Remove this Banner Ad

Five years on ...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mark73 said:
Why are you even here?
Click to expand...
Because I find it odd that North in particular constantly belabour the point about not relocating. They are not the 1st club that could relocate, others already have done so succesfully, nor will they be the last to be speculated about relocating.

I find it unlikely that the AFL as it stands will continue into perpetuity with these 18 clubs at present. Most likely some will relocate, by force or choice, at some stage, so I don't get all the hooplah in this thread about how Big Footy posters are all wrong and look at mighty North as half this thread is. Appealing to validation from the Big Footy community for North Melbourne's existence I find rather amusing.
 
mHmmm said:
Because I find it odd that North in particular constantly belabour the point about not relocating. They are not the 1st club that could relocate, others already have done so succesfully, nor will they be the last to be speculated about relocating.

I find it unlikely that the AFL as it stands will continue into perpetuity with these 18 clubs at present. Most likely some will relocate, by force or choice, at some stage, so I don't get all the hooplah in this thread about how Big Footy posters are all wrong and look at mighty North as half this thread is. Appealing to validation from the Big Footy community for North Melbourne's existence I find rather amusing.
Click to expand...
Oh, relocation. I'll ask you again, what are you doing here?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Hard_to_Beat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Every small fry supporter wears that tag like a badge of honour that somehow implies you love your club more than the rest of us, massive massive f#cking lol's :rolleyes::oops::mad::thumbsdown:

As for the Bombers if/when they ever relocate- i think i can speak for all of us, to a man/woman/child we would follow the mighty Dons to the ends of the god damned earth.
 
boncer34 said:
Whats that time frame got to do with anything?

In late 2004 Hawthorn drew 11,000 to the MCG to see one of the form clubs in the league play them.

They've bounced back since about then to become the club they are now.
Click to expand...

Your response proves my point. The Hawks didn't turn it around in just five years as the comment above implied by comparing our progress unfavourably to theirs. It took them much longer, and will take us longer too.
 
UseYourIllusion said:
Your response proves my point. The Hawks didn't turn it around in just five years as the comment above implied by comparing our progress unfavourably to theirs. It took them much longer, and will take us longer too.
Click to expand...
I'd say they recovered in 2009. So from 2004 to 2009= 5 years.
 
UseYourIllusion said:
Except the timeline for each club is the decision not to relocate or merge. 1996 to 2009 = 13 years.
Click to expand...
Ok so in 2001 they managed to reach a Prelim and hit decent crowds.

How'd you go?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

If you are going to compare Hawthorn's situation with North's then you have to give them another decade

We got some semi decent returns off the back of some success but weren't really as stable as we are now until 08/09

And even then, Hawthorn's situation is pretty unique and is probably a benchmark more than a reasonable expectation or target
 
UseYourIllusion said:
No response to the substance of my comment. Good one.
Click to expand...
What? You said they had 13 years. I'm saying after 5 they'd made a prelim and managed to have decent crowds.

How'd you guys go?
 
UseYourIllusion said:
No response to the substance of my comment. Good one.
Click to expand...
lbtwo.gif
 
boncer34 said:
What? You said they had 13 years. I'm saying after 5 they'd made a prelim and managed to have decent crowds.

How'd you guys go?
Click to expand...

Here is a Hawthorn supporter in this very thread agreeing with me:

daannn277 said:
If you are going to compare Hawthorn's situation with North's then you have to give them another decade

We got some semi decent returns off the back of some success but weren't really as stable as we are now until 08/09

And even then, Hawthorn's situation is pretty unique and is probably a benchmark more than a reasonable expectation or target
Click to expand...

It would have been nice to do better in finals over the last few seasons, but we weren't good enough.
 
Wetdog said:
Playing devil's advocate here, but couldn't you argue that the AFL fixture rewards the successful clubs. I.e. good club management = on field success = more fans, members, bigger crowds = more prime time tv games/marquee games etc.
Click to expand...

It entirely does reward the big clubs. More than anything smaller clubs like yours and mine get back.

Big clubs are the biggest recpients of AFL largesse.

Collingwood is playing the Bank of America line: too big to fail.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Tigersman said:
Id say its too early to tell if they made the right call.
Click to expand...

I also think it is too early to make a call on the French Revolution.
 
old55 said:
This time 3 years ago you guaranteed a North flag in 5 years here - that leaves 2 years to go.
Click to expand...

Standing by that one.
 
Are people seriously arguing that big memberships don't equal big games?

Why else does the AFL gift blockbuster timeslots to Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, and to a lesser extent, Hawthorn? There's no luck in which the Bulldogs, Saints, or North just don't get. These time slots guarantee big crowds and they guarantee higher viewership. What's there to even argue about?

The thing worth arguing about is the result of this. It's cyclical. The AFL won't have North – Bulldogs on a Friday night, because these clubs have lower attendances and members. Yet by not getting these prime time slots, they're being restricted in their growth. The AFL are in a tough situation.
 
Silent Alarm said:
Are people seriously arguing that big memberships don't equal big games?

Why else does the AFL gift blockbuster timeslots to Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, and to a lesser extent, Hawthorn? There's no luck in which the Bulldogs, Saints, or North just don't get. These time slots guarantee big crowds and they guarantee higher viewership. What's there to even argue about?

The thing worth arguing about is the result of this. It's cyclical. The AFL won't have North – Bulldogs on a Friday night, because these clubs have lower attendances and members. Yet by not getting these prime time slots, they're being restricted in their growth. The AFL are in a tough situation.
Click to expand...

Yet these same two clubs dragged in 68,000 people for a friday night match in 1998 when they only had 60% of the membership base that they have today.



Go figure?
 
basashi said:
As a general rule of thumb, clubs in WA, SA and Vic should not be receiving AFL top up money. If the AFL is to be laying out coin in subsidy then it should be in "new territories" clubs. The return on investment is the expansion of the game.
Click to expand...

True except that North and the Dogs get AFL money to promote the game in Melbournes growth areas in the west that have big newly arrived communities. So it is growing the game - in Victoria.
 
Yep, good on youse for not folding by now/potshot

But seriously, It's a commendable effort to get yourselves from there, to a position of (comparative) strength. I always thought it was bullshit that the afl we're more concerned with planning for expansion than they were with strengthening existing clubs, I would have been absolutely filthy if it was us.
Brayshaw has done a hell of a job, even I admit that, even though the bloke is a bit of a tosser.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Five years on ...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top