Ayshaw on the Record

[The Zebra]

I trust this admin and I'm pretty sure the AFL doubts Tassie's ability to sustain a footy team full time. I reckon this can work.

But are JB and Euge going to sign 20 year contracts to make sure they are there if this turns pearshaped at the end of the 7-10 year term?

Are Tassie going to always be happy with a part time team, or will they contiune to call for a team of their own?


If this is successful in terms of crowd numbers and extra support for North, all it is going to do is make the resolve for a proper Tasmania team stronger - and there is already one that has been playing more than half of its games in the state, has a Tassie VFL team, training facilities, etc - a simple name change and 3 less games in Melbourne after the conclusion of the contract and we are an exact replica of the Brisbane Lions post Fitzroy merge.

Sure it would be great if we complete the term, have $10M in the bank and move back to full time melb as a powerful club, but looking at our past admins, how many from the would fight the good fight if the push from Tassie and the AFL at the end of 7-10 years was to increase games and change the name - because the probability is that JB and Euge will be gone. Do you think the argument about needing the money to keep up will have disappeared? Even with money in the bank, we will be talking sustainable ongoing revenue streams that are unavaiable as a Melbourne based club.

 

[DarwinRoo]

I would prefer 4 games myself. Logic tells me that we would have to outbid Hawthorn in order to get the deal.

Perhaps the 7 games relates to the amount of times we managed to get less than 30,000 to Docklands home games in 2010? I know we got less that 23,000 of 5 seperate occassions. I would certainly swap those games for a guaranteed $750K from Tasmania.

Some of those games I think we can definitely start drawing more than 30000 in the next year or two.

Games against Melbourne, Sydney and the Dogs should be able to hit the 30,000 mark.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Sorry to intrude

But Brayshaw may be kidding himself if the AFL would agree to 11 games a year in Melb.

Apart from Collingwood - most teams travel 5 or even 6 times a year, So 7 games Tasmania, 5 games interstate some years 6 other years. (Assuming 22 game season) means only 9 or 10 games a year in Melb.

The AFL may guarantee on average 10 games a year in melb (some yrs 6 interstate other 4) but I cant see them guaranteeing 11.

Need to ask yourself - is 10 okay?

On the other hand If North do somthing similiar to the Hawks - 4 a year in Tasmania, with Nth in Hobart, Hawks Launceston - what this could do based on the Tasmania state divide, this could also increase the rivalry between the 2 club.

Times have changed - GC and GWS coming in.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Sure it would be great if we complete the term, have $10M in the bank and move back to full time melb as a powerful club

Another massive unknown is what we will be coming back to after the 10 year contact. No point in have $10m in the bank if we come back to a depleted home membership base. That's why I get the feeling that if we go for this we possibly have signed on for good.

 

[The Zebra]

Another massive unknown is what we will be coming back to after the 10 year contact. No point in have $10m in the bank if we come back to a depleted home membership base. That's why I get the feeling that if we go for this we possibly have signed on for good.

At the end of the term i think there are only two things that would stop us from increasing our commmittment to Tassie (including name change)

1. Tassie decide that it is happy with a Melbourne team playing games in its state and doesn't want its own team
2. We time our premiership/gfs to coincide with the term on the contract finishing

If we are down the bottom or the crowds are good in Tasmania, we would be in a far worse position than 2007 and I doubt we could stop the inevitable.

 

[KangaMatt]

The deal decreases membership value for Melbourne base members. We potentially will now only have 4 "true" home games. Does the club truely expect membership growth in Melbourne by offering less value for their money??

 

[GarnerSmash]

At the end of the term i think there are only two things that would stop us from increasing our commmittment to Tassie (including name change)

1. Tassie decide that it is happy with a Melbourne team playing games in its state and doesn't want its own team

After a 10 year affiliation and with strong membership numbers, it's not too much of a mental leap to assume that Tassie supporters would want a Tassie based club after that length of time.

2. We time our premiership/gfs to coincide with the term on the contract finishing

If we are down the bottom or the crowds are good in Tasmania, we would be in a far worse position than 2007 and I doubt we could stop the inevitable.

Who knows what will happen on field in the next two years let alone where we will be in 10. Our current list dictates that our window will be pen in the next 2 - 6 years, if not longer, but this does not mean that we will not be able to draft well and top up to remain successful.

Whatever happens, if we end up with as much support in Tassie as we do in Melbourne, I don't think we will continue to be a Melbourne based club.

 

[Event Horizon]

At the end of the term i think there are only two things that would stop us from increasing our commmittment to Tassie (including name change)

1. Tassie decide that it is happy with a Melbourne team playing games in its state and doesn't want its own team
2. We time our premiership/gfs to coincide with the term on the contract finishing

If we are down the bottom or the crowds are good in Tasmania, we would be in a far worse position than 2007 and I doubt we could stop the inevitable.

That's my fear as well. When a club like Hawthorn or Richmond does something like this, their pull in Melbourne is too strong for them to worry about their very existence down here. But when we do it, the inevitable push gathers momentum. And after 10 years it will be impossible to stop that train.

 

[Basti28]

Whatever happens, if we end up with as much support in Tassie as we do in Melbourne, I don't think we will continue to be a Melbourne based club.

1) If people buy 4 game (or whatever) memberships in Tasmania it does not necessarily mean that our Tasmanian membership has increased. It simply points out that people want to go to AFL football in Tasmania.

I remember seeing a figure stating that we have 3,500 committed NMFC members in Tasmania. I can't see us picking up another 27,000 any time soon.

2) A financially stronger club with an admin committed to staying in Melbourne has, by simple logical extension, a much higher likelihood of staying in Melbourne.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Can we cut to the chase and have somebody tell us how, if we don't sell games and don't have pokies, we will not only go ahead over the enxt decade but somehow hope to survive and increased salary cap and the impact of free agency?

 

[Cold Gin]

I'm torn.

I want desperately for the club to survive and prosper, but eleven games in Melbourne out of twenty-four? And how many of those are home games? Do I only get to sit in my reserved seat four or five times a season, and the rest of the time have to fight for a shitty general admission seat?

I'm generally supportive, but I need to know a lot more detail before I can really form an opinion.

 

[GarnerSmash]

1) If people buy 4 game (or whatever) memberships in Tasmania it does not necessarily mean that our Tasmanian membership has increased. It simply points out that people want to go to AFL football in Tasmania.

I remember seeing a figure stating that we have 3,500 committed NMFC members in Tasmania. I can't see us picking up another 27,000 any time soon.

I agree with that assumption. However...

2) A financially stronger club with an admin committed to staying in Melbourne has, by simple logical extension, a much higher likelihood of staying in Melbourne.

This appears to be a long term deal (10 years) so we really don't know what the long term consequences are in relation to memberships. However, with 7 games in Tassie and only 11 in Melbourne I don't think that it is too much of a leap to envisage a slow drop off in Melbourne memberships and an increase in Tassie memberships. My concern is that we may come to a point where the stance that we are a Melbourne based club may not be backed by the membership statistics and the sources of our revenue streams. If this happen the board may be put into a position where to continue we may have to align more with Tassie than with Melbourne.

If we play four games in Tassie then I am happy. We cannot be put in a position that we over commit. 7 games just seems too many for my liking and could put us in a perilous position.

I understand where you are coming from Basta. The financial security this offers is excellent for the future of the club, all seems like it could be a good deal. I do think though that there are many, many variables that could come into play and the club will need to look at all of these before committing to any deal. I see a significant risk of reducing our Melbourne base even further, and this could potentially be what eventually sees us pushed towards Tassie as a home base.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

AND we get a NMFC VFL side for Arden Street.

uh, no. there was no mention of it being at Arden Street.

Just a dedicated VFL team. Expect it to be playing out of Tassie.

 

[Basti28]

I understand where you are coming from Basta. The financial security this offers is excellent for the future of the club, all seems like it could be a good deal. I do think though that there are many, many variables that could come into play and the club will need to look at all of these before committing to any deal. I see a significant risk of reducing our Melbourne base even further, and this could potentially be what eventually sees us pushed towards Tassie as a home base.

I understand and agree with pretty much all of that with the exception of eroding our current Melbourne membership base.

Sure, people will piss and moan and worry, but the overwhelming majority will climb back on board because I am of no doubt that the membership trust and believe in JB and Euge, and by the fact that we are the staunchest bunch of supporters in the AFL. Nobody fights like we fight. It's an historical fact.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I hope yer right mate, I really do, cos we can't afford to lose too many. Whatever happens I really want to see the club do everything in it's power to provide the Melbourne based membership with a fantasic product and fantastic services. Thankfully we appear to be going into a period of on-field strength and nothing keeps supporters happy like winning does.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

I'm torn.

I want desperately for the club to survive and prosper, but eleven games in Melbourne out of twenty-four? And how many of those are home games? Do I only get to sit in my reserved seat four or five times a season, and the rest of the time have to fight for a shitty general admission seat?

I'm generally supportive, but I need to know a lot more detail before I can really form an opinion.

Two byes mate.

It is still 11 games in melbourne out 22.

 

[Arden]

Another massive unknown is what we will be coming back to after the 10 year contact. No point in have $10m in the bank if we come back to a depleted home membership base. That's why I get the feeling that if we go for this we possibly have signed on for good.

This.

People will drop off. We've seen it happen last time. With only four home games in Melbourne and over ten years, I'd imagine this time it will be even more magnified.

**** the whole eleven games in Melbourne shit too. People will rapidly grow tired of continually going to see their team play away games, being outnumbered and having shitty 'reserved' seats that the home team couldn't sell to their own members.

 

[RoyalBlue]

This.

People will drop off. We've seen it happen last time. With only four home games in Melbourne and over ten years, I'd imagine this time it will be even more magnified.

**** the whole eleven games in Melbourne shit too. People will rapidly grow tired of continually going to see their team play away games, being outnumbered and having shitty 'reserved' seats that the home team couldn't sell to their own members.

It's a self saucing pudding. We're ****ed because we spent a decade wondering Australia, now we have to spend a decade in Tasmania to un**** ourselves, and come back again in a decade and try again, but with more money, less debt (heard this before) behind us.

Before Teffy28 pipes up, I'm not saying I'm against this catergorically, but some of the spin about why it'll work for us is pretty circular.

How much has our revenue dropped? Is it three million? Is there a board clearout coming on the back of such a performance?

 

[Joey7]

"I understand there is a level of concern out there, but our supporters need to have faith in us as a board and administration and understand that everything we do, is for the betterment of this great club. If we don't look to expand and grow now, then we will be left behind very quickly.

I hope our people can see the upside of this potential deal and continue with us on the journey toward our next premiership"

Im never going to doubt this board because they deliver.

 

[Horace]

I have always been puzzled by this concept. Do you really believe that people choose to support a club on the basis of whether they can see them 11 times or 14 times a year?

Sorry mate but you are way off the money there. The number of games that people can attend is crucial to many people.

Had the Brisbane Fitzroy merger provided a real guarantee of 15 games a year instead of a wishy washy 6 to 8 games a year in Melbourne I would have bee a Brisbane Lion member now.

I would not have been happy with it at the beginning and it still wouldn't be the same club but I would have got used to it.

In 1997 I was actually a member of both Brisbane and North Melbourne before the Royal Blue and White became my club (aided by a wonderful mark by Craig Sholl against the Eagles at Princes Park that year, which made my mind up)

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

It's a self saucing pudding. We're ****ed because we spent a decade wondering Australia, now we have to spend a decade in Tasmania to un**** ourselves, and come back again in a decade and try again, but with more money, less debt (heard this before) behind us.

Before Teffy28 pipes up, I'm not saying I'm against this catergorically, but some of the spin about why it'll work for us is pretty circular.

How much has our revenue dropped? Is it three million? Is there a board clearout coming on the back of such a performance?

These are all entirely legitimate points but nobody has yet grasped the nettle.

If we don't have pokies and we don't sell games, how do we survive, let alone prosper in Melbourne? Especially with a salary cap increase and free agency coming in.

NO OTHER CLUB APART FROM COLLINGWOOD OR ESSENDON CAN DO IT.

 

[Zondor]

"I understand there is a level of concern out there, but our supporters need to have faith in us as a board and administration and understand that everything we do, is for the betterment of this great club. If we don't look to expand and grow now, then we will be left behind very quickly.

Some out there could argue that Dawsons and Goods and Alyletts also had this in mind when they wanted to relocate our great club to the Gold Coast for it's long term future. Just ask Onips, he'll tells yah.

 

[GarnerSmash]

These are all entirely legitimate points but nobody has yet grasped the nettle.

If we don't have pokies and we don't sell games, how do we survive, let alone prosper in Melbourne? Especially with a salary cap increase and free agency coming in.

NO OTHER CLUB APART FROM COLLINGWOOD OR ESSENDON CAN DO IT.

Agreed, we need to do something, but I am concerned that we will come to a point where we will be asking the question "at which point to we stop being the NMFC?"

I want Tassie to work, but would be much less concerned at that question becoming a possibility if we get 4 games a year there, not 7.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

Another massive unknown is what we will be coming back to after the 10 year contact. No point in have $10m in the bank if we come back to a depleted home membership base. That's why I get the feeling that if we go for this we possibly have signed on for good.

THIS is the problem.

once we go down there (especially with so many games) how will we ever be able to justify ending the agreement?
We wouldn't be able to because by making this deal, our Victorian membership numbers are going to remain stagnant.

This is why we must only sign on to Tassie short term whilst Ballarat is developed.

Long term, if we can move those games to Ballarat, we can gain members in an area where they are easily able to get to our games in Melbourne, increasing the profitability of those games too!

 

[roosRool]

Your pessimism is completely baseless.

Fact - Docklands is payed off and owned in 2025.
Fact - Docklands will then not require the 8 million (Tas's figure) annually it draws from the NMFC.

I don't believe in this tin foil hat level of AFL conspiracy, if it had any basis in reality, then there is a million other ways that they could have killed us off by now.

I'm wearing mine right now.* The label even guarantees protection when the sky starts to fall.**

* Far out there are some ripping images online of dweebs wearing tinfoil hats
** Actually, there's no label I made it myself