Better Loosen Up
Brownlow Medallist
Personally I would have him ahead of Corr. So Logue, Comben and K. Dawson.
North to go winless in 2024?
- Thread starter Taper
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Personally I would have him ahead of Corr. So Logue, Comben and K. Dawson.
I mean, he may be ahead of Corr, but that's not really saying much.
I'm sure he can be serviceable but as I recall, he was brought in as a mature-ager to plug the gap and to date, he hasn't achieved that. Bit hard when he's currently out injured though, I guess.
- Nov 1, 2021
- 3,630
- 5,712
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Part of me would love to see it. But it pains me to imagine what the AFL would fork out this time.
I don't think we should be rooting for a team to fold. North despite being rubbish and poor are a huge part of the game's history.
I think they should be put under administration from the AFL and managed for 5-10 years as they are incompetent at every level, both on field and off the field, including their fans. But folding is not the answer.
I think they should be put under administration from the AFL and managed for 5-10 years as they are incompetent at every level, both on field and off the field, including their fans. But folding is not the answer.
- May 23, 2016
- 7,077
- 5,997
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Merge North and Saints and move them to Darwin I say. North Saint Darwin Crocodiles.
They won't go winless.
Even the Essendon top-up team got a win.
Even the Essendon top-up team got a win.
St. Marys Kangaroos?
You forgot Essendon. North always play their Grand Final against us, and we don't have Tippa anymore who used to sink them.
He's not just a huge North fan.
He comes from North royalty.
His great grandfather is the longest serving North president in it's history.
His grandfather was North president for 6 years and oversaw the 1970's build and appointed Ron Barassi as coach.
His father is a life member and a patron of the club (i.e former major share holder) and worked as the marketing manager for almost 2 decades.
His aunt is an AFL commissioner, on the board of Built, UWS, National Film Institute amongst other organisations. Also a huge North fan.
He comes from 85 years of life member involvement of the club across 3 generations.
That's just his paternal side and the Trainor family.
His mums father is Doug Wade....outside of his Geelong career and being in the AFL hall of fame, he was a North inaugural premiership player, 3 x leading goal kicker and Coleman medalist there. Also a life member of North.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #136
Why would a debt free club with a recently re-developed $7 million admin and training base merge?
- Moderator
- #137
Who's going to do that?
- Moderator
- #139
They don't. That's obvious with all the ridiculous proposals on here and elsewhere to merge North Melbourne with whoever or relocate them to wherever.
In terms of North merging with anyone, they must have slept through the 00's. The AFL dont decide that, the other clubs dont decide it, the members do, as part of our constitution.
The clubs are the shareholders of the AFL, not the other way around.
Whats the going rate the Tas Govt are paying for dilution of the current share structure?
About $1B, probably all up with the stadium build?
If the other clubs want to fork out $55m each, I guess they could consolidate the share structure.
A member club has not been removed from the VFL/AFL since University, they have all merged or been relocated and remained license holders.
Now, theoretically North could get their licensed revoked by an overwhelming majority vote of the other license holders (clubs) in the event the members blocked a relocation, however I doubt the ownership structure of the league has been properly tested legally in over 100 years.
Theoretically, there may have to be a dissolution of AFL assets, the NMFC entity still remains and would have to be compensated. That could theoretically mean the sale of Marvel Stadium etc.
It would certainly make for an interesting local football club, walking into the VAFA with $500m+ in the bank.
Last edited:
and they likely won't take him with the first pick because he isn't a midfielder
Well, we are likely losing 2 key midfielders off the list in the near future, so would make sense to take a mid also.
That will likely go straight over the average numptys head though.
- Moderator
- #143
That's correct. In Fitzroy's case in 1996 it was the directors who were mostly elected by the shareholders.
Fitzroy was removed in 1996 when the administrator voluntarily surrendered the licence to the AFL after doing a deal with the AFL to repay creditors.
The Club now exists in the VAFA.
The AFL certainly cannot force any Club to merge or relocate without the consent of said club.
The AFL's constitution says in Clause 24:
"The Commission may grant an entity the status of a Club and the right to representation on AFL and may:
a) relocate the playing, administration and social base of a Club
b) recognise implement and adopt the merger of two or more Clubs
with the consent of the Club or Clubs involved."
Clause 27 says that any Commission decision may be reversed by two thirds of the 18 Appointees (Clubs) at a general meeting of the AFL requisitioned by three Appointees (Clubs) within 14 days of the Commission decision.
A Club can be suspended from AFL representation.
Termination of a Club's licence by the Commission must be ratified by a majority of Clubs (Appointees) at an AFL General meeting.
And it is likely, but not certain that any club's licence termination would be tested in the courts, as per South Sydney.
The administrator of Fitzroy when he voluntarily surrendered the licence signed an agreement with the AFL that said Fitzroy will "...release AFL from all claims connected with its AFL Licence and such termination and surrender;"
Even entering the VAFA with very few funds, Fitzroy is still one of the bigger and best supported clubs in the competition.
Last edited:
The AFL wasn't the same financial beast in 1996 it was today. A lot of things changed in terms of book value when the state handed the league Docklands for $1.
There's a market value on a share/license as the AFL are holding the Tassie Govt to.
In the event the club was removed (they simply wont be relocated) from the compo, there's effectively zero chance the club would enter a local league without being paid out it's rightful share of the competitions value.
This really is something that the AFL should look at re: Father/Son rule. Games played shouldn't be the only metric - life membership and 20 years service, across multiple generations, means much more than a bloke scrubbing out 101 games over a 12 year career.
- Moderator
- #146
Fitzroy tried to argue that they had a 15th share in the value of Waverley in 1996. While that wasn't tested in court in the end, the AFL's argument was that a licence did not confer on an entity a share of the AFL's assets. It merely conferred a right for an entity to enter a team in the AFL and the right to use the AFL's brand or system to sell products or services for the duration of their licence.
The clubs weren't regarded as shareholders but merely franchisees with voting rights.
That would no doubt be decided in the courts.
An argument that would no doubt be tested fairly heavily legally given the costs the AFL are holding prospective governments for award of an AFL license.
Added to the fact the club in question here was one of those which actually actively paid off the Docklands Stadium ownership requirement.
- May 23, 2016
- 7,077
- 5,997
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I guess y'all can't see my tongue in my cheek online.
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,173
- 10,494
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
No, they will have a big fat 0 next to their name.
- Apr 3, 2016
- 5,397
- 10,969
- AFL Club
- Sydney
some people have short memories. pretty much every one of those points applied to sydney 1992-1994.
yeah they suck at the moment but give it time
Similar threads
