14,342

[LuvtheKangas]

Sorry but please don't talk about subjects you clearly have no ****ing idea about. How would you possibly know anything about what it's like supporting a club that has merged or relocated? Death to a club my arse.

The 8,000 Victorian based swans supporters (of which I have been one for over 20 years) would suggest otherwise. Obviously relocation is a horrible thing to have happen to your football club but life goes on. You still have your colours, the same playing group (initially) and the record books still show your history.

My old man and man grandfather used to tell me stories about all the great south players of their day and they still follow the club as passionately now as they did back then. My kids will one day follow the swans and they will embrace the clubs history just as I have.

North supporters can bleat on all they want about how we're a soulless franchise etc etc and if that's the stance they want to take as outsiders then great but I can tell you right now that it's definitely not the way I and thousands of other loyal south/sydney fans see it.

I honestly do hope north manage to battle on and survive in melbourne but if they do relocate I'm sure many of them will see it's not the end of the world and that their passion for the club will be just as strong, if not stronger for having gone through it.

Mergers are a different story because it's a bastardization of a clubs identity and it's heritage but relocation is definitely not the death of a club.

If you're gonna write that sort of crap, it implies your argument is weak.

Which it is. Sydney FC is an artificial AFL franchise built on the ashes of a now long-gone original VFL club. Everyone knows it's not South Melbourne and very few old South supporters got any joy from the 2005 flag. You speak of thousands. Yeah, right. It might be some hundreds. Which is, relatively speaking, very few.

 

[MF]

If you're gonna write that sort of crap, it implies your argument is weak.

Which it is. Sydney FC is an artificial AFL franchise built on the ashes of a now long-gone original VFL club. Everyone knows it's not South Melbourne and very few old South supporters got any joy from the 2005 flag. You speak of thousands. Yeah, right. It might be some hundreds. Which is, relatively speaking, very few.

As I said... People can take whatever view you like from the outside, facts are that you simply wouldn't know what the club means to me and others in my situation. We still wear the same colours and we still honour all the great champions of our past and the record books will always show Sydney/South Melbourne as the same club.

Yes, I speak of thousands, I base that on the 8000 Victorian based swans members, I'm pretty sure most of them enjoyed the '05 flag.

If some old south supporters stopped supporting our club and/or football (which I'm sure many did) then that's their loss. For those of us who stuck with the club and endured the dark days we've been rewarded for our loyalty and will continue to be rewarded for many, many years to come.

 

[Karbo]

Re: 13,342

I haven't gone through the thread, but why did the OP lie about the crowd?

lol, the OFFICIAL crowd listed on the OFFICIAL AFL website straight after the game was 13,342. Just your daily dose of comedy from the afl website

 

[.Shotties.]

If you're gonna write that sort of crap, it implies your argument is weak.

Which it is. Sydney FC is an artificial AFL franchise built on the ashes of a now long-gone original VFL club. Everyone knows it's not South Melbourne and very few old South supporters got any joy from the 2005 flag. You speak of thousands. Yeah, right. It might be some hundreds. Which is, relatively speaking, very few.

Your club is the last one to be able to talk about other teams being franchises. Longest private ownership in the league. Remember the orange guerney of the Kangaroos football club who played games out of Canberra, Sydney and wherever else would have it?

 

[Roylion]

Re: 13,342

I reckon most Fitzroy fans would give their left nut to swap their plight with Melbournes position.

Maybe even both! If Fitzroy was still in the AFL and was in Melbourne's current position...I'd certainly take that over three Brisbane Lions premierships.

Merge, relocate etc = death to a club.

Merge? Probably yes...but some of the club's identity can be preserved.

but relocation is definitely not the death of a club.

Tend to agree. But ideally you'd avoid relocation as well.

I certainly regard Sydney as the continuation of South Melbourne. 8,000 Victorian Swans members would also suggest that many others do as well.

 

[legend166]

If you're gonna write that sort of crap, it implies your argument is weak.

Which it is. Sydney FC is an artificial AFL franchise built on the ashes of a now long-gone original VFL club. Everyone knows it's not South Melbourne and very few old South supporters got any joy from the 2005 flag. You speak of thousands. Yeah, right. It might be some hundreds. Which is, relatively speaking, very few.

Just because your club has thousands of members that obviously don't care about the club and its successes, doesn't mean ever club does. I'm sure our 8000 paid members in Melbourne loved the 05 flag.

 

[Messenger]

Wish it? What about just looking at the cold hard facts. I don't care whether a club lives or dies but something needs to change if clubs like North do survive. Under the current format they do not stand a chance.

Your financial argument is fine and dandy and I don't disagree for what it is worth, but there are plenty of people on this site who want to pull the plug on the Roos or Melbourne in the name of football Darwinism. And plenty of them have clubs who have never been in that situation, have short memories about the fortunes of their own club or presently feel impervious.

You may not care whether a club lives or dies (unless it is your own I'll wager) but this league is bigger than the sum of it's parts. I'd sooner jog along a club with an actual culture and history than prop up some vainglorious white elephant in Homebush that was created in the name of tapping into a "market" and for geographic diversity.

 

[chrisjie]

God forbid we ever have a Gold Coast of West Sydney team that could potentially be massive and make the competition even better than it is today. We need to keep crowds like this!

 

[Scotland]

Re: 13,342

To be fair it is a poor piece of fixturing, should be a Saturday or Sunday afternoon game.

Saturday night games at the Dome are second only to Sunday twilight games for bad crowds IMO.

Sooky sooky la la.

The poor crowd excuse list is growing by the day.

West Coast are playing Melbourne today - Mothers Day - allegedly a lemon day for footy crowds. Melbourne's following over here is minimal, and they're hardly a premiership threat, yet the crowd will still be 90%+ of our season ticker holder base. If the game was in Melbourne it would struggle to pull 15,000. Why?

When clubs are pulling 40,000+ through the gate and battling to clear $50k then there is a problem that needs to be addressed by the AFL.

When clubs have '30,000 members' and are pulling in crowds of 15,000 then there are problems that need to be addressed by the clubs.

 

[Off The Couch]

Re: 13,342

Get off North's back. Stop having a go at them. They have few fans but are a part of the fabric of Victorian sporting life. Part of the history of the game. I want them to survive. Everyone should want them to survive.

The win will help them.

There is no room for the emotion called "history" anymore. Vlad and previous AFL cronies have seen to this and it means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

I don't know how north are going to continue to survive with the type of treatment it is continually receiving from the afl - poor stadium deal, poor fixturing, threats of large fines, but north supporters are also making it very easy for the AFL when they aren't even prepared to show up for a game and fly for the flag for the survival of their own club.

It wasn't ever going to be enough just to show up and show your support for the club not relocating, you have to do it year in, year out and at the moment it is just not happening.

 

[Forrest Gimp]

If you're gonna write that sort of crap, it implies your argument is weak.

Which it is. Sydney FC is an artificial AFL franchise built on the ashes of a now long-gone original VFL club. Everyone knows it's not South Melbourne and very few old South supporters got any joy from the 2005 flag. You speak of thousands. Yeah, right. It might be some hundreds. Which is, relatively speaking, very few.

No club is a "soulless franchise". Whether clubs are formed yesterday, or a hundred years ago, as long as there are plenty of passionate supporters, the club will kick on and make it's own history. Yes, I'm an Eagles supporter, so my position on this maybe somewhat predictable, but in my eyes having a dual premiership captain go and lead the club to a flag (something that may also happen with the Lions) is the kind of thing that will be looked back upon in many years time. Also, would you not consider one-armed bandits to be ultimate act of "selling out" and "soulless behaviour"? because I would.

 

[Eagle87]

Deals for MCG and Etihad are for the AFL to provide a certain volume of patrons through the door. What NMFC yield from memberships relates only to what they are charged by the operators to reserve seats at the stadium for their members. And those members pay more for that privilege anyway.

So there is a "breakeven" figure.

And allow me to endorse Poison's comments earlier. I've dropped coins in tins for a few clubs (mine included) and I was one of the many who went to throw dirt on the grave of the Fitzroy FC in Round 21, 1996.

Why anyone would wish this upon another club is beyond me.

Of course there is a breakeven figure. Every ****ing business on Earth has a breakeven number.

Lets see, world class stadium, central (major) city location, good transport and other facilities...... (Etihad)

Compare with shit stadium, non-central city location, ordinary transport and parking..... (Subiaco)...

Average ticket cost at Subiaco - >$40. Average ticket cost at Etihad $20 (per AFL report on Saints v Tiggies game).

Its much much harder to breakeven if you charge less than what your product warrants. Etihad cost a shit load to build and its owners need a return based on that investment. Its a world class stadium in the middle (more or less) of a major city. It should be expensive instead its kept artificially cheap to keep people coming - thats required because of the massive oversupply of footy tickets in the Melbourne market which is further caused by an oversupply of football teams in Melbourne.

Talking about stadium deals is weak if you arent prepared to address the real issues.

If your costs are $2 million, you need $2 million of revenue to breakeven. Arguing that you cant get enough customers at a $20 price point to cover your costs seems a little weak when others in the market place are selling the same product at a $40 price point and selling out.

You have better facilities and a better location. Arguably you also have a better product (WC are shit ).

Why can you only sell a third as many tickets at half the price?

Is that the "stadium deal" or an unsustainable business?

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

Re: 13,342

But I am sure they would do anything to for their club to be a successful Melbourne club. I reckon most Fitzroy fans would give their left nut to swap their plight with Melbournes position. Merge, relocate etc = death to a club.

Highlighted = contradiction & where your point loses any perspective.
Please try not to speak on my behalf again, you are so far from the truth its libel.

 

[Jeebs]

Attendance was originally, officially, reported as 13,342.
There was no bad press after Melbournes crowd? Kidding?
Saturday.
Indoors.

 

[Ry009]

How does a club that is, (according to the keyboard heroes that frequent this free-for-all of a board) 'not a threat', incite so much hatred towards it?

It baffles me.

 

[Hawkk]

Re: 13,342

Not pot shoting the Roos (a first) but you can't help but think had they stayed at the MCG and built on their 1990's success that they'd be a much larger club because of it

The Docklands is killing smaller clubs not just because of stadium deals but timeslots (how can you get new football fans to a 7pm Saturday Night or 4pm Sunday Night game?) and the lack of affordable seating

Ian Dicker saw this problem 10 years ago (and was laughed at by all) even John Elliot saw the problems this white elephant would create

The new stadium will only work if the AFL are willing to play games on Saturday Afternoon at the venue every week and set aside a sigificiant amount of the stadia to General Admission

 

[A Living God]

Re: 13,342

The new stadium will only work if the AFL are willing to play games on Saturday Afternoon at the venue every week and set aside a sigificiant amount of the stadia to General Admission

The new stadium will only work if it has to have a seating capacity of between 20k - 25k almost exclusively reserved seating and overall capacity no greater than 30k. The new stadium must earn at least enough to equal current returns and cost of building a new stadium.

A new stadium costing $150m being used 24 times a year fnanced by a loan with 8% interest would have $500,000 per game of interest expense.

 

[stopsign]

Me and my mates used to go on Saturday night to watch the footy at Docklands but we can't afford it now. It costs $16 per head (consession) to sit up the top. When i went to a game their last month (before the price rise was noticed), they wouldn't let my brother in on a Junior ticket, although he was a Junior (13 turning 14), made us buy an adult ticket. Now somebody tell me why any North Melbourne supporter would pay to go to that dump!

 

[Moo]

How does a club that is, (according to the keyboard heroes that frequent this free-for-all of a board) 'not a threat', incite so much hatred towards it?

It baffles me.

I don't think the large majority hate you, or even wish ill upon your club.

However you are owned by a private base and made a decision to stay in Melb and be profitable. That is your challenge - the AFL made it quite clear that you have to stand on your own 2 feet and your membership accepted this challenge.

It is of course natural that a figure of 14K is going to sound some warning bells - especially amongst those of us who think there are too many clubs representing the area of Melb.

I hear the equalisation, draw etc - however 14 thousand to any AFL game is a bit of a disgrace.

I want a team in Tassie and one on the GC ...I'd also like the comp not to exceed 16 teams. How the cards fall is the question.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I don't think the large majority hate you, or even wish ill upon your club.

However you are owned by a private base and made a decision to stay in Melb and be profitable.

Um, maybe someone should tell him ...

 

[Moo]

Um, maybe someone should tell him ...

Who owns the Roos?

 

[Rob]

Me and my mates used to go on Saturday night to watch the footy at Docklands but we can't afford it now. It costs $16 per head (consession) to sit up the top. When i went to a game their last month (before the price rise was noticed), they wouldn't let my brother in on a Junior ticket, although he was a Junior (13 turning 14), made us buy an adult ticket. Now somebody tell me why any North Melbourne supporter would pay to go to that dump!

Docklands a dump......

You Victorians are the most spoiled footy supporters on the planet. Cheap, plentiful tickets, the best stadiums, and you still whinge.

Come to a match at Subi - you'll know what a dump is. That's if you can get a ticket. Unless you want a shit view behind the goals, you're going to be up for $50 or so.

 

[Messenger]

Of course there is a breakeven figure. Every ****ing business on Earth has a breakeven number.

Lets see, world class stadium, central (major) city location, good transport and other facilities...... (Etihad)

Compare with shit stadium, non-central city location, ordinary transport and parking..... (Subiaco)...

Average ticket cost at Subiaco - >$40. Average ticket cost at Etihad $20 (per AFL report on Saints v Tiggies game).

Its much much harder to breakeven if you charge less than what your product warrants. Etihad cost a shit load to build and its owners need a return based on that investment. Its a world class stadium in the middle (more or less) of a major city. It should be expensive instead its kept artificially cheap to keep people coming - thats required because of the massive oversupply of footy tickets in the Melbourne market which is further caused by an oversupply of football teams in Melbourne.

Talking about stadium deals is weak if you arent prepared to address the real issues.

If your costs are $2 million, you need $2 million of revenue to breakeven. Arguing that you cant get enough customers at a $20 price point to cover your costs seems a little weak when others in the market place are selling the same product at a $40 price point and selling out.

You have better facilities and a better location. Arguably you also have a better product (WC are shit ).

Why can you only sell a third as many tickets at half the price?

Is that the "stadium deal" or an unsustainable business?

If your quoting me I can only assume you think I need this information. I do not. I am not arguing that North Melbourne don't have a sustainability problem.

I'm simply alarmed at the number of people who are pleased another club is in deep shit.

 

[2005]

Only read a portion of this thread, and it aint a surprise.

North Melbourne people on here banged on for months about their ever expanding membership numbers and how they compare to others.
They are simply ordinary when it comes to watching their footy team.


To expensive at Etihad, closed portions in the stand , Saturday night , to cold , Poor form , didnt know what jumper they would wear , interstate side , excuse after excuse : more like they just dont go !!

Corresponding game last year ; Boomers big day, finals week after, MCG on Saturday afternoon , Great weather against a very weak and insipid Port Adelaide . A Lousy 20 odd thousand roll up and they get flogged . Lets face it , they fell in last night

Nothing changes & its only a matter of time now

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Who owns the Roos?

The members. It was a historic vote that was passed near-unanimously late last year (one dissenter amongst hundreds). The effect was that the shareholders handed their shares back and they were cancelled as the club's constitution was changed. It is now a member-owned club like most (all?) others.

You're forgiven, I'm sure footy news doesn't always get through to Al Ain. I missed a stack of footy news when I lived in Dubai a little while back. Only got to Al Ain once, don't think I could've lived there.