Five years on ...

[Slattery_20]

North have actually been forced to get their shit together. The pressure's actually saved them.
Had they been saved by a Pratt or Gutnick (or whoever else) type, tipping in big money, rather than have to plan, and put those plans up for scrutiny to get funding approved, they might be in a whole lot worse state.

All hail Caro.

 

[Bardo State]

North have actually been forced to get their shit together. The pressure's actually saved them.
Had they been saved by a Pratt or Gutnick (or whoever else) type, tipping in big money, rather than have to plan, and put those plans up for scrutiny to get funding approved, they might be in a whole lot worse state.

All hail Caro.

Caro would be filthy with herself

 

[MaddAdam]

North have actually been forced to get their shit together. The pressure's actually saved them.
Had they been saved by a Pratt or Gutnick (or whoever else) type, tipping in big money, rather than have to plan, and put those plans up for scrutiny to get funding approved, they might be in a whole lot worse state.

All hail Caro.

Apart from the last line, thoroughly agree.

I think the last five years have shown us also that some big Melbourne clubs have yet to adjust to the reality of the evened out competition: they still believe big name signings, either onfield or off, can provide a short cut to success when in this footy world, the only way to enjoy success is by a period of good to excellent drafting and more importantly, development of players.

 

[The King!]

I think brayshaw and his board have done a good job, north have been innovative with their media interactions and have generated some good support in the corporate world and in memberships, biggest growth in 2012 of all clubs. Think its been more of a build towards a sustained future instead of a band aid solution. I got a north membership in 2008 and 9 i think it was and a few people i know did to help support them, but think they are going well now. They get the most distribution from the afl each year the past 5 or so, next goal is to get that down

 

[Tippett2Goal]

It would be fair to say that the consensus of many at BigFooty and in the wider footy community was: "they'll fold in three years".

Would it?
Whole premise of thread is flawed.

 

[MaddAdam]

I think brayshaw and his board have done a good job, north have been innovative with their media interactions and have generated some good support in the corporate world and in memberships, biggest growth in 2012 of all clubs. Think its been more of a build towards a sustained future instead of a band aid solution. I got a north membership in 2008 and 9 i think it was and a few people i know did to help support them, but think they are going well now. They get the most distribution from the afl each year the past 5 or so, next goal is to get that down

Not so. In the previous funding arrangement, the Dogs got the highest amount. THis time round, us and the Dogs get the same.

Yet the funding provided by the AFL now is not simply a cash top up into general revenue. It is very clearly earmarked. Also, while the competition is rigged to maximise revenue the AFL is on record as saying that it will continue to fund those clubs not afforded the exposure of the big clubs (due to the rigged draw) with means of maximising their exposure and revenue.

 

[Slattery_20]

Apart from the last line, thoroughly agree.

I think the last five years have shown us also that some big Melbourne clubs have yet to adjust to the reality of the evened out competition: they still believe big name signings, either onfield or off, can provide a short cut to success when in this footy world, the only way to enjoy success is by a period of good to excellent drafting and more importantly, development of players.

Ah, the kidney shot. Was wondering when that was happening.


You're right though, every single one of the non-existent people who believed it was all about being big and having money, in a year where Port & North finished top 4, is well & truly convinced by now that that's not the case, a year where Coll & WCE & Adelaide are back in business. Every one of them is more convinced now. Pity they don't exist.

 

[MaddAdam]

Would it?
Whole premise of thread is flawed.

Given your join date ...

 

[Off The Couch]

Apart from the last line, thoroughly agree.

I think the last five years have shown us also that some big Melbourne clubs have yet to adjust to the reality of the evened out competition: they still believe big name signings, either onfield or off, can provide a short cut to success when in this footy world, the only way to enjoy success is by a period of good to excellent drafting and more importantly, development of players.

And also the need to think outside the square. For all the rumblings about there being too many teams in Victoria as soon as teams do try something different, in this case North and the hawks playing games in Tassie the tosspots start carrying on about that as well and yet as someone else said we have the so called big club in the bombers shaking a tin to build new training facilities and carlton still carrying a load of debt - go figure. All clubs are going to have to keep looking a different ways of raising revenue, improving supporter bases, sponsorship etc. or just like our clubs face problems down the track - can't afford to take your eye off the ball for one moment.

 

[ETOH]

This time five years ago, the debate over North moving to the Gold Coast was in full voice. As we know, in November, North said no.

It would be fair to say that the consensus of many at BigFooty and in the wider footy community was: "they'll fold in three years".

Yet now we see North having a growing membership base (not the smallest in Melbourne anymore and mid table overall) and growing crowds with a talented young list that copped a flogging in Perth, but still made finals.

At the same time, we see Brisbane recording another massive loss and while not bereft of talent, unlikely to be winning flags any time soon.

In South Australia, Port are in massive strife on and off field.

And the era of free agency shows us that freedom of player movement could well condemn clubs like Melbourne to "feeder" status in perpetuity unless they can engineer drastic changes in culture and image.

So, five years on, what have we learned about the footy economy ...

The way you go on about North, you'd think they weren't in huge amounts of debt.

 

[MaddAdam]

Ah, the kidney shot. Was wondering when that was happening.


You're right though, every single one of the non-existent people who believed it was all about being big and having money, in a year where Port & North finished top 4, is well & truly convinced by now that that's not the case, a year where Coll & WCE & Adelaide are back in business. Every one of them is more convinced now. Pity they don't exist.

I'm not singling out Essendon here. Carlton have it far worse than you guys.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Given your join date ...

Given your join date...

 

[The King!]

Not so. In the previous funding arrangement, the Dogs got the highest amount. THis time round, us and the Dogs get the same.

Yet the funding provided by the AFL now is not simply a cash top up into general revenue. It is very clearly earmarked. Also, while the competition is rigged to maximise revenue the AFL is on record as saying that it will continue to fund those clubs not afforded the exposure of the big clubs (due to the rigged draw) with means of maximising their exposure and revenue.

Thought it was equal between you and the dogs in the 2011 report? I dont have a problem with the distribution its transparent, so was not having a go, we were about 5th or 6th i think. Just the goal would be for all clubs to be equal eventually

 

[MaddAdam]

The way you go on about North, you'd think they weren't in huge amounts of debt.

We're not. And the debt is coming down. Will be gone in three years.

Another thing we've learned in the last five years: rather than push smaller Melbourne clubs to the wall (as many claimed) the AFL is actually paying their debt off for them.

 

[MaddAdam]

Given your join date...

LOL, fair play. I forgot about that!

 

[Slattery_20]

I'm not singling out Essendon here. Carlton have it far worse than you guys.

And? They've played in more finals than your mob or mine, over the last 5 years.
I'm not about to write Mick off before he's started.

 

[MaddAdam]

Thought it was equal between you and the dogs in the 2011 report? I dont have a problem with the distribution its transparent, so was not having a go, we were about 5th or 6th i think. Just the goal would be for all clubs to be equal eventually

Disagree as does the AFL.

When the fixture is specifically designed to give some clubs the best exposure, then those clubs that don't get the exposure most be compensated or assisted to make up that revenue in other ways.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Just the goal would be for all clubs to be equal eventually

With the ridiculous "fixture" this is never going to happen. And that includes the Dome agreement which shafts the Kangaroos pretty royally. Until they sort that out, the distribution can be as unequal as it wants to be.

 

[Doss]

We're not. And the debt is coming down. Will be gone in three years.

Another thing we've learned in the last five years: rather than push smaller Melbourne clubs to the wall (as many claimed) the AFL is actually paying their debt off for them.

It is an interesting about face from fifteen-twenty years ago. I'm no master economist, but if you compare the debts of clubs like North, Carlton and Port now, to how they compare in relative (i.e. inflation adjusted) terms to the debts of Fitzroy, Footscray and Hawthorn in the mid 1990s, which is worse?

Surely the debts of the clubs today are worse. Fitzroy was reportedly a little over a million in debt, was it not? I think it's great the AFL has adjusted their approach, don't get me wrong. But I imagine Fitzroy types might look on today's situation and be, well, miffed.

 

[The King!]

Disagree as does the AFL.

When the fixture is specifically designed to give some clubs the best exposure, then those clubs that don't get the exposure most be compensated or assisted to make up that revenue in other ways.

I was talking maybe 70 years time in an ideal world there would be no need for equalisation measures of any degree

 

[boncer34]

Explain how the AFL "props" up North or any other Melbourne club.

Using sourced figures.

Your the one saying they don't. You started this thread based on the idea that North are now financially strong.

Prove it.

 

[boncer34]

We're not. And the debt is coming down. Will be gone in three years.

Another thing we've learned in the last five years: rather than push smaller Melbourne clubs to the wall (as many claimed) the AFL is actually paying their debt off for them.

So you admit the AFL helps keep the Roo's afloat.

Cool thats my argument done.

Prop up Roo's and Suns or just Gold Coast Roo's?

Should've moved.

 

[MaddAdam]

And? They've played in more finals than your mob or mine, over the last 5 years.
I'm not about to write Mick off before he's started.

Yes, but they thought getting Judd would be teh answer - and it wasn't.

Now they think getting Mick will be the answer.

They clearly thought getting Cloke would be the answer too.

If Mick does bring them success it will be because he - paradoxically - rids them of this view and convinces them they need to build and develop organically.

 

[The King!]

Your the one saying they don't. You started this thread based on the idea that North are now financially strong.

Prove it.

http://www.kangaroos.com.au/latestnews/newsarticle/tabid/4912/newsid/126483/default.aspx

 

[The King!]

So you admit the AFL helps keep the Roo's afloat.

Cool thats my argument done.

Prop up Roo's and Suns or just Gold Coast Roo's?

Should've moved.

The afl gave money to essendon as well you realise