Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[Saintly31]

What if Tassie want 3 or 4 games in the next 5 year phase. We would be stupid to say no.

It's quite conceivable a 4 game cap could then screw with our ability to get Ballarat off the ground.

How does the club convince a government to spend millions on a redevelopment of NB, if it can't even guarantee it will be able to play games there?

That's exactly right.

Further there is a blind presumption that "the members" will actually make the responsible call regarding the vote if and when it will arise. That is no more accurate that the public picking the right govt - more often than not people just vote for self interest, not the bigger picture (dole bludgers voting for labor for example as it increases their meal ticket, but handicaps the nations finances)

The club's secondary markets and its negotiations will be put to vote to suit WANM, with a mistaken ideal that "the members" will always make the right decision.

I would rather back in a professional administration , one who have pledged their loyalty to Melb being our base, than leave it to a members vote whenever the issue of colocation or purely games outside Melb arises whether short or long term.

GC threat may be a recent memory, but Tas is nothing like that and the two should not be compared.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Ah now understand your question.

The motion places a requirement to have a member vote on any move to play more than 4 home games interstate. The members can approve such a proposal.

The motion is titled "Interstate Home Game Relocation" not "NMFC Relocation" as we see this as a possible longer term impact of playing more than 4 games interstate. Our aim is to have a process in place that prevents the horse bolting before we can close the barn door.

Well, clearly this is either devious or a very poor piece of statutory construction John?

If it is by design, then it is devious.

Playing 4+ games interstate and relocation are not mutually exclusive matters. No one could definitively state that!

The two issues are separate and the members should not be misled in to voting for a both or nothing scenario. These matters should be brought separately to the memberships attention, rather than being bound together.

 

[Limerick]

Well, clearly this is either devious or a very poor piece of statutory construction John?

If it is by design, then it is devious.

Playing 4+ games interstate and relocation are not mutually exclusive matters. No one could definitively state that!

The two issues are separate and the members should not be misled in to voting for a both or nothing scenario. These matters should be brought separately to the memberships attention, rather than being bound together.

I don't see the wording as either devious or poorly constructed. I do see playing more than 4 home games interstate as making ups vulnerable to relocation.

We agree to disagree.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I don't see the wording as either devious or poorly constructed. I do see playing more than 4 home games interstate as making ups vulnerable to relocation.

We agree to disagree.

Then this is clearly about assuaging the fears of a handful of North members, rather than genuinely staving off relocation.

I hope JB is smart/quick enough to put up an amendment to 9.2 which covers relocation.

 

[Wild Kangaroo]

Lets just hope any of the Aylett's DO NOT get involved.

 

[Horace]

That's exactly right.

Further there is a blind presumption that "the members" will actually make the responsible call regarding the vote if and when it will arise. That is no more accurate that the public picking the right govt - more often than not people just vote for self interest, not the bigger picture (dole bludgers voting for labor for example as it increases their meal ticket, but handicaps the nations finances)

The club's secondary markets and its negotiations will be put to vote to suit WANM, with a mistaken ideal that "the members" will always make the right decision.

I would rather back in a professional administration , one who have pledged their loyalty to Melb being our base, than leave it to a members vote whenever the issue of colocation or purely games outside Melb arises whether short or long term.

GC threat may be a recent memory, but Tas is nothing like that and the two should not be compared.

I think that it is fair to say that some people have a feeling of unease about where that loyalty to Melbourne originally lay insofar as the move to the Gold Coast was concerned. Some current board people changed horses in 2007, something that is forgotten at times. Tasmania is certainly not the Gold Coast and if the club had to be relocated interstate, it would be my first choice (not that that is relevant to this discussion) however who is to say that those people can't/won't change horses again?

 

[Limerick]

That's exactly right.
Further there is a blind presumption that "the members" will actually make the responsible call regarding the vote if and when it will arise. That is no more accurate that the public picking the right govt - more often than not people just vote for self interest, not the bigger picture (dole bludgers voting for labor for example as it increases their meal ticket, but handicaps the nations finances)
The club's secondary markets and its negotiations will be put to vote to suit WANM, with a mistaken ideal that "the members" will always make the right decision.
I would rather back in a professional administration , one who have pledged their loyalty to Melb being our base, than leave it to a members vote whenever the issue of colocation or purely games outside Melb arises whether short or long term.
GC threat may be a recent memory, but Tas is nothing like that and the two should not be compared.

Ah lets have democracy but don't give the masses the vote

. How did American professional executives go with the economy is 2008?

Didn't we recently have a CEO who stated that "relocation" wasn't in his vocabulary while others were in discussion on this very subject?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Ah lets have democracy but don't give the masses the vote

. How did American professional executives go with the economy is 2008?

What next? Mabo?

Didn't we recently have a CEO who stated that "relocation" wasn't in his vocabulary while others were in discussion on this very subject?

We saw what happened to that when the rank and file mobilized.

Do you not have faith in our rank and file any longer?

 

[Saintly31]

Ah lets have democracy but don't give the masses the vote

. How did American professional executives go with the economy is 2008?

Didn't we recently have a CEO who stated that "relocation" wasn't in his vocabulary while others were in discussion on this very subject?

I'm all for democracy Limerick, but not when the people making the decision on our long term future are most likely not equipped to make it and will so for the wrong reasons.

Democracy only goes so far, and key decisions should be left to those who truly have the best interest of the club at heart. Not Joe Blow the member who turns up to the footy every Sat/Sun as he always has done but has no idea of finances, long term stability etc etc.

You are clearly very fearful of relocation and lack trust despite your assertions otherwise in the board - I do not share these concerns and that is where we differ I suspect.

 

[Horace]

That's exactly right.

Further there is a blind presumption that "the members" will actually make the responsible call regarding the vote if and when it will arise. That is no more accurate that the public picking the right govt - more often than not people just vote for self interest, not the bigger picture (dole bludgers voting for labor for example as it increases their meal ticket, but handicaps the nations finances)

The club's secondary markets and its negotiations will be put to vote to suit WANM, with a mistaken ideal that "the members" will always make the right decision.

I would rather back in a professional administration , one who have pledged their loyalty to Melb being our base, than leave it to a members vote whenever the issue of colocation or purely games outside Melb arises whether short or long term.

GC threat may be a recent memory, but Tas is nothing like that and the two should not be compared.

That would have to be one of the most naive comments I have ever heard. That is how people get to miss out on having a say.

While slightly different circunstances in as much as it was the AFL we were dealing with, that is in essence why Fitzroy got the arse as an AFL club. Too many so called Fitzroy people did not stand up to be counted until it was all over.

Please be careful that this does not happen to your club, and now my club since 1996. There is nothing wrong with maximising the options to maybe prevent something bad from happening.

 

[MSG77]

GC threat may be a recent memory, but Tas is nothing like that and the two should not be compared.

Its really not, tho. All it is saying is that playing more than 4 games outside Victoria is a fundamental change to the club and as so it should be up to the members to decide if they want that.

Same as the merger clause which was already there. And was there, in fact, when the club was shareholder controlled and the members had no say on the board.

It doesn't have to be just be Tas.

What if the club increases the Tas games to 3. Then the AFL decides it needs NZ. So the AFL gives a new board (not JB, lets say its 5 years from now) a deal to have 3 games in Tas, 5 in NZ for huge money, and 3 games in Melb - Pies, Essendon, and Carlton. All Friday night.

We would be cashed up big time, financially set.

A board could approve this without the members having a say.

On the other hand, another wild hypothetical - AFL wants to give Tas its own startup. Pulls North and Hawks out at same time. To make up for it, decides to merge those clubs. They like "Kangaroos" and hate brown and yellow so just decide to keep North the club. Same everything - colors, mascot, whatever. We get to pick from Hawks list and get whatever members want to come along. We have the best list, 50k+ members, 18 games at the MCG and rival Collingwood for most powerful club. The AFL and board can't agree to this without the members approving.

So the board can't get the best list, 50k members, 18 MCG games without the approval of the members if it involves another club. But they could sell all the home games in a contract with the AFL or interstate/international bodies.

Why would we want to give any board that unilateral power? Why would we trust the AFL admin and interstate/international politicians to decide what is best for the NMFC more than we would trust our own members?

It doesn't mean you can't relocate games if the money/situation is a suitable compromise. It just means you have to be accountable and open and go to the members with a proposal rather than do it thru the media and propaganda and hear-say and bullshit.

Jesus, look at what this article has done. And it tame as anything. Nothing even inflammatory in there. And yet some are reading it as some epic power struggle between former and current power brokers.

If it did come down to another relocation threat, do we really want to go thru all this again? This amendment is simple and will give power to the members to know what is being proposed and if they want to agree to it.

It probably should have been added to compliment the merger portion of the constitution when it was amended to give the club back to members and eliminate shareholder control.

 

[Limerick]

I'm all for democracy Limerick, but not when the people making the decision on our long term future are most likely not equipped to make it and will so for the wrong reasons.

Democracy only goes so far, and key decisions should be left to those who truly have the best interest of the club at heart. Not Joe Blow the member who turns up to the footy every Sat/Sun as he always has done but has no idea of finances, long term stability etc etc.

You are clearly very fearful of relocation and lack trust despite your assertions otherwise in the board - I do not share these concerns and that is where we differ I suspect.

I do trust the current Board and JB but what of the next board which could be as early as 2014 but hopefully not until 2017. Anyhow as we have discussed we are very unlikely to agree on this issue and I never expected full agreement.

Once the AGM is over we can concentrate on the real football.

 

[Saintly31]

I think that it is fair to say that some people have a feeling of unease about where that loyalty to Melbourne originally lay insofar as the move to the Gold Coast was concerned. Some current board people changed horses in 2007, something that is forgotten at times. Tasmania is certainly not the Gold Coast and if the club had to be relocated interstate, it would be my first choice (not that that is relevant to this discussion) however who is to say that those people can't/won't change horses again?

Its a fair point you make Horace and I know you feel passionately about it.....I just dont share it personally.

I think GC was a line in the sand. We are a Melb based club or not at all and that was made very clear by an overwhelming response, I dont think anyone involved in the club has any intention whatsoever to "change horses" as you put it.

I think those days are over and don't want to see our administration handicapped in securing our long term future, but again, no worries if you think otherwise.

 

[Saintly31]

I do trust the current Board and JB but what of the next board which could be as early as 2014 but hopefully not until 2017. Anyhow as we have discussed we are very unlikely to agree on this issue and I never expected full agreement.

Once the AGM is over we can concentrate on the real football.

No worries. I thought about it more over the weekend and have reached the conclusion that I trust the administration to make the best decision for our future as a Melb based club. I dont trust the members as much all things considered.

Its a no from me, and you have put a really good case I must admit. I actually think it will get up and if so that's the way it goes

 

[Shagga is all Class]

By your own figures if Hawthorn returned to play all home games in Melbourne it would have a membership of over 50,000 and as such would be strong.
.

Dropping $3.6 M a year plus around 10,000 members plus gate receipts if you assume they are not premiership contenders circa 2017.

 

[Horace]

I'm all for democracy Limerick, but not when the people making the decision on our long term future are most likely not equipped to make it and will so for the wrong reasons.

Democracy only goes so far, and key decisions should be left to those who truly have the best interest of the club at heart. Not Joe Blow the member who turns up to the footy every Sat/Sun as he always has done but has no idea of finances, long term stability etc etc.

You are clearly very fearful of relocation and lack trust despite your assertions otherwise in the board - I do not share these concerns and that is where we differ I suspect.

How can you make that suggestion? That is tantamount to abandoning democracy in favour of dictatorships and look how well dictatorships have served us over the last 100 odd years?

I would suggest that the standard of debate in this thread alone, from both sides of the agenda, is of sufficient intellectual prowess, to be able to produce a balanced reasoned outcome, in the event of such a vote on where games are to be played coming to pass.

I for one would judge any proposal on its merits and make a decision from there. Inevitably that decision would be one that might be deemed to be a selfish one, but it would be one based on what I saw as being the best for my long term interests as a member of the NMFC. And I would be surprised if anyone would be making their decision any differently.

The important thing for me would be that I will have the chance to have a say, whether my choice wins the vote or not. That is what democracy is about and that was something that was cruelly denied to every Fitzroy member in 1996

 

[Saintly31]

Its really not, tho. All it is saying is that playing more than 4 games outside Victoria is a fundamental change to the club and as so it should be up to the members to decide if they want that.

Same as the merger clause which was already there. And was there, in fact, when the club was shareholder controlled and the members had no say on the board.

It doesn't have to be just be Tas.

What if the club increases the Tas games to 3. Then the AFL decides it needs NZ. So the AFL gives a new board (not JB, lets say its 5 years from now) a deal to have 3 games in Tas, 5 in NZ for huge money, and 3 games in Melb - Pies, Essendon, and Carlton. All Friday night.

We would be cashed up big time, financially set.

A board could approve this without the members having a say.

On the other hand, another wild hypothetical - AFL wants to give Tas its own startup. Pulls North and Hawks out at same time. To make up for it, decides to merge those clubs. They like "Kangaroos" and hate brown and yellow so just decide to keep North the club. Same everything - colors, mascot, whatever. We get to pick from Hawks list and get whatever members want to come along. We have the best list, 50k+ members, 18 games at the MCG and rival Collingwood for most powerful club. The AFL and board can't agree to this without the members approving.

So the board can't get the best list, 50k members, 18 MCG games without the approval of the members if it involves another club. But they could sell all the home games in a contract with the AFL or interstate/international bodies.

Why would we want to give any board that unilateral power? Why would we trust the AFL admin and interstate/international politicians to decide what is best for the NMFC more than we would trust our own members?

It doesn't mean you can't relocate games if the money/situation is a suitable compromise. It just means you have to be accountable and open and go to the members with a proposal rather than do it thru the media and propaganda and hear-say and bullshit.

Jesus, look at what this article has done. And it tame as anything. Nothing even inflammatory in there. And yet some are reading it as some epic power struggle between former and current power brokers.

If it did come down to another relocation threat, do we really want to go thru all this again? This amendment is simple and will give power to the members to know what is being proposed and if they want to agree to it.

It probably should have been added to compliment the merger portion of the constitution when it was amended to give the club back to members and eliminate shareholder control.

As per my previous posts, I don't agree. Whilst many of your points are as hypothetical as the Loch Ness Monster playing full forward for us next year, I know where you are going and that's fair enough.

Power to the members is a fantastic ideal, but flawed considering where we are as at a club. We are just getting back on track, why mess with all the inroads into Ballarat and Hobart for a fear of relocation which doesnt actually exist? We need driven, intelligent, capable people making decisions on our long term future.

I trust those currently running our organisation to make the best decisions at all times for our Melb based, growing club.

 

[longlivenmfc]

Limerick, apologies if you've already answered this, but just to clarify:

1. were you/WANM behind today's article?
2. Is PDR actively involved in this current WANM campaign.

Thanks

 

[Uncle_Leo]

A few points

- When the original Tassie deal came up 7 games was being discussed and JB came out and said Melbourne fans will still get 11 games in Melbourne. Sorry not good enough. More than half the home games in relocation in my eyes and many others.
- This is the plan he still has his eyes set on
- He doesn't want this amendment to go through so he can't have more than 5 "home" games interstate.
- The members should be able to vote on these matters, if we are on our knees in 10 years time and the club gets an offer to move, we as members should be able to vote on this. If we vote no and the club folds then we simply have no one to blame but ourselves.
- It is a fair and reasonable amendment and if JB is so against relocation as he says he is then he should approve it.
- Co-location which the board seems to love the idea of should still be able to be voted on.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

- This is the plan he still has his eyes set on

Proof?

 

[Uncle_Leo]

Proof?

Look back at the articles and talk in early 2010

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Look back at the articles and talk in early 2010

I'm on it!

​

 

[Uncle_Leo]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...nda/story-e6frf3e3-1225952229687#.UTRglVccPrc

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/jb-wants-proper-tasmania-deal/

Sorry actually late 2010

 

[GeordieRoo]

This is real good.

Relocation talk back in the papers.

 

[Limerick]

Limerick, apologies if you've already answered this, but just to clarify:

1. were you/WANM behind today's article?
2. Is PDR actively involved in this current WANM campaign.

Thanks

1. No.

2. He obviously is of the same view as us and therefore supports our efforts. I hope many more will.