Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[Horace]

So you have no issue with the club moving 64% of our home games to Tasmania? JB tried this already, had not the Tasmanian government made a fool of our club we would be in that shit hole now. Do you really think we would prosper and grow here in Melbourne having 4 home games in Melbourne? What would be the long-term damage done by playing so few games here? Don't look at Hawthorn, when we were selling games to Sydney and Canberra they were hitting the eastern suburbs and a large part of their growth has been that local development. We don't have that development to fall back on.

I think if we continue to sell more games I fear we will become vulnerable. It doesn't mean we will relocate but I think the risk is elevated. AFL has been herding us to Tasmania and while they haven't posed a threat to us since GC I don't trust them and don't trust people who put the faith in spreadsheets and power point presentations. It is the lack of commitment which has cost us significantly in Melbourne, the damage will take a long time to fix and selling games isn't the path that will fix the damage.

I like JB and support him to the hilt, but he can't ask us to have blind faith, he has given me cause for concern with the options he has given the AFL with GC and Tasmania. If he doesn't respect our desire to put in place safeguards then it gives me very serious cause for concern. He opposes this because it puts limitations on future administrations? What the ****?

I think that this as a major aspect of this issue. If ever the balance swings to more "home" games played in an interstate location, my view is that many of the Victorian based supporters, who are hard to sign up each year, will start to drop off. It becomes increasingly difficult for supporters to continue to buy a membership when there are fewer options available. The more games played interstate, the less appeal in a membership, which will predominantly give access to an away game here in Victoria. (Part of the appeal in attending our home games at Etihad in our established seating areas is when the "North Melbourne, North Melbourne" chant goes up when we start to get on a roll. For me that chant is spine tingling.)

While it is not a direct comparison, it is worth looking at the truly shocking deal that Brisbane Lions members get here in Melbourne. This year the club plays 6- Correction - 5 games in Victoria - I misread the game against Melbourne as in Melbourne when it is in Darwin. So that is five games in Victoria. Four in Melbourne and one in Geelong.

A traditional membership costs $135 for 4 away games in Melbourne (why not 6???) and 5 home games at the Gabba. What sort of a s*** package as that?

Now as I said this is not a direct comparison but it is worth quoting for one reason only. This is a far cry from what was promised to old Fitzroy supporters back in 1997.

And this is relevant to what might happen if we increase the number of home games played interstate. I would suggest that if we ever get to the stage where the club is playing more home games interstate than in Victoria, that interstate "de-facto club" will beging to flex its muscle and clamour for all sorts of changes, such as to name, home base, etc. There will be calls for the players to be relocated to that state, because training at the venue where most home games are played is more likely to provide a competitive advantage. And could you blame those who are providing the cash and the facilities in that interstate venue from wanting to have a greater "ownership"?

 

[Uncle_Leo]

I think people are missing the point.

If there is no hidden agenda to have more than 5 "home" games interstate then why not this amendment be made? What reason is there not to have it in there?

Once we cross the line of more than half our home games being interstate, we are now a club based in another state.

Should we end up with only 4 home games in Melbourne membership numbers will plummet.

 

[Event Horizon]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is NOT the relocation threat, but rather the impact on the image of the club if we ever did play more than 4 home games interstate.

People who say they could live with 11 games in Melbourne (4 of them home games) are kidding themselves or simply being naive. Firstly, AFL would never guarantee the 11 Melbourne games in this arrangement. Just ask Ex Fitzroy people how many Melbourne games they were originally promised.

Secondly, while such an arrangement would be in place we would become absolutely irrelevant in our home state. No new supporter would look at us as an option. We have done enough damage to our brand during the nomadic years of Syd/Canberra/GC. It's taking us a while to undo that damage. We may have lost a whole generation of supporters or potential supporters over it.

4 games is an absolute max we can afford to sell. Hawthorn doing it helps us by keeping the press at bay, but enhancing out image as a boutique Melbourne club is vital to our long term survival. Even if the board of the day who wanted 5 games didn't have relocation in mind, enough damage would be done to leave us extremely vulnerable.

 

[OMAN]

could we just have one season where we didnt talk about relocation and just enjoy the footy.

 

[Kimbo]

No, requested for some exposure for our position but didn't get an answer.

If the website is only a mouthpiece for the incumbent Board, this is similar to the voting schamozzle last time. Smells.

 

[Kimbo]

North Melbourne icon rebukes Kangaroo board, Hun article here.

NORTH Melbourne icon Bob Ansett says the club's members deserve a "substantial say" in the number of home games it plays interstate.
Ansett, a former club chairman and major shareholder, yesterday added his name to a supporters' group seeking a change to the club's constitution.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

If there is no hidden agenda to have more than 5 "home" games interstate then why not this amendment be made? What reason is there not to have it in there?

There doesn't need to be a "hidden agenda" for the board to wish to maintain the flexibility it requires to run the club without having to appease a hand full of hysterics that will join forces with the tabloid press to trash the club.

These people would prefer the club to go broke, rather than optimize it's revenue and secure its future.

Once we cross the line of more than half our home games being interstate, we are now a club based in another state.

Should we end up with only 4 home games in Melbourne membership numbers will plummet.

If you would bail on the club over an extra game to raise revenue then your not much of a supporter in the first place.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

North Melbourne icon rebukes Kangaroo board, Hun article here.

NORTH Melbourne icon Bob Ansett says the club's members deserve a "substantial say" in the number of home games it plays interstate.
Ansett, a former club chairman and major shareholder, yesterday added his name to a supporters' group seeking a change to the club's constitution.

Ah, interesting. And harder to dismiss, I'd have thought.

Yes, it would be better if the relocation issue wasn't in the paper. But imagine how great the press would have been if the current board had said, "Great idea and it's time" instead if opposing the motion? They could have even come up with their own wording and kept the intent, and I'm sure WANM would have been happy to let them run it. It would have been like handing the club back to the members - totally positive and a feather in the cap of JB and the board, as one more tick fulfilling the promises of 2007.

 

[Limerick]

These people would prefer the club to go broke, rather than optimize it's revenue and secure its future.

I'm assuming that by "These people" you are referring to WANM. Be assured that we do not want to see the Club "go broke" as we have drafted the motion to allow the relocation of up to 4 home games. This should add around $2m per year revenue. If we can't be financially successful with that then we are in trouble.

What future are you seeking to secure - being truely Melbourne based?

 

[robaba]

I'm assuming that by "These people" you are referring to WANM. Be assured that we do not want to see the Club "go broke" as we have drafted the motion to allow the relocation of up to 4 home games. This should add around $2m per year revenue. If we can't be financially successful with that then we are in trouble.

What future are you seeking to secure - being truely Melbourne based?

I second this. If the club plays more then 4 home games interstate, I hop off and many more like me. The club then becomes a relocated franchise, not my NMFC.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I'm assuming that by "These people" you are referring to WANM. Be assured that we do not want to see the Club "go broke" as we have drafted the motion to allow the relocation of up to 4 home games. This should add around $2m per year revenue. If we can't be financially successful with that then we are in trouble.

You are not the member elected board of the NMFC that gets to decide such issues. We already have a board and we don't need some psuedo board that wasn't good enough to win the election, so it positions itself via an agenda of fear driven tabloid manipulation, supported by a devious piece of misleading statutory construction.

You are dangerous.

What future are you seeking to secure - being truely Melbourne based?

We sell 2 games now and we are a Melbourne based.

What actual evidence do you that there is some tipping point in regards to sold home games? I have seen none. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

 

[Husk]

Agree. If we can have Hobart, 2-4 games pa, until 2025 we should be in a reasonable position.

If understand the figures correctly, the only reason we turned a "profit" this year was due to the debt reduction.

2 games in Tassie wont cut it.

 

[ozzyoslo]

Afl are happy that the Hawks are playing 4 games in Launceston, its only natural that Hobart gets 4 a year as well. Whether thats NMFC or not, I'm sure there be a side that'll take that option.

 

[Limerick]

You are not the member elected board of the NMFC that gets to decide such issues. We already have a board and we don't need some psuedo board that wasn't good enough to win the election, so it positions itself via an agenda of fear driven tabloid manipulation, supported by a devious piece of misleading statutory construction. You are dangerous.

We sell 2 games now and we are a Melbourne based. What actual evidence do you that there is some tipping point in regards to sold home games? I have seen none. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

We are not attempting to be a psuedo Board but merely putting a proposal to the members to consider and vote on.

We reject the notion that we have an "agenda of fear driven tabloid manipulation, supported by a devious piece of misleading statutory construction".

There is a tipping point, in regards to sold home games, beyond which the Club becomes significantly vulnerable. The actual point can be debated. A number of members have stated that 4 is too high.

"You are dangerous." You give us far too much credit.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

There is a tipping point, in regards to sold home games, beyond which the Club becomes significantly vulnerable. The actual point can be debated. A number of members have stated that 4 is too high.

Where? Where is the data? Show me anything that isn't based upon a Caroline Wilson/Patrick Smith piece of tabloid rubbish? Have you done any actual research that would support your entire premise?

 

[LT Smash]

Perhaps, given the tone of the conversation over the last couple of posts, it is time that WANM revealed exactly who and what they are. By that, I mean, what is the structure of WANM, does it have a legal identity, is it an incorporated association, who are the members, what is required to become a member, etc. I don't mean this as a criticism, rather, it would be good to know who is speaking for WANM in the media and on this thread as a member of the organisation and who is simply weighing in with an independent opinion. It just seems to me that now would be a good time for such disclosure.

 

[Horace]

Perhaps, given the tone of the conversation over the last couple of posts, it is time that WANM revealed exactly who and what they are. By that, I mean, what is the structure of WANM, does it have a legal identity, is it an incorporated association, who are the members, what is required to become a member, etc. I don't mean this as a criticism, rather, it would be good to know who is speaking for WANM in the media and on this thread as a member of the organisation and who is simply weighing in with an independent opinion. It just seems to me that now would be a good time for such disclosure.

Perhaps it would also be helpful if we had some sort of input from a Roosistence spokesperson on this proposed amendment.

Roosistence played a very significant part in staving off relocation (death) to the GC in 2007.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Perhaps it would also be helpful if we had some sort of input from a Roosistence spokesperson on this proposed amendment.

Roosistence played a very significant part in staving off relocation (death) to the GC in 2007.

Did "Roosistence" construct and table this amendment?

If not, then I don't see the point in more factionalism joining the fray. Factions don't get to vote, members do.

 

[LT Smash]

Perhaps it would also be helpful if we had some sort of input from a Roosistence spokesperson on this proposed amendment.

Roosistence played a very significant part in staving off relocation (death) to the GC in 2007.

Roosistence doesn't exist. It never really did in any organised form, it was more of a spirit, or so to speak. There was a loose collective of ratbags who called themselves the Roosistence as they conducted various guerilla tactics at the height of the Gold Coast saga, as well as assisting Tim Rogers where required in the staging of his landmark concert event. However, upon certain resolutions being achieved by the board, what is known as Roosistence agreed to cease all activities at the end of 2007. If I, or anyone else was to make any statement on behalf of Roosistence, it would be seriously disingenuous, given that such a statement wouldn't be representative of the views of the major contributors to that movement.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Where? Where is the data? Show me anything that isn't based upon a Caroline Wilson/Patrick Smith piece of tabloid rubbish? Have you done any actual research that would support your entire premise?

No research at all Limerick?

 

[Bigeasy]

Because they think the WANM request is reasonable and some reporter called them up? Nobody had a crack at JB in the article, they just said the proposal was reasonable or in Euge's case that more than four games is on the path to relocation, something a number of us fear.

Reassuring words of shutup and buy a membership don't make me sleep easier at night, especially coming from the guy that has offered co-location and to sell 7 games since committing to stay in Melbourne.

JB' stance on this compared to the other clowns' stance is incomparable. How long did it take to make Aegis Park a state of the art facility after the lack of results from previous administrations?

Everything JB has done suggests Aegis is our home and will be our home for many many years. We have had many years of unaccountable administration who thought the only way for us to survive was to either partly or fully relocate hike JB has gone in record saying we are here to stay and has backed it up with actions.

Why are we still sceptical about him?

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

JB' stance on this compared to the other clowns' stance is incomparable. How long did it take to make Aegis Park a state of the art facility after the lack of results from previous administrations?

Everything JB has done suggests Aegis is our home and will be our home for many many years. We have had many years of unaccountable administration who thought the only way for us to survive was to either partly or fully relocate hike JB has gone in record saying we are here to stay and has backed it up with actions.

Why are we still sceptical about him?

The 7 game proposal in Tasmania that was knocked back before anyone outside the board knew about it.

Very hard to trust someone after that.

 

[Saintly31]

This is probably a matter of perspective. You talk about selling games whereas I would talk about developing new markets. We are not going to build membership numbers significantly by converting supporters of other clubs in Melbourne. It seems to me that a major part of our strategy in recent years has been to develop new markets: Hobart, Ballarat and the Huddle

Smartest thing ive read in this thread.

The 'selling' games notion some posters are pushing completely misses the point.

 

[longlivenmfc]

No research at all Limerick?

I think Buddha just rubbed his belly and came up with 4.

 

[MaddAdam]

Agree, getting bitter old f****** to promote an agenda is full of fail. I agree with the proposal but won't vote for it.

Do these cranky old people still barrack for the club? Have not heard a public utterance from one of them saying they are thrilled and excited by what lies ahead for us.

Just like politicians and others with power, they are using a genuine issue to promote themselves. The powerful couldn't give a f*** about us or our club, just the prestige and power they can gain.

If anything we need a Board position for a non qualified 9-5 supporter who can call an arse clown an arse clown without fearing the trough being pulled from under their snout.

This post.