Billy nails Brawshaw on footy show

[Doctor Jolly]

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.

Always blaming someone else.

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.

Membership base: A absolute full capacity due to death notices.
Attendence: Hawthorn's attendence are on the up because of on-field performances. Yours have been "up" already.
Sponsorship: Good luck in a saturated market like Melbourne.
Expenses: Surely you are running on bare basics already ?
Revenue: If not pokies, what then ?

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.

Yeah, we're going so bad, a new team is about to join us.

 

[Royal Flush]

Always blaming someone else.


Membership base: A absolute full capacity due to death notices.
Attendence: Hawthorn's attendence are on the up because of on-field performances. Yours have been "up" already.
Sponsorship: Good luck in a saturated market like Melbourne.
Expenses: Surely you are running on bare basics already ?
Revenue: If not pokies, what then ?

Yeah, we're going so bad, a new team is about to join us.

Hey I put forward well thought out arguements and you can only say "always blaming somebody else". You little prick,I spent a great deal of my time finding evidence to support my arguement and show you the respect I thought you deserved. Sh!ts like you put doubt into the AFL community that perhaps West Sydney is a bigger liability and risk then it's potential to strengthen the game is.

Seeing by your posts that your are newly aquainted to the Swans and probably AFL, the Hawthorn example was based on their survival year of 1996. 1997 they almost doubled their memberships and still had low crowds in comparison to today. My point is any well run club can achieve their potential and that is what NMFC is doing. It does take time.
You probably have no respect for the Old South Melbourne and it's history and treat the Sydney Swans Football Club as an alternative to going to the Theatre or the Mardi Gras.

You have the gaw to critise NMFC for handouts ect, but you do not look in your own back yard nor acknowledge it. Your arguements are weak and full of fluff- Just like Warick Capper.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Hey I put forward well thought out arguements and you can only say "always blaming somebody else". You little prick,I spent a great deal of my time finding evidence to support my arguement and show you the respect I thought you deserved. Sh!ts like you put doubt into the AFL community that perhaps West Sydney is a bigger liability and risk then it's potential to strengthen the game is.

Seeing by your posts that your are newly aquainted to the Swans and probably AFL, the Hawthorn example was based on their survival year of 1996. 1997 they almost doubled their memberships and still had low crowds in comparison to today. My point is any well run club can achieve their potential and that is what NMFC is doing. It does take time.
You probably have no respect for the Old South Melbourne and it's history and treat the Sydney Swans Football Club as an alternative to going to the Theatre or the Mardi Gras.

You have the gaw to critise NMFC for handouts ect, but you do not look in your own back yard nor acknowledge it. Your arguements are weak and full of fluff- Just like Warick Capper.

See there's your problem. You have gone on one stread of evidence, my post count, and formed a vast dossier based on that, that is obviously far from the truth.....even if only because the original assumption is wrong.

Thats why it seems like the world is against North. You cant accept that its North's own fault, and there really is no way out.....except up. (to GC).

 

[Royal Flush]

See there's your problem. You have gone on one stread of evidence, my post count, and formed a vast dossier based on that, that is obviously far from the truth.....even if only because the original assumption is wrong.

Thats why it seems like the world is against North. You cant accept that its North's own fault, and there really is no way out.....except up. (to GC).

Again, this article without precise details (confidential agreement b/w AFL and Telstra Dome), says it in laymens language, clubs like NMFC, Bulldogs,mentions Carlton, and you can include St.Kilda get sh!t deals compared to other clubs and stadiums around Australia.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23514557-19742,00.html
WEST Coast reaped almost $15 million from its stadium deal last year. North Melbourne received less than $6 million.
Never before had a discrepancy in one facet of football club revenue been so great, and it has compelled the AFL to act, not just for North but all Victorian clubs.
On the day - March 13 - the 16 clubs unanimously supported the Gold Coast and western Sydney expansion plans, they also empowered the AFL with improving the stadium deals of Victorian clubs.
"At that meeting of the club presidents recently, what sort of got lost in the club's support of the 17th and 18th licences was that they all said, 'Please, while, you are doing that, look after and fix the stadium returns of the Victorian clubs'," AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said at a media briefing this week.
"They all said, 'So while you are growing the competition, can you please turn your mind to how you can address the stadium returns for Victorian clubs'?"
Officially, the Roos, playing at Telstra Dome, raised $9.3 million less than the Eagles, which effectively took full control of Subiaco on game days in 2007.
The difference is expected to be at least as great this year.
Based on the 2007 figures, West Coast's Subiaco co-tenant Fremantle has the next best stadium deal, followed by Sydney, Collingwood, Brisbane, Essendon and Adelaide.

Ten of the 16 clubs fell below the $8.25 million average, with the two Adelaide clubs among those 10.
"There is no doubt if you play at the MCG and Telstra Dome, you do not get the same returns as you do if you play outside Victoria," Demetriou said.
"We have done the figures. The question is: how do we work with the stadiums to try to generate or extract more, or cut the pie in better ways to try to get better revenues for the Victorian clubs?
"We have already commenced that with Ian Collins (Telstra Dome boss), and we will have that conversation with Stephen Gough (MCG)."
Of the clubs that use Telstra Dome as a home venue, only Essendon's contract allows it to negotiate directly with stadium management.

The other clubs, including North Melbourne, Carlton and the Western Bulldogs, need to go through the AFL to alter arrangements.
Telstra Dome boss Ian Collins said the mooted changes to the clubs' deals were "all hearsay to me".
Asked how clubs might be able to receive a greater return from matches played at the stadium, Collins said: "I am not going to comment on that, the deals are with the AFL.
"All I know is we have a user agreement that goes to 2025 and I am not prepared to talk about the user agreement.
"It is a confidential document between the stadium and the AFL, it derives certain revenues from games played at the stadium and I can not say any more than that."
Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose said: "The AFL has begun to see the issues that surround stadium economics can not be just brushed aside."

 

[Doctor Jolly]

What you dont understand is that no one is disputing that North get Sweet FA from their stadium deal.

It is because:
They dont have the corporate support.
They dont have the crowd support.
They dont charge much to get in.
They operate in a market that heavily favours the stadium operators.
They dont have the sponsorship support.

Now, you can pick and choose your comparisons as much as you like, but overall you are ranked at the end that smells on stadium deals.
And if you expect to get the same deal that Sydney or WC do with their vast corporate support, then you are deluded, or think that the AFL is an extreme communist operation.

Anyway, I asked a while back, what benefit the non-vic clubs get from owning Telstra dome in 27 years time. Any ideas ?

 

[Royal Flush]

What you dont understand is that no one is disputing that North get Sweet FA from their stadium deal.

It is because:
They dont have the corporate support.
They dont have the crowd support.
They dont charge much to get in.
They operate in a market that heavily favours the stadium operators.
They dont have the sponsorship support.

Back all these statements up with concrete facts. It will not suprise me in the least if as you say we are lower then most clubs. Proportionately how much is important. Because a club like NMFC does not require the revenue that West Coast has to be competitive on and of the field. That's the beauty of NMFC. For meaningful debate, post these figures in. Otherwise they are bold "He said She said " Jerry Springer type statements. They haev no substance.

Now, you can pick and choose your comparisons as much as you like, but overall you are ranked at the end that smells on stadium deals.
And if you expect to get the same deal that Sydney or WC do with their vast corporate support, then you are deluded, or think that the AFL is an extreme communist operation.

Anyway, I asked a while back, what benefit the non-vic clubs get from owning Telstra dome in 27 years time. Any ideas ?

The AFL has an asset which it can leverage and use it's equity to build further infrastructure in say West Sydney.
This same AFL has drip feed your club for a remarkable number of years to get it to a point of self-sufficiency. Yet you say how will this Asset benefit Non-Vic clubs? The Sydney Swans would never dare come out and make such a statement!

Understand this NMFC are not Collingwood or WestCoast, never will be, never have been. NMFC is modest successful football club. At the moment it has been a club that was run down (some argue deliberatly) and like an Entrepreneur rebuilding dysfunctional business making losses into a successful, systemized buisness returning profits, that is what is happening with NMFC.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Back all these statements up with concrete facts. It will not suprise me in the least if as you say we are lower then most clubs. Proportionately how much is important. Because a club like NMFC does not require the revenue that West Coast has to be competitive on and of the field. That's the beauty of NMFC. For meaningful debate, post these figures in. Otherwise they are bold "He said She said " Jerry Springer type statements. They haev no substance.



The AFL has an asset which it can leverage and use it's equity to build further infrastructure in say West Sydney.
This same AFL has drip feed your club for a remarkable number of years to get it to a point of self-sufficiency. Yet you say how will this Asset benefit Non-Vic clubs? The Sydney Swans would never dare come out and make such a statement!

Understand this NMFC are not Collingwood or WestCoast, never will be, never have been. NMFC is modest successful football club. At the moment it has been a club that was run down (some argue deliberatly) and like an Entrepreneur rebuilding dysfunctional business making losses into a successful, systemized buisness returning profits, that is what is happening with NMFC.

Exactly, You are not a WC, Collingwood, or Sydney, so dont expect to have the revenue generating power of those clubs.

You'll just have to lump your stadium deal, because that is the price of staying in Melbourne. Market forces have spoken.
When JB knocked back the GC due to stadium deal, he knew exactly what stadium deal was waiting for him in Melbourne.

 

[Royal Flush]

Exactly, You are not a WC, Collingwood, or Sydney, so dont expect to have the revenue generating power of those clubs.

You'll just have to lump your stadium deal, because that is the price of staying in Melbourne. Market forces have spoken.
When JB knocked back the GC due to stadium deal, he knew exactly what stadium deal was waiting for him in Melbourne.

Sydney? you'd rank lowest on the Non-vic clubs.
Again just as I realised full of fluff with no real source of substance.

With Sydneys great performing revenue, when are you going to compensate the AFL and it's clubs for the 25 years of social benefits?
Thats a quarter of a century, thats a long fckuing time. Why does Sydney still recieve more money from the AFL then Melbourne Football Club?
Care to Explain, no off-course heckin'g not.

 

[AngelEyes]

Back all these statements up with concrete facts. It will not suprise me in the least if as you say we are lower then most clubs. Proportionately how much is important. Because a club like NMFC does not require the revenue that West Coast has to be competitive on and of the field. That's the beauty of NMFC. For meaningful debate, post these figures in. Otherwise they are bold "He said She said " Jerry Springer type statements. They haev no substance.



The AFL has an asset which it can leverage and use it's equity to build further infrastructure in say West Sydney.
This same AFL has drip feed your club for a remarkable number of years to get it to a point of self-sufficiency. Yet you say how will this Asset benefit Non-Vic clubs? The Sydney Swans would never dare come out and make such a statement!

Understand this NMFC are not Collingwood or WestCoast, never will be, never have been. NMFC is modest successful football club. At the moment it has been a club that was run down (some argue deliberatly) and like an Entrepreneur rebuilding dysfunctional business making losses into a successful, systemized buisness returning profits, that is what is happening with NMFC.

I'm not trying to argue or antognise here. Simply pointing out, I don't think you understand what he is saying.

He is suggesting that those things are higher at other clubs and they make more money on game day because of it. Its probably true that these things are higher at other clubs. Even things like seat sales are probably higher at Essendon due to the fact they will fill the dome pretty full most weeks where the Roos won't. Every reserved seat probably adds $10 a game to profit or something like that on top of the ticket sale. Its just not the number of people that go through the gate that is the issue, its the value and profitability those people bring to the table. Making $10 a head on joe blow in the stand is no where as important as a corporate paying $300 a ticket even if the lunch costs $50 to make.

I think the people making the accusations here are the Kangaroos and they are the ones that need to say why the deal is unfair not just a blatant publicity stunt like Brayshaw did on TFS and then get away from the topic when questioned about it. I would love to see how the Kangaroos get a raw deal and the actual details. I somehow get the feeling its a blatant publicity stunt to try make the AFL look like pricks if the Kangaroos die.

I think this is the problem with the Kangaroos they want to be applauded for doing what they have done with no money but then expect to be rewarded for having lower profitability due to most likely lower corporate support etc. They need to wake up. I have to say I was very pleased this morning to read about the shareholder issue being resolved but seriously they need to wake up to alot more than that. Compensation for having little corporate appeal is not the AFL's fault.

 

[Hawk Vision]

I lov Billy but seriously whats going on with his small penis

 

[longsuffreosupp]

What a borefest.


I cant believe North Melbourne can get to their games what most rugby leagues could dream of, and they make sweet FA from it.

 

[grayham]

Sydney? you'd rank lowest on the Non-vic clubs.
Again just as I realised full of fluff with no real source of substance.

With Sydneys great performing revenue, when are you going to compensate the AFL and it's clubs for the 25 years of social benefits?
Thats a quarter of a century, thats a long fckuing time. Why does Sydney still recieve more money from the AFL then Melbourne Football Club?
Care to Explain, no off-course heckin'g not.

I read somewhere that Sydney had the highest revenue of any club a few years ago. I think other clubs have caught up, but I beleive they are still in the top 5.

When Citibank signed on as jumper sponsor in 2005, it was the biggest jumper deal in Australia. More than the Vodaphone on the Wallabies jumper.

The last two TV rights deals have paid for whatever the AFL has given the swans over the years 10 fold. The top 3 rating GFin history have all involved Sydney.....and one was even against North!

There is no point trying to muck rake Sydney in the off-field stuff. You arent in the same league.