Moved Thread Hawthorn "sucking Tasmania dry" ... calls for them to GTFO

[Roylion]

I'm sure Fitzroy fans never thought their team would end up in Brisbane after avoiding relocation to Queensland in 1986 but look at what happened 10 years later.

Well that didn't happen.

I doubt North will ever be playing any more than about half their home games in Tasmania and if that doesn't happen it certainly can't be classed as a relocation. They only play three now. Hawthorn play four. Combining both home and away North play 15 games in Melbourne this season.

North members would never accept only six 'home' games in Melbourne.

 

[Matchu]

Well that didn't happen.

Am I mistaken? Were there not plans to move Fitzroy to Brisbane in 1986?

I doubt North will ever be playing any more than about half their home games in Tasmania and if that doesn't happen it certainly can't be classed as a relocation. They only play three now. Hawthorn play four. Combining both home and away North play 15 games in Melbourne this season.

North members would never accept only six 'home' games in Melbourne.

As I stated before, in this hypothetical situation where North takeover Hawthorn's Launceston deal you would see the AFL compensating the club by scheduling more away games in Victoria.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Gave nothing back? We brought joy to their sad pathetic lives four times a year by letting them watch the greatest team ever in person but whatever

I know youre trying to be funny but there is no need to a twat.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Desi Van_83]

North in Hobart sucks tassie dry, as the city itself, whilst going quiet, still remain active

Ask any business in Launceston about the Hawks deal - it keeps them afloat. Before hawthorn, most of them closed during winter because simply no one went there

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that business shut down in Launceston in winter because no one went there?!? As a Tasmanian who now resides in Melbourne, I sometimes wonder what people who don't appear to know a lot about the place think happens there. It's Launceston, no Siberia. The place still operates in winter.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

 

[Roylion]

Am I mistaken? Were there not plans to move Fitzroy to Brisbane in 1986?

If you're implying by your previous statement that Fitzroy relocated to Queensland in 1996, just as they considered doing in 1986, then that didn't happen. Fitzroy never ended up in Brisbane.

As I stated before, in this hypothetical situation where North takeover Hawthorn's Launceston deal you would see the AFL compensating the club by scheduling more away games in Victoria.

Seven home games in Tasmania. Four home games in Melbourne. Eleven games in total per year in Melbourne, including away games. Home base at Arden Street. Club name continues to be "North Melbourne".

Is that a relocation?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Interesting you mentioned Brayshaw several times there. How about we listen to what James Brayshaw himself had to say about playing as many as seven home games down in Tasmania while he was president...




These moves leading to relocation is just where I think it would logically go after North hypothetically agrees to play 7-8 home games down there. That doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. One move doesn't guarantee the other. I just think that's where it would eventually go.

And yet,
THE new deal to keep the club in Hobart is still yet to be signed but that isn’t stopping North Melbourne chairman James Brayshaw from outlining his grand plan for the Kangaroos in Tasmania.

Before the Roos’ match against Melbourne yesterday at Blundstone Arena in the club’s first AFL game in Hobart for 2016, Brayshaw told a pre-match luncheon that North Melbourne was not only close to signing a new five-year deal to keep playing games in an arrangement he labelled as a “perfect fit”.

We think it’s going to be by five years, we think it’s going to be about three games.


Relocation would inevitably happen under your system for the exact reason I outlined earlier in regards to Victorian members.

Well that didn't happen.

I doubt North will ever be playing any more than about half their home games in Tasmania and if that doesn't happen it certainly can't be classed as a relocation. They only play three now. Hawthorn play four. Combining both home and away North play 15 games in Melbourne this season.

North members would never accept only six 'home' games in Melbourne.

North members only accept the current 3 game system, there would be uproar if there was anymore.

 

[Matchu]

If you're implying by your previous statement that Fitzroy relocated to Queensland in 1996, just as they considered doing in 1986, then that didn't happen. Fitzroy never ended up in Brisbane.

Being a bit pedantic I would have thought. The point I was trying to make was Fitzroy fans probably thought they wouldn't hear about any other proposals involving Brisbane after they fought off the 1986 relocation plans but we all know what happened 10 years later. The reason I wrote that was because a North Melbourne fan stated something to the effect of 'if we didn't move ten years ago, we will never move'.

Seven home games in Tasmania. Four home games in Melbourne. Eleven games in total per year in Melbourne, including away games. Home base at Arden Street. Club name continues to be "North Melbourne".

Is that a relocation?

We've been through this already. According to North Melbourne's constitution, "relocation" is simply defined as any move that requires the club to move their home base to an area outside of Victoria. Do I think their home base will move to somewhere outside of Victoria should they agree to play seven home games in Tasmania? No. Therefore, it's not relocation.

 

[jackenny]

No, you bent facts to suit your opinion. It isn't logical for North to play more Tassie games seem they have stated they won't play more than 3 games a year there on a few occasions, have a pro-Brayshaw (anti-relocation) dominated board, have established a VFL team, have deep community ties via the Huddle program, have a constitution that is very anti-relocation, playing pre-season games at Arden Street and have spent a fortune on improving the facilities during the Brayshaw administration and looking to extend North facilities in the near future as well. Does that sound like a club eager to play 6 games outside their home state.

It is 'effectively' relocation was probably the terminology I should have used. Anymore than 3 games is taking away games from North's primary members, Victorians, which would in the long-term would kill off a lot of the Victorian membership as North plays more and more outside Victoria. In the long-term, the more than 3 game situation would turn into relocation and that's what you are ultimately getting at, so not case closed, only delayed by a few years going off your previous post's timetable for effectively destroying a club that is older than yours.

I would like to point out that James Brayshaw has been replaced by Ben Buckley as chairman of the North Melbourne Football Club now. Interestingly, Buckley is a Tasmanian.

 

[Roylion]

Being a bit pedantic I would have thought. The point I was trying to make was Fitzroy fans probably thought they wouldn't hear about any proposals involving Brisbane after they fought off the 1986 relocation plans but we all know what happened 10 years later. The reason I wrote that was because a North Melbourne fan stated something to the effect of 'if we didn't move ten years ago, we will never move'.

Fitzroy never moved.

We've been through this already. According to North Melbourne's constitution, "relocation" is simply any move that requires the club to move their home base to an area outside of Victoria. Do I think their home base will move to somewhere outside of Victoria should they agree to play seven home games in Tasmania? No. Therefore, it's not relocation.

Then there's no issue. The debate then becomes how many home games will they play in Tasmania. North Melbourne members will likely resist if there are attempts to play more home games in Tasmania than what they already have. That then becomes a issue between the members and the North board, with ultimate power resting with the members.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I would like to point out that James Brayshaw has been replaced by Ben Buckley as chairman of the North Melbourne Football Club now. Interestingly, Buckley is a Tasmanian.

No s**t, but the board is still dominated by Brayshaw’s people.

And so what if Buckley is Tasmanian, that aspect makes absolutely no difference to the conversation.

North chairman Ben Buckley has poured cold water on talk of a partial relocation to Tasmania in a revealing interview with Fox Sports News’ AFL Tonight.

In a strong and reassuring statement to North supporters in Victoria, Buckley declared the Roos have no plans to increase the number of home games they play in Hobart and will remain based at Arden St while he was at the helm.

“I can firmly say that under my leadership, North Melbourne will always be headquartered here at Arden Street," he said.

“We’re committed to our heritage in North Melbourne.

“It’s a very strong and successful partnership we’ve had with the community for many, many years.’

“We’re comfortable with playing three games in Hobart, we’re very supportive of growing football in Tasmania in partnership with the Tassie government and Football Tasmania and the AFL. But at this point in time we don’t see any need or have any great desire to play any more games.’’

 

[Matchu]

Then there's no issue. The debate then becomes how many home games will they play in Tasmania. North Melbourne members will likely resist if there are attempts to play more home games in Tasmania than what they already have. That then becomes a issue between the members and the North board, with ultimate power resting with the members.

Theoretically, if you strictly use the definition outlined in North's constitution, they could play 22 games a season in Tasmania and as long as their home base remains in Victoria, they won't have relocated. A gradual increase in ventures involving Tasmania (which is already happening) decreases the chances of an uproar from the fans/members.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Theoretically, if you strictly use the definition outlined in North's constitution, they could play 22 games a season in Tasmania and as long as their home base remains in Victoria, they won't have relocated. A gradual increase in ventures involving Tasmania (which is already happening) decreases the chances of an uproar from the fans/members.

22 games in tassie and the base in Victoria is ludicrous.

Gradual increase and north fans accepting it, bwha ha ha, at least you’re committed. An academy was planned from the very beginning and gives north additional players, that can be packed up in a heartbeat if push came to shove. The adding of tassie to the women’s team was the afl’s doing, not north’s desire, but it was the only way to get a woman’s licence, and is very unpopular amongst supporters on bf and social media.

 

[Gibbke]

Ask any business in Launceston about the Hawks deal - it keeps them afloat. Before hawthorn, most of them closed during winter because simply no one went there

It's not that dire. I lived there the first 26 years of my life. In winter, the place got colder, not poorer. Only the Windmill Hill outdoor swimming pool shut down...!

Having said that, enterprising business is exactly that. Great innovation from all three parties (the Hawks, the govet and the Lton business community) in 2001. The Hawks are worth shitloads to Launceston business...

 

[Furn2]

L

So

By supporting ST Kilda you are holding off a Tassie team yeah ?

 

[wal]

Tell me were you also whining about the feds redirecting money before the mining boom when WA was on the receiving end and NSW/Vic were paying for the infrastructure that made the mining boom possible?

You're welcome to start paying us back whenever you like...(unlike you, we've NEVER been on the plus side of that redistribution).

You do realise it was Federal protectionist policies to prop up cottage manufacturing industries in Victoria and NSW that stymied the growth of the WA economy for decades?

 

[Matchu]

22 games in tassie and the base in Victoria is ludicrous.

You're missing the point if you think I was actually suggesting 22 games in Tasmania is a genuine option. I was pointing out the constitution isn't restrictive in that regard.

Gradual increase and north fans accepting it, bwha ha ha, at least you’re committed. An academy was planned from the very beginning and gives north additional players, that can be packed up in a heartbeat if push came to shove. The adding of tassie to the women’s team was the afl’s doing, not north’s desire, but it was the only way to get a woman’s licence, and is very unpopular amongst supporters on bf and social media.

Let me ask you this. Why do you think the AFL was so adamant a Kangaroos AFLW team must be based in Tasmania?

 

[the harry]

If Tasmania wants to play hardball, North will just shift to Ballarat.

In a thread littered with ignorant comments, this is probably up there with the most ignorant.

How does Ballarat sustain an AFL side? Why would Ballarat want North Melbourne as their club? The oval there, even with recent redevelopment is pretty s**t in terms of professional structure, albeit the ground itself is good. After the way the town was treated by the Bulldogs, I would not be surprised if there was serious resentment to any relocation or attempt to partner up with the city in any way.

Ballarat has enough issues to deal with rather than throwing a club down there as part of a bargaining chip.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I feel like this thread belongs to North fans now...

 

[Richo83]

In a thread littered with ignorant comments, this is probably up there with the most ignorant.

How does Ballarat sustain an AFL side? Why would Ballarat want North Melbourne as their club? The oval there, even with recent redevelopment is pretty s**t in terms of professional structure, albeit the ground itself is good. After the way the town was treated by the Bulldogs, I would not be surprised if there was serious resentment to any relocation or attempt to partner up with the city in any way.

Ballarat has enough issues to deal with rather than throwing a club down there as part of a bargaining chip.

I wasn't saying North should move to Ballarat, I was saying they could use Ballarat like they use Tasmania, to generate some cash and sell off low drawing games.

 

[telsor]

Tasmania is about 10% the population of Victorian, so no reason they couldn't get average support of a Victorian team, which would be better than the lower drawing teams.

Tasmania is about 2% of the Australian population...(and a noticeably smaller % of the economy)


If you're that ignorant of the basic facts perhaps you shouldn't really comment on the topic. (and for the record, SA isn't 10% either...WA is...just)

 

[telsor]

Over the past ten years Victoria has been a net receiver.

Source?

Because by GST distributions, we get less than we put in. Same with Federal Infrastructure projects (Which WA is on the plus side of).

 

[telsor]

You do realise it was Federal protectionist policies to prop up cottage manufacturing industries in Victoria and NSW that stymied the growth of the WA economy for decades?

Really? Tell me, what massive industries got stymied in WA?

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, you bent facts to suit your opinion. It isn't logical for North to play more Tassie games seem they have stated they won't play more than 3 games a year there on a few occasions, have a pro-Brayshaw (anti-relocation) dominated board, have established a VFL team, have deep community ties via the Huddle program, have a constitution that is very anti-relocation, playing pre-season games at Arden Street and have spent a fortune on improving the facilities during the Brayshaw administration and looking to extend North facilities in the near future as well. Does that sound like a club eager to play 6 games outside their home state.

It is 'effectively' relocation was probably the terminology I should have used. Anymore than 3 games is taking away games from North's primary members, Victorians, which would in the long-term would kill off a lot of the Victorian membership as North plays more and more outside Victoria. In the long-term, the more than 3 game situation would turn into relocation and that's what you are ultimately getting at, so not case closed, only delayed by a few years going off your previous post's timetable for effectively destroying a club that is older than yours.

Your wasting your time with this one.

They can't even grasp the basic club constitutional realities to back up their pipe dream.

 

[wal]

Really? Tell me, what massive industries got stymied in WA?

Exports

 

[telsor]

Exports

Exporting WHAT?