Ayshaw on the Record

[Zondor]

JB & Euge >>>>>>>>>>>> Zondor.

Good for you. You keep on telling your unicorn that.

 

[Z_K]

For me,

The AFL assurance needs to last FOREVER, not just for the term of this contract, otherwise in 7 to 10 years time when this contract is up, and we are trying to be the innovators that people think we are being, well all I can say is we'll have to be pretty f###in innovative at that point in time.

I failed every maths test I ever took and my year 10 maths text book still had the plastic cover on it in December of that year (true story), but if we're to take Sheehan's money projections from the H\S this morning, provided Melbourne support was retained and the team gets to where it looks to be heading, I'd hope to have a shitload of cash in the bank and assets totalling all sorts by the end of the 10 year deal. Is a debt free, asset strong club with cash in the bank still the whim of whatever mood takes the AFL exec? I don't know for sure, but I'd doubt it.

 

[Duvel]

Pushing for a stand alone VFL team doesn't exactly strike me as the type of thing that occurs in a "great relationship" as described.

Are we planning to maintain a commitment to Ballarat or are they to be consigned to be cast aside like our other dalliances with Canberra, Sydney and the Gold Coast?

I'd be disappointed to see us walk away from a partnership with Ballarat (and North Ballarat)

I think Ballarat is still to stay. The key word is "At the moment". I suppose JB is taking Tasmanian option for the meantime until Ballarat can upgrade it stadium to AFL standards for NMFC to play some token games and NAB Cup there.

If we have Werribee and North Ballarat... I can't see why not we have NMFC in VFL as well North Ballarat. (Remember Tasmanians would be filling up the NMFC in VFL). Heck at this pace we could even have 3 teams in the VFL :S

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

I failed every maths test I ever took and my year 10 maths text book still had the plastic cover on it in December of that year (true story), but if we're to take Sheehan's money projections from the H\S this morning, provided Melbourne support was retained and the team gets to where it looks to be heading, I'd hope to have a shitload of cash in the bank and assets totalling all sorts by the end of the 10 year deal. Is a debt free, asset strong club with cash in the bank still the whim of whatever mood takes the AFL exec? I don't know for sure, but I'd doubt it.

I'm with you on maths.

But even I know that:

No pokies + no selling games = NMFC rooted.

 

[Event Horizon]

I failed every maths test I ever took and my year 10 maths text book still had the plastic cover on it in December of that year (true story), but if we're to take Sheehan's money projections from the H\S this morning, provided Melbourne support was retained and the team gets to where it looks to be heading, I'd hope to have a shitload of cash in the bank and assets totalling all sorts by the end of the 10 year deal. Is a debt free, asset strong club with cash in the bank still the whim of whatever mood takes the AFL exec? I don't know for sure, but I'd doubt it.

That's the big question - will it be retained? It also has the potential of losing us another generation of young Melbourne based potential new supporters. We simply won't be an attractive proposition for anyone to start supporting us.

 

[Basti28]

Is a debt free, asset strong club with cash in the bank still the whim of whatever mood takes the AFL exec? I don't know for sure, but I'd doubt it.

Best of luck getting that to sink in.

I've had no luck in about 3 months of pointing that out.

 

[Hoser]

Your pessimism is completely baseless.

Fact - Docklands is payed off and owned in 2025.
Fact - Docklands will then not require the 8 million (Tas's figure) annually it draws from the NMFC.

I don't believe in this tin foil hat level of AFL conspiracy, if it had any basis in reality, then there is a million other ways that they could have killed us off by now.

Hardly without base.

Fact - in 2025 or soon after, docklands will need upgrading (How old was Waverley before it was so outdated they decided to dump it? How much are they spending of the Great Southern at the G, how old is that?)

I raise the stadium, only because you seem to intimate the Tassie deal is just until 2025 when all our problems are solved. They won't be solved in 2025 in my humble opinion. These two things should not be looked at being so closely linked.

Tassie is a long term, PERMANENT option, if it is not, then we shouldn't be talking this crap about building relationships and growth, etc, etc.

Are you trying to intimate that we enter this Tassie deal just until 2025 when we are magically saved by AFL ownership of Docklands? If you are, I call BS.

 

[Basti28]

That's the big question - will it be retained? It also has the potential of losing us another generation of young Melbourne based potential new supporters. We simply won't be an attractive proposition for anyone to start supporting us.

I have always been puzzled by this concept. Do you really believe that people choose to support a club on the basis of whether they can see them 11 times or 14 times a year?

 

[Basti28]

Fact - in 2025 or soon after, docklands will need upgrading (How old was Waverley before it was so outdated they decided to dump it?

Oh please.

Are you trying to intimate that we enter this Tassie deal just until 2025 when we are magically saved by AFL ownership of Docklands? If you are, I call BS.

A ten year deal would see us out of Tasmania by 2020 in my assumption.

I can't see the AFL taking up a policy of deliberately bankrupting it's clubs by maintaining massive rental costs at a stadium it owns outright. You are entering serious tin foil hat territory by suggesting otherwise.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Financially I assume that this is going to be a good deal for us, clear our debt and make us bazillions over a 10 year period. That's all well and good.

My issue is that this move, if it goes ahead, will change to club forever. How these changes will manifest themselves we will not know until time passes but we can guess. Fortunately for us we seem to be going into a period of on-field success and nothing breeds enthusiasm for a team than success, so we may be able to retain and even grow our Melbourne support. Lets face it, those that already go to more than 11 games a year will probably still go to the 11 Melbourne games in the future but it's the supporters/members that go to less that this amount that might be turned off and drop away. At the end of this deal I would hate the club to be in the position where we have 20,000 Tassie members and 20,000 Melbourne members. That would diminish the actuality of being a Melbourne based club and give the AFL every opportunity to relocate the club.

The administration are going to have to perform a miraculous balancing act to appease current support and develop new support in Melbourne and Tassie. Unfortunately sooner or later, when it comes to Melbourne support, I reckon something is going to have to give.

Anyhoo, I'm still going to support the club and buy my membership year in, year out, regardless. I would hope all on here will do the same.

If the name changes to the Tassie Roos, well......

 

[Event Horizon]

I have always been puzzled by this concept. Do you really believe that people choose to support a club on the basis of whether they can see them 11 times or 14 times a year?

No. People choose to support a club with a good image. Something in that image needs to be attractive. It could be perception, colours, a certain player, anything. But a club which doesn't seem to fully belong in Melbourne won't attract any new supporters here.

 

[Hoser]

Oh please.



A ten year deal would see us out of Tasmania by 2020 in my assumption.

I can't see the AFL taking up a policy of deliberately bankrupting it's clubs by maintaining massive rental costs at a stadium it owns outright. You are entering serious tin foil hat territory by suggesting otherwise.

Oh please The roll the eyes argument is weak, but I'll overlook it because you are generally better than that.

You appear to make the assumption, that I am another pessimistic naysayer. It's not the case. I just believe that if we are moving forward, then it should be all cards on the table.

I'll ask again, are you intimating that the deal will be simply for 10 years and then we will be in a position of such financial strength we will be back in Melbourne securely?

I don't buy it. And personally I don't like it under those circumstances. I think it is a slap to the Tasmanians, I think it would ruin any cred that we possibly have left, and I think it is detrimental to our Melbourne support.

If we are doing it, then jump in and do it properly. Brayshaw is talking about us growing and becoming a powerhouse. This isn't going to happen if we walk away from Tassie in 10 years. You can't sell this crap to anyone, neither Melbourne or Tassie, if you can't commit properly to whatever the hell it is we are doing.

So what the hell are we doing? There's a path, but there are still questions to be answered IMO.

 

[Basti28]

No. People choose to support a club with a good image. Something in that image needs to be attractive. It could be perception, colours, a certain player, anything. But a club which doesn't seem to fully belong in Melbourne won't attract any new supporters here.

It certainly hasn't harmed Hawthorn.

Success is an overwhelming factor in gaining new support.

More money in the football department equals a higher likelihood of success.

Hell, being able to stay solvent and competitive equals a higher likelihood of success.

 

[Kimbo]

I raise the stadium, only because you seem to intimate the Tassie deal is just until 2025 when all our problems are solved. They won't be solved in 2025 in my humble opinion. These two things should not be looked at being so closely linked.

Tassie is a long term, PERMANENT option, if it is not, then we shouldn't be talking this crap about building relationships and growth, etc, etc.

Are you trying to intimate that we enter this Tassie deal just until 2025 when we are magically saved by AFL ownership of Docklands? If you are, I call BS.

The relevance of getting to the end of the Docklands deal is that the crap contract we got stitched with will be finished. Even if there are expenses, we shouldn't be paying more than our fair share of them, as we are now under the crap deal we made.

Even if this deal ends up a) happening (given Hawthorn's apparent upper hand) and b) becoming permanent, what JB said about our base and minimum Victorian games still holds true (assuming this is 'contracted').

And, if it continues to work for us as a co-location model, why not? Unless of course our success on and off the field increases our supporter base such that our attendances in Victoria are no longer an issue. Can anyone see that happening anytime soon under either scenario?

 

[Z_K]

Best of luck getting that to sink in.

I've had no luck in about 3 months of pointing that out.

Does the issue have to become you in a s**t fight with everyone else? Fairly big issue this one, and I think anyone with concerns or reservations, no matter how big or small, should be able to do so without the above I reckon.

 

[Basti28]

Oh please ..........

I admire your passion mate, but I can't be bothered entertaining any more of this stuff.

Your reasoning, like many others, is based on the premise that the AFL is out to get us no matter what, and if that is the case, then all of this is pointless anyway.

 

[windsock]

No. People choose to support a club with a good image. Something in that image needs to be attractive. It could be perception, colours, a certain player, anything. But a club which doesn't seem to fully belong in Melbourne won't attract any new supporters here.

The people we're looking to engage with don't think like that.

They are five-year-old kids and recently arrived migrants in and around North Melbourne.

They are kids in Ballarat who won't get to see the team play much anyway.

They are the kids of people who already support us and don't get to anywhere near 11 games a year.

I trust this admin and I'm pretty sure the AFL doubts Tassie's ability to sustain a footy team full time. I reckon this can work.

 

[jd1991]

Sorry to intrude

But Brayshaw may be kidding himself if the AFL would agree to 11 games a year in Melb.

Apart from Collingwood - most teams travel 5 or even 6 times a year, So 7 games Tasmania, 5 games interstate some years 6 other years. (Assuming 22 game season) means only 9 or 10 games a year in Melb.

The AFL may guarantee on average 10 games a year in melb (some yrs 6 interstate other 4) but I cant see them guaranteeing 11.

Need to ask yourself - is 10 okay?

On the other hand If North do somthing similiar to the Hawks - 4 a year in Tasmania, with Nth in Hobart, Hawks Launceston - what this could do based on the Tasmania state divide, this could also increase the rivalry between the 2 club.

 

[DarwinRoo]

It certainly hasn't harmed Hawthorn.

Success is an overwhelming factor in gaining new support.

More money in the football department equals a higher likelihood of success.

Hell, being able to stay solvent and competitive equals a higher likelihood of success.

Hawthorn only play 4 games there, JB wants us to play 7 down there. Hawthorn still got 15 Melbourne games for it's supporters.

 

[Basti28]

Does the issue have to become you in a s**t fight with everyone else?

It's frustrates me to see my own kind motivated by fairly baseless fears instead of logic and reason.

To utilise a well known David Suzuki quote:

"We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyone's arguing over where they're going to sit."

The brick wall immediately in front of us is our financial situation, not some relocation conspiracy.

Then again, I am kidding myself if I have to ask myself honestly if I have the power to override this fairly baseless panic. I suppose I find personal contentment in the knowledge that at least I tried.

 

[windsock]

Hawthorn only play 4 games there, JB wants us to play 7 down there. Hawthorn still got 15 Melbourne games for it's supporters.

They have 13 games in Melbourne in 2011.

 

[Zondor]

Then again, I am kidding myself if I have to ask myself honestly if I have the power to override this fairly baseless panic. I suppose I find personal contentment in the knowledge that at least I tried.

Good for you in thinking that. :stern look

 

[Basti28]

Hawthorn only play 4 games there, JB wants us to play 7 down there. Hawthorn still got 15 Melbourne games for it's supporters.

I would prefer 4 games myself. Logic tells me that we would have to outbid Hawthorn in order to get the deal.

Perhaps the 7 games relates to the amount of times we managed to get less than 30,000 to Docklands home games in 2010? I know we got less that 23,000 of 5 seperate occassions. I would certainly swap those games for a guaranteed $750K from Tasmania.

 

[Hoser]

Your reasoning, like many others, is based on the premise that the AFL is out to get us no matter what, and if that is the case, then all of this is pointless anyway.

That is completely false. None of my reasoning is based on the AFL being "out to get us". My reasoning is based on ensuring that we as a club don't shoot ourselves in the f###in' foot for the umpteenth time.

I personally have faith in the Admin, but I still have questions, that's my right as a member. When I stop forking over my money, I'll stop asking questions about what the club is up to.

 

[Hazey1977]

Kind of off topic I guess... but when I was living back home in Tassie I went to a few Hawks games and never paid for a ticket and all the people I went with never paid for a ticket.

If you were involved with a local footy club there always seemed to be someone that had access to free tickets.

I always wondered where they came from? I assume directly from ther AFL so the ground got filled?

I guess it doesnt matter who is paying for tickets if they are all covered by the AFL anyway???