How can we ensure our Future

[Cororoo]

Having been involved in the club at a sub committee level over the past couple of years, l have a little knowledge of how hard our club find it to make ends meat year in year out. So l can sympathise with the guys involved at the cold face and the challenges ahead.

l no longer am part of any sub committees and am not really sure how it is all set up for the coming year. But one of the areas l would love the club to consider establishing is a comittee that looks at coming up with ideas and strategies on how the club can make money from non-football sources and income generators. There are many ways to make money in this country, just look around, heaps of examples. Just because we are a football club, doesnt not mean we have to have all our income based from football, and old traditional methods, such as raffles, pie nights, etc.

Time for a group of loyal north guys who will volunteer their time and networks to help the club achieve new and exciting income streams. The times of us surviving purely on football income are over, but imagine if we could extract $2-$3mil profit per year from other activities, it would mean no Gold Coast, it would mean no AFL intevention. The other benefit is that the revenue is not reliant on onfield performance. Just look at Essendon as a perfect example of how you can achieve financially with good ideas and excellent management.

If anyone involved would like to take this further, just drop me a message and l'd be happy to meet up with you and discuss it further.

Wrath

Adelaide Crows have recently established a Mortgage /Home loan Brokering business which on the surface appears to have multiple benefits for the club.

Apart from brokerage profits on home loans that the business obtains from the public , the venture also offers a potential "after football" career for ex/retired players who can establish themselves as home loan brokers within the business.

Not sure if any of the Melbourne based clubs already have a similar business established but it would be interesting to see if our Club could get something like this up and running.

 

[pharro]

A most depressing sentence.

Yeah sell it to the Wright Bros. Gravity is just an inconvenience.

 

[The Other Dean]

Whilst I am sure that the Club can get better at various administrative, membership, marketing and PR aspects as are frequently suggested on BF - take it from someone who know the financial facts - this is merely nickel and diming and WILL NOT have a material impact on a sustainable business model.

This a sweepingly dismissive assertion. Especially when there are so many readily available examples of businesses that have had their situation(s) turned around by addressing deficiencies in the above areas. In a world where markets are flooded and (therefore) choice is king, the entire world of commerce currently revolves around the concept of catching the consumer's eye. Good marketing/advertising can sell anything - it can never be underestimated. If presented in the right light, people will go for anything. As for the membership process....don't even get me started. The thought that there may be people out there deciding not to purchase a membership simply because of bad customer service or chinks in the process - ie. easily avoidable hapenstances - makes me feel ill.

"Nickel and diming".....I'm afraid you'll have to do a little better than that. On what, exactly, are you basing this ?

It is time to accept the situation as it is, trust the Board and in particular the Chairman and lets not fight gravity.

I certainly wouldn't equate this to fighting gravity. More like protesting against the National Draft.



(Btw, great (reply) post, NB.)

 

[Limerick]

I'm responding, step up, on the basis that you are someone who does have real knowledge of the thinking of the core of the club, although I don't have any idea as to who you are. My reading of your post is that the NMFC is close to accepting, or has accepted, a co-location / two town future, which means posts by Caro & Co were correct. Extremely dissappointing, if true. It also means that the NMFC has accepted the fact that we can't survive only in Melbourne. If this is true then I challenge the NMFC to come out and inform its members prior to the next election. Every candidate, not just member candidates, should declare their position on this issue. It is that important.

Our slogan is Your Team Your Club Our Future. IF what has been stated here is true, then our future has (or is being) decided for us NOW. I have included specific comments below. I need to spend more time digesting what I've read here.

Quote step up;6478342]Limerick and Roosviews - your position and passion is admirable, as are your desires to join the Board and best of luck with threse pursuits come February. However as someone with an indepth knowledge of Club finances, our debt and forward Budget projections we must seriously consider a long term hybrid strategy of being a "two town" club. The AFL effectively are controlling the finances of several clubs and by a mere stroke of the pen as in fixturing can impact Gate Receipt incomes by up to a $million in a single season - these are facts.[/quote]

In simple language this is stating that the NMFC has the view that we can't survive in Melbourne i.e. we have given up the Melbourne fight. The last sentence indicates that the AFL is managing us (or is threatening us) into a weak position so as we are unable to negotiate.

We are best to work with the AFL in working up a way that the two town strategy can deliver the best of both worlds - and from a long term NMFC/Kangaroos member I am determined to ensure that we get the right outcome that may preserve our membership base in Melbourne AND provide the necessary income stream from Gold Coast games.

North had a supporter base of 268,000 in 2001. This dropped to 206,000 in 2005. This represents a 23% drop over the period when the total AFL supporter base increased by 12.6%. Why hasn't the club responded aggressively to this situation particularly over the last 2-3 years. By comparison the Bulldogs supporter base has grown 20% over the same period. Have we simply been too interstate focused and have ignored the home base.

I know many of those shareholders who contributed many hundreds of thousands of dollars more than a decade ago , be they ex and current Board members and a more passionate group you wont find - however they are now accepting that a major position on the Gold Coast MUST be taken. Whilst there is some tension and division at Board level - there is consensus that this new strategy may be make or break.

I can only interpret this as to mean that the board has accepted, at best, a "two town" solution to our future.

Whilst I am sure that the Club can get better at various administrative, membership, marketing and PR aspects as are frequently suggested on BF - take it from someone who know the financial facts - this is merely nickel and diming and WILL NOT have a material impact on a sustainable business model.

I believe that the Bulldogs model refutes this. The above statement seems to indicate that we have given up on any Melbourne based initiatives.

It is time to accept the situation as it is, trust the Board and in particular the Chairman and lets not fight gravity.

I am on record as saying that I would prefer relocation to either a merger or the death of the club, but Im absolutely shocked that the club feels that were are at that point now. I felt that we had up to ten years to turn our fortunes around. I also hold grave concerns re the viability of the GC over the next few years.

 

[Lidge]

I believe that the Bulldogs model refutes this. The above statement seems to indicate that we have given up on any Melbourne based initiatives.

I wouldn't use the Dogs model as blue print for success.

They have a smaller asset base than us, are more dependent on CBF than us, have an ageing list with a mass exodus of senior players about to occur (Grant, Darcy, West, Johnson, Montgomery etc - all on the wrong side of 30).

Just because they pipped us in the membership stakes once doesn't mean they are going places.

FWIW - they still lost a couple hundred grand last season. And the year before they had one director tip in a 7 figure donation to try and balance the books and still posted a large loss.

 

[Limerick]

Agree with your comments regarding their list. My comments are specifically regarding their supporter and membership figures and approach i.e. they are strong in their committment to being Melb based.

However your comments on their finances would have them next in line to go.

 

[Wrath]

Adelaide Crows have recently established a Mortgage /Home loan Brokering business which on the surface appears to have multiple benefits for the club.

Apart from brokerage profits on home loans that the business obtains from the public , the venture also offers a potential "after football" career for ex/retired players who can establish themselves as home loan brokers within the business.

Not sure if any of the Melbourne based clubs already have a similar business established but it would be interesting to see if our Club could get something like this up and running.

There are potentially lots of ideas of that nature that the club can get into, it just takes ideas, committment and vision. Get that happening around a table and anything can happen.

Wrath

 

[Wrath]

l

I couldn't agree with you more Wrath. Spring Carnival (Graham Duff, Lee Freedman, Boxing Day Breakfast (with a little help from the current Australian Captain), horse racing syndicates (Lee Freedman again), unit trusts for shares, unit trusts for property developments, assistance with legals and finance from North Melbourne people, promotion of these concepts through North Melbourne media people (James Brayshaw, Trevor Marmalade, Geoff Poulter of the Herald Sun) etc, etc... Stay tuned.

That and a whole lot more roosviews. l'll stay tuned and see what transpires.

Wrath

 

[Dingster]

Dingster
The board may well have a policy where the Chairman, or person nominated by the chairman, is the only person who can make public comment on certain issues.

If thats the case then you respect board policy or you're removed from the board. Simple as that. And you're not much good to anyone then. The importance of a unified board with no leaks is paramount.

This goes without saying. I understand that certain issues must remain in house, but there are many of issues that can be discussed (some after the fact) and more information shared.

Dingster
But at this point I'm not on the board, so that's why I have endeavoured to give as much information as I can about where I stand on certain issues before the election. Therefore if I am elected, you can be sure what position I will be taking on certain issues, without the need for me to make any public comment on it. If I'm outvoted at board level on certain issues then thats just how it goes, but you'll know where I stand and what I'll be working for.

Much appreciated.

Dingster
With regard to future involvement with this site, my major theme has been that the club becomes more inclusive and provides opportunities for North Melbourne people to contribute to the club. That is why I put forward the initiative of providing a direct link via an email address between supporters and a board member. If I am elected I would request to the board that I be the board member who oversees the emails personally and have ongoing communication with as many constructive North Melbourne people as possible.

I would view BF as an extension of that idea- another avenue of effective communication. Provided that I followed board policy with regard to public comment, as a member elected candidate I couldn't see why I wouldn't be encouraged to communicate with as many members and supporters as possible. Unless there is a history there between the club and BF that I'm not aware of, and if so I would appreciate it if you could fill me in.

I wouldn't be as vocal, but I will certainly be just as accessible. It would just be more about what you have to say, with me passing it through to the relevant departments of the club.

That's what I'm looking for too with both here and TSK. Do you know what impact the club's contract with the official site would have on your contributions? If not, would you be able to find out.

As mentioned previously, the Doggies's mgt have been willing participants on BF and they're not the only one from memory.

As for our club, it is my understanding that some officials within the club are sensitive to some of the views/information posted here. That would be best illustrated by Walshy's posts.

IMO, the club needs to remember that websites like this represent the voice in the outer. There will be a mixture of comments on varying issues and there will be complaints and posts that they feel are unreasonable. Whilst the club doesn't have the resources to respond as regularly as our members might like, it can show a strong leadership and direction to influence the attitude of our members in a positive manner. Quality customer service results in greater customer satisfaction. We haven't totally grasped that concept yet imo.

One of the great positives that websites offer is that the club has it's market right at it's fingertips. The opportunity is there to provide a cost efficient customer service and marketing plan to mutually benefit both club and members. We're willing to work together with the club in this regard in terms of promoting club events, sponsorships etc and speaking to you via pm regarding any posts/information that you feel might need reviewing.

 

[Dingster]

Dingster Quote
As I have previously stated "If elected I would move to put in place mechanisms by which membership communication could occur, e.g. ability for members to: (i) Register their thoughts on issues via the North Melbourne homepage; (ii) Contact me via e-mail and surface mail; and (iii) Contact me via telephone. ". My recent experiences with this site has only made me more passionate about point (i). If elected I would continue to be involved on this site. Realistically there would be boundaries and a level of confidentiality regarding issues being discussed within the board. It would be a process that would require careful management. I'd be extremely dissappointed if the board were to place blanket gags on its members.

Thanks for your response. I won't reiterate my reply to Roosviews here, but if you have any comments regarding that post, go for gold mate.

As it stands, the clubs don't have much control over what is posted on the official site. Assuming that's what you're referring to (i) Register their thoughts on issues via the North Melbourne homepage....how do propose to get around that? The question that I raised above...Do you know what impact the club's contract with the official site would have on your contributions? If not, would you be able to find out....might also be one for you to look into as well as your ability to influence the nature of that site.

 

[Limerick]

Dingster quote "As it stands, the clubs don't have much control over what is posted on the official site. Assuming that's what you're referring to (i) Register their thoughts on issues via the North Melbourne homepage....how do propose to get around that? The question that I raised above...Do you know what impact the club's contract with the official site would have on your contributions? If not, would you be able to find out....might also be one for you to look into as well as your ability to influence the nature of that site.

Correct, I do not know how the AFL contract for the home page is set up in terms of the AFL controlling its content. My view is that the NMFC should have the right to determine what is on its homepage acknowledging that similar common decency etc rules that apply here would also apply.

Three clubs have a level of member comment capability now. However I'll check into this.

 

[pharro]

as someone with an indepth knowledge of Club finances, our debt and forward Budget projections we must seriously consider a long term hybrid strategy of being a "two town" club. The AFL effectively are controlling the finances of several clubs and by a mere stroke of the pen as in fixturing can impact Gate Receipt incomes by up to a $million in a single season - these are facts.

We are best to work with the AFL in working up a way that the two town strategy can deliver the best of both worlds .

I'm interested to know, has a genuine two town team strategy ever worked successfully in any sport in the entire history of the world? I understand that the Athens-Spartan Gladiators were a decent combo for a little while there but long term?

The other point is, this two town strategy you refer to, are you talking split rights for home games, ie 5 or 6 home games in each town per season? Because that doesn't satisfy the AFL's inexplicable desperation to achieve 22 games in SE QLD each season. And if you are talking 11 home games on the GC and a handful of away games with no reserved seating in Melbourne, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's a relocation and it will deliver a net loss in memberships, guaranteed.

 

[Horace]

Whilst I am sure that the Club can get better at various administrative, membership, marketing and PR aspects as are frequently suggested on BF - take it from someone who know the financial facts - this is merely nickel and diming and WILL NOT have a material impact on a sustainable business model.

It is time to accept the situation as it is, trust the Board and in particular the Chairman and lets not fight gravity.

I find that statement hard to accept, in particular in relation to membership.

For as long as I can remember we have been told that the one true way to financial security is to build memberships. And now you are saying that if the club got "better at .....membership .....aspects" it still wouldn't work.

If by some chance the club went from a 24000 member club to a 35000 member club, and then is able to build on this, then I am sure that relocation would not be an issue. The name of the off field game is members, members, members and yet more members.

Yes 35000 members is a quantum leap from where we are now, but why shouldn't we explore ways and means of building to that level and beyond?

That is the challenge that the current board has before it and it is not good enough if they simply say that it is too hard and let the AFL lead us by the nose. That way without doubt we will within a few years become the Gold Coast Roos.

In the past the North Melbourne Football Club has been very good at maximising its membership base. Surely now, at a time when revenue to the AFL is at record levels and in the short term there is a level of financial stability, is not the time to be saying it is all too hard as your post implies that the current board is saying.

If as you say we should trust the board and they have decided to follow what the AFL has said they will do for the club, then in essence you are saying we should trust the AFL.

I say go and talk to Dyson Hore-Lacy about trusting the AFL. Go and talk to David McMahon about trusting the AFL and he will give you some very expletive deleted comments about trusting the AFL. Go and talk to Bill Atherton about trusting the AFL. All of these gentlemen will tell you that the AFL is only in it for their own agenda.

That agenda is not necessarily the survival of the North Mebourne Football Club as a truly Melbourne based football club, but rather the continuation of 16 franchises throughout Australia in the locations that they, the AFL, best think will maximise the short and long term revenue stream for the competition as a whole. And if that is achieved through the creation of the Gold Coast Roos by one means or another, then the AFL will push it through by whatever means that they can.

No doubt others have said this in this thread and I hope I am not speaking in ignorance here, but I have a profound level of distrust when people pop up on this board using the cloak of anonymity and purport to have "inside Knowledge". Maybe you do, but maybe you don't and instead maybe you have an agenda.

Whatever the situation I suggest that you authenticate your position so that we can make judgements as to your bona fides.

 

[Event Horizon]

I'm interested to know, has a genuine two town team strategy ever worked successfully in any sport in the entire history of the world? I understand that the Athens-Spartan Gladiators were a decent combo for a little while there but long term?

The other point is, this two town strategy you refer to, are you talking split rights for home games, ie 5 or 6 home games in each town per season? Because that doesn't satisfy the AFL's inexplicable desperation to achieve 22 games in SE QLD each season. And if you are talking 11 home games on the GC and a handful of away games with no reserved seating in Melbourne, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's a relocation and it will deliver a net loss in memberships, guaranteed.

Good points Pharro. I am convinced the two town solution is crap and will not work. Even if it did, it will do so without my involvement.

I think the AFL and the club board need to understand, the people are smarter than a pack of sheep. They can tell the difference between rocks and potatoes.

If you want a conspiracy theory, one could argue the club was sent down this scenario way back in 1999 when it changed the name from North Melbourne to the Kangaroos. It may have been part of the long term plan to prepare the club for relocation.

 

[step up]

Roosviews - I have read your previous comments and you have some good points to make and of course every idea can help albeit I do believe that none of them can provide the level of sustainable income streams required to fix the debt position of the past AND return an ongoing profit such that we become viable into the future without support from the AFL.

This is what many on this BF Board do not understand and whilst it is not a criticism the facts are the facts - we need Head Office (the AFL Commission and Exec. to work with us to move forward). Your involvment as you mention in the 90's suggest that you would have known much about the NMFC Social Club venture in Broadmeadows - well that failed exercise cost the Club in excess of $2 million after all costs, as well as the future income stream that would have been generated - this venture distracted the Board and management for several years - and we remain the only Club NOT to have Gaming Income that now represents a material sum on all Club Income Statements.

Maybe you and those of likemind that want NMFC to remain a VIC Club should consider purchasing some of the shares as held by existing and ex Board members - I think if you have a plan of substance then this would be a necessary first point of call. At the end of the day you will need to have an influence around the Board table and the holding significant parcels of shares will facilitate this. A successful Member nomination at the future election will not have the required votes or impact - we are talking 6 shareholder elected (many shares controlled by existing Board members and those close to Board members - by the way you mention that 6 Board members may change - don't be too sure of this not going by the list that nominated and re nominated on December 1). The 3 member nominated Directors will have a minority position.

Whilst member elected Directors will be a good thing and well overdue - they will not have a position of control, so cannot be in a position to impact the bigger picture.

Time maybe to put up some Cash, buy the shares and get serious about Plan B - of course the other option being that the AFL may start accumulating shares as was mentioned in recent press articles - don't underestimate Andrew D. and the Commission - I had heard that some existing shareholders (big parcels too) and probably those that you meet during your 5 years in the 90's may well sell to the AFL.

You should also take some time to read the Annual acounts from 2005 as well as those that will be released soon for 2006 (but the NTA position is no better) as without the support of the AFL, the Club bankers (which happen to be the AFL bankers and require AFL support of the Club business plan) then Directors have to make decisions that provide for ongoing certainty - this is law. The alternative if you loose the support of the Bank and AFL (yes they are one of the same) the shareholders may need to provide additional funds by way of a call on capital - don't think you will get too many takers !!

The hybrid option for the Kangaroos to be a two team town can work and the AFL are throwing plenty of $$$ at the venture and have PLENTY in reserve to make it work - it is a AAA priority for the Commission and gets much air time at their meetings - why else would they consider buying shares !!!

Time to consider your commitment I would think...

 

[trevagreene]

Maybe you and those of likemind that want NMFC to remain a VIC Club should consider purchasing some of the shares as held by existing and ex Board members - I think if you have a plan of substance then this would be a necessary first point of call.

how would we go about purchasing shares ?? Im sure there was someone from BF that emailed the club about this and received no reply.
if the club for example, offered in the membership renewals say the option for each member to purchase shares eg. $50 on top of the membership goes to purchasing 1,2,3 etc...shares.. ( Obviously the amount may vary, ie. $20 buys half a share, $40 buys 1 share etc..etc...) Just thinking out aloud.

I think if the club wanted an injection of funds, then this scheme may be a starting point.

 

[sross]

how would we go about purchasing shares ?? Im sure there was someone from BF that emailed the club about this and received no reply.
if the club for example, offered in the membership renewals say the option for each member to purchase shares eg. $50 on top of the membership goes to purchasing 1,2,3 etc...shares.. ( Obviously the amount may vary, ie. $20 buys half a share, $40 buys 1 share etc..etc...) Just thinking out aloud.

I think if the club wanted an injection of funds, then this scheme may be a starting point.

The shares are owned by individuals, not the club, therefore the only ones getting an injection of funds would be the existing shareholders.

 

[trevagreene]

The shares are owned by individuals, not the club, therefore the only ones getting an injection of funds would be the existing shareholders.

so be it, at least then the majority of share holdings are not held by so few people. maybe, by these individuals releasing shares to the members may also allow a change to the board structure at a later date, where the "Majority of the board" is not made up by the owners of the majority of the shares. ie. somehow revert back to a traditional structure.

 

[Roobunny]

Roosviews - I have read your previous comments and you have some good points to make and of course every idea can help albeit I do believe that none of them can provide the level of sustainable income streams required to fix the debt position of the past AND return an ongoing profit such that we become viable into the future without support from the AFL.

This is what many on this BF Board do not understand and whilst it is not a criticism the facts are the facts - we need Head Office (the AFL Commission and Exec. to work with us to move forward). Your involvment as you mention in the 90's suggest that you would have known much about the NMFC Social Club venture in Broadmeadows - well that failed exercise cost the Club in excess of $2 million after all costs, as well as the future income stream that would have been generated - this venture distracted the Board and management for several years - and we remain the only Club NOT to have Gaming Income that now represents a material sum on all Club Income Statements.

Maybe you and those of likemind that want NMFC to remain a VIC Club should consider purchasing some of the shares as held by existing and ex Board members - I think if you have a plan of substance then this would be a necessary first point of call. At the end of the day you will need to have an influence around the Board table and the holding significant parcels of shares will facilitate this. A successful Member nomination at the future election will not have the required votes or impact - we are talking 6 shareholder elected (many shares controlled by existing Board members and those close to Board members - by the way you mention that 6 Board members may change - don't be too sure of this not going by the list that nominated and re nominated on December 1). The 3 member nominated Directors will have a minority position.

Whilst member elected Directors will be a good thing and well overdue - they will not have a position of control, so cannot be in a position to impact the bigger picture.

Time maybe to put up some Cash, buy the shares and get serious about Plan B - of course the other option being that the AFL may start accumulating shares as was mentioned in recent press articles - don't underestimate Andrew D. and the Commission - I had heard that some existing shareholders (big parcels too) and probably those that you meet during your 5 years in the 90's may well sell to the AFL.

You should also take some time to read the Annual acounts from 2005 as well as those that will be released soon for 2006 (but the NTA position is no better) as without the support of the AFL, the Club bankers (which happen to be the AFL bankers and require AFL support of the Club business plan) then Directors have to make decisions that provide for ongoing certainty - this is law. The alternative if you loose the support of the Bank and AFL (yes they are one of the same) the shareholders may need to provide additional funds by way of a call on capital - don't think you will get too many takers !!

The hybrid option for the Kangaroos to be a two team town can work and the AFL are throwing plenty of $$$ at the venture and have PLENTY in reserve to make it work - it is a AAA priority for the Commission and gets much air time at their meetings - why else would they consider buying shares !!!

Time to consider your commitment I would think...

This post has made me question my commitment, but not in the way I'm sure was intended.

North Melbourne will not survive as a two team town, that's dandy that the AFL are committed and have the $$ apparently to support it but in chasing those dollars, they'll lose their supporters/members and we'll be wealthier but a shell of a club.

I've loved this club since I was 4 years old. I couldn't wait for the day I could afford to buy my membership and for the very first time, I'm really beginning to lose faith.

 

[trevagreene]

I've loved this club since I was 4 years old. I couldn't wait for the day I could afford to buy my membership and for the very first time, I'm really beginning to lose faith.

Step Up

Do the club officials actually know what the member sentiment is ?????? do they actually realise what all the innuendo on the "GC or Bust or Not" is causing ??

Are there heads in the clouds ? or do they actually know what the average joe member feels ?

 

[sross]

The shares are owned by individuals, not the club, therefore the only ones getting an injection of funds would be the existing shareholders.

so be it, at least then the majority of share holdings are not held by so few people. maybe, by these individuals releasing shares to the members may also allow a change to the board structure at a later date, where the "Majority of the board" is not made up by the owners of the majority of the shares. ie. somehow revert back to a traditional structure.

I have no problem with that, what you said was the 'club' would get an injection of funds and that is not the case.

 

[Wrath]

Roosviews - I have read your previous comments and you have some good points to make and of course every idea can help albeit I do believe that none of them can provide the level of sustainable income streams required to fix the debt position of the past AND return an ongoing profit such that we become viable into the future without support from the AFL.

This is what many on this BF Board do not understand and whilst it is not a criticism the facts are the facts - we need Head Office (the AFL Commission and Exec. to work with us to move forward). Your involvment as you mention in the 90's suggest that you would have known much about the NMFC Social Club venture in Broadmeadows - well that failed exercise cost the Club in excess of $2 million after all costs, as well as the future income stream that would have been generated - this venture distracted the Board and management for several years - and we remain the only Club NOT to have Gaming Income that now represents a material sum on all Club Income Statements.

Maybe you and those of likemind that want NMFC to remain a VIC Club should consider purchasing some of the shares as held by existing and ex Board members - I think if you have a plan of substance then this would be a necessary first point of call. At the end of the day you will need to have an influence around the Board table and the holding significant parcels of shares will facilitate this. A successful Member nomination at the future election will not have the required votes or impact - we are talking 6 shareholder elected (many shares controlled by existing Board members and those close to Board members - by the way you mention that 6 Board members may change - don't be too sure of this not going by the list that nominated and re nominated on December 1). The 3 member nominated Directors will have a minority position.

Whilst member elected Directors will be a good thing and well overdue - they will not have a position of control, so cannot be in a position to impact the bigger picture.

Time maybe to put up some Cash, buy the shares and get serious about Plan B - of course the other option being that the AFL may start accumulating shares as was mentioned in recent press articles - don't underestimate Andrew D. and the Commission - I had heard that some existing shareholders (big parcels too) and probably those that you meet during your 5 years in the 90's may well sell to the AFL.

You should also take some time to read the Annual acounts from 2005 as well as those that will be released soon for 2006 (but the NTA position is no better) as without the support of the AFL, the Club bankers (which happen to be the AFL bankers and require AFL support of the Club business plan) then Directors have to make decisions that provide for ongoing certainty - this is law. The alternative if you loose the support of the Bank and AFL (yes they are one of the same) the shareholders may need to provide additional funds by way of a call on capital - don't think you will get too many takers !!

The hybrid option for the Kangaroos to be a two team town can work and the AFL are throwing plenty of $$$ at the venture and have PLENTY in reserve to make it work - it is a AAA priority for the Commission and gets much air time at their meetings - why else would they consider buying shares !!!

Time to consider your commitment I would think...

Given the lack of transperacy of the North Melbourne Shareholding structure, l think it is a bit rich of you to make such statements. Perhaps if you are in a position of knowledge as you claim, you can inform us in detail the shareholder structure currently in place. We all know about the A Class shares and B Class shares, but it has never been totally explained what it all means. Last thing l would want anyone to do is buy someone shares that are useless in regards to voting rights and board influance.

If you dont want to do it on the main board, feel free to private message me with the information. l for one would be most interested in purchasing shares, and having some influance on where we end up in the future.

Wrath

 

[Z_K]

I don't think I want to know who Step Up is. Frightening.

 

[shintemaster]

how would we go about purchasing shares ?? Im sure there was someone from BF that emailed the club about this and received no reply.
if the club for example, offered in the membership renewals say the option for each member to purchase shares eg. $50 on top of the membership goes to purchasing 1,2,3 etc...shares.. ( Obviously the amount may vary, ie. $20 buys half a share, $40 buys 1 share etc..etc...) Just thinking out aloud.

I think if the club wanted an injection of funds, then this scheme may be a starting point.

That would be me, at least I spoke about it on BigFooty... no reply. Was thinking further about these sorts of things recently and it made me realise that you have to make things EASY for people. e.g. Donating money to the rebuilding fund, if I could do a simple $10-20 donation online through the website anytime I had some extra dosh, I'd be much more inclined to do so. At the moment the only time I'm in an easy place to donate is the same time I'm coughing up a grand or so for memberships... not a good time to be throwing more money around.

I don't think I want to know who Step Up is. Frightening.

By what I've read on here, I know all I NEED to about this person. Sounds like 'Step Up' is not the most accurate nickname.

 

[Event Horizon]

I would think if the situation is in deed as grave is it's been described, the shareholders who want out, and who are prepared to sell to the AFL, should make an attempt to sell to other North people who would like to come in at this point. No good just selling the club out without searching for alternatives.

You may remember that Hawthorn and Melbourne boards have voted to merge, and they were all passionate club people, yet did not see the way forward. New people came in reinvigorated the clubs.

I am not saying there is a North version of Joe Gutnick out there, but there may well be people who would want to come in.

Another option is for a member buyout. I am sure it's possible to consider forming some sort of a syndicate.

I am also interested to find out the views of Rick Aylett on those issues. He wouldn't have taken the job, surely, if everything was out of his hands at this point.