Resource 2015 NMFC Home Crowds Thread

[Saintly31]

Actually wasn't trying to have a go at hobart saintly31. Been to all but 1 game now and every other weekend has been awesome crowd and transport wise.
May the 16k was after the evacuation of some of the Corporates from the Free Bbq area.

No I know that GazzaR, all good! I have heard of problems with public transport before though hence my comment, but if you've found it fine previously that is excellent. It's great you enjoy the weekends coming down, fantastic to hear of such support and that opinion no doubt would be one of many.

 

[Augustine]

I never said the Port game was correct figure. It said it was poor figure and maintain that for a Sat night fixture against a top 4 team in Melb.

18K is close to 20K and whilst a few more could have squeezed in, was a fantastic result for the club and I'm sure generated more memberships and North adopters, plus giving more confidence in the secondary market being sustainable.

Unless you consider Carl Dilena incompetent, I fail to see any sound reasoning on why you think it was such a poor decision and outcome when the CEO and President are saying exactly the opposite and it's plain to see why that is the case.

That last point is a terrible argument. I consider Dilena and Brayshaw extremely competent but disagree with playing Richmond in Hobart. What else would they say publicly? It was a disastrous decision, we stuffed up big time.

 

[Only Forwards]

I never said the Port game was correct figure. It said it was poor figure and maintain that for a Sat night fixture against a top 4 team in Melb.

Our best non finals crowd against Port in Melbourne. Apples to apples it's not as bad as painted.

18K is close to 20K and whilst a few more could have squeezed in, was a fantastic result for the club and I'm sure generated more memberships and North adopters, plus giving more confidence in the secondary market being sustainable.

18k is close to 20k I agree.

The offical crowd was 16,131.

Unless you consider Carl Dilena incompetent, I fail to see any sound reasoning on why you think it was such a poor decision and outcome when the CEO and President are saying exactly the opposite and it's plain to see why that is the case.

He's not incompetent, but surely you can understand that there is a narrative here they have to adhere to. Because we need to act like we are not just in Hobart for the money.

You can see no rational reason? Here I will lay it out for you.

We draw more to a Richmond game in Melbourne than we draw to a Port game.

We would have drawn around about the same figure to a Port game as we would have to a Richmond game in Hobart, in fact the Port game was a better specticle depsite the outcome to the match.

We would have written a cheque for the privilidge of playing Port at Etihad. Had we played Port in Hobart instead we probably don't write that cheque and we return a modest profit from the Richmond game at Etihad making thus making more profit from the Port game in Hobart.

We didn't do the above becasue we want those in Hobart to feel all warm and fuzzy about the games we play there.

Which clearly you do.

 

[Harris 10]

Better fixturing would of had us playing Ric at Etihad and the Port game in Tas.
The overall financial result would've been much better.

 

[GazzaRoo]

[QUOTE="We should have played Richomnd in Melbourne.[/QUOTE]

If were going to make the tassie experiment work then we will have to give them at least 1 premier big drawing game.
This is more likely to ensure a good return for the towns investment into our club.

 

[Only Forwards]

If were going to make the tassie experiment work then we will have to give them at least 1 premier big drawing game.
This is more likely to ensure a good return for the towns investment into our club.

This thread spung out of the idea that the Port crowd in Melbourne was poor despite it being the largest non finals North v Port crowd ever.

it was considered

it was poor figure and maintain that for a Sat night fixture against a top 4 team in Melb.

It not like I was suggesting we play Brisbane down there. Port were a top 4 side, who were a kick and a half out of playing a Grand Final last year. In hindsight the Port v North match was of far better standard than the North v Richmond match.

We'd have drawn about the same to both matches in Hobart.

We'd have drawn may more to the Richmond game in Melbourne.

 

[Saintly31]

GazzaRoo. Precisely why the club wanted to take this path, well put. The return is not strictly an attendance issue. It is much larger than that.

That last point is a terrible argument. I consider Dilena and Brayshaw extremely competent but disagree with playing Richmond in Hobart. What else would they say publicly? It was a disastrous decision, we stuffed up big time.

Based on what exactly? They are the ones who wanted a Melb team here and got it. So yes, you must think they are incompetent if you say they stuffed up big time with seemingly no reason to back that statement up.

Which clearly you do.

No. Clearly the club does and that's all that counts really.

 

[Only Forwards]

I post 209 words you respond to 4.

Fantastic debate.

 

[Zondor]

I was assured that the capacity was 20k and that it sure was better to play the tiggers there to build faith and not Port.

I'm thinking you're right about hidden genders, and I know you gots the nous about these things.

Yep. Funny how 22,000 is a s**t crowd according to some on here ye but 16,000 is actually 18,000 and fantastic. That my friends is the logic of someone with Hidden Genders. :stern look

 

[Saintly31]

I post 209 words you respond to 4.

Fantastic debate.

Because the rest has been covered before (outside the attendance numbers). Take it up with the club, not me, if you think they are doing such a poor job.

At the same time, ask them why we wanted to play a big Melb club in Hobart to continue to build the market, and then post it here so we all know why they did it and why the result in a positive for the club.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I was assured that the capacity was 20k and that it sure was better to play the tiggers there to build faith and not Port.

I'm thinking you're right about hidden genders, and I know you gots the nous about these things.

There is no hidden gender at all, but a very, very clear one. $$$

If we got 16K on the weekend we probably get 12K against Port at the same venue. 4K extra at Blundstone is probably worth an extra 20K at Etihad. Regardless of the reasons for 4K ticket holders not showing we will probably still have made more coin from Saturdays game then we will from all our Etihad home games combined this year. From a simply math perspective playing 3 games down there and at least one against a team that will attract 4k more than West Coast is logical, especially if we want to continue to fund the football department to the required level, pay down our debt and employ staff for sponsorship and business development activities.

 

[Event Horizon]

The point isn't whether this was a good crowd by Tassie standards, or whether we make money on it. The answer is clearly yes to both. The point is, this only works well if we play the likes of Port there, not the likes of Richmond. It simply doesn't make sense shifting 30k+ games to Tasmania, when you have plenty of 20k+ games you can shift, against quality opponents too.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Yep. Funny how 22,000 is a s**t crowd according to some on here ye but 16,000 is actually 18,000 and fantastic. That my friends is the logic of someone with Hidden Genders. :stern look

We can't accuse you of having a hidden gender Z-man as it is clear that you would rather we not play down in Tassie regardless of the multitude of benefits it brings the club.

 

[Saintly31]

Yep. Funny how 22,000 is a s**t crowd according to some on here ye but 16,000 is actually 18,000 and fantastic. That my friends is the logic of someone with Hidden Genders. :stern look

Ha...turn it up Z. It was quite obvious where the logic is in the different numbers and reasons why the club is happy with the result.

 

[Augustine]

GazzaRoo.
Based on what exactly? They are the ones who wanted a Melb team here and got it. So yes, you must think they are incompetent if you say they stuffed up big time with seemingly no reason to back that statement up.

I didn't say it was disastrous. I said that it is unlikely that our administrators would publicly say it was disastrous. There is a huge difference and I thought I made myself clear.

I understand the logic of playing richmond in Hobart. I do not think it an incompetent decision. Personally I disagree with the decision.

 

[Only Forwards]

There is no hidden gender at all, but a very, very clear one. $$$

If we got 16K on the weekend we probably get 12K against Port at the same venue. 4K extra at Blundstone is probably worth an extra 20K at Etihad. Regardless of the reasons for 4K ticket holders not showing we will probably still have made more coin from Saturdays game then we will from all our Etihad home games combined this year. From a simply math perspective playing 3 games down there and at least one against a team that will attract 4k more than West Coast is logical, especially if we want to continue to fund the football department to the required level, pay down our debt and employ staff for sponsorship and business development activities.

16k in Hobart is = 53k at Etihad? Perhaps we'd get close to that if we were scheduled Richmond as a home game at the G.

I think that the idea of playing Richmond there is more to do with building faith that we aren't just shipping off crap games.

The North v Port game wasn't crap, it was better than the Richmond v North game despite the result.

THe hidden gender remark was more about the sliding scale of attendance.

You don't just get to say hmm this crowd feels like 18k so it was 18k.

The Port crowd felt like hmmm about 24k were there so now this thread is redundant.

 

[GarnerSmash]

16k in Hobart is = 53k at Etihad?

Probably. Isn't the break even point at Etihad around the 28K mark?

Perhaps we'd get close to that if we were scheduled Richmond as a home game at the G.

And that ain't going to happen and it isn't because Brayshaw is a pussy, which will likely be the response by some.

I think that the idea of playing Richmond there is more to do with building faith that we aren't just shipping off crap games.

A little column A, a little column B.

The North v Port game wasn't crap, it was better than the Richmond v North game despite the result.

As a spectacle, of course., but not in levels of interest to Richmond fans in Hobart and Tasmania who would pay money to attend.

THe hidden gender remark was more about the sliding scale of attendance.

You don't just get to say hmm this crowd feels like 18k so it was 18k.

The Port crowd felt like hmmm about 24k were there so now this thread is redundant.

Fairy muff.

 

[Saintly31]

I didn't say it was disastrous. I said that it is unlikely that our administrators would publicly say it was disastrous. There is a huge difference and I thought I made myself clear.

I understand the logic of playing richmond in Hobart. I do not think it an incompetent decision. Personally I disagree with the decision.

That's fine about the second line, but again, i'm not following you to be honest.

Why would they say it is disastrous when it wasn't disastrous? And if you didn't think it was disastrous why do you have an issue with it? Or are you suggesting it was in fact disastrous (as previously when claim "stuffed up big time") but our admin would never come clean about their private views?

 

[muttley45]

How accurate were the crowd figures quoted for saturday, one of the commentators ? Welsh seemed convinced the joint was packed and the crowd record would be smashed with the addition of the Ponting stand, and seemed a bit shocked when the 16K was flashed up, i smell a conspiracy

 

[dus]

Is it our decision to play Richmond in Tassie, or the AFL? If it's ours, then it's clearly a terrible decision. If it's theirs, then there's not much we can do about it.

IMO, we should only play sides we know will be low drawing in Tassie. They want footy there, we're giving them that, they don't need games that would otherwise be blockbusters in Melbourne.

 

[Saintly31]

You don't just get to say hmm this crowd feels like 18k so it was 18k.

The Port crowd felt like hmmm about 24k were there so now this thread is redundant.

That's interesting, because no one has said that.....it was solely about tickets sold and space available.

Yes the thread will be redundant if you keep making things up just to suit your own argument.

 

[TruRoos7]

The problem is that Tassie believes it is getting pissed on by having "interstate" teams like port, Eagles, Adelaide etc come to play. Most people in tassie have affiliations with Victorian teams and want to see them as opposed to the other interstate teams. Continually having those teams play there will cause the punters to shy away from the games as they do in launceston, Hawks are getting less people through the gates when the other interstate teams play. Remember it's about bums on seats and keeping the punters interested enough to get the cash rolling in. Just being a top 4/8 side will not guarentee people show up to watch the games. The occasional vic side going to Hobart isn't a real issue, we and the afl need to be seen to be making an effort to get the teams down there that people want. Just imagine a fixture of Gws, GC & west coke, who would continue to go to see them. Remembering not all the people through the gates are North suppoters.

 

[Augustine]

That's fine about the second line, but again, i'm not following you to be honest.

Why would they say it is disastrous when it wasn't disastrous? And if you didn't think it was disastrous why do you have an issue with it? Or are you suggesting it was in fact disastrous (as previously when claim "stuffed up big time") but our admin would never come clean about their private views?

It's really simple what I'm saying:

You said that to criticise the decision was tantamount to calling Dillena and Brayshaw incompetent as they have stated that it was a success.
I respond that regardless of if it was a success or not, it's unlikely that Dilena and Brayshaw are going to saying anything different publicly. A massive part of their job is convincing everyone that everything is going well. Perception of success helps breed success in this industry.

 

[Saintly31]

It's really simple what I'm saying:

You said that to criticise the decision was tantamount to calling Dillena and Brayshaw incompetent as they have stated that it was a success.
I respond that regardless of if it was a success or not, it's unlikely that Dilena and Brayshaw are going to saying anything different publicly. A massive part of their job is convincing everyone that everything is going well. Perception of success helps breed success in this industry.

OK, that's fine if they were just trying to talk up a bad result for the club.

But the fact is they wanted a Melb team like the Tigers in Hobart, so it's not just them trying to spin a good result after the fact when in fact they wanted and AFL made it happen. So it would be pretty incompetent of our admin to proactively push an outcome to then privately think the result of that was disastrous wouldn't you think?

 

[Augustine]

OK, that's fine if they were just trying to talk up a bad result for the club.

But the fact is they wanted a Melb team like the Tigers in Hobart, so it's not just them trying to spin a good result after the fact when in fact they wanted and AFL made it happen. So it would be pretty incompetent of our admin to proactively push an outcome to then privately think the result of that was disastrous wouldn't you think?

I think it is competent to push for a game in Hobart against a big Vic club, be slightly disappointed with the result (16k crowd) but to still come out and say it was a great result for the club. And that's exactly what I think has happened.