Crisis meeting - Hun reports

[LuvtheKangas]

Some long bows there.

The existence of the Huddle is neither here nor there and I didn't mention it, fwiw my take is that it was a necessary move to fulfill Scanlon's checklist for opening up the purse strings.

As for my point, yes I think a reasonable sample size of people moving to this country suggesting (to me) that on-field success and general branding has far more effect on pulling in neutrals than a self-applied tag of do-gooding.

I take it you're aware the people who attend games from the Huddle including those canvassed from the uni's are almost all exclusively on free tickets then. To my knowledge there is little to no churn from these promotional game attendees into club memberships.

Here you go, a knowledge update:

There is always a contingent from the Huddle in the forward pocket near the cheer squad. One of the fish stalls at Preston Market is run by rabid North supporters and connected to the Huddle. He gave me tickets to invite some of my South Sudanese friends and we sat amongst about 30-40 kids and families who were obviously first timers.

 

[King Corey]

Here you go, a knowledge update:

Not really. You've just restated my response.

 

[Grogg]

Dunno about that, mate. The whole Tassie thing is pretty ******* insidious as well, and that comes from the board. I'm still not entirely comfortable obviously with the fourth game itself, but also how it was announced shortly after getting the fans and members to dig into their own pockets to donate to the club. It would be pretty easy to take the cynical view regarding the timing of those two things.

The handling of the whole Tassie courtship stunk from the time Brayshaw agreed to put forward a 7 game package.

Throw in an apathetic view towards our hometown members, a bog average coach and subsequent team performance and you pretty much have a recipe for the current s**t sandwich.

That's where it's at for me, no more, no less.

 

[Black2Blue]

I take it you're aware the people who attend games from the Huddle including those canvassed from the uni's are almost all exclusively on free tickets then. To my knowledge there is little to no churn from these promotional game attendees into club memberships.

Every club hands out freebies to attract new members. The Bulldogs toss around free tickets to Vic Uni students like confetti. With Melbourne's growing population I would reckon there is a clamour to get a new support base with the hope that that translates to memberships in the future. You might be right that there is not much sign to date, but I'm from a migrant family and after starting supporting North as a 6yo, I didn't start getting memberships for decades, but now have daughter signed up and a close friend, and 2 of his kids on board. It's the long game I guess.

As to the Huddle, I've had a bit to do with them and they mostly get funding from grants and the relationship with the club is mutual. The players that put time into it choose to do so. And its just one of a handful of non-profits or charities the club is linked to. It's part of North's rebranding in the post-pokies era and the notion that somehow the Huddle has drawn away resources or fed into the culture of the team is a bit of a long bow.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Not really. You've just restated my response.

Well, no I didn't.

But it's beside the point. I was initially questioning what you were getting at with your post. Surely, it's obvious to the point of facile to state that the clubs that attract new supporters are the ones who have success. So, what was the point of stating (specifically) new PR / 457 visa holders go for the successful clubs and then throw the backhander about those clubs running successful community programs (haha, not really)? Sounded like a snipe at The Huddle to me, but you have since suggested this was not relevant to your post.

So, I still don't get what point you were making in that post.

 

[King Corey]

Every club hands out freebies to attract new members. The Bulldogs toss around free tickets to Vic Uni students like confetti. With Melbourne's growing population I would reckon there is a clamour to get a new support base with the hope that that translates to memberships in the future. You might be right that there is not much sign to date, but I'm from a migrant family and after starting supporting North as a 6yo, I didn't start getting memberships for decades, but now have daughter signed up and a close friend, and 2 of his kids on board. It's the long game I guess.

As to the Huddle, I've had a bit to do with them and they mostly get funding from grants and the relationship with the club is mutual. The players that put time into it choose to do so. And its just one of a handful of non-profits or charities the club is linked to. It's part of North's rebranding in the post-pokies era and the notion that somehow the Huddle has drawn away resources or fed into the culture of the team is a bit of a long bow.

Fair points mate. LTK sidetracked things there as I never commented on the validity of the Huddle in isolation, simply that it hasn't translated to significant (paying) gameday attendances or membership increases.

I'm guessing you, your daughter, close friend and kids became enamored with North Melbourne for reasons other than their social stances or free ticket giveaways.

That's not saying that those approaches in isolation are bad but they should not be assumed to be some miracle means of getting mass support amongst the unconverted.

On-field success, marketable figures and public interest were and are the biggest drivers towards people following and financially supporting football clubs.

 

[D23D]

I wish this dickhead Nixon knew how to use a comma or a full stop. Almost impossible to read.

I wish his Dad knew how to use a franga

 

[King Corey]

Well, no I didn't.

But it's beside the point. I was initially questioning what you were getting at with your post. Surely, it's obvious to the point of facile to state that the clubs that attract new supporters are the ones who have success. So, what was the point of stating (specifically) new PR / 457 visa holders go for the successful clubs and then throw the backhander about those clubs running successful community programs (haha, not really)? Sounded like a snipe at The Huddle to me, but you have since suggested this was not relevant to your post.

So, I still don't get what point you were making in that post.

Boiled down:

We are investing energy into multicultural social programs and living very much as solid corporate citizens
They are investing energy into football programs via some anti-social means (ie pokies)

Yet they appear to be drawing in more migrant support interest than us regardless.

 

[sbdan]

How the f*** did this thread become all about the huddle?

The "crisis talks" must've just been Monday's fluff piece

 

[Grogg]

Every club hands out freebies to attract new members. The Bulldogs toss around free tickets to Vic Uni students like confetti. With Melbourne's growing population I would reckon there is a clamour to get a new support base with the hope that that translates to memberships in the future. You might be right that there is not much sign to date, but I'm from a migrant family and after starting supporting North as a 6yo, I didn't start getting memberships for decades, but now have daughter signed up and a close friend, and 2 of his kids on board. It's the long game I guess.

All the more reason to have the primary focus on hometown growth.

Taking more games from Melbourne, inadequate compensation and a seemingly casual acknowledgement of the existing members is not a sound strategy for solidification and growth in our most important market.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Every club hands out freebies to attract new members. The Bulldogs toss around free tickets to Vic Uni students like confetti.

The difference being that University students are already entrenched in society, have income, can negotiate public travel and based on that are much more likely to purchase meberships.

With Melbourne's growing population I would reckon there is a clamour to get a new support base with the hope that that translates to memberships in the future.

It's been 10 years and I am not aware of anything worthy coming from it. In fact, I don't believe it even primarily exists to facilitate members. It's just window dressing for other agendas.

As to the Huddle, I've had a bit to do with them and they mostly get funding from grants and the relationship with the club is mutual. The players that put time into it choose to do so. And its just one of a handful of non-profits or charities the club is linked to. It's part of North's rebranding in the post-pokies era and the notion that somehow the Huddle has drawn away resources or fed into the culture of the team is a bit of a long bow.

Respectfully, none of this matters in the cold hard world of AFL corporatism.

All the more reason to have the primary focus on hometown growth.

Taking more games from Melbourne, inadequate compensation and a seemingly casual acknowledgement of the existing members is not a sound strategy for solidification and growth in our most important market.

It will be a nice story to tell people when they're packing us off. Hell, they'll probably send the social programs off with the jumper, song and premiership cups, so no major loss for those immediately concerned.

 

[Event Horizon]

Back to the topic of Buckley and Brad Scott - I think our best hope of a change (or our only hope) is if things continue as they are on the field, pretty soon Brad will realize that this is doing significant damage to his image and future employment prospects, and may walk. If that doesn't happen, I don't think Buckley or anyone else at the club has the balls to sack Scott, now or next year. Simple as that.

 

[Black2Blue]

Fair points mate. LTK sidetracked things there as I never commented on the validity of the Huddle in isolation, simply that it hasn't translated to significant (paying) gameday attendances or membership increases.

I'm guessing you, your daughter, close friend and kids became enamored with North Melbourne for reasons other than their social stances or free ticket giveaways.

That's not saying that those approaches in isolation are bad but they should not be assumed to be some miracle means of getting mass support amongst the unconverted.

On-field success, marketable figures and public interest were and are the biggest drivers towards people following and financially supporting football clubs.

True. Timing was good for me. I started wearing the royal blue and white in 1974, so was easily hooked for obvious reasons.

It would be good to see something from the club that gives us some idea as to how the shift away from pokies to community engagement approach has shaped our membership because on-field success certainly aint been driving it.

 

[Shermanator]

How the fk did this thread become all about the huddle?

The "crisis talks" must've just been Monday's fluff piece

Gotta agree, if the Huddle never existed Brad Scott coaching us to the bottom of the ladder still would..

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Fair points mate. LTK sidetracked things there as I never commented on the validity of the Huddle in isolation, simply that it hasn't translated to significant (paying) gameday attendances or membership increases.

Nah mate, here's the sidetrack:

To generalise, almost every recent PR or 457 visa holder (last 5-10 years) I've met has gone for one of Hawthorn, Collingwood or North Melbourne.

Sorry, correction - Hawthorn or Collingwood. Not one has has gone for North.

Hawthorn and Collingwood must be running some incredibly influential community social engagement programs I'm guessing.

It's disingenuous to claim you weren't sniping The Huddle with this post. Otherwise, what was it's point?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Nah mate, here's the sidetrack:

It's disingenuous to claim you weren't sniping The Huddle with this post. Otherwise, what was it's point?

Hang on, isn't anyone allowed to be critical of things going on at the club? Is this some sacred cow?

 

[King Corey]

Nah mate, here's the sidetrack:

It's disingenuous to claim you weren't sniping The Huddle with this post. Otherwise, what was it's point?

Boiled down:

We are investing energy into multicultural social programs and living very much as solid corporate citizens
They are investing energy into football programs via some anti-social means (ie pokies)

Yet they appear to be drawing in more migrant support interest than us regardless.

 

[Grogg]

Back to the topic of Buckley and Brad Scott - I think our best hope of a change (or our only hope) is if things continue as they are on the field, pretty soon Brad will realize that this is doing significant damage to his image and future employment prospects, and may walk. If that doesn't happen, I don't think Buckley or anyone else at the club has the balls to sack Scott, now or next year. Simple as that.

Generally I agree, though there is value in the belief that a continuation of our shocking onfield ineptitude would eventually lead to a boardroom mentality of self preservation.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Hang on, isn't anyone allowed to be critical of things going on at the club? Is that your premise?

100% no. To suggest that was my point is also completely disingenuous.

 

[Black2Blue]

Respectfully, none of this matters in the cold hard world of AFL corporatism.

It will be a nice story to tell people when they're packing us off. Hell, they'll probably send the social programs off with the jumper, song and premiership cups, so no major loss for those immediately concerned.

I don't disagree with the sentiment re. AFL corporatism, but the entire business sector is struggling to deal with the cultural shifts around gender, multiculturalism, the millennials, etc and some have been doing it better than others. North has always appeared a bit amateur-hour in general with its community work, but they got some clever minds in at the Huddle and the club has come out looking good as a result. But the big issue is that the club is doing ok financially and with its facilities but its f***ed up its main "product" (on-field performance) and "customer" (core membership) badly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

100% no. To suggest that was my point is also completely disingenuous.

Okay, nothing disingenuous, just seeking clarification. Comment withdrawn.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I don't disagree with the sentiment re. AFL corporatism, but the entire business sector is struggling to deal with the cultural shifts around gender, multiculturalism, the millennials, etc and some have been doing it better than others. North has always appeared a bit amateur-hour in general with its community work, but they got some clever minds in at the Huddle and the club has come out looking good as a result. But the big issue is that the club is doing ok financially and with its facilities but its f***ed up its main "product" (on-field performance) and "customer" (core membership) badly.

Mate, seriously, what does all this have to do with shouting at people kicking around an inflatable leather conveyance? Seriously?

These are fringe issues for a football club.............unless that club happens to be North Melbourne.

We have taken on societies problems because................I dunno..............why? Why are we worthy of this monumental task?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

To generalise, almost every recent PR or 457 visa holder (last 5-10 years) I've met has gone for one of Hawthorn, Collingwood or North Melbourne.

Sorry, correction - Hawthorn or Collingwood. Not one has has gone for North.

Hawthorn and Collingwood must be running some incredibly influential community social engagement programs I'm guessing.

=/=

Boiled down:

We are investing energy into multicultural social programs and living very much as solid corporate citizens
They are investing energy into football programs via some anti-social means (ie pokies)

Yet they appear to be drawing in more migrant support interest than us regardless.

You already stated the reason - it's simply the fact that success on-field is the key driver in attracting new supporters.


The basic premise that we are misallocating resources between football and community programs is flawed - the funding is separate, the staffing is separate and the activities are separate. The only crossover is players and coaches donating some of their time to the community side, which is something that every club experiences to some degree.

 

[Orange Peanut]

But the big issue is that the club.... f***ed up its main "product" (on-field performance) and "customer" (core membership) badly.

Strongly disagree, with all respect.

They've f***ed these things up masterfully.

 

[Snake_Baker]

- the funding is separate, the staffing is separate and the activities are separate. The only crossover is players and coaches donating some of their time to the community side, which is something that every club experiences to some degree.

Is that a fact? None of the costs for this "social programs" stuff comes out of membership revenue whatsoever?

Who funds all that?