting new migrants as supporters maybe a new membership to be brought in for them to sign up to .
But a lot of this won’t happen as people who run this club have Virgin Brains and who think let’s stay the lowest based Victorian club in the AFL lets the Red and Blue Draft cheat be ahead of us let the Sit Kilda’s be ahead of us and the Western Scumdogs be ahead of us.
Plus as a supporter base the supporters of this club well let’s say some of them are ELITEST SNOBS who only turn up when it suits or for a special occasion like a final or Brent Harvey record breaking game.
It’s time the supporters and the board stood up as we have to 2025 to get it right as 2025 will be the 1st year Tasmania will be in the AFL and after that it’s open season on us as the AFL hate us the rest of the clubs hate us the public hate us the media hate us.

 

[Luke72]

The media love us as we’re more open than other clubs. A couple of individuals seem to have an axe to grind.

Opposition supporters don’t tend to hate us it’s more indifference, which is worse. People used to hate Collingwood and it hasn’t done them any harm.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Let's put it this way, if the current structure hasn't delivered any significant change within 3 years, then it's time for the members to rally and get power back.

 

[gokangas]

People used to hate Collingwood and it hasn’t done them any harm.

Used to?

 

[Luke72]

Used to?

I don’t reckon the hate is as strong as it once was, which is a reflection on Collingwood coming back to the field in many ways. I hate Essendon more than Collingwood.

 

[Mav]

Let's put it this way, if the current structure hasn't delivered any significant change within 3 years, then it's time for the members to rally and get power back.

What sort of change?

 

[Luke72]

What sort of change?

A flag

 

[Mav]

A flag

That’s crap.

The board have put all the required people in to win a flag. It’s now up to the coaches and players. If you think the board has made any mistakes with their placements, speak up now.

so what changes is Tef expecting? My guess is he won’t be able to articulate the changes, and the alternative strategies to cover the losses made by his suggested changes.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

You mean Docklands? We made nothing at Colonial Stadium. The answer is how long is a piece of string... we have a much improved stadium deal since the AFL bought it out, we have a far more equitable share of the revenue at the gate, but if the only people who rock up are members who have bought memberships and they don't spend much at the game then we have already received the membership revenue. Previously we received 75% of the price of a general admission ticket for corporate boxes or premium seating, when we pulled upwards to a $1m in corporate box revenue we used to got fu** all of that. We now get 75% of the revenue from corporate box and premium seating count towards the gate. If we pull in decent crowds like we did during the couple of decent years under Brad where there was some expectation of us doing well then we will make good money from our home games. If we pull in sub 20k of mostly paid up members then we are not... but should do better than we used to.

Is there anywhere this is written officially so I can see it for myself?

 

[Arthur Cloke]

I’ll be at the AGM this year because I’m now part of one of the main catering groups. And the one thing I’m really going to stand my ground on is the introduction of sign language people at Rhys’s post-match pressers.
The idea had been bandied around at a closed supporters group meeting at Nobu just a month ago, and it seemed so real.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I have no issue with the club having an "independent body" which ensures board candidates are capable of providing some kind of benefit for the club, it has however been something that is obviously not independent, lacks transparency and seems to have been used to block certain individuals from running for positions when they are qualified. I disagree with how the mechanism has been implemented and used.

I wouldn't have voted for some of the people who have been blocked from running, however, I do not believe the club has legitimate reasons to prevent them from running.

I mean, it is fine if they want to prevent a whole bunch of bogans being elected to the board, similar to how we almost got Jedi recognised as an official religion on the census until we ruled out fictitious religions, it would be amusing... however, the club would be hurt from something like that happening. With notoriously low numbers rocking up to AGMs, we would be prone to having diabolical outcomes if we didn't place in some safeguards.

We have some high quality people on the board, their time is valuable and they offer it for free. If we want to be able to have people like that on our board, we need to show we are run in a professional manner. We do not want to go back to the days of having a part time chairman, a pizza delivery boy and a bunch of people who had to be convinced to be part of a s**t show, because we know that lead us to some dark times. If the consequence is some good quality punters can't sit in a comfy chair, then I can live with that.

I wish our club could resolve some of the issues we have, with people like PDR, who still believes he has something to offer and is prepared to donate his time and his expertise. Even if he doesn't sit on the board, I wish our club was able to resolve the petty schisms it has with certain groups, well run clubs do not seem to have these issues. I think it could have been handled better than it was in the past.

Aren’t they all?

 

[Snake_Baker]

What sort of change?

Insert whatever you feel the need to shoot down.

 

[Tas]

Is there anywhere this is written officially so I can see it for myself?

Hmmm, can't remember if they were articles going over the changes or part of tv programs. I don't think it is any great secret, should be able to email the club and ask for details of the stadium deal from someone there, or go to the AGM and ask there, am sure you would get a general breakdown of it.

 

[Mav]

Insert whatever you feel the need to shoot down.

And I was right. An inability to say anything of meaning.

Here, I’ll help you:

Boo boo, we need “football people”.

Let’s face it, any RATIONAL person will say one thing, and then completely contradict themselves 6 months later.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Hmmm, can't remember if they were articles going over the changes or part of tv programs. I don't think it is any great secret, should be able to email the club and ask for details of the stadium deal from someone there, or go to the AGM and ask there, am sure you would get a general breakdown of it.

Was it not my suggestion that somebody do this, the very thing which led to your reply in the first place?

You are one endearingly strange unit, Tas. And I mean that in the most respectful way possible.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And I was right.

When are you ever wrong?

 

[Mav]

When are you ever wrong?

And this is why people call you Pot.

Answer the question, what significant change are you expecting?