News Melbourne hopes to play two home games in Darwin

[Bluelegs]

We've missed the boat on Tassie IMO, easier to play in freezing cold than humidity.

It's interesting that we've done a training camp in the humid conditions of Darwin when clubs that play in tassie and other melbourne based clubs train in freezing high altitude. Apparently they are just as beneficial to the players in terms of fitness

 

[VineyToClark]

If this deal means that we don't have to play any home games at Etihad then I'm all for it

 

[LeverPuller]

It's interesting that we've done a training camp in the humid conditions of Darwin when clubs that play in tassie and other melbourne based clubs train in freezing high altitude. Apparently they are just as beneficial to the players in terms of fitness

May help with away games in QLD too, could end up seeing a 3-4 win return if we do it right

 

[Kwality]

terrible arguement, ALL teams get afl funding, and the finances of the afl rely on having a huge Victorian Market to sell to.

The Tas Govt kick the can to have games played in Tas.

Are the AFL funding a Melb game in Darwin?
Are the Kiwis funding the Anzac Day game in NZ or is it the AFL?

Transparency Jordie is the point plus too many teams in Melb.

 

[Bluelegs]

Not the worst idea ever, the AFL insists on fixturing us to play home games against all the lowest drawing teams, seemingly every year re: port, gws, gc and freo. So if two of those games can be moved to Darwin and actually make money and if it means we dont have to play a home game at etihad then I'd take that. Could actually work out better for general members, we would have 9 home games at the G + 2 top up games at the G. But if we still had to play a home game at etihad the idea can get stuffed.

This is a good point. We get more home games against lower drawing sides than most. BF posters complain about the fixture being unfair from a purely competitive point of view but it's even worse from a financial point.

 

[BETON5]

This is a good point. We get more home games against lower drawing sides than most. BF posters complain about the fixture being unfair from a purely competitive point of view but it's even worse from a financial point.

2 games up in the territory should be worth $1,000,000 a game to be worth it i imagine

 

[Captain Jack]

We've missed the boat on Tassie IMO, easier to play in freezing cold than humidity.

Nah, disagree... Too risky. If we were playing 3-4 games in Tassie this year it would mean we would only be one or two terrible years and a board/FD implosion from being renamed the Tasmanian Devils. No thanks. Prospects of relocation to Darwin are less than zero.

 

[Bluelegs]

Nah, disagree... Too risky. If we were playing 3-4 games in Tassie this year it would mean we would only be one or two terrible years and a board/FD implosion from being renamed the Tasmanian Devils. No thanks. Prospects of relocation to Darwin are less than zero.

Are you joking?

 

[Captain Jack]

Are you joking?

Not entirely. North have been pretty good since they rejected the Gold Coast offer in 2007, but even still their members (admittedly this is North, whose fans see a conspiracy in their morning cereal) remain edgy about the number of games they play in Hobart... The prospect of forced relocation haunts them even though they are in reasonably good shape off-field, and on the rise on-field.
Now imagine if NMFC had been through the ringer as much as the MFC has over the past 6 years. Fair to say they would be doing well to still be based in Melbourne what with the terrible stadium deal they have along with the small supporter base.

Even though we like to pretend we're better than them, in reality the only thing we have over North is a better home ground deal and less debt. If we were playing a few games in Tasmania each year like they are, no doubt the media flogs at the very least would be questioning how long we could go on like that still based in Melbourne after the events of the past two seasons.

/hypothetical

 

[Moo]

Are you joking?

Logical comment appears logical

 

[Bluelegs]

Not entirely. North have been pretty good since they rejected the Gold Coast offer in 2007, but even still their members (admittedly this is North, whose fans see a conspiracy in their morning cereal) remain edgy about the number of games they play in Hobart... The prospect of forced relocation haunts them even though they are in reasonably good shape off-field, and on the rise on-field.
Now imagine if NMFC had been through the ringer as much as the MFC has over the past 6 years. Fair to say they would be doing well to still be based in Melbourne what with the terrible stadium deal they have along with the small supporter base.

Even though we like to pretend we're better than them, in reality the only thing we have over North is a better home ground deal and less debt. If we were playing a few games in Tasmania each year like they are, no doubt the media flogs at the very least would be questioning how long we could go on like that still based in Melbourne after the events of the past two seasons.

/hypothetical

Just seems like a very simplistic idea. If we played games in tassie and had issues with the admin we'd be likely to move there and change the clubs name to 'devils' (which would never ever happen) I get that if the admin capitulated and we had financial issues the prospect of moving would be indeed possible but to say it relies on where we're selling games just seems a bit naive. Tassie is only a slightly more reasonable spot to hold a team than Darwin. My point is that if our club got to a point where our position as a club in Melbourne was compromised it wouldn't matter whom we are selling games to.

 

[Captain Jack]

Just seems like a very simplistic idea. If we played games in tassie and had issues with the admin we'd be likely to move there and change the clubs name to 'devils' (which would never ever happen) I get that if the admin capitulated and we had financial issues the prospect of moving would be indeed possible but to say it relies on where we're selling games just seems a bit naive. Tassie is only a slightly more reasonable spot to hold a team than Darwin. My point is that if our club got to a point where our position as a club in Melbourne was compromised it wouldn't matter whom we are selling games to.

Yeah of course I simplified the issue a lot to make a point, and I used the name Devils deliberately and for dramatic effect. No doubt in this long-winded hypothetical there are a lot of other factors at play that would hinder any relocation attempt, not least the fact that we are the Melbourne Football Club, the original. The point is that, IMO at least, as a small club we're never too far away from the cliff (which hopefully is changing now) and as such we have to tread carefully in matters like these.