Five years on ...

[mufassa]

Would you care to provide proof of that?

But ok lets go with that.

Keep North and the Suns afloat or keep the Gold Coast Kangaroos afloat?

Which makes more sense from the AFL perspective?

Should've moved.

So go back to my money booth post and tell me what do you want the AFL to do with the Millions and Millions that they have to flitter away??

Flight plan??

I have also reconsidered turning the Women footballers into cheerleaders - not sure many women that play Aussie Rules would get a start with the Dallas Cowboy cheer leaders.

 

[footscore]

Thinking back to the fact that GWS offered this guy six million dollars just makes me laugh now

Their board are full of multimillionaires who'd blow 6 million a month gambling so I doubt they'd give a toss about a player that has yet to fully realize his potential.

 

[boncer34]

I can provide proof in that without an AFL competition to play in, the Essendon Football Club wouldn't exist. The AFL also owns all the trademarks to your imagery.

As regards "making sense from an AFL perspective" having more clubs equals more games equals higher TV revenue.

Can you comprehend that?

So you can't prove the AFL helps Essendon as much as North? It's ok man thats all you had to say.

Prop up 2 clubs or prop up 1?

Should've moved.

 

[boncer34]

So go back to my money booth post and tell me what do you want the AFL to do with the Millions and Millions that they have to flitter away??

Flight plan??

I have also reconsidered turning the Women footballers into cheerleaders - not sure many women that play Aussie Rules would get a start with the Dallas Cowboy cheer leaders.

They could spend more at grass roots. Maybe spend more on expanding the game overseas?

 

[mufassa]

Did anyone actually believe North would have folded by now? A club hasn't folded in almost 100 years. That was just bigfooty bullshit, like Heppell being called soft.

Is the Heppell comment like saying no AFL footballer was ever soft because it is a really really tough game to play? No one plays at AFL level if they are not brave?

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Is the Heppell comment like saying no AFL footballer was ever soft because it is a really really tough game to play? No one plays at AFL level if they are not brave?

No it is just highlighting some of the bullshit that gains legs on this site.

And also Lindsay Thomas puts paid to that theory

 

[Bardo State]

And all those who complained about our "easy draw" - our finance department would have been shattered!!

1) GWS - are the lowest drawing interstate team.
2) Suns - 2nd lowest drwaing interstate team.
3) Dogs - would be in the bottom 2 lowest drawing Vic sides. Woof Woof!!
4) WCE - thanks - another interstate team!!!

5) Ess - well thanks for that!! One decent Vic team we get to play twice.

Soft yes - but little help to our bottom line. We would prefer in 2013 to have a harder draw as long as it includes the Pies, Blues, Rich, Hawks and Ess.

Try having one of the hardest AND worst financial draws

 

[Burzum]

You should go back and read the threads.

Can you post quotes?

 

[mufassa]

Try having one of the hardest AND worst financial draws

But you are now a rich club as well as a power house on the filed so getting a tough and bad financial draw does not worry you. Unless you think it cost you 11 points???

Who did you play twice?

 

[Doss]

So you can't prove the AFL helps Essendon as much as North? It's ok man thats all you had to say.

Prop up 2 clubs or prop up 1?

Should've moved.

Where that logic doesn't quite stand up, though, is that the Gold Coast Kangaroos would likely have, in the long term, have needed even more propping up than a new, infant club (the Suns) with some sense of local identity.

And before anyone compares to South Melbourne/Sydney, don't forget they came perilously close to folding first in the late 1980s, then again five years later when Carlton tried to effectively take over the Sydney market- in fact, in 1992 they only survived because the other clubs effectively agreed to bail them out.

And that was when Sydney was the only club in the market, in a city of- even then- almost four million people. Gold Coast Roos would have been competing with Brisbane, in an area with less people than the greater Sydney area.

A transplanted North team on the Gold Coast, I am quite certain, would have been a disaster.

 

[mufassa]

north melbourne have the worse supporters on big footy... just saying..

School holidays Jesse?

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Some of the more rabid trolls / uninformed fans (some overlaps there) actually thought North would be dead inside a year....

I don't think that all supporters of other clubs are morons............just some, and they don't know who they are.

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".

Some!=concensus
Thread is based on a flawed premise
Even the so called Rabid trolls, if they were trolling then they didn't actually believe it and may have said it simply to get a rise out of North supporters at the time.
Sure there may be the occasional moron who actually believed it, but is it really thread worthy?
Especially when the thread tries to identify these people as the majority, when clearly they couldn't have been.
(although we did vote in Kevin Rudd, and are likely to vote in Abbott, so maybe I'm the minority)

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Where that logic doesn't quite stand up, though, is that the Gold Coast Kangaroos would likely have, in the long term, have needed even more propping up than a new, infant club (the Suns) with some sense of local identity.

And before anyone compares to South Melbourne/Sydney, don't forget they came perilously close to folding first in the late 1980s, then again five years later when Carlton tried to effectively take over the Sydney market- in fact, in 1992 they only survived because the other clubs effectively agreed to bail them out.

And that was when Sydney was the only club in the market, in a city of- even then- almost four million people. Gold Coast Roos would have been competing with Brisbane, in an area with less people than the greater Sydney area.

A transplanted North team on the Gold Coast, I am quite certain, would have been a disaster.

They would have had more success though. I think a real test for the expansion clubs is; can they maintain their support if they have year after year on being non-competetive for 3/4's of the season.

 

[Tas]

I am happy my team is improving off-field. I don't want to see other go through what we did.

I'd prefer if the AFL fixed problems rather than spend a fortune expanding. I think if core issues are not addressed then the notion of a level playing field will go from a delusion to outright fantasy. Free Agency is going to push a quarter of the clubs with no immediate prospects into talent development clubs. People think it is bad now, we have a tiny fraction of players out of contract this year due to expansion clubs, it is going to get bigger and worse as years go on.

Greedy players and a greedy administration is pissing on our code. It was never meant to be about money.

 

[MaddAdam]

So you can't prove the AFL helps Essendon as much as North? It's ok man thats all you had to say.

Prop up 2 clubs or prop up 1?

Should've moved.

LOL. You are obviously simple and unable to comprehend fairly basic concepts.

I bid you good day.

 

[Bardo State]

But you are now a rich club as well as a power house on the filed so getting a tough and bad financial draw does not worry you. Unless you think it cost you 11 points???

Who did you play twice?

Yeah, I understand that. We are in a position where a bad financial draw shouldn't massively effect us

We played Port, West Coast, Sydney, Collingwood and Geelong twice. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable but we played every single team based outside Victoria in our home games. That's 8 out of a possible 11 games against interstate opposition.

Good for fans as it allows us to play more games in Melbourne to compensate for the Tassie deal but shit for the club financially

 

[Illinois Nazi]

No, they shouldn't have moved to the Gold Coast five years ago. But only because they should have moved to Canberra five years before that.

 

[MaddAdam]

Where that logic doesn't quite stand up, though, is that the Gold Coast Kangaroos would likely have, in the long term, have needed even more propping up than a new, infant club (the Suns) with some sense of local identity.

And before anyone compares to South Melbourne/Sydney, don't forget they came perilously close to folding first in the late 1980s, then again five years later when Carlton tried to effectively take over the Sydney market- in fact, in 1992 they only survived because the other clubs effectively agreed to bail them out.

And that was when Sydney was the only club in the market, in a city of- even then- almost four million people. Gold Coast Roos would have been competing with Brisbane, in an area with less people than the greater Sydney area.

A transplanted North team on the Gold Coast, I am quite certain, would have been a disaster.

Great post. Good to see some people get it.

 

[MaddAdam]

While I disagree (obviously), that would have made far more sense.

 

[mufassa]

No, they shouldn't have moved to the Gold Coast five years ago. But only because they should have moved to Canberra five years before that.

Canberra would have milked 10 times more money out of the AFL than we ever would.

 

[MaddAdam]

Yeah, I understand that. We are in a position where a bad financial draw shouldn't massively effect us

We played Port, West Coast, Sydney, Collingwood and Geelong twice. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable but we played every single team based outside Victoria in our home games. That's 8 out of a possible 11 games against interstate opposition.

Good for fans as it allows us to play more games in Melbourne to compensate for the Tassie deal but shit for the club financially

I predicted this would happen when you guys stymied the AFL's Tassie plans.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Yeah, I understand that. We are in a position where a bad financial draw shouldn't massively effect us

We played Port, West Coast, Sydney, Collingwood and Geelong twice. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable but we played every single team based outside Victoria in our home games. That's 8 out of a possible 11 games against interstate opposition.

Good for fans as it allows us to play more games in Melbourne to compensate for the Tassie deal but shit for the club financially

This is not a product of the draw though like it is for any other club. The only reason this happens is because of the Tassie deal.

So “it’s shit financially” as a result of the financial boost that is gained form Tassie.

 

[mufassa]

DON'T TAKE VLAD ON!!!!

Payback is a b!tch!!!

 

[Zahki]

Just because North are keeping afloat doen't make the club viable. The costs for being competitive are going up, better equipment, more coaches and support staff, end of season trips for altitude training, it all costs $$$. North might be able to stay alive and pay their bills just barely with AFL assistance, but they're not going to achieve anything of note but maybe a first week of finals bombout. If you're fine with keeping them in that zombie like state where they'll be in hte league but not achieving anything of note, fine, but I think it'll be fairly clear in a few years that the best option was to move.

 

[Papa G]

What has changed is the AFL and the Victorian media have simply gone down the VicCentricity model. The AFL have given up on the fleeting idea of having a more equitable and fairer national competition and basically gone back to a VFL with add ons model. The add ons are there to feather the nest of the Victorian footy industry. The Victorian media finally came to the realisation that buggering off Melbourne clubs was actually detrimental to themselves therefore stopped advocating it and no doubt the Victorian government have a direct line to AFL House whereby the "AFL footy industry" is big business as well as being a major tourist spinner.