Bye Bye, Bye Bye, Bye Bye Kangas Bye Bye...

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
please Aussie_Roo DO NOT MAKE ME SICK!!!!
that is the last thing melbourne would do, they would merge with Gelong before they merged with the roos
oh yeah and did i forgot to mention:
yes roos are broke!
Melbourne DEMONS rule!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

you dumb shit......

at least the diamond market does not control us........ you fool.......

 

[scarpetta]

Shinners,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Fremantle have more members than the Roos.

 

[CURVE]

To save the smaller Melbourne clubs, some drastic measures need to be taken.

1. Kick Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and the Bulldogs out of the league. We don't need them, their presidents or their supporters.

2. Move Hawthorn to Hobart, St. Kilda to Darwin and the Roos to Canberra.

Simple. Now we have twelve teams, playing in every capital city. It makes for a fairer draw, and more Aussie can watch this great game.

BUT SERIOUSLY

North have to do something urgently, because they are being squeezed out of Melbourne.
They tried some games in Sydney and failed because they didn't put in the effort to win over the Sydney public. But I believe it was going to be a failure anyway because it took 15-20 years for the Swans to win over Sydney. Have they won over Sydney??

They are playing some games in Canberra this year and with Andrew Carter (Canbet) on the board hopefully they'll make a better fist of it. They should get decent crowds in Canberra because we are desperate for top class footy.

 

[Interesting!]

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand Sainter - we are both simply talking about money.

While the fixture remains uneven in respect to home & away games you call for a rotation system to make it fairer for the Saints by theoretically increasing their revenue.
I say fine, lets make it really fair & when Collingwood merchandise is sold let all the funds go directly to Collingwood.

I'm all for a fair system Sainter & I think it is fair to say that our merchandizing arm is huge in comparison to the smaller clubs. As it stands, and has done for years, that money DOESN'T go directly to us. It gets divvied up.

So, while the fixture {which is just another source of revenue } remains uneven, if you want to have a really fair system bring in rotation BUT let clubs have total control of their merchandise profits as now happens at the gate.

Whatever reason you give for your fickle support base is irrelevant.

You have to understand how it appears from my view point.
You are calling for a fairer system but you are only calling for it to be fair in the part that you see as directly benefitting the Saints.
Which is fine but also simplistic.

Collingwood has no right to play Essendon twice each year but St. Kilda has no right to a 16th of Collingwood's merch. income.

Fair means you shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

 

[Gonzo]

Dees Rule

What a bizarre post from a supporter of a football club whose sole survival depends on the whim of ONE individual!!!

Make sure that you keep Joe happy and interested because a soon as he loses interest or someone makes him unhappy (yes sir, no sir three bags full sir!) then your club is GAWN!!!

Gonzo

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

agrees with gonzo dees rule u heard the saying dont throw stones in glass houses?
3 years ago u were about to merge with hawthorn and even now your very survival is down to one man and for one man to have so much power in the club unless wise heads prevail at melb the next time joe might not be so willing to hand over his money.
i take my hat off to sides like nth melb for their survival tatics and fwd thinking unlike
sides like rich and alike back in the 80,s.
cheers!

 

[Grendel]

Interesting, your in essence demanding to have the cake and eat it too.

You state to sainter that though it may be unfair for the saints to not draw against one of the larger clubs twice, its totally fair for the Woods to be allowed to do so?

Why?

On a rotational basis this problem could easily be avoided by the league over a course of two seasons, with all teams alternating with whoever they only played the once the previous season, ie they play those teams twice the next year.

If this reduces the earning capacity for the Woods (or Blues,Dons etc) every other year but increases the revenue of the Saints (Roos.Dogs,Hawks etc) then thats tough luck for the bigger clubs perhaps, but its also the way an imbalanced draw can and should be corrected.

All clubs are equal in essence as they are all in the same competition. Its just some clubs believe they are more equal than others.

 

[Shinboners]

Scarpetta

What has Fremantle's membership got to do with this argument? The point I'm trying to make is that in respect to North Melbourne home games, we would get a bigger crowd (and hence, bigger gate receipts) if we play any other Victorian based team than if we play Freo....although if we do play Freo at the G, then it's a guaranteed 4 points AND a percentage booster.

 

[Groucho]

Yes Interesting I think when you shifted the argument to one of merchandising you conceded on this one. Keep the blockbuster games but all Melbourne sides should be on rotation to make a compromised draw a little more equitable. For teams like North it really is a matter of the "luck of the draw". With their good early form and thanks to some big home games in the first 7 rounds Collingwood were able to pocket $1.4 million,and good luck to them,but the fact is North's loss is 3 good home games from profit and North didn't get those games last season, but next season looks very good from the home crowd point of view.

 

[James2]

I have discussed on previous threads, why I believe extending the season to allow each team to play each other twice, is not as straight foward as it seems. I agree that the current fixture can be made fairer by adopting a rotational system.

I also agree with Intersting's arguement regarding the division of merchandising revenue. If the current fixture unfairly compromises the smaller clubs to raise equivalent revenue from match receipts, to that of larger clubs (which ot does), then so does the merchandise agreement in regard to the larger clubs.

CJH,

Unless the AFL were to bankroll a relocation (very unlikely), then North may well be worse of, should they chose to relocate.

South Melbourne is a classic example. The decision to relocate to Sydney, cost the Swans millions. Relocation is not cheap. You need new headquarters, as well as gaining support from the locals. The second factor is paticularly crucial. Much of North's loss this year, constituted poor match receipts. If you relocate to a new market, there MAY be more sponsership dollars, but if no one comes to watch, then the club is no better of then they were before relocation.

Relocating is a risky venture, which will not necessarily result in more money for struggling club.

------------------
Man is a god in ruins.

 

[Drakey]

Said it before & I'll say it again.

Scrap the Ansett Cup & play 30 rounds.

 

[ptw]

The problem as I see it is a lack of clear direction on the issue of equalisation.

In many ways I support the AFL's handling of this issue. We have an AFL commission so that the interests for the game can be maximised, not the interests of individual clubs.

I don't have a problem with the comp subsibizing some clubs and not others if those clubs are of strategic importance to the competition as a whole (Brisbane, Sydney).

I also feel that clubs need to make their own destiny, which North to their credit are very good at. But whilst North stay in North (or St Kilda, or Western Bulldogs for that matter in Melbourne) then I think it is fair that they are required to do that on their own. If that is the strategic direction they chose to take then I sincerely hope they succeed as I do not want to see any club fold, and I will personally support them....but I don't think a club can say that they are staying put, not implementing a strategic plan and expect the same support as South Melbourne who took action to ensure their future. Again, this is just a general statement, not necessarily about North who I think are great at looking to ensure their future in Melbourne.

I don't think we should do away with the forced draw which enshrines blockbusters, as it is in the best interests of the AFL, perhaps not North but it is for the AFL (tradition, ratings, catering, etc). That says to me that clubs which do not have the support or membership to prosper in their own right are saying that it is fair that they get equal access to the benefits of other clubs large membership. I disagree. If I run a corner store which gets 10 customers a day, and next door there is a supermarket which gets 10,000 a day then I must compete. I can't just demand that some of the supermarket customer's visit my store.

anyway.....

ptw

 

[Pessimistic]

Roo fans - how much is the cheapest membership ticket ? We could all buy one and stick it up the #######. But I'd be more likely to do it if The players etc agreed to a wage freeze.

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Interesting!:


Whilst the draw is uneven (as in playing teams twice) you are asking basically for more home games against the big 3 - I know you didn't have a home game against us (Collingwood) last season.

Interesting,

By "Big Three" you mean the three clubs that draw the largest attendences I assume?

That would be Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond.

I wasn't aware that Richmond were involved in a three-way rotation with Essendon and Collingwood?

 

[Shinboners]

Pess

The cheapest ticket would be about $80. But I reckon it'd just be easier if Shannon Grant handed back his year 2000 wages to the club.

 

[Interesting!]

Concede what arguement Grendel & Groucho?

If you read my last post properly you will see I said Collingwood shouldn't have any right to two games against Essendon.
Just the same as St. Kilda should have no right to 1/16th of Collingwood's {& other bigger clubs} merchandizing for the last 20 or so years.

How hard is that to understand?

I'm just providing the other point of view that says if you want to cry fair then BE REALLY FAIR - NOT JUST FAIR TO SUIT PARTICULAR NEEDS.

Anybody could tell you that the fixture favours certain clubs in financial terms. Your not getting any arguement from me there & I'm not sure why you think I'm defending this view point.

I'm just saying lets MAKE IT ALL FAIR. Let the big clubs keep the merchandizing revenue they generate instead of having it gobbled up by other clubs.

It's a pretty simple concept.

So simple it's FAIR!

 

[Arch]

just on the point of the 30 game season-

a) That will just reduce the length of players careers by 3-5 years; and

b) Why have a super long 30 game season when its the 4 week finals tournament that really count anyway ????

Also, I wonder if the conference system (which I havent really been a big fan of in the past, but.....) would be a good way of scheduling more games between the melbourne sides in melbourne, and having more of the interstate sides playing eachother outside of melbourne ???

 

[McKenna for PM]

Originally posted by Arch:
just on the point of the 30 game season-

a) That will just reduce the length of players careers by 3-5 years; and

b) Why have a super long 30 game season when its the 4 week finals tournament that really count anyway ????

Also, I wonder if the conference system (which I havent really been a big fan of in the past, but.....) would be a good way of scheduling more games between the melbourne sides in melbourne, and having more of the interstate sides playing eachother outside of melbourne ???

I was thinking about that the other day. If that could happen, then interstate teams with big memberships could increase in number, thereby reducing their memberships to a number more similar to the struggling Melbourne clubs.

But Australia isn't big enough. And it's a seppo idea anyway.

 

[CJH]

Posted by James2:

Unless the AFL were to bankroll a relocation (very unlikely), then North may well be worse of, should they chose to relocate.

South Melbourne is a classic example. The decision to relocate to Sydney, cost the Swans millions. Relocation is not cheap. You need new headquarters, as well as gaining support from the locals. The second factor is paticularly crucial. Much of North's loss this year, constituted poor match receipts. If you relocate to a new market, there MAY be more sponsership dollars, but if no one comes to watch, then the club is no better of then they were before relocation.

Relocating is a risky venture, which will not necessarily result in more money for struggling club.

I disagree James. I think there is a juicy, relatively risk free option currently available if there is a club administration that is bold enought to take it. The has been much posted on this topic before, so will just quote the most pertinent text as I am way to lazy to rewrite it!

Posted by Roylion 3/11/200 http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001785-8.html

Where would the money come from when the AFL moves into a new area? I've stated this before elsewhere, but the principle is roughly the same whether it be Southport, Western Sydney or Canberra. I still believe Southport is far better placed to have the next AFL team than Western Sydney or Canberra.
As an example, let's take a Victorian AFL club relocating to Southport and playing its home games at the Gabba. Liken it to a club relocating to Stadium Australia or Bruce Stadium.
The money would come from six main areas.
1) The gate: In Southport's case, Queensland Footy is booming. Record crowds at the Gabba this year have meant that the Brisbane Lions are set to post a record profit. Last year they made $3.3 million from the gate, in a year where large parts of the Gabba were out of action and effectively reduced to 20,000 seats. Melbourne is set to make about $300,000 from playing one game at the Gabba, with little actual support in Queensland. With the right deal, money could be made at Bruce Stadium and Stadium Australia, even if crowds were reasonably poor in the first few years of a relocated club. That's not to say the right deal will be made.
2) Memberships: Brisbane has 20,000 odd members, one of the lowest in the league. This brought in $2.5 million in revenue for the club last year. The AFL may have to underwrite a relocated club for the first couple of years in terms of memberships but the long term benefits will see paid back ten-fold or a hundred fold. Membership of Southport in Queensland for example in their first year could conceivably be 10,000 or so, with the AFL underwriting the rest. Let's say Southport could perhaps make half of what Brisbane make, in their first year with $1.2 million
3) The social club. Brisbane's social club brought in 3.2 million revenue last year. The Southport club is well established, profitable and easily outstrips this figure. Let's say $6 million. Canberra and Western Sydney may struggle in this area initially, although a joint venture with a rugby league club as Fitzroy proposed in 1995, may alleviate this problem area.
4) AFL Dividend to all clubs. Last year $2.6 Million. Let's say the same for Southport and any re-located club..
5) Corporate Sales - Brisbane made $4.1 Million last year from selling corporate boxes etc etc. Let's say 2.0 million for the new Southport team in its first year. Western Sydney and Canberra because of the existing infrastructure and the lack of competition from other AFL clubs could concievably make much more.
6) 4.8 million was made by Brisbane from other sources of income, such as major sponsorships. AAPT will pump about a million dollars into Brisbane this year alone. Let's say Southport have one major sponsor or sponsors worth about $1 million a year. Western Sydney and Canberra could easily outstrip $1 million worth of sponsorship. If a relocated club they may very well keep their exisitng sponsors and attract further sponsors from their new locations.
Total Revenue that a relocated club such as Southport could realistically make would be perhaps about $16.1 million with the AFL underwriting another 1.2 million for lost memberships as a result of the relocation and also perhaps another 4 million for the relocation costs.
This is just in the re-located club's first year in the AFL.
In Southport's case the
Grand Total: $21.3 million revenue for Southport
Expenditure: about $19.5 million, the amount it took to run the Brisbane Lions in Season 1999.
Profit: (with AFL assistance): $1.8 million
(without AFL assistance: 3.4 million loss.
As the re-located club became more established and more popular, the revenue would increase. Of course so would the expenditures, but the potential is there for good profit, if the club was managed and marketed well. In Melbourne some of these revenues and figures mentioned above are a pipe dream for some clubs.
Unfortunately.

Posted by CJH 3/11/2000 http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001855.html
... to the idea of Southport fielding a relocated side in the AFL. ...

They have facilities that would make most Melbourne clubs drool. They are loaded with the folding stuff. They are the 4th largest sporting club in Queensland with 53,000 social members. Admittedly not all of these would become full season members, but with clever marketing it would not be unreasonable to expect - say - half of them to join. All this has been achieved without having an AFL team to support.

Compound this blissful scenario with the relocated club’s Melbourne based supporters (say 20,000) who are largely happy with the relocation / merger as it has been done on their terms, which involves no loss of identity. This is a club that would have a starting membership of 40,000+ and with sponsors clambering over each other to sign up.

Now, unlike others, I do believe that Western Sydney can be conquered. I also believe that this will ultimately be very prosperous. But this will take a lot of time and support, with the very real risk that the venture will fail. On the other hand, Southport carries a lot less risk and the results will be immediate.

This argument is ultimately academic. I feel that we will see at least 2 clubs on the move within the next few years. However, if I was a director at these clubs, I know which one looks the most attractive to me.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Aussie_Roo]

Shinboners,

Shannon Grant isn't the only one that should hand back his wages for the year. He had plenty of mates like Abraham, McKernan, Archer etc...

 

[Shinboners]

I think you'll find that Archer has plenty of credits in the bank to use up before any North fan can have a go at him.

As for McKernan and Winnie....let's not have a fight here....okay?

 

[Aussie_Roo]

ok truce.

 

[Arch]

Mckenna,
do you mean that there would be more interstate teams in that system, thus spreading out the football followers over more teams ???

Like i said, I havent been big fan of the conference system really , but just thought it'd be a good way of promoting melbourne footy clubs agnst eachother, while keeping the current interstate rivalries.

anywaze.......

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Arch:
Like i said, I havent been big fan of the conference system really , but just thought it'd be a good way of promoting melbourne footy clubs agnst eachother, while keeping the current interstate rivalries.

I actually like the conference system, however you would need to have an even spread of teams to make it viable, since we are a national competion. Say, five from Victoria and 3 interstate in each 8 team conferece. The numbers will get more even if teams relocate to other parts of Australia.

 

[McKenna for PM]

Arch, that's exactly what I am saying. In WA, for example, Fremantle and West Coast have high memberships, which suggests to me that more teams should be brought in. This would even up memberships and hence income between the rich clubs and the poor teams in Melbourne.

Teams like Southport will have a huge following with a bit of patience, and with the salary cap will quickly become big forces in the AFL.

How exactly the conference system would work, though, I have no idea.....