Ballarat

Remove this Banner Ad

8 years.

8 years we f***ing toiled and worked.

The AFL took it off us without telling us, and gave it as charity to those usurping mutts down the road.

State Government is now pouring $31m into the sporting precinct.

AFL are gonna give them matches there.

It's just wrong.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tbh, I don't see why both us and the Bullies couldn't play games down there in the future.

But yes, utter bullshit.

We probably can.

What shits me is that bigger clubs go on about how smaller clubs need to make thier own success. Well we were doing that and then the AFL consipired to take it off us.

It is ridiculous.
 
it sucks but ultimately we had a short vision and chose to concentrate on Tassie instead of having a long future plan and knowing that the state government will end up pouring money into Ballarat.
 
Yep it sucks.

I'd much prefer NM play games in Ballarat than Hobart (although the Hobart arrangement is a great financial windfall) simply because we wouldn't relocate to Ballarat.

I wonder if the AFL will kick the Hawks out of Launceston.
 
Yep it sucks.

I'd much prefer NM play games in Ballarat than Hobart (although the Hobart arrangement is a great financial windfall) simply because we wouldn't relocate to Ballarat.

I wonder if the AFL will kick the Hawks out of Launceston.
If I could be assured the Hobart number of games will never be more than 3 or 4 per season, I think Hobart is a better option than Ballarat. It not only has more financial windfall, it sells memberships as well.
 
The whole Ballarat thing was undone by unlucky timing, a stale Labor govt, Brumby being unlikeable and by North's need for extra income. Ballarat depended on too many pieces falling into place with the right timing: (1) If the Brumby govt had won that election (2) and had kept to its promise to build the new stadium, (3) actually built the stadium on time (4) then maybe North wouldn't of needed to look to other markets to make up for the s**t returns from Etithad.
North clearly needed the extra income from the Hobart games (bloody Etihad stadium deal:mad:) but once we locked that in I thought the Ballarat deal was cooked. The club couldn't play games in 3 different places. For Ballarat you'd have to play 3 or more games a year to justify building the bloody thing, which'd leave 7-8 games to split between Etihad and Hobart. Hobart has worked well for us, extra money and members. Just hoping the Hawks stay in Launie so the whole North to relocate whispering campaign doesn't start up again.
 
The whole Ballarat thing was undone by unlucky timing, a stale Labor govt, Brumby being unlikeable and by North's need for extra income. Ballarat depended on too many pieces falling into place with the right timing: (1) If the Brumby govt had won that election (2) and had kept to its promise to build the new stadium, (3) actually built the stadium on time (4) then maybe North wouldn't of needed to look to other markets to make up for the s**t returns from Etithad.
North clearly needed the extra income from the Hobart games (bloody Etihad stadium deal:mad:) but once we locked that in I thought the Ballarat deal was cooked. The club couldn't play games in 3 different places. For Ballarat you'd have to play 3 or more games a year to justify building the bloody thing, which'd leave 7-8 games to split between Etihad and Hobart. Hobart has worked well for us, extra money and members. Just hoping the Hawks stay in Launie so the whole North to relocate whispering campaign doesn't start up again.

Yep
 
The whole Ballarat thing was undone by unlucky timing, a stale Labor govt, Brumby being unlikeable and by North's need for extra income. Ballarat depended on too many pieces falling into place with the right timing: (1) If the Brumby govt had won that election (2) and had kept to its promise to build the new stadium, (3) actually built the stadium on time (4) then maybe North wouldn't of needed to look to other markets to make up for the s**t returns from Etithad.
North clearly needed the extra income from the Hobart games (bloody Etihad stadium deal:mad:) but once we locked that in I thought the Ballarat deal was cooked. The club couldn't play games in 3 different places. For Ballarat you'd have to play 3 or more games a year to justify building the bloody thing, which'd leave 7-8 games to split between Etihad and Hobart. Hobart has worked well for us, extra money and members. Just hoping the Hawks stay in Launie so the whole North to relocate whispering campaign doesn't start up again.

I understand this and I agree, it was not right at the right time.

Why I have an issue is the work we poured in there and after that effort its being handed to a competitor for 5/4 of FA.

In 2016 when the Hobart deal is up, if co-location is on the agenda I hope we tell the AFL to stick it and then push ourselves back into the frey regarding Ballarat.

A reasonably clean 15k stadium within driving distance of Melbourne, there is no reason we couldn't shove it right up those with hidden genders.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I understand this and I agree, it was not right at the right time.

Why I have an issue is the work we poured in there and after that effort its being handed to a competitor for 5/4 of FA.

In 2016 when the Hobart deal is up, if co-location is on the agenda I hope we tell the AFL to stick it and then push ourselves back into the frey regarding Ballarat.

A reasonably clean 15k stadium within driving distance of Melbourne, there is no reason we couldn't shove it right up those with hidden genders.

i am worried we wont.
 
As am I.

2016 shapes as an incredibly important year for our future.
Yep, hopefully the club continues to close on being debt free and doesn't feel a pressing need to offer to play 7 games in Tassie as a replacement for the Hawks.
Will be interesting what happens with the Hawks and Tassie govt as the Hawks won't have the bargaining power that they had before the Hobart games started. You'd assume that they'd have to balance up the benefits of a less lucrative deal and maintaining their Tassie support against playing all their games in Melbourne.
 
This will go down as the biggest stuff up of Brayshaw's presidency.

Blame the AFL all you want, the conclusion rests squarely on Bradshaw's shoulders.

He took us to Tasmania. He tried to take up a 7 game deal down there. He was the one who had us with too many fingers in too many pies.

We only have ourselves to blame.

The Ballarat experiment was Arocca's baby. He was the biggest champion in the AFL of getting a stadium built there.

After he went, Ballarat lost it's biggest ally and our chances of holding that market were dead there and then.
 
Sooo, a 6,000 seat grandstand eh?

Reckon that gets to host AFL home and away games?

Still a decade away from happening if at all.

https://www.viclabor.com.au/media-releases/afl-is-coming-to-ballarat/

As part of a $31.5 million plan for Ballarat’s sporting precincts, Labor will build a new grandstand, AFL-standard lights and a video scoreboard at Eureka Stadium, as well as local sporting facilities.

• It is expected 8,000 football fans will attend NAB matches, and between 15,000 and 20,000 fans will attend Premiership matches.

So, how can they get 15-20K to a ground with one 6K grandstand? Just because a government tells you something doesn't make it true.
 
It isn't the AFL's fault entirely, Ballarat bailed on us because they didn't believe we would play both games in Tasmania and Ballarat, we obviously did very little since Euge left to keep the relationship strong. The fact they got through the entire process without anyone from Ballarat picking the phone up and saying, "this is the way things are panning out" means there is nobody, ZERO people there that gave two shits about their relationship with anyone at the club.

That is a problem with our management of Ballarat, it comes down to the CEO and others who were responsible with dealing with our partners. If you do not have any worthwhile bonds or relationships then s**t like this happens without you knowing about it until the horse has bolted.
 
Hawthorn and St Kilda were compensated by the AFL for the closure of Waverly Park. Surely, it is reasonable then that NM be compensated by the AFL for gifting the WB's 'Ballarat' without giving us anything as a replacement. We are also now at the time in the fixture that I'm really annoyed about, the fixture gives us no home game in Melbourne from this weekend (9-10 May) through to Saturday June 13 when we play Swans at Etihad.
 
Bulldogs can have Ballarat. We are building a secondary market and don't need a third.

Barrarat/area people aren't starved of AFL. I actually think the area will be a failure as everyone already has their own team, and there is little more incentive to go to a game there or in Melb.

The only reason Geelong works is the majority of Geelong people follow their home team. Ballarat is not their home team, it will just be the Bulldogs closer to them (who cares, I wouldn't go if I lived in Ballarat unless North were playing)

Plus the short term $$ of Hobart was much more important than hoping a long term strategy would come off, we couldn't afford to take that risk.

I do agree compensation is in order though for us and what we did/spent there previously, and hope the club is actively pursuing it or at least using this fact to our advantage in others ways like scheduling of home game in prime time etc.
 
Eugene was fantasic for forging these sorts of relationships. Carl, JB and co are good operators but mostly introverted types and none with the genuine chutzpah for Arocca.

I did wonder whether when JB's term was up whether he'd mount a challenge.

I am not sure he will though.
 
Eugene was fantasic for forging these sorts of relationships. Carl, JB and co are good operators but mostly introverted types and none with the genuine chutzpah for Arocca.
Yup. Total introvert.
193549-james-brayshaw.jpg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top