2017 NMFC Membership Tally/Discussion | Final tally 40,441

[ApplecrossWC]

Well give yourself a big pat on the back, must be so gratifying being "correct" with your negative outlook.

Thanks Phillyroo

 

[shintemaster]

I think the Drew / Boomer thing is overrated. It's primarily about perceptions of performance (perceptions that have been largely correct to date from a win/loss point of view).

Just IMO.

 

[Phillyroo]

I think the Drew / Boomer thing is overrated. It's primarily about perceptions of performance (perceptions that have been largely correct to date from a win/loss point of view).

Just IMO.

Could not agree more

 

[Caracas]

A win on Saturday would help us get to 40K, I have no doubt.

 

[longyroos]

There will be a surge toward the end of the membership window with 3 games etc. the lose of a few thousand is going to happen in down periods, it will go up again especially with one or two recruits

 

[Gasometer]

I have a sneaking suspicion that team selection last week has put an almost permanent smile on kt's face.

Doubt it.

 

[shintemaster]

Doubt it.

Well, maybe a two week smile. The dreaded two weeks strikes again.

 

[Peter27374]

Mate, I rate our team and have always said we could do well this year. Hence why I think we were stupid to get rid of Boomer. The problem is, we have underacheived with this list and you know who is to blame.

Due to a combination of how we handled last years departures and our form this year, we are 3000-4000 members down from where we should be. What's that, $700,000 to a Mil in lost revenue?

Very correct, although last year was a record for membership but it was not a big increase in all revenues. Drop in memberships will be 6-7k about 700k to 1 million, multiply by drop in gate, merchandise and sponsorship.

Biggest concern must be arresting further decline. Those pointing to oh well its better than 2009 or whatever, companies don't work that way, make no mistake NMFC/AFL is all about the money.

Ths financial imperative should mean Scott leaves, hopefully through a mutual departure so as to avoid payout. Possibly end up like Laidley where we subsidise him to be assistant somewhere else.

Alternative is to start winning games!!!!

 

[lockheed]

Mate, I rate our team and have always said we could do well this year. Hence why I think we were stupid to get rid of Boomer. The problem is, we have underacheived with this list and you know who is to blame.

Due to a combination of how we handled last years departures and our form this year, we are 3000-4000 members down from where we should be. What's that, $700,000 to a Mil in lost revenue?

You're quite possibly right. It occurs to me, though, that a major reason for us delisting Boomer and DS (Petrie was well and truly finished) was to free up salary space for this year, let us frontload payments on player contracts this year to the nth degree, therefore allowing us to offer players we want to target multi-year multi million dollar deals, again frontloaded.

Hence, from a short-term football, membership and revenue perspective, we've probably shot ourselves in both feet. But, if we are able to actually to lure one or more genuine elite players on long-term contracts, the prospects for a genuine reset and roosurgence, in terms of on field success, and subsequent membership and revenue, are exceedingly high.

 

[shintemaster]

You're quite possibly right. It occurs to me, though, that a major reason for us delisting Boomer and DS (Petrie was well and truly finished) was to free up salary space for this year, let us frontload payments on player contracts this year to the nth degree, therefore allowing us to offer players we want to target multi-year multi million dollar deals, again frontloaded.

Hence, from a short-term football, membership and revenue perspective, we've probably shot ourselves in both feet. But, if we are able to actually to lure one or more genuine elite players on long-term contracts, the prospects for a genuine reset and roosurgence, in terms of on field success, and subsequent membership and revenue, are exceedingly high.

Agree.

End of the day every football club will have downturns in both on field and off field fortunes. The best we can do is to try and maximise the peaks and slowly raise the floor on the troughs.

 

[gokangas]

Received an email today asking me back - please renew your membership. I auto renew so not impressed. Hit return and emailed back explaining that I am a current member. Email back from membership within an hour apologising and explaining they have identified I have duplicate entries and they have corrected that duplication. Kudos to the membership team for their quick response.

I suppose I should just shut up and buy (another) membership.

 

[Woodson]

37,343

- 2,669

Considering what's occurred with list turnover, that's a fair outcome.

Footy standard hasn't changed a whole lot in the last 5 weeks. North remain competitive still just desperately unlucky to lose the close games. We're playing like a 4-2 team. Only one team tastes success. Our turn around will come. Not concerned as much as the next fan who complains about Brad Scott being a bad coach as BS will never get the pats on the back in close games won. Problem with North is the tonne of opportunities wasted whether it be a crucial play like dropped mark / missed goal from point blank range (anywhere inside the 30 range) to not enough pressure applied. It all adds up.

Brad Scott's coaching record in close games is reflective on the players wasted opportunities when the game should be been killed off earlier rather than allowing the opposition getting a sniff to stay in the contest. Any moron can point the finger at player X for missing a goal at the end or one less defender not manning up in the dying minutes = Brad Scott's fault. *roll eyes*

 

[GarnerSmash]

In regards to the financial impact of a downturn in memberships and its impact on the bottom line, given the AFL now own Etihad I think it safe to say that our losses in membership will be in some way offset by an increase in income from game day activities. If there is a year to drop off in membership it is this year.

 

[lockheed]

38,044

If this is round about our new 'bottom', it's still a massive improvement on where we were five or ten years ago.

 

[Augustine]

I think the Drew / Boomer thing is overrated. It's primarily about perceptions of performance (perceptions that have been largely correct to date from a win/loss point of view).

Just IMO.

I disagree. I know ex-members who when I've told them they need to sign on again have told me that they can't give the money to the club after what they did to Boomer. Brad needs to go before they'll sign up again etc.

I think it's a s**t attitude. I can relate. I feel sick in the stomach that certain players are on our list this season and Boomer isn't. It wouldn't ever stop me buying a memebership but I think it has others (couple this with a 2-16 streak and it's not exactly a recipe for growth)

 

[Kimbo]

I disagree. I know ex-members who when I've told them they need to sign on again have told me that they can't give the money to the club after what they did to Boomer. Brad needs to go before they'll sign up again etc.

I think it's a s**t attitude. I can relate. I feel sick in the stomach that certain players are on our list this season and Boomer isn't. It wouldn't ever stop me buying a membership but I think it has others (couple this with a 2-16 streak and it's not exactly a recipe for growth)

I confess I'm a bit stunned people would take this view.

What 'certain players'? Were they out of contract at the end of 2016?

 

[Royal Flush]

If our membership dump is due to the "Boomer" factor then I'm really concerned about our fan base footy IQ.
Equally those predicting our member number decline as due to the "Boomer" factor , need to understand all club's have fans that drop of for various headline reasons.
The truth is most club's have a larger fan base that the new member heavily out ways the existing dumping members .
Our base is small.
As a member I'm more excited about the development this year then the hype surrounding last year's first 10 rounds .

I guess a bit of humility is required in accepting that we are not accelerating our fan base as we would wish .
Asking that Scott should be moved on or that Boomer should have been retained so that we can retain those fickle 2 to 3 k members that make decisions purely based on headlines. It would be a disgrace if the club's long term plans and decisions were disheveled in order to appease the 3 k members.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Peter27374]

When you speak with North fans or indeed any Vic clubs away from the hard core of lv1 members the attitude towards membership is quite different and perhaps hard to understand for those who buy membership regardless. If the club is not winning the membership/support drops off, North has been able to be competitive so far this year, imagine if we dropped that GC game?

The Boomer matter IS an important factor in membership numbers. Whilst some of the drop off is to do with win/loss perceptions in our case I agree with Augustine that it has impacted on both marginal and hard core members.

On the issue of AFL ownership of Etihad, it is often touted as a boon for North finances but I would say 'lets see' the overheads now move to the AFL and they are not a charity (although officially not for profit). Have they always been benevolent towards NMFC??

Sorry if I'm doom and gloom but this period of 'Rebuild' is not a time for complacency. If results do not improve quickly on the field then we must be decisive and move on Scott and non-performing players.

 

[Augustine]

I confess I'm a bit stunned people would take this view.

What 'certain players'? Were they out of contract at the end of 2016?

Let me explain myself a by better.

I believe there are many players who are contracted in 2017 that are:

A) less deserving of being contracted in 2017 than Harvey
B) will contribute less to the team winning games than Harvey would have
C) are limiting the opportunities of young players from playing (such as Clarke, Vickers Willis, and Durdin)

I believe we desperately needed to de-list a lot of players at the end of last season(more than we actually did in fact). But Harvey wasn't one of them. It was a mistake that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

This is my view point and you're entitled to disagree, that's what footy forums are for after all. Of course It didn't prevent me from re-signing (I don't know what would prevent me from re-signing seeing as my life is structured around North) You have to support the club through thick and thin. Supporters who have jumped off (other than for personal financial reasons) are in my opinion weak. I'm fully behind the boys and I love them all.

But Boomer should be out there next to Garner and Simpkin in our forwardline this season and it pisses me off that he isn't.

 

[Augustine]

It's hard to sell a message of loyalty to non-hardcore fans going into a rebuild if you cull their favourite player before his time is up.

(Everyone in this forum is hardcore. North is more than mere entertainment for us)

 

[Augustine]

If our membership dump is due to the "Boomer" factor then I'm really concerned about our fan base footy IQ.
Equally those predicting our member number decline as due to the "Boomer" factor , need to understand all club's have fans that drop of for various headline reasons.
The truth is most club's have a larger fan base that the new member heavily out ways the existing dumping members .
Our base is small.
As a member I'm more excited about the development this year then the hype surrounding last year's first 10 rounds .

I guess a bit of humility is required in accepting that we are not accelerating our fan base as we would wish .
Asking that Scott should be moved on or that Boomer should have been retained so that we can retain those fickle 2 to 3 k members that make decisions purely based on headlines. It would be a disgrace if the club's long term plans and decisions were disheveled in order to appease the 3 k members.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

That argument is contingent on the assumption that culling Boomer was good for our longterm future. I don't think it was.

I think our so called aggressive re-build needed to be in fact more aggressive, but Harvey retained.

 

[shintemaster]

I follow a footy club, not the Brent Harvey club.

 

[Sheezel2Wardlaw]

I follow a footy club, not the Brent Harvey club.

If it makes people feel any better, Boomer is playing Northern League Div 2 and has been only been named in the best once in three games.
Shane is playing better footy. Kicked 7 last weekend.

 

[Royal Flush]

That argument is contingent on the assumption that culling Boomer was good for our longterm future. I don't think it was.

I think our so called aggressive re-build needed to be in fact more aggressive, but Harvey retained.

18 other AFL club's disagree

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Royal Flush]

It's hard to sell a message of loyalty to non-hardcore fans going into a rebuild if you cull their favourite player before his time is up.

(Everyone in this forum is hardcore. North is more than mere entertainment for us)

I rate the Wayne Carey saga as the most disappointing and heart breaking moment in our history.
Talk about a favourite player ending his career with us prematurely.
Seriously this shattered more hearts and minds then any moment in our history .
And people are still talking about the Boomer impact 8 months later.
Get with the times people

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk