'Should have gone to the Gold Coast' - Let us reflect...

[fairdinkum]

'North don't have enough supporters so they should have gone to the Gold Coast' is and always has been a logical fallacy of the non sequitur variety, and tonight's crowd of 10k made that painfully clear for all but the dimmest of pundits to see. Even if we pretend that it would have been a genuine relocation (it would not have, but let's pretend), the 'Kangaroos' would still have been worse off in terms of supporter base - and yet this is the most common argument trotted out as to why they 'should have gone to the Gold Coast'. The Gold Coast Kangaroos would have had even less support than the GCS currently do, and even that amount is significantly less than the NMFC has right now.

I went along to the Gold Coast vs NMFC match @ Metricon tonight. The crowd figure for the match has been officially announced as '10,170'. That figure seemed to me, sitting up in the stands, an (almost grossly) inflated figure. How many people fit into the bottom level of Docklands? I reckon you could have packed us all down there with plenty of room to spare. But let's just go with the 10k figure.

The weather in SEQ was gorgeous today. To give you some idea of how good it was, I bathed in the sun on my balcony in boxer shorts this morning. No shirt, no socks, and not a cloud in the sky. The temperature drops markedly come night fall up here but even tonight my jumper was unnecessary, and there was scarcely a breath of wind at Carrara. Lovely conditions for footy.

The Gold Coast were striving for their first win of the season tonight, and this was their best chance yet, up against a woeful North Melbourne outfit. A better chance for a win @ Metricon (their first AFAIK) they could not hope for. A lovely Saturday night and, just for an extra bit of incentive, Brennan's 150th game of AFL footy.

Around 10,000 people turned up. At very best. And you want to know the strangest part? At least a quarter were wearing blue and white. I am being very conservative with that estimate, too. I'm talking people who were clearly there to support the away team. This doesn't factor in the many people who wore neutral colours. I heard another bloke near me guess that we outnumbered the locals and while I think it is too hard to say there were more North than Suns fans at the game, I honestly don't think we were outnumbered. I have been to many a home match at Docklands where I felt in the minority, tonight at an away game I did not.

And don't even get me started on the crowd's lack of atmosphere. When the Gold Coast were making their inevitable charge towards a win in the final quarter, the crowd were still quiet. If Ablett of Bennell collected the ball they would rise in unison but, outside of that, I felt like I was at a game of ammo footy. If I felt excited enough about my team's performance I might have even given one of the Suns players a spray as I'd have known they would hear me from the upper level but, alas, I thought my own players were more deserving of a spray (and I don't spray my own players), so I sat largely in silence, like those around me.

So what is the relevance of all of this to the thread title?

I ask you this: who would have drawn more supporters to a match of footy on the Gold Coast: A new club with its own identity, or a 'relocated' team transplanted from Melbourne? I would argue, as many on this site have for some time, that a club with its own 100% Gold Coast identity would draw more support. How many North fans would have followed the 'relocated' entity on the Gold Coast? I cbf finding and linking to the survey now but back in 2007 I recall reading of a study which found something like 25% of Fitzroy fans converted to Brisbane (the rest either gave footy away or went on to follow another club altogether). But let's pretend for a moment that all North fans based on the Coast would have converted to the Gold Coast Kangaroos. By my logic the final tally for a match on the Gold Coast would look... something like it did tonight and probably worse.

That's all other things being equal (or as equal as they can be when discussing a counterfactual such as this). Perhaps the North list would have brought more success and this would have brought more supporters... except our list is playing no better than Gold Coast's right now. And the GCK would not have been afforded the same draft concessions the GCS ultimately were. And the GCK would not have Ablett. So it is fair to surmise that the GCK would, if anything, have less drawing power than the GCS have right now. And right now they are pulling about 5k supporters on a beautiful SEQ Saturday evening.

[inb4s: 1) Not a knock on the GCS as a club, or their supporters - I wish them all the best. I want the AFL to continue to support the club and think it is vital they do so. 2) Not a knock on the AFL - Metricon is a superb stadium and I have posted elsewhere my concession that the AFL have done much better on the GC than I predicted they ever could. 3) Not a deflection from my team's woeful form. I've been posting for months that we are going nowhere this season. Every match we dish up s**t like that further vindicates my comments from months ago about our impending downard spiral onfield in 2012 back when folks on North board still thought we were world beaters.]

TL;DR The NMFC might have a (relatively) low supporter base in Melbourne, but it is still much greater than the GCSun's supporter base on the Gold Coast, which itself is almost certainly much greater than what would have been drawn by the Gold Coast Kangaroos. If* the problem is a low supporter base, the solution isn't and never was the Gold Coast. In fact, I think we've signed as many new members since JB took over as Chairman as the GCS have as total members at this very minute.

If bigfooty still had blogs I guess this would be more appropriate as a blog post if for no other reason than most bigfooty readers don't have the attention span to read such a long OP. But I guess my thread is intended to, five years on, rationally discuss whether or not North 'should have gone to the Gold Coast'.

I have made my argument, and cite the AFL's rubbery (in their favour) stats to back me up. What can you bring to the table?

'North should have gone to the Gold Coast' = verifiably uneducated rot.

 

[Pres]

Less than 11k there. Are the Gold Coast faithful serious about getting behind this team or not? Disgraceful crowd.

 

[Bosk]

The real difference between North Melbourne based on the Gold Coast and North Melbourne based in Melbourne is that the former would have enjoyed the AFL's full and unqualified long-term support whereas the latter does not.
This will eventually be the reason why North is forced to merge or re-locate, and by refusing the AFL's offer to move that decision has now effectively been taken out of North Melbourne's hands and placed into the AFL commission's, as North has little chance of supporting itself in Melbourne without massive financial support from the AFL - support which can be withdrawn by the commission's at its whim.

North may well have struggled at the Gold Coast in the early years as I've no doubt many of its Melbourne-based supporters would have turned their back on the club in protest, but we must remember the Gold Coast project is not a short-term one and that the AFL is supporting it for the long haul with the goal of growing the game in QLD. In the long term the Suns will eventually find success and the crowd & membership numbers will rise dramatically, which will put North's decision in a very different light.

 

[SM]

Using a crowd figure for a club in its infancy and second year in the competition to justify the decision by a struggling Victorian club in a flooded market is a poor example to use to support your case. As Bosk has quite rightly pointed out, the time to judge GC crowd figures is not now, with the club struggling to win a single game, and therefore not directly appealing to the sporting landscape on the GC, it is more important to analyse the fact that GC's finances are directly backed up and propped up by the AFL body, whereas North will not receive a blank cheque of support in a similar fashion.

Moreover, if North had moved to the GC they would have retained their identity and at least a portion of their fanbase in much the same way as South Melbourne did on its relocation to Sydney. And now, 30+ years after the move, we are seeing stronger crowds in Sydney, increased participation at a grassroots level, and on- and off- field stability.

This was something on offer for North and they refused it.

In four-five years time when GC are making the finals, playing good footy, and attracting large crowds to Metricon Stadium, they will be demonstrating why the decision was not as clear-cut as you are trying to make it by holding up one crowd figure from 2012. To think that the AFL is taking such a narrow, short-term approach to expansion is incredibly naive, and does neither you, nor the North Melbourne football club any favours.

 

[fairdinkum]

Bosk, you have responded with yet more logical fallacies.

The real difference between North Melbourne based on the Gold Coast and North Melbourne based in Melbourne is that the former would have enjoyed the AFL's full and unqualified long-term support whereas the latter does not.
This will eventually be the reason why North is forced to merge or re-locate

So, by rejecting the 'offer' to be 'relocated', worst case scenario is that we will still end up... relocated.

Huh.

and by refusing the AFL's offer to move that decision has now effectively been taken out of North Melbourne's hands and placed into the AFL commission's, as North has little chance of supporting itself in Melbourne without massive financial support from the AFL - support which can be withdrawn by the commission's at its whim.

So by rejecting the AFL's 'offer' to be 'relocated' we now rely on 'massive financial support from the AFL'* whereas had we 'relocated' we would be... reliant on an even greater amount of AFL financial support.

Huh.

*Would love to see some comparitive stats from you on this. If you have any.

but we must remember the Gold Coast project is not a short-term one and that the AFL is supporting it for the long haul with the goal of growing the game in QLD. In the long term the Suns will eventually find success and the crowd & membership numbers will rise dramatically, which will put North's decision in a very different light.

I made it clear that this thread is not about questioning whether or not the Gold Coast should have its own club, but whether or not NMFC was better off up there or down here.

 

[fairdinkum]

Using a crowd figure for a club in its infancy and second year in the competition

AFAIK their crowds and memberships have actually decreased this season on last season, whereas your argument here implies that the opposite is true.

Moreover, it is quite timely to use tonight's crowd figure, given who else was playing at Metricon tonight. Or did you somehow manage to miss the relevance?

To think that the AFL is taking such a narrow, short-term approach to expansion

Okay, so you either didn't read or didn't engage with the content of the OP.

Got it.

 

[SM]

AFAIK their crowds and memberships have actually decreased this season on last season, whereas your argument here implies that the opposite is true.

Moreover, it is quite timely to use tonight's crowd figure, given who else was playing at Metricon tonight. Or did you somehow manage to miss the relevance?

So you think because of the romanticism of it being North Melbourne playing at Metricon against the team that they would have become, the figure somehow takes on more relevance than the reality that it was a low-drawing Victorian team against a team that is yet to win a game for the year?

Okay, so you either didn't read or didn't engage with the content of the OP.

Got it.

And I could say the same to you. As others have quite rightly said in this thread already, all that the OP comes across as is more whinging and attention seeking from North, desperate to shift the focus off their on-field dramas to prove that their off-field decisions have been ratified through a poor crowd turn out at Metricon tonight.

 

[fairdinkum]

Okay, for those who were too lazy to even read the TL;Dr, let me make this clear:

This thread is about the obvious absurdity of the oft-trotted argument that North 'should have gone to the Gold Coast' due to a small supporter base in Melbourne.

Not only is the Gold Coast's own supporter base currently very poor, the support for the 'Gold Coast Kangaroos' would likely have been worse still.

There are many reasons why one might think the AFL ought to have a club on the Gold Coast. That is for another thread. This thread is about whether the main argument as to why North 'should have gone to the Gold Coast' is a valid one. Tonight's crowd demonstrates painfully clearly that it is not.

 

[SM]

And again, let me repeat myself as you seem unable to even engage in my short and sweet posts in reply to your own. Of course the short term support for the Gold Coast Kangaroos would be very poor. Even a simpleton could see that. No one is disagreeing on that. But what the AFL is focussed on is the long term potential of the area for an AFL club. Even if North had gone up there and won a premiership in their first year, it would have taken time to build real support and loyalty in the area. When South Melbourne first came to Sydney it took time to build up a rusted on following to Swans games, and I'll point to the 19,000 who showed up against North - how apropriate - in the 2008 EF as evidence of that rusted on following. Even if North figures are exaggerated to say, 5,000 attendance, that leaves 15,000 Swans fans who travelled in torrid conditions to a poorly advertised and poorly followed game in the Sydney media. This sort of support doesn't come cheaply, and is the result of years and years of work at the grassroots level to build up support for the local team.

You can't seriously expect a club to be planted in an area and automatically average crowds of 20-25,000. Only a lunatic could reasonably expect that to be the case. If North had gone to the Gold Coast they would have had an incredibly poor following to begin with. But as Bossk and I pointed out, with an almost unlimited amount of AFL funding, and incredible patience, the Gold Coast Kangaroos would have become a strong club with a strong following on the Coast, as well as hopefully retaining at least a portion of its Melbourne membership base, as the Swans have done.

Again, I have to question your pointing to a single crowd figure for the club in its second year - as romantic as the notion of it being a crowd between the Roos and Suns is - as any sort of evidence that you made the right call by not going up to the Coast.

 

[Ron The Bear]

AFAIK their crowds and memberships have actually decreased this season on last season

Their crowds are down around ~35% on their first 12 games in 2011.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Their crowds are down around ~35% on their first 12 games in 2011.

Currently, they're getting only 500 more per game than the Brisbane Bears did in their second year on the Gold Coast.

Membership is also down to 11,000 - 3000 less than last year, a 27% drop.

And the picture's even more appalling when you get to GWS, of course.

To think, these are franchises on which $210 million of State Government money has been spent - on their stadiums - along with what will be hundreds of millions of dollars from the AFL spent on the franchises directly. Plus the draft and salary concessions of course.

It's about as astonishing a waste of resources as it gets.

 

[The_Wookie]

Why to write off a club in its second year.

Critical point: id argue that if North had moved to Gold Coast tghey wouldnt be a new sturggling club trying to win games (although on this season maybe they would be). They'd be semi successful. People love winners.

As for the state government spending $210 million...you mean the stadium and facility upgrades that will, particularly in metricons case, be used for cricket and the commonwealth games, and we also intended for a world cup soccer bid right?

 

[TheKanga]

I for one would of rejected a Gold Coast Kangaroos team and never watched AFL again.
A Demetriou has said recently since North rejected the offer to relocate we have been ''ticking all boxes''
''Membership is up (33k+)'' and ''Reduced 1 million+ of debt'' we are actually in a strong position off field and the AFL is satisfied.

 

[Old Skool]

Bosk, you have responded with yet more logical fallacies.

When has he ever responded with anything else?

In response to the OP.

We stayed, we prospered, and it's a now a non issue.

 

[00Stinger]

Less than 11k there. Are the Gold Coast faithful serious about getting behind this team or not? Disgraceful crowd.

Probably as big as the crowd would have been if this game was at Etihad, so whats the point of this thread?

 

[Catfish1975]

I'm not having a crack at the Gold Coast themselves but can anybody please come up with one sporting organisation that has had any kind of financial success in that area in the last 20 years. The idea that it's a "boom" area with a huge untapped supporter base is a fallacy. I would think that if the model can't work for basketball, soccer, afl and rugby league then it might not be the pot of gold these administrators are looking for. There's no passion for the game on the Gold Coast and the sponsorship money isn't there to support the low attendances. But that's ok because the AFL has an endless supply of cash to throw at them to justify the need to have teams in areas that don't necessarily want or care about them.

 

[rose jam]

You would have gone up with a senior team, likely great access to the draft making you instantly a lot better. Northern states need winners to support. The crowd would have been much larger with a winning team.
In the end, if not Gold Coast then probably North will end up in Tassie

 

[Catfish1975]

You would have gone up with a senior team, likely great access to the draft making you instantly a lot better. Northern states need winners to support. The crowd would have been much larger with a winning team.
In the end, if not Gold Coast then probably North will end up in Tassie

See this is the great "Gold Coast" Fallacy. There's been winning teams in all major codes up there in the last 10 years and not one has been able to maintain financial security or consistent crowd numbers. The sponsorship money is not there either unless you want to be sponsored by a company that makes fuel pills that magically reduce fuel consumption. (dramatisation, may not have happened)

 

[Old Skool]

They could get 3 people there and it wouldn't matter.

The television dollars are the defining factor in AFL revenue.

 

[Catfish1975]

They could get 3 people there and it wouldn't matter.

The television dollars are the defining factor in AFL revenue.

Still don't think the AFL wants to be embarrassed by crowd numbers under 10,000 if they keep losing. looks shithouse on tv too. Would love to know what the actual paying crowd vs. free ticket crowd figure is. Not that it matters too much but i'd rather they grow the game by filling the stadium with free or discounted tickets.

 

[Scodog10]

See this is the great "Gold Coast" Fallacy. There's been winning teams in all major codes up there in the last 10 years and not one has been able to maintain financial security or consistent crowd numbers. The sponsorship money is not there either unless you want to be sponsored by a company that makes fuel pills that magically reduce fuel consumption. (dramatisation, may not have happened)

Please name one (just one) that has had the resources, exposure and concessions that the AFL have given, and will be able to further provide, to the Gold Coast and or the Gold Coast Kangaroos?

The AFL would have/ will provide for any club that is up there until (as SM stated) there is died in the wool support, which could take upwards of 25 years. No other sporting organisation across any code can give there club's the sort of package that the AFL dangled in front of North Melbourne to leave which would have been more than enough to make up for the shortfall in sponsorship and membership for the next 15-20 years.

I respect and support North Melbourne's decision to stay, however the reason's for which it is being attributed to in this thread are absolutely absurd!

 

[Catfish1975]

Please name one (just one) that has had the resources, exposure and concessions that the AFL have given, and will be able to further provide, to the Gold Coast and or the Gold Coast Kangaroos?

The AFL would have/ will provide for any club that is up there until (as SM stated) there is died in the wool support, which could take upwards of 25 years. No other sporting organisation across any code can give there club's the sort of package that the AFL dangled in front of North Melbourne to leave which would have been more than enough to make up for the shortfall in sponsorship and membership for the next 15-20 years.

I respect and support North Melbourne's decision to stay, however the reason's for which it is being attributed to in this thread are absolutely absurd!

Trying to work out your point here. There's no doubt that the AFl will put every spare dollar they can into the Gold Coast. Does that mean that it's going to work? Absolutely not. Clive Palmer soon worked out that it didn't matter how much money he put into the Gold Coast they were never going to succeed. They had a successful year in 2009 and in 2010 averaged crowds around 3,500 per game. The numbers just don't stack up in South Eastern Queensland. By the way if the AFL really cared about the Gold coast wouldn't it have been easier to take someone like an Essendon and relocate them to Queensland, strong supporter base wouldn't care too much if they relocated and they obviously have solid support up there with 17,00o going to the game earlier this year.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Clive Palmer soon worked out that it didn't matter how much money he put into the Gold Coast they were never going to succeed.

That megalomaniac basically trashed GCU anyway though. He seemed to think it was just a vehicle for his morbidly oversized ego. Clearly didn't know the first thing about running a football club, but that was no surprise - outside of digging up our mineral wealth, flogging it overseas, making off with the profits and engaging in political corruption to get huge tax breaks for himself at the expense of the rest of us, he doesn't know much...

 

[Catfish1975]

That megalomaniac basically trashed GCU anyway though. He seemed to think it was just a vehicle for his morbidly oversized ego. Clearly didn't know the first thing about running a football club - but that was no surprise, outside of digging up our mineral wealth, flogging it overseas, making off with the profits and engaging in political corruption to get huge tax breaks for himself at the expense of all other Australians, he doesn't know much...

Agree with you, the man can dig the s**t out of a hole but knows 3 parts of fug all about just about everything else, however the point remains that the Gold Coast is a money draining pit that is seen as a pot at the end of the rainbow for sports administrators right around Australia. the Gold Coast Blaze in the NBL have just been saved by administrators by paying out 7 cents in the dollar to creditors....

 

[MaddAdam]

The real difference between North Melbourne based on the Gold Coast and North Melbourne based in Melbourne is that the former would have enjoyed the AFL's full and unqualified long-term support whereas the latter does not.

As opposed to enjoying their full support as we do know - the AFL helping us get the Tassie deal, giving us $10.5m over 5 years and praising how we use it, the AFL working front and square to get Ballarat up.

Fact is North's membership and crowds would be the envy of NRL clubs and something A-LEague clubs could only dream about.

No team is is being forcibly anythinged ever again. The AFL learned from the Fitzroy debacle. And the way the GC is going, the AFL will have its hands full simply making the expansion sides work over the next two decades.