News NMFC & Tassie (the mass debate re our future there, the academy, attending advice)

[Gumble Frankieton]

I received a reply from the club to my letter regarding the the 4th Hobart game (and other related matters) a few weeks ago. Whilst I appreciated the staffer taking the time to write a personalised reply nothing in the letter, or in the muted response of the club as a whole, will have satisfied any of the concerns raised. And, no, I wasn't expecting the club to alter its position immediately because it received some letters and phone calls of complaint.
As I see it the club is trying to balance, somewhat precariously at the moment, the commercial opportunities of extra games in Tasmania with maintaining its traditional base. The problem is that with each extra game played in Hobart and with the 'North Melbourne-Tasmania' AFLW team the club is making it increasingly difficult for itself to maintain such a balance. The club would do well to keep close the quote from Tiberius "It is the duty of a good shepherd to sheer his sheep, not to skin them"

Speaking of quotes, the response I received had a few interesting paragraphs:

"... you are correct in that the fourth game in Tasmania does mean that you will have one less game to access during the year in your reserved seat – that you pay a premium price to ensure you have the same vantage point and access to the Social Club. We are currently in negotiations with the other tenants with Marvel Stadium to access better seating for our replacement games. The fixture is due to come out today. Once we know when and who we are playing next year, we will further those discussions."

"Completely understand the frustration in you losing a reserved seat game for your premium membership moving forward and also note the trepidations in regards to Hawthorn’s Tasmania base. However please be aware that the ultimate decision to move to a fourth Tasmanian game was not taken lightly and was actioned based on the benefits for the club as a whole for the long term.
Our CEO Carl Dilena has maintained we will not go to a fifth game to Tasmanian during his tenure. He has also passed on that it would almost be guaranteed that a member’s vote would be needed if any amendments were to be taken post his time here at Arden Street."

 

[Snake_Baker]

"Completely understand the frustration in you losing a reserved seat game for your premium membership moving forward and also note the trepidations in regards to Hawthorn’s Tasmania base. However please be aware that the ultimate decision to move to a fourth Tasmanian game was not taken lightly and was actioned based on the benefits for the club as a whole for the long term.
Our CEO Carl Dilena has maintained we will not go to a fifth game to Tasmanian during his tenure. He has also passed on that it would almost be guaranteed that a member’s vote would be needed if any amendments were to be taken post his time here at Arden Street."

They are patting you on the head.

 

[Egga]

I received a reply from the club to my letter regarding the the 4th Hobart game (and other related matters) a few weeks ago. Whilst I appreciated the staffer taking the time to write a personalised reply nothing in the letter, or in the muted response of the club as a whole, will have satisfied any of the concerns raised. And, no, I wasn't expecting the club to alter its position immediately because it received some letters and phone calls of complaint.
As I see it the club is trying to balance, somewhat precariously at the moment, the commercial opportunities of extra games in Tasmania with maintaining its traditional base. The problem is that with each extra game played in Hobart and with the 'North Melbourne-Tasmania' AFLW team the club is making it increasingly difficult for itself to maintain such a balance. The club would do well to keep close the quote from Tiberius "It is the duty of a good shepherd to sheer his sheep, not to skin them"

Speaking of quotes, the response I received had a few interesting paragraphs:

"... you are correct in that the fourth game in Tasmania does mean that you will have one less game to access during the year in your reserved seat – that you pay a premium price to ensure you have the same vantage point and access to the Social Club. We are currently in negotiations with the other tenants with Marvel Stadium to access better seating for our replacement games. The fixture is due to come out today. Once we know when and who we are playing next year, we will further those discussions."

"Completely understand the frustration in you losing a reserved seat game for your premium membership moving forward and also note the trepidations in regards to Hawthorn’s Tasmania base. However please be aware that the ultimate decision to move to a fourth Tasmanian game was not taken lightly and was actioned based on the benefits for the club as a whole for the long term.
Our CEO Carl Dilena has maintained we will not go to a fifth game to Tasmanian during his tenure. He has also passed on that it would almost be guaranteed that a member’s vote would be needed if any amendments were to be taken post his time here at Arden Street."

Thanks. The last two sentences are genuinely interesting. It means either the seven games are unlikely or Carl will be ready to retire when Hawthorn's contract in Tasmania ends in 2021.

 

[Gumble Frankieton]

They are patting you on the head.

Yep. Hard to shear a sheep when it is moving away from you.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's typical of the condescension coming from our "betters" at the club in recent years.

Like I stated mate, folks should organise and claim a board seat so the root and branch have some representation.

 

[Val Keating]

Imagine if a President of a rival club said something about Collingwood and Eddy staying quiet. Wouldn’t happen. Eddy, even Kennett himself would be on the front foot the next day. The fact we’re hearing nothing from the club about the article means it’s right, or we have some weak leadership at the top. Very uncomfortable about this.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

It's pretty clear everyone will be running for the board. That's why after 125 pages no-one has suggested any viable way of growing NMFC membership in Victoria - everyone is saving their great ideas for when they get elected.

Well, moving games interstate sure as s**t won't be growing the membership in Victoria.

 

[Limerick]

"it would almost be guaranteed that a member’s vote would be needed if any amendments were to be taken post his time here at Arden Street."

There is no member vote constitutionally required to approve a 5th or more home games moved out of Victoria so long as that NMFC's headquarters remain at Arden St. "Post his (Carl Delina) time at Arden St" how can he make any guarantee about anything post his time?

 

[Colbys Boots]

"it would almost be guaranteed that a member’s vote would be needed if any amendments were to be taken post his time here at Arden Street."

There is no member vote constitutionally required to approve a 5th or more home games moved out of Victoria so long as that NMFC's headquarters remain at Arden St. "Post his (Carl Delina) time at Arden St" how can he make any guarantee about anything post his time?

FFS Carl, you would well know that any "almost guarantee" is not a guarantee in any legal sense so it's absolutely not worth the paper it's not written on.

 

[Luke72]

Thanks. The last two sentences are genuinely interesting. It means either the seven games are unlikely or Carl will be ready to retire when Hawthorn's contract in Tasmania ends in 2021.

I get the feeling most of our Presidents can’t wait to get out of there. As big a pain as Eddie is I’d like someone with his unshakable belief and drive at the helm.

 

[ferball]

I don’t think the club has fully stated opinion, as they seem to have left a door open by not definitely stated a limit or long term plan it certainly needs to unequivocally respond when comments like this get traction.

That is the issue. Its the silence that is the issue.

If the club made a statement plenty of people wouldn't panic.

The ongoing silence leaves room in everyone's mind for their worst fears.

 

[ferball]

It's pretty clear everyone will be running for the board. That's why after 125 pages no-one has suggested any viable way of growing NMFC membership in Victoria - everyone is saving their great ideas for when they get elected.

One idea that has been suggested here, probably in this thread, is giving free tickets to games or short memberships to schoolkids in the Western suburbs and Wyndham especially. Target migrants and new arrivals and invite them into the club as they arrive, well settle down, in Australia.

 

[Snake_Baker]

One idea that has been suggested here, probably in this thread, is giving free tickets to games or short memberships to schoolkids in the Western suburbs and Wyndham especially. Target migrants and new arrivals and invite them into the club as they arrive, well settle down, in Australia.

It will amount to nothing, just like the huddle.

 

[ferball]

Thanks. The last two sentences are genuinely interesting. It means either the seven games are unlikely or Carl will be ready to retire when Hawthorn's contract in Tasmania ends in 2021.

The last sentence is meaningless. Almost guaranteed means nothing. Its like almost pregnant.

 

[Engimal v3]

For the first time in over 10 years, I'm not sure that the board is acting in the supporters' best interest

 

[WayneShimmiesTheBush]

I’m not comfortable about the chatter but the club has stated a position and I don’t agree that it needs to run around adding to the store every time anyone floats a story.

I agree with you regarding the club coming out and commenting every time anyone floats a story. However this is not just a trivial matter. This matter is one that is driving a divide between the club and many of its hardcore members.

And the truth is, the club hasn't really stated its position regarding the possibility of Hawthorn being directed to get out of Tasmania (as stated by Kennett) and wanting us to play 7 games there. I haven't heard the answer to that question yet. I would have loved the club to come out and state no matter what the situation with Hawthorn and the AFL is, North Melbourne will not be playing more than 4 games in Tassie. However the crickets are making more noise than our board.

And how much do we believe the board regarding their position? Lets not forget not too long ago the boards position was no more than two games. Then it became no more than three and now we are to believe them its not going to be more than four games. All we want is clarity. We as members deserve that as a minimum.

 

[King Corey]

It will amount to nothing, just like the huddle.

Agree. If you want to capture incoming people as supporters the best way is the way you'd capture anyone else in the community.

By being successful. By having an attractive and visible public profile. Take them along for an interesting ride rather than expect some karmic reward for doing good.

I'm betting more migrants into Victoria support Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond, * or even the dogs than us thanks to their respective public profiles over the last few years. Even though they all employed pokies and other unsavoury means in that time.

We've had a player of South Sudanese background, a trailblazer, on the list for 10 years. I'm guessing we're not even in the top 3 supported clubs for South Sudanese migrants though. And in spite of The Huddle.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yep.

Being successful and having a definable point of difference.

Not knocking the good intentions of the people involved with some of the community stuff, but it's usefulness to us as a football club is negligible.

In fact it's probably detrimental if it's chewing up finances.

As for the gender thing, well I actually think that's detrimental.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I don’t think the club has fully stated opinion, as they seem to have left a door open by not definitely stated a limit or long term plan it certainly needs to unequivocally respond when comments like this get traction.

I had a busy few days so wasn’t on here and don’t read the Hun, so I didn’t see this “traction”, was there any? Kennett got one article up, then what happened? Anything? It’s weird sometimes coming back here after a short break, seeing old news get rehashed when the rest of the world has forgotten it (and yes, well aware that I do it too).

The club doesn’t need to jump around any time anyone stirs the pot. What they do have to do is plan and communicate better to carry members through changes they decide to make - if they had managed the extra game/replacement games/value for supporters better, we wouldn’t have the level of anger and confusion we do and we could all be more resilient to outside chatter.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Which raises the point, has the seating arrangements for the replacement matches been decided?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Which raises the point, has the seating arrangements for the replacement matches been decided?

Nyet.

 

[Passmore]

Which raises the point, has the seating arrangements for the replacement matches been decided?

I can't see that it's going to be sorted anytime soon.

What's the incentive for Essendon or Collingwood to give us a helping hand? They'll fill the place themselves if they're up and about. Carlton as well if the showed some sort of miraculous improvement.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Le Grille]

I had a busy few days so wasn’t on here and don’t read the Hun, so I didn’t see this “traction”, was there any? Kennett got one article up, then what happened? Anything? It’s weird sometimes coming back here after a short break, seeing old news get rehashed when the rest of the world has forgotten it (and yes, well aware that I do it too).

The club doesn’t need to jump around any time anyone stirs the pot. What they do have to do is plan and communicate better to carry members through changes they decide to make - if they had managed the extra game/replacement games/value for supporters better, we wouldn’t have the level of anger and confusion we do and we could all be more resilient to outside chatter.

It certainly got a lot of attention on social media, hell it got a run on the AFL website and in the absence of a definitive communication of the long term plan for this arrangement the club have not yet got itself in a position that they can ignore the comments, as it stands the club are trying to leave all possibilities open but by doing that all possibilities are well.....possible.

This isn’t hutchy talking s**t this is a club representative claiming the afl plans...which notably the afl have not refuted either.

This situation requires a strong statement.

 

[Passmore]

It certainly got a lot of attention on social media, hell it got a run on the AFL website and in the absence of a definitive communication of the long term plan for this arrangement the club have not yet got itself in a position that they can ignore the comments, as it stands the club are trying to leave all possibilities open but by doing that all possibilities are well.....possible.

This isn’t hutchy talking s**t this is a club representative claiming the afl plans...which notably the afl have not refuted either.

This situation requires a strong statement.

I'm not sure that his comments have raised any huge discussion anywhere apart from BF and handful of nuffies on FB.

The news outlets reported it and it's fizzled like hot air usually does.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty_11]

Which raises the point, has the seating arrangements for the replacement matches been decided?

I cant see anything coming of these discussions. Maybe a couple of bays at the Dogs game. I am not holding my breath. We should just be offered a 7 game home reserved seat memberships.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app