[FOR SALE] - North Melbourne Football Club

[Go South]

What does everyone think of it?

I'm a bit shocked - but I guess it's probably the only way they're going to survive, because at the moment, the future is looking incredibly bleak for the Kangaroos.

If I was rolling in it, I'd probably buy them, personally. I'm sure some multi-billionaire will come to their aid, but I'm still not sure whether it's the right way to go.

I mean - if an individual "owns" the North Melbourne Footy Club, how much of an influence are they going to have?

What are your thoughts guys

 

[QT]

Its a good move, but they ahve to sell it to the right guy. Unlike what my soccer club i followed did (Adelaide Sharks), they sold it to some cashless scumbag crook!

 

[Go South]

Evening, QT... Go Crows

 

[MBER]

Is it worth buying, the club has won 2 flags in 5 years and yet they are still struggling to survive, Bad Management maybe, especially with a moron like Greg Miller at the club,
Didn't Bob Ansett part own the club or something for awhile

oh yeah I heard a few years ago that North was on the stock exchange how much are there shares going for???

 

[Balip]

Im personally not in favour of private ownership, membership based clubs are the way to go. But if it means private ownership or extinction I would say go for it.

 

[Blues_Brat]

It'll be in the bargains section of the Trading Post.

What was this lame rumour about the SACA wanting to by the Roos and move them to Adelaide Oval. Say it aint so.

 

[tagger]

Are they AFL approved?

 

[Groucho]

Don't be sucked in by old journo hacks like Scot Palmer desperate for a "scoop". It ain't no scoop and it ain't no story because it can't happen.

 

[Lightning]

Not sure that it can`t happen.

I think the AFL would be relieved if they were reinvented somehow and the speculation stopped once and forever.

 

[Darky]

Bit of sensaltionalism, that's all

Despite the sensationalist headline in Damian Barrett's article today, ( http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_226583.htm ) and despite Scot Palmer's approach in announcing the so-called scoop last night, the true perspective of it all can be wrapped up in two quotes from the article.

By Barrett, regarding Kangaroos CEO, Greg Miller :

"Miller -- who said his ideas on the subject were personal and yet to be approved by the club -- refused to divulge the price he had placed on the club, which declared a $1.14 million loss for the 2000 season and is struggling for cash flow."

By AFL representative Tony Peek :

(Peek said AFL rules prohibited any person or entity from owning more than 5 per cent of voting rights at a club.) - Barrett's lead-in...

''It is some time since we have reviewed the question of private ownership and I think it is fair to say the AFL commission's current view is that it would take a lot of convincing to re-consider its position on private ownership,'' he said.

So, overall it is a possibility being explored by ONE person who must have it approved by the club for it to go ahead, and must then have it approved by the AFL, who would need to review and change their private ownership rules to allow a private buy-out.

Hardly a formality, folks.

 

[Go South]

Originally posted by Groucho
Don't be sucked in by old journo hacks like Scot Palmer desperate for a "scoop". It ain't no scoop and it ain't no story because it can't happen.

I'm guessing you missed Greg Miller on The Footy Panel this morning then?

 

[FIREPOWER]

Rules are made to be broken.

In this case very rapidly.

The AFL doesn`t run ASIC.

The NMFC could be put into receivership tomorrow and there is nothing the AFL could do about it. Except pay its creditors.

 

[flickpass]

Very interesting Scenario.

From a business point of view it does not a feasible deal to buy the NMFC.

I doubt whether any person or Corporation wants to lose money.

 

[eagleskickass]

I'm definately against private ownership of a club, in any sport. Look what Nick Tana has done to the glory, and he only owns 75% of the club, imagine what it would be like if he owned 100%. Owners have way too much power over the club.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by eagleskickass
I'm definately against private ownership of a club, in any sport. Look what Nick Tana has done to the glory, and he only owns 75% of the club, imagine what it would be like if he owned 100%. Owners have way too much power over the club.

What has he done to the Glory? Hasn't he made them fairly successful?