Billy nails Brawshaw on footy show

[Royal Flush]

This is an example which I just made up.

Brisbane could sell 40,000 tickets at $20 with costs of $300,000
or Brisbane could sell 30,000 tickets at $35 with costs of $250,000.
They either make a profit of $500,000 or $800,000.

North Melbourne could selll 30,000 tickets at $20 with costs of $250,000
or North Melbourne could sell 15,000 tickets at $35 with costs of $200,000.
They either make a profit of $350,000 or $325,000.

Now explain why clubs who draw the same the crowd deserve to make the same profit.

Because the AFL has negotiated on behalf of AFL clubs and Telstra Dome.
Not the clubs and Telstra Dome.

 

[Royal Flush]

What has EPL clubs or their turn over got to do with Collingwood wanting to only wear black and white stripes? I like the EPL but I'm not so start struck and prone to the cultural cringe as to think whatever practice that occurs here is some gold standard we should aspire to. Teams being made to change their shirt colours has been around in association football since the 19 th century. And in recent decades regular changes to home and away kits have occurred purely as a marketing ploy to make money of their supports. As far as I 'm aware every club in the top few divisions are either privately owned or publicly listed profit seekers, as opposed to the mainly member based AFL clubs.

Collingwood was playing in its black and white stripes (it had played in since it was established in 1882) against 7 to 9 teams non of which it "clashed" up to 1925. Then it was playing against 11 teams none of which it clashed with (check out what your mob wore in the first few years of the VFL). At some point North Melbourne riverted back to its pale blue and white striped jumper it had worn in the VFA along with multiple others. At that stage it was obviously not considered a clash jumper.

Port Adelaide have a great history in their competition (longer than ours though not in the black and white), but had to add the teal as a condition of entry into the AFL.

So, we want to go on wearing the same black and white stripes in every match we have worn in every match (?) since our inception and since we break away with 7 other clubs to form the VFL which has evolved into todays league. The inverse stripes should easily create enough scope to work within once you've factored shorts.

I'm not one to stoop low and play the "your club is gonna die/merge/relocate card" but you don't help your cause when you carry on with no recognition of the fact that your ongoing existence is partly underpinned by heavy equalisation measures that supress the big clubs ability to dominate proportionate to their size.

What makes Collingwood so different to the other 15 AFL clubs in the 21st century? It's this type of false misunderstanding of greatness that contributes to the conflict in the middle east.

 

[greennick]

Then why do people cry out so loud to make the whole world hear them when we get compensated and tell us to go and relocate?

Why should it be any different from any other club? Why doesn't the AFL compensate us for exactly the amount or at least half the amount the big clubs get?

The big clubs get better deals because the stadium makes more money. You get less money because you get less people to the game and the stadium therefore makes less money. Stadiums have large fixed costs which mean that it is quite unprofitable running them for unpopular teams like North.

The CBF effectively does not compensate North for a poor stadium deal, but for being unpopular. It is charity. If you think anything else you are in denial.

I still think we should have it to a certain extent though, as otherwise you would go bankrupt. We also need it to not compensate you for your poor stadium deal, but to compensate you for the fact the big teams get the lions share of the good times and blockbusters. I guess the scheduling also comes down to your unpopularity though as well.

 

[greennick]

And how can a team such as geelong get a full house at Kardina and if they get about 80k at the G and still make the same amount of money. It's bloody hilarious!!

Because Skilled has lower overheads. Not too hard to understand!

 

[greennick]

Because the AFL has negotiated on behalf of AFL clubs and Telstra Dome.
Not the clubs and Telstra Dome.

Then how come all the deals are different?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

The CBF effectively does not compensate North for a poor stadium deal, but for being unpopular. It is charity. If you think anything else you are in denial.

Thats essentially it.
North arent popular, and Melbourne is a over saturated market.

I beleive both the Lions and Swans have put their own money into stadiums, which probably helps get the better deal. Swans have defintely put money into ANZ, and fairly sure the current SCG works have a bit of swans money in as well.

Why dont North front up some money and invest in stadiums ? ..... Oh , thats right.

 

[A Living God]

Because Skilled has lower overheads. Not too hard to understand!

They also don't have to pay to use SS, the Geelong council rents the ground to them for free.

Stadiums aren’t charities, they cost $100's of millions of dollars to build and the owners want to see returns on their investment. The largest single cost for a stadium is the cost of finance. For large stadiums it would in the $10's of million per year.

 

[greennick]

I've quoted these two because they live at the opposite extremes of Twitsville. Giantroo, I am unacquainted with, Dan 26 I unfortunately am, him being both the Lord Mayor and Village Idiot of the town.

The economics of sport clearly point to an optimal structure which includes some mechanism of equalisation that ensures a certain degree of cometitiveness. There is only one team sport on the planet in which the professional elite end thrives with little equalisation.

While insecure charlatan's like Dan who know very little preach some extreme "free-market" theory they don't understand, there is rich a area of economic research and theory that has formed the basis of the shift in both american and australian sport to adopt equalisation policies for the good of the game.

Here is an long article I have cherry-picked (which I haven't read) from Economist / ABC VFL commentator Ross Booth that I'm sure draws off much of this research.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAO/is_4_23/ai_n8585478/pg_5

While the smaller Melboune clubs have been disadvantaged by the AFL's ground rationalisation and deserve either some compensation or the right to collectively seek a more appropriate venue (there is no "free-market" operating here at all), to suggest they deserve some arbitary amount equal to what the big clubs earn by filling these stadiums is silly.

The choice to survive as a small entity in a "saturated-market" (at the risk of devaluing footy by using a financial term) comes with a need to be aware of the full implications. The equalisation is not absolute and you need to except the reality of permenant disadvantage beyond the limits of this equalisation compared to the bigger clubs.

Also, there needs to be recognition the bigger clubs in Melbourne are generally more disadvantaged than the non-victorian clubs by the ongoing existance of the smaller Victorian clubs (travel and marginally lower average stadium costs being the exception). Which is why this whole kerfuffle over jumpers is a bit offensive.

This is incorrect on so many levels. I assume you are referring to Soccer as being this sport. Whilst this is one of the only sports with no salary cap and no draft, most other sports are set up similar off the field. The AFL is one of the few sports in the world were the competition gets involved in competitive payments to each team. The NFL has nothing like this. Certain franchises are getting cut at their poor stadium deals and low corporate sales leading to lower revenue. The NHL has nothing like this either. The MBL has nothing like this. All forms of international Soccer most certainly have nothing like this. There is even nothing like this in motorsport.

AFL is largely alone in the world of large professional sports in the provision of charity payments to teams for their averageness.



I agree 95% with the rest of your post though. Equalisation should exist, as otherwise these clubs would not exist. In the US, there exists a lower need for equalisation as a greater percentage of the revenue is shared (more than 3/4 in most sports), so this is not an appropriate example. Also, less clubs compete in the same market, there are only a few instances of clubs doing this and they are in cities that have higher populations than Australia. Equalisation should not be 100% or even 50% compensation though.

The 5% I don't agree with is that last bit about jumpers. I don't know what jumpers had to do with anything. Care to enlighten me?

 

[greennick]

They also don't have to pay to use SS, the Geelong council rents the ground to them for free.

Stadiums aren’t charities, they cost $100's of millions of dollars to build and the owners want to see returns on their investment. The largest single cost for a stadium is the cost of finance. For large stadiums it would in the $10's of million per year.

And therein lies the problem. Stadiums are not charities.

It is interesting how Geelong gets the council to do it as a kind of contribution to the club.

In the US most cities try very hard to get good stadium deals for their teams as they don't want them to leave. They often spend serious amounts of public money on new stadiums with fancy corporate areas. If we still had regional grounds in Australia, no doubt some local councils would be trying the same thing. Others would baulk at the idea. The grounds for most of the clubs would be rubbish though and they would make SFA money. There are some benefits to rationalisation. I believe at the time of the move, all clubs were making more money. It just has turned out now that some clubs are making a lot more as stadium economics has come into play.

Interestingly, WC and Freo are looking to the government for a handout right now. I would like to see if WC will end up with a better stadium deal than the Dockers due to our probable ability to pull in an average crowd of 50k compared to their 35k (these numbers were made up, but no doubt it will be higher).

 

[A Living God]

In the US most cities try very hard to get good stadium deals for their teams as they don't want them to leave. They often spend serious amounts of public money on new stadiums with fancy corporate areas. If we still had regional grounds in Australia, no doubt some local councils would be trying the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area

25. Cleveland–Elyria–Mentor 2,096,471

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population

25 Mandurah 73,477

Their are 50 US states while only 32 NFL teams, 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams. States like New York, California and Texas has mulitple teams their is comptetion between states and cities for teams.

 

[greennick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area

25. Cleveland–Elyria–Mentor 2,096,471

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population

25 Mandurah 73,477

Their are 50 US states while only 32 NFL teams, 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams. States like New York, California and Texas has mulitple teams their is comptetion between states and cities for teams.

I was more referring to Melbourne teams with that one, so it is a shame it did not come up with a Melbourne area. That is why I was saying the "regional" stadiums would be shit. Imagine if North had to pay for their own stadium with the help of the local council. In America they get the advantage of the whole city, sometimes a state, often with populations in excess of 10 million people to support a new stadium. Here there is hardly that support. Only the WA and SA teams have that kind of support. Still, if an American team got 3 times the support the WA/SA teams are getting they would still be threatening to leave to another place which has lined up a better stadium deal!

The same deal that works over there would not work over here. Hence we have centralised stadiums, it makes economic sense. People can't expect to get the same out of differing crowds going to the footy though. The significantly higher stadium profit of the other teams should be taken into account.

 

[Royal Flush]

Then how come all the deals are different?

Because Essendon and maybe St. Kilda? did their own negotiating. The AFL did not allow any other club to negotiate, because they have control of TV coverage and where teams play.

 

[Royal Flush]

Thats essentially it.
North aren't popular, and Melbourne is a over saturated market.

I beleive both the Lions and Swans have put their own money into stadiums, which probably helps get the better deal. Swans have defintely put money into ANZ, and fairly sure the current SCG works have a bit of swans money in as well.

Why dont North front up some money and invest in stadiums ? ..... Oh , thats right.

Sydney has been leaching from the AFL since 1982- how the hell do you come on all self-riotous and waving the magic stick Mr Bullwinkle?

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

This is incorrect on so many levels. I assume you are referring to Soccer as being this sport. Whilst this is one of the only sports with no salary cap and no draft, most other sports are set up similar off the field. The AFL is one of the few sports in the world were the competition gets involved in competitive payments to each team. The NFL has nothing like this. Certain franchises are getting cut at their poor stadium deals and low corporate sales leading to lower revenue. The NHL has nothing like this either. The MBL has nothing like this. All forms of international Soccer most certainly have nothing like this. There is even nothing like this in motorsport

AFL is largely alone in the world of large professional sports in the provision of charity payments to teams for their averageness.

Would prefer not to elaborate again but would refer you back to earlier posts

I agree 95% with the rest of your post though. Equalisation should exist, as otherwise these clubs would not exist. In the US, there exists a lower need for equalisation as a greater percentage of the revenue is shared (more than 3/4 in most sports), so this is not an appropriate example. Also, less clubs compete in the same market, there are only a few instances of clubs doing this and they are in cities that have higher populations than Australia. Equalisation should not be 100% or even 50% compensation though.

I don't disagree with any of this. By equalisation I was referring more broadly than in a financial sense. Salary caps and drafts are also mechanisms to ensure competitiveness and exist (to my knolwedge) in all major US team sports with the possible exception of Baseball which has perhaps not so coincidently fallen from its preeminent the position it held a few decades a go before the gridiron and basketball. Revenue sharing of TV rights, as you've pointed out, ammount to a much greater proportion of total revenue in those sports. I would also included this as a component of equalistaion. If clubs were allowed to sell off the TV rights to their own home games how the bigger clubs would do a lot better than the smaller clubs (though the game would probably get less money over all.

I certainly don't agree with the idea of 100% equalisation.

The 5% I don't agree with is that last bit about jumpers. I don't know what jumpers had to do with anything. Care to enlighten me?

I have already clarified this in a couple of previous posts so would refer you to them rather than explaining myself again. In summary the big clubs sacrifice for the good of the game subjecting themselves to this equalisation. Particularly Collingwood as it has both only worn the one basic jumper for 116 years and also has now moved completely from its traditional base should be allowed to preserve the central unchanging part of its identity. The one threat to this is North Melbourne and the AFL between them stubbornly creating a situation that forces us into some "alternative" strip.

 

[Rob]

Whats your point?
What do you mean by $1? You obviously haven't thought about your point.
Who charges buggerall for their tickets?

Your club. for a vast majority of your games, $20 will get you a decent seat. As will a $140 membership. A seat at a non Victorian venue at that price is unattainable. Hell, even a restricted view seat at Subi costs over $25.

Let me explain something to you, Every team that plays out of TD has a different arrangement, NMFC and certain other clubs do not make any money with 30k attendance.

Great. can you elaborate on this? What costs are borne by North that are not borne by other clubs? I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but can you provide further details as to this arrangement?

Other clubs make money at the same venue with 25k attendance. Ticket prices are the same, levels of corpoarte support may differ, not to the the point which sees a vast difference in earnings from home games.

I think you heavily underestimate the differences in corporate support. I know that last year, corporate match day income of North was $3 million, the lowest in the league. I know West Coast was the highest, with $12 million, and i'm reasonably sure that Collingwood came in at $9 million (although i'm not certain about that, it's IIRC). But that's over $500,000 additional revenue every game. A huge amount - worth about 25,000 extra people paying an adult general admission price.

Again simple terms Brisbane make 200-300k from 23k attendance.
NMFC and others make 0 from a 30k attendance.
Quick math $300,000 diveded by 23,000 = $13.

So whether a ticket costs $30 or $50 is slightly irrelevant to the clubs bottom line.

What? You're going to have to elaborate on that.

And once again, you've discounted corporate income - which is the Lions strength. They sell a shitload of corpoate boxes, to which the margins on them are huge.

All well and good to use simplistic examples to make a point (hell, I do it all the time), but you really should explain how your example makes that point, and whether you're using the same methodology to calculate break even figures.

 

[Royal Flush]

Your club. for a vast majority of your games, $20 will get you a decent seat. As will a $140 membership. A seat at a non Victorian venue at that price is unattainable. Hell, even a restricted view seat at Subi costs over $25.



Great. can you elaborate on this? What costs are borne by North that are not borne by other clubs? I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but can you provide further details as to this arrangement?



I think you heavily underestimate the differences in corporate support. I know that last year, corporate match day income of North was $3 million, the lowest in the league. I know West Coast was the highest, with $12 million, and i'm reasonably sure that Collingwood came in at $9 million (although i'm not certain about that, it's IIRC). But that's over $500,000 additional revenue every game. A huge amount - worth about 25,000 extra people paying an adult general admission price.



What? You're going to have to elaborate on that.

And once again, you've discounted corporate income - which is the Lions strength. They sell a shitload of corpoate boxes, to which the margins on them are huge.

All well and good to use simplistic examples to make a point (hell, I do it all the time), but you really should explain how your example makes that point, and whether you're using the same methodology to calculate break even figures.

I asked the question of stadium deals on the NMFC board to get some better informed opinions. This well explained opinion comes from Limrick

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=451213&page=2
"My understanding regarding the Dome is that the AFL has guaranteed a minmimum level of income over 25 years to then take ownership. It appears that there is a minimum game turnover that is required to be achieved per game. This appears to need a 29,000 attendance or else the home club has to make up the difference. Above this figure there appears to be a stepped return to the club e.g. up to 33k then $10 per attendee, up to 37k $12 per attendee (I don't know the actual figures - these are only examples)

A club that can generate 45k or more attendances is able to play the MCG against the Dome in negotiating a deal.

Additionally interstate clubs are not carrying this AFL Dome purchase even though ultimately it will become an AFL asset.

Interstate clubs typically have a better deal with club signage and corporate access.

The larger interstate clubs also benefit from having more members than their ground can hold thereby ensuring that supporters buy memberships and seating. If WA had an 80K+ ground, the West Coast's membership, particularly yearly seating purchases, may actually drop

The smaller Melbourne clubs would be better served by having access to a 30k ground that wasn't under the control of the AFL.

The danger of the new GC and WS clubs is that we will have six more low attendance Dome games as I suspect that the AFL, at least initially, will have the larger Melbourne clubs playing these teams in their home state to attract the crowds."

In a nut shell the stadium deals at Telstra dome are not a stadium deal for the clubs. The AFL is purchasing the stadium and use clubs using this stadium as equity. Therefore it is completly botched up. An AFL asset is owned by the 16 clubs and only 10 clubs are paying for it.

Another informed opinion by GumbyRoo;


"There are a couple of facets to stadium deals to consider. One is the ownership of the venue. Telstra Dome is a privately owned venue, (admittedly part owned by the AFL, to become full ownership at some stage in the future) so there is a required return on their investment. I think it cost about $450 million to build way back when.

So, let's say they need to make at least $50 million profit per year (a return of just over 10% which I'd expect to the the minimum). The only guaranteed revenue they have is 40 odd AFL games. Now they also have the Victory, but you can expect they're on a sweetheart deal, being the only summer tenant. So, that works out to needing over $1 million profit per game to reach their target - they get this from charging the tenant an amount for rent and also from the concession holders, from who thye get rent based on attendees. So, the number of people turning up directly impacts on the profit of the venue for the day (it's not just a matter of saying the tenant club has to pay x for the venue per game).

This is in contrast with every other venue used by the AFL - all are government owned / controlled or member based organisations, with a much lower required return on their investment. Government controlled venues would also take into account the social / indirect benefits to the community in setting an appropriate rent (look at the Geelong deal for example). Member based organisations (eg MCG) want a return on the venue but more importantly for them, they want games to be played there for their members to benefit.

North is in a position where we do not have the drawing power to convince the MCG we are worthy full-time tenants - they are already booked out pretty much I expect, so if we moved games there we would have displace another tenant (and there's no way they'd move Melbourne out). That cuts down our negotiating power with the Dome by a fair margin - we have to play somewhere! Tesltra Dome see no reason to offer us favourable terms (as they have for Essendon) and can lock us and the Doggies in on tough deals. Until there is a real alternative venue we may be stuck with things the way they are - which is the main reason that the ASD has to continue"

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I wonder why you only classify North fans as "informed opinion". ?

The question has to be asked though, what benefit will interstate sides get out of the Dome once it becomes an AFL asset ?

Especially considering it will be a 30 year old stadium by then, and looking quite dated.

 

[Royal Flush]

I wonder why you only classify North fans as "informed opinion". ?

The question has to be asked though, what benefit will interstate sides get out of the Dome once it becomes an AFL asset ?

Especially considering it will be a 30 year old stadium by then, and looking quite dated.

WHY> Because these guys were an integral part of WANM, one of the best organised and well informed groups to have emerged to save a club, which according to some experts, the Gold Coast and NMFC was done deal. That's why. If you dare chellenge their integrity then I dare you to go on the NMFC board and challenge them.

B> This is the AFLS baby and the AFL should be criticised for their business methods. In any sporting organization their is definately room for a 30k member based club. Just ask the NRL. Whether you like it or not the AFL has propped up Sydney for 25years. Still is.

I made this posts to better help myself and yourself understand what is really happening.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

WHY> Because these guys were an integral part of WANM, one of the best organised and well informed groups to have emerged to save a club, which according to some experts, the Gold Coast and NMFC was done deal. That's why. If you dare chellenge their integrity then I dare you to go on the NMFC board and challenge them.

Caro an expert?. She's the only one who thought it was a done deal. I guess most thought it was a deal too good to refused, but done...obviously not.

B> This is the AFLS baby and the AFL should be criticised for their business methods. In any sporting organization their is definately room for a 30k member based club. Just ask the NRL. Whether you like it or not the AFL has propped up Sydney for 25years. Still is.

You see, comments like that make you look decided ill-informed.

WANM have an agenda which is apparent to all. The comments you quoted have no factual basis, and read as slightly-informed speculation. A little information is dangerous as they say. I wouldnt be hanging my hat on them.

I made this posts to better help myself and yourself understand what is really happening.

The reality has already been stated. Too many teams, Too few stadiums. Someone has to get screwed, and they are. The answer is a reduction in Melbourne teams, or all Melbourne teams average 45K home games.

 

[Royal Flush]

Caro an expert?. She's the only one who thought it was a done deal. I guess most thought it was a deal too good to refused, but done...obviously not.

You see, comments like that make you look decided ill-informed.

WANM have an agenda which is apparent to all. The comments you quoted have no factual basis, and read as slightly-informed speculation. A little information is dangerous as they say. I wouldnt be hanging my hat on them.


The reality has already been stated. Too many teams, Too few stadiums. Someone has to get screwed, and they are. The answer is a reduction in Melbourne teams, or all Melbourne teams average 45K home games.

Hey at least I have done some asking and finding to get some answers, unlike yourself who's opinions seem to be from tabloid press. You have failed to tell me otherwise. You ask for facts yet give non out. Why 45K? There is only one club in Victoria that can draw 45k against Fremantle.

Where do you come up with such assumptions? Sydney should relocate some where else so that they can achieve 45k home games, maybe back to South Melbourne or Tasmania-where they will appreciate a AFL team? I mean why should the AFL keep proping up Sydney? With the new West Sydney AFL club and Sydney FC and NRL teams, the market is too saturated for the SYDNEy Swans. The Sydney Swans are recieving AFL funds and more then any AFL club ever in history. So instead of leaching why not contribute to the AFL? I could argue the AFL is subsidising the Sydney Swans by penalising clubs who have unfair stadium deals.

This arguement has as much merrit as your anti-north ill-informed simplistic opinions. You Contribute nothing to the arguement just airy fairy Mardi Gra fluff.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Hey at least I have done some asking and finding to get some answers, unlike yourself who's opinions seem to be from tabloid press. You have failed to tell me otherwise. You ask for facts yet give non out. Why 45K? There is only one club in Victoria that can draw 45k against Fremantle.

45k average.

Where do you come up with such assumptions? Sydney should relocate some where else so that they can achieve 45k home games, maybe back to South Melbourne or Tasmania-where they will appreciate a AFL team? I mean why should the AFL keep proping up Sydney? With the new West Sydney AFL club and Sydney FC and NRL teams, the market is too saturated for the SYDNEy Swans. The Sydney Swans are recieving AFL funds and more then any AFL club ever in history. So instead of leaching why not contribute to the AFL? I could argue the AFL is subsidising the Sydney Swans by penalising clubs who have unfair stadium deals.

Remember JB's table had Sydney making $12.5m from stadiums at 35k/game.

This arguement has as much merrit as your anti-north ill-informed simplistic opinions. You Contribute nothing to the arguement just airy fairy Mardi Gra fluff.

Pot kettle black.

 

[carntheroos4eva]

lol at the comeback that James Brayshaw had when talking to Billy giving him shit about the woody he had.

 

[Royal Flush]

45k average.

Remember JB's table had Sydney making $12.5m from stadiums at 35k/game.


Pot kettle black.

Ohh, so NMFC don't get average home crowds of 45k so should not be in Melb? But Sydney don't either and they are OK? Very logical isn't Sydney Boy? Pretty pathetic if you asked me that Syd Swans have only 28k members and avarage home crowds of 35K in a one team city which is Australias biggest city. Yet still relys on AFL handouts and has through out it's entire history.
Sydney home game averages
2007 35k
2006 41k
2005 37k
2004 32k
2003 36k
2002 26k



Ohh by the way NMFC's contibution;
Friday night footy
Grandfinal Breakfast
Turning club rejects into stars-Peter Bell
Recruiting from high picks #70 into premiership Players -Byron Picket.
Just a few examples

I really don't understand any of your logic

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Ohh, so NMFC don't get average home crowds of 45k so should not be in Melb? But Sydney don't either and they are OK? Very logical isn't Sydney Boy? Pretty pathetic if you asked me that Syd Swans have only 28k members and avarage home crowds of 35K in a one team city which is Australias biggest city. Yet still relys on AFL handouts and has through out it's entire history.


I really don't understand any of your logic

Simple economics my boy.
Sydney: 1 AFL team. 2 AFL grounds.
Melbourne: 9 teams. 2 grounds.

Economics 101. Supply and Demand.

The only answer is:
a) Move to an area where supply/demand ration more in your favour.
b) Get 45K average and stay in Melbourne.

There aint no other options.

 

[Royal Flush]

Simple economics my boy.
Sydney: 1 AFL team. 2 AFL grounds.
Melbourne: 9 teams. 2 grounds.

Economics 101. Supply and Demand.

The only answer is:
a) Move to an area where supply/demand ration more in your favour.
b) Get 45K average and stay in Melbourne.

There aint no other options.

There are many options, the two you mentioned plus;
Better stadium deal- So when the AFL decided to rationalize the two Stadiums Waverly/PrincessPark and invest in one it is their responsibilty to ensure fairness. The AFL is NOT a captilaist structure therefore the basic economic principles of supply and demand do not apply to a market that is not free. IE Salary Cap, centralised distribution of gate takings, TV money, the Draft, Games Scheduling. SO it is a unique system, nothing like it in the world. The AFL contributed to this by their rationalization of grounds. They carry this burden.

NMFC can increase their memebrship base
NMFC can grow their attendance-this does not happen over night, ask Hawthorn.
NMFC can increase their sponsorship
NMFC can decrease their expenses and become more effecient
NMFC can increase revenue from non-footballing revenue. If you took away pokies then Clubs like Hawthorn, Collingwood,Geelong ECT they wouldn't be turning over such huge profits. I'm not suggesting pokies either.

I'd ask your club if they feel ashamed that they are the oldest interstate club in the biggest city yet rank lowest in , membership, revenue and still rely on AFL handouts.