Five years on ...

[Vtorians]

It would be a pain in the arse seeing them dominate, but they should've went to GC.
Would already have Caddy & every other gun player courtesy of the AFL & we'd still have a 16 team comp instead 2 franchises & a heap of games that no-one gives a f#ck about

 

[Cmarsh]

It would be a pain in the arse seeing them dominate, but they should've went to GC.
Would already have Caddy & every other gun player courtesy of the AFL & we'd still have a 16 team comp instead 2 franchises & a heap of games that no-one gives a f#ck about

Don't worry, people will start complaining about being drawn us and GC twice in a season soon enough.

 

[noodle]

Hooray. We’re still relevant.

 

[Silent Alarm]

North are fine. They're in an extremely crowded market (Melbourne itself, but being wedged between Collingwood and Carlton will always be tough). I think they're looking alright. The membership is looking alright, and the crowds aren't too awful. As much as I like North, Arden Street looks pretty shit, though.

Gold Coast and the Lions are integral to expansion. They aren't going anywhere. The AFL has a lot of money and they're adamant that those franchises will change footy. I'm not really too worried. I mean, it took the Swans a decade and a finals appearance to hit 10k averages. The Suns and Giants are essentially doing that with floggings and first seasons. Non issue, really. Brisbane are just in a fickle market and their lack of finals is what's cost them. They'll be okay.

Crows are fine. They have a monopoly in a footy-loving state. Collingwood and the Eagles have more success and a bigger population, so it's no surprise that they're doing better. Port are necessary, South Australia need two sides. Once they get out of this rut, they'll be fine – albeit still a smaller club.

The real worry is Melbourne and the Bulldogs. Western Bulldogs have the biggest geographical area of any Victorian side, no? They made prelims and had some very good footballers. In that time, their membership didn't grow a lot and they're looking pretty stagnant. They desperately need to convert their catchment area into a heavy supporter base. The Dees just look utterly shit, meanwhile. No strong geographical ties and a club that players just don't care about. Mleeegh.

It's worth remembering that fortunes fluctuate. Hawthorn have 60,000 members, but in the 90s, were as good as merged. Collingwood once struggled for funds, and they're the strongest sports club in Australia.

 

[boncer34]

You got an proof the AFL "props" up North?

No.

I'm not the one who opened the door.

You got anything at all to prove the AFL is giving Essendon the same assistance as North?

Anything to prove at all that we're better off having North and not the Gold Coast Roos in the comp?

Anything to prove that we're better off propping up North and the Suns instead of just the Roos?

No?

Got issues with me making sweeping generalized statements?

Don't make them yourself first.

If you want proof offer some of your own up first.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Actually, the point of the thread is for others to show an open mind.

Would it be fair to say that in 2007 you called the North decision to stay in Melbourne badly?

From what I remember, I suggested they would need to look outside Melbourne eventually because they weren't going to be viable in the long term just playing in Melbourne.

Then they started sniffing around Tassie shortly there after so I guess I was right there.

Could be a good move, as long as it's not another failed cash grab...like the GC....or Canberra....or Sydney....

 

[MaddAdam]

OP is actually saying "North's decision to not move was a fantastic one u mad Port another other poor clubs".

Don't speak too soon.

No I'm not.

 

[final fight]

The AFL socialist system really works.

 

[Tiger2709]

Of course they will - it is good business sense - but this is big reason the AFL support teams.

I rattled tins for the Tigers in the early 90's to "Save our Skins" also gave 5 rupee's to the Essendon tin rattlers this year for their "flight plan". Swings and roundabouts.

Yeah, did a bit of that myself at the local for the Tigers and it was always pleasing to see how many other clubs supporters tipped in a bit and helped out, the AFL needs all its clubs to be successful and from what I have seen this year the Roos have increased their membership and are in reasonably good shape on the field, there are a few other clubs I would be worrying about before North.

 

[MaddAdam]

I'm not the one who opened the door.

You got anything at all to prove the AFL is giving Essendon the same assistance as North?

Anything to prove at all that we're better off having North and not the Gold Coast Roos in the comp?

I never said North and Essendon get the same off the AFL

I do have proof that we're better off having North AND Gold Coast:

The record TV rights deal that means Essendon is getting $1m towards its new facility out at Tulla.

 

[Bayer_]

What we have learned in the last five years is that the era of the AFL "killing off" clubs is gone, almost certainly forever.

People who believe that are the footy equivalent of flat earthers.

For such a smart guy, your sense (or lack thereof) of the long term big picture is surprising.

Pretty simple, really. In the long term, the AFL plans to supercede rugby league in the northern states. Given the parlous nature of that sport, and the work the AFL's doing, not to mention the superior nature of the game, it's more likely than not that AFL will succeed in the long term. Not in five years, ten years, or twenty years, but thirty years plus - the sporting landscape up north will change.

If the gringos (we being Mexicans) embrace our game as imagined, well, two teams ain't enough for the 5+ million people who'll be living in Sydney, not in comparison to the 9 in Melbourne. They'd spend us into the ground.

Solution is, when the time's right, the most vulnerable Melbourne clubs will either be relocated, or allowed to wither to death.

It may be North, it may be Bulldogs, it may be Hawthorn, it may be Carlton or Essendon. But whoever's financially vulnerable once the northern markets start to mature, should be feeling quite nervous.

Of course, most of this won't happen until we're old and/or dead.

But flat earthers we aint: 9 clubs in Melbourne won't reflect support for the game in the long term.

 

[telsor]

So basically, the OP's idea is to raise a topic he complains about when anyone else raises, with the idea that everyopne will agree with him, and if they don't he'll bore them to death with thin arguments, demanding 'proof' when they're countered and if past history holds, ignoring any proof he doesn't like.

So simply...What have the past 5 years proven?

That so long as the AFL provides masses of welfare, North can survive.

 

[MaddAdam]

From what I remember, I suggested they would need to look outside Melbourne eventually because they weren't going to be viable in the long term just playing in Melbourne.

Then they started sniffing around Tassie shortly there after so I guess I was right there.

Could be a good move, as long as it's not another failed cash grab...like the GC....or Canberra....or Sydney....

Indeed, and Brayshaw said it would be required.

The Tassie relationship is very different to the others, which were badly handled.

 

[MaddAdam]

So simply...What have the past 5 years proven?

That so long as the AFL provides masses of welfare, North can survive.

So, "welfare", how much does Richmond get? Despite being a "big" club and getting a far better commercial draw than North?

Why does Richmond get any at all?

 

[boncer34]

I never said North and Essendon get the same off the AFL

You said North don't get any extra assistance. You said your not kept afloat any more then Essendon.

No, the AFL doesn't keep us afloat any more than it keeps Essendon afloat.

I do have proof that we're better off having North AND Gold Coast:

The record TV rights deal that means Essendon is getting $1m towards its new facility out at Tulla.

Thats not proof. Thats your opinion.

Who's to say without needing to foot the bill for an entire new franchise and without the need of propping two clubs up instead of one the extra million wouldn't be there anyway?

 

[boncer34]

So, "welfare", how much does Richmond get? Despite being a "big" club and getting a far better commercial draw than North?

Why does Richmond get any at all?

What's Richmond got to do with anything?

This conversation is about North.

Choice was going to the Gold Coast or stay in Melbourne.

If you'd gone to the Gold Coast we'd be keeping the Gold Coast Kangaroos alive not the Suns AND the Roos.

Should've moved.

 

[The King!]

So, "welfare", how much does Richmond get? Despite being a "big" club and getting a far better commercial draw than North?

Why does Richmond get any at all?

Why do the roos have poor commercial deals? Who agreed to them ? Forced?

 

[bombermick]

They've done better than I thought, but they still should have moved.

It would be a far better situation than sharing Tassie, and they're always going to struggle as Essendon's little brother while they're in Melbourne.

 

[Silent Alarm]

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.

Fitzroy could've been a dollar in debt and they'd still have been turfed out the AFL. It's not worth comparing the 1996 AFL with the 2012 one. Then, it was about slimming down the product and taking it to 'footy places' (expansion in WA and SA). 2009–2012 was about expansion, and now we'll be heading toward equalisation and the retention of clubs.

 

[Cmarsh]

The AFL socialist system really works.

Comments like this really some up the irony of Bigfooty. Endless amounts of people complaining about the unevenness of the competition yet at the same time putdowns for the AFL for being "socialist" for financially supporting clubs.

 

[Silent Alarm]

But in the mid 90's their was not a Billion dollar TV deal. They missed the boom and now the AFL is a cash cow - if it is not helping out clubs what else will they do with the money? I have some ideas!

1) Start a national Women's league and they play before the men on game day. After the game they can be the cheer leaders to help jazz things up a bit.

Have you seen female footballers? I mean, if that's your thing and all...

 

[Black Diamond]

They've done better than I thought, but they still should have moved.

It would be a far better situation than sharing Tassie, and they're always going to struggle as Essendon's little brother while they're in Melbourne.

There's always going to be a smallest club somewhere.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

They've done better than I thought, but they still should have moved.

It would be a far better situation than sharing Tassie, and they're always going to struggle as Essendon's little brother while they're in Melbourne.

You would obviously still follow Essendon if they were the Nagasaki bombers.

You aren't cut out to be North material.

Our small number isn't our weakness, it's our strength.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Comments like this really some up the irony of Bigfooty. Endless amounts of people complaining about the unevenness of the competition yet at the same time putdowns for the AFL for being "socialist" for financially supporting clubs.

....and from a Sydney supporter no less.

 

[MaddAdam]

You said your not kept afloat any more then Essendon.

Indeed. The AFL cash represents about 1/25th of our turnover.

It doesn't keep us afloat.

You're wrong. On this on everything else. Scurry along now