Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[Horace]

Firstly, I can honestly say that when I was sure we would survive as a club and then was sure we were being well run by good people, I stopped worrying about that part of the footy club. It adds an edge to a win or a loss, but right now, that's enough. I get stressed enough about footy results to add that the rest to the mix. I'm very pleased with the way the club is run and where it seems to be headed.

Secondly, whether 4 or 5 or 6 is "safe" depends on whether they are necessary to win flags and become a financial success. Not just make a profit or make the finals but dominate weekly and become a fierce entity who is the best run, the most revered. Whether we need to play 2 or more games in Tassie to do that, I really don't know. I think the default should always be Melbourne games as a priority. I think that everyone involved longs for the day that we can front up to Etihad 11 times a year as the home team and have North people hanging off the roof to get a view, but until that happens, it's probable that gathering some income and growing the supporter base in Tassie (and Ballarat) is a help rather than a hinderance to getting to a point where that is a possibility.

I wonder how the Tasmanian people feel about those two ideals going hand in hand. Rather nice approach that. Let's go and play a number of games in Tasmania until we believe we can stand on our own two feet, and then bingo, we'll just piss off back home, thanks for the cash and by the way keep on handing us the cash even though we're not going to play at your ground anymore.

Marvellous attitude that one.

My view is that if we are going to use Tasmanian money to help us be viable in the long term then we need to respect the Tasmanian people and give them a guaranteed number of games every year, forever. Whether that is 1, 2, 3, 4 or more games I am not sure, but the key thing in my mind is make their contribution valued, appreciated, guaranteed, but never a sufficient number of games for them to push for the club to be relocated permanently to Tasmania.

And I think that if we are ever playing 6 or more games a year in Tasmania, the Tasmanians will have every right to ask for the club to be relocated, because then more than half the home games will be played in Tasmania.

Hence the reason for this amendment, to ensure that the number of home games played in Victoria always exceeds the number of games played in one other interstate location.

On a separate note, I wonder how much longer the AFL will buy into deals where they give free entry to away games in Victoria to members of clubs who sell/transfer games interstate. Presently the AFL pays for that but do they? When will the likes of Eddie and his rich mates at the "big" clubs start complaining and pressuring for this practice to cease. I hate to mention Fitzroy again but no such luxury is afforded to Victorian based Brisbane Lions members. You too can get ripped off over there if you want to fork out $135 for 4 away games in Victoria this year.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Tasmania's economic viablity to host a full-time AFL team is neither here nor there when discussing whether playing X home games out of Victoria would dangerously destabilise our home base.

My comments were directed at a call that Tasmania will ultimately get their own team. Good for them if they do but unfortunately they do not appear to fit the AFL growth KPIs.

As for the X games destabilising, membership went up by about 10% after 2 games were sold and 2 games replacement games included.

Other than the initial jump after the GC was there any real year on year membership growth when all 11 home games were in Melbourne?

North have about 3,000 primary school kids running through the Huddle every year. North supporter at work says NMFC players have visited his kids school 3 times in the last year.

Not sure how many times the club counts myself as a Melbourne member but 4 Huddle memberships for community leaders to take new arrivals to the football is another longer term strategy.

Inspire gave 2 teenage girls scholarships last year who used the tutors at the Huddle.

Seems to me the board have plenty of strategies in place to grow membership/engage the community, including building a strong team.

 

[Z_K]

I wonder how the Tasmanian people feel about those two ideals going hand in hand. Rather nice approach that. Let's go and play a number of games in Tasmania until we believe we can stand on our own two feet, and then bingo, we'll just piss off back home, thanks for the cash and by the way keep on handing us the cash even though we're not going to play at your ground anymore.

Marvellous attitude that one.

Bring it down a few pegs, huh?

I think everyone with a stake in the issue is adult enough to understand that in a perfect world, these games would not be required. But they are. We play them and we seem to do well in every possible aspect that I'm aware of. I'm happy with the club to retain the ability to do whatever it can to win flags without being restricted and I reserve the right to kick out a board or chairman who in 15 years might do something that I feel risks the clubs identity or viability.

 

[kangalover]

Bring it down a few pegs, huh?

I think everyone with a stake in the issue is adult enough to understand that in a perfect world, these games would not be required. But they are. We play them and we seem to do well in every possible aspect that I'm aware of. I'm happy with the club to retain the ability to do whatever it can to win flags without being restricted and I reserve the right to kick out a board or chairman who in 15 years might do something that I feel risks the clubs identity or viability.

The club to date have kept a very tight rein on who they want at the helm and on the board and will continue to keep it a very closed shop, shunning others who even try to be elected. But if you are happy with giving up your democratic right to safeguard the club you love then do so at your own peril. However I fail to understand why any member would forego the chance to implement a safeguard amendment to the constitution?
What is their to lose by doing so? nothing, what is their to gain by forfeiting your right? perhaps plenty.

Therefore to protect matters one would think it logical to vote for the amendment thereby putting an end to this ongoing matter once and for all.

Instead the wheel will keep turning and churning up this relocation, extra game topic, over and over again.

Such a shame the lid cannot be closed so the club can keep moving forward.

 

[Horace]

Bring it down a few pegs, huh?

I think everyone with a stake in the issue is adult enough to understand that in a perfect world, these games would not be required. But they are. We play them and we seem to do well in every possible aspect that I'm aware of. I'm happy with the club to retain the ability to do whatever it can to win flags without being restricted and I reserve the right to kick out a board or chairman who in 15 years might do something that I feel risks the clubs identity or viability.

Far be it for me to offend you NorthBhoy when you are so rarely around here. But no I refuse to agree that I am bringing it down a few pegs.

I am reading your post from, I hope, the perspective of someone in Tasmania, who has joined as a member and might now be sitting back and reading this thread with some bemusement and probably disappointment.

If you re-read your post you might note that what I have highlighted is hardly very respectful of the Tasmanian people, who after all we are asking to help us out. If I lived in Tasmania and was one of those members reading this then I would feel pretty unhappy with the blatant disregard we are showing over here to the whole Tasmanian opportunity.

In my view the Tasmanian opportunity, for want of a better word, is our best chance of gradually stabilising our financial position. We should not be looking at this as a foray into a market, to extract what we can and then get out. We should see this as a long term enduring relationship.

One that hopefully happily and properly sustains both parties. Us in a financial sense and helps us to become forever entrenched as a Victorian based club, while for our very important and valued members and friends in Tasmania, provides them with an ongoing opportunity to see Australian Rules footy at the highest level and in the mighty Royal Blue and white.

So in my view I am certainly not taking it down a few pegs. i am trying to respect the Tasmanian part of this relationship with the NMFC.

 

[Z_K]

Fair enough.

To be honest, as I stated before, club politics aren't a concern of mine anymore and won't be until I worry about the direction the club is taking. I have no reason to do other than trust completely the people making these decisions. As a result, even large details of the Tasmanian arrangment escape me. We play there, lots of people turn up and it looks great on TV. That is essentially the sum total of what I know.
How they feel about the arrangement I wouldn't pretend to know.

 

[kangalover]

Fair enough.

To be honest, as I stated before, club politics aren't a concern of mine anymore and won't be until I worry about the direction the club is taking. I have no reason to do other than trust completely the people making these decisions. As a result, even large details of the Tasmanian arrangment escape me. We play there, lots of people turn up and it looks great on TV. That is essentially the sum total of what I know.
How they feel about the arrangement I wouldn't pretend to know.

Therefore why dismiss the chance to implement a change to the constitution, because by doing this you would not be changing anything other than ensuring that no future nmfc board can make a change to the number of games currently played in Tasmania.

We fought to give the club back to the members and now, sadly, many members do not feel the urge to exercise their right to vote.
Amazing isn't it, that when the members had no voting rights they wanted them, yet now we have that right and the ability to ensure that the club plays no more than 4 games in Tasmania, but many members are still leaving it to the board to do as they so wish- odd really! give someone the power to vote and it as if they are afraid they would be "naughty" if they voted against the current regime's wishes.

It is quite clear to me that if there was no underlying plan to play more games down the line somewhere, why on earth would the board not want to pass the motion for the change to the constitution?
In my opinion it is always better to be safe than sorry. Obviously though not the opinion of many.

 

[LT Smash]

I wonder how the Tasmanian people feel about those two ideals going hand in hand. Rather nice approach that. Let's go and play a number of games in Tasmania until we believe we can stand on our own two feet, and then bingo, we'll just piss off back home, thanks for the cash and by the way keep on handing us the cash even though we're not going to play at your ground anymore.

Marvellous attitude that one.

My view is that if we are going to use Tasmanian money to help us be viable in the long term then we need to respect the Tasmanian people and give them a guaranteed number of games every year, forever. Whether that is 1, 2, 3, 4 or more games I am not sure, but the key thing in my mind is make their contribution valued, appreciated, guaranteed, but never a sufficient number of games for them to push for the club to be relocated permanently to Tasmania.

And I think that if we are ever playing 6 or more games a year in Tasmania, the Tasmanians will have every right to ask for the club to be relocated, because then more than half the home games will be played in Tasmania.

Hence the reason for this amendment, to ensure that the number of home games played in Victoria always exceeds the number of games played in one other interstate location.

On a separate note, I wonder how much longer the AFL will buy into deals where they give free entry to away games in Victoria to members of clubs who sell/transfer games interstate. Presently the AFL pays for that but do they? When will the likes of Eddie and his rich mates at the "big" clubs start complaining and pressuring for this practice to cease. I hate to mention Fitzroy again but no such luxury is afforded to Victorian based Brisbane Lions members. You too can get ripped off over there if you want to fork out $135 for 4 away games in Victoria this year.

You are wrong on a couple of levels here. The access to away games is not paid for by the AFL, it is paid for by the away team. The money goes to the home team if you click over the turnstile with your membership. Otherwise, the away team keeps the membership money.

Regarding the Tasmanian money, we are being funded by Spirit of Tasmania, effectively a government tourism arm in order to bring tourist dollars into the Tasmanian economy. If the Tasmanian people ever get a team of their own, it will not be tourism money paying for it as there would be no return with locals being the only ones attending games. So there is no harm, no foul in happily accepting the government sponsorship, which we return in kind by travelling down there to watch the games. It's a fair trade. There is no assumption of an eventual relocation contained within that exchange. In fact, the Spirit of Tasmania would be best served by a long term arrangement of NMFC playing a few games in Tasmania rather than a relocation or a new start up team in Tasmania.

I am not arguing against the motion here but I do think errors and falsehoods need to be corrected.

 

[mark73]

The only thing that concerns me about the Tassie agreement is what is going to happen when they come to the realisation that we're not planning on going down there full time? Are they happy with the current agreement? I'm sure at the moment it's ok because any AFL game is better than none but what happens if they want more? We also have a commitment with Ballarat and we can't just ignore them. This is where Carl needs to be very good at his job.

 

[LT Smash]

Therefore why dismiss the chance to implement a change to the constitution, because by doing this you would not be changing anything other than ensuring that no future nmfc board can make a change to the number of games currently played in Tasmania.

We fought to give the club back to the members and now, sadly, many members do not feel the urge to exercise their right to vote.
Amazing isn't it, that when the members had no voting rights they wanted them, yet now we have that right and the ability to ensure that the club plays no more than 4 games in Tasmania, but many members are still leaving it to the board to do as they so wish- odd really! give someone the power to vote and it as if they are afraid they would be "naughty" if they voted against the current regime's wishes.

It is quite clear to me that if there was no underlying plan to play more games down the line somewhere, why on earth would the board not want to pass the motion for the change to the constitution?
In my opinion it is always better to be safe than sorry. Obviously though not the opinion of many.

I think you're being a bit defeatist here, conceding the motion is going to fail before the vote. If it is defeated, perhaps it's less to do with members rejecting their own democratic right and more to do with them actually exercising that right. Maybe the majority is happy with extending the arrangement in Tasmania. I wouldn't be happy about that but we are a democratic club, are we not?

 

[LT Smash]

The only thing that concerns me about the Tassie agreement is what is going to happen when they come to the realisation that we're not planning on going down there full time? Are they happy with the current agreement? I'm sure at the moment it's ok because any AFL game is better than none but what happens if they want more? We also have a commitment with Ballarat and we can't just ignore them. This is where Carl needs to be very good at his job.

Do you think they are hanging out for Hawthorn to relocate to Launceston?

 

[Passmore]

I would expect the people of Hobart to know, as most likely do the people of Launceston, the reasons we are playing games there. We are not there on some goodwill mission. We are there to tap into a secondary market to help financially stabilise us a a Melbourne entity.

As long as we are putting back into football there, which we appear to be, then I can't see that there would be an issue.

 

[mark73]

Do you think they are hanging out for Hawthorn to relocate to Launceston?

No, Hawthorn will never relocate anywhere.

 

[kangalover]

I think you're being a bit defeatist here, conceding the motion is going to fail before the vote. If it is defeated, perhaps it's less to do with members rejecting their own democratic right and more to do with them actually exercising that right. Maybe the majority is happy with extending the arrangement in Tasmania. I wouldn't be happy about that but we are a democratic club, are we not?

In my opinion the majority of members most likely put their trust in whatever the board feels fit to do, many members may not even be aware of any alternative, many not even aware of the motion, merely continuing to put their trust in the incumbent board as they see them as saviours of the club.

I am sure the majority of members are happy with the current 4 game arrangement in tassie, as am I, but 4 games is enough and it would be good if that 4 game limit could be capped, which could happen if members voted for the change.

I think you could be casting the net too wide if you think that most members are aware of the reason for wanting the amendment.
I have not got a defeatist attitude I am merely trying to express my opinion without making disparaging remarks about those who do not see fit to safeguard the club from playing more than 4 games in tasmania when they have the right to do so.
Defeatist, no, realist, yes. Hopefully I am wrong and we can get 75% to vote for the change.

 

[Horace]

You are wrong on a couple of levels here. The access to away games is not paid for by the AFL, it is paid for by the away team. The money goes to the home team if you click over the turnstile with your membership. Otherwise, the away team keeps the membership money.

Regarding the Tasmanian money, we are being funded by Spirit of Tasmania, effectively a government tourism arm in order to bring tourist dollars into the Tasmanian economy. If the Tasmanian people ever get a team of their own, it will not be tourism money paying for it as there would be no return with locals being the only ones attending games. So there is no harm, no foul in happily accepting the government sponsorship, which we return in kind by travelling down there to watch the games. It's a fair trade. There is no assumption of an eventual relocation contained within that exchange. In fact, the Spirit of Tasmania would be best served by a long term arrangement of NMFC playing a few games in Tasmania rather than a relocation or a new start up team in Tasmania.

I am not arguing against the motion here but I do think errors and falsehoods need to be corrected.

It would seem to me that is tantamount to Tasmanians largely paying, given that the government raises taxes in Tasmania from the Tasmanian public. Yes the initiative is one designed to bring tourism dollars into the Tasmanian econmony, which can only be good for Tasmania, nevertheless I think they are entitled to feel a little upset if we treat them with anything other than respect.

(And isn't it a little incongrous that largely it is NMFC supporters who will be a part of that tourism to Tasmania as a result of this initiative. We are enticed over there by football games our club is playing in, to spend our money in Tasmania. Not that I am suggesting people shouldn't go; Tasmania is a great place to go to for a holiday; but aren't we in part just getting back some of our own money?).

It is also not completely accurate to say that there would be no return from tourism if Tasmania ever has its own team. In fact there may be a greater return as arguably there would be supporters from 11 different clubs tempted to go there to watch one game a year rather than supporters from one team trying to afford to get over there to see a number of games each year.

But the Tasmanian people I was specifically refering to are those people who have signed up and paid for memberships in the NMFC. Surely they are entitled to feel a little miffed by any suggestion that we are there for the short term and then when we are financially stable we are out.

 

[Uncle_Leo]

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.

So in 5 years time the new board decide to pack us off to Gold Coast and the members have no say in what happens.. ringing any bells?

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

This is what you don't get, nobody hear whats the club to go broke. I fully support up to 4 home games year in Tasmania. Beyond that I can't support it without more information.

If we had to move more games there to survive then so be it, but let the members vote on this. If they vote against it and the club folds, who else can they blame?

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.

If we only had 4 home games in Melbourne you don't think the membership would fall.


By the way your block button mustn't be working

 

[mark73]

I would expect the people of Hobart to know, as most likely do the people of Launceston, the reasons we are playing games there. We are not there on some goodwill mission. We are there to tap into a secondary market to help financially stabilise us a a Melbourne entity.

As long as we are putting back into football there, which we appear to be, then I can't see that there would be an issue.

I hope you're right. Everything you say is true, I just hope that's how they see it.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

I hope you're right. Everything you say is true, I just hope that's how they see it.

According to the article Funky Carl was quoted on 13/2, a Tourism Tasmania study indicated $2.5M was generated for the local economy from our 2 games.

Given its is funded by tourism, they could always kick North out but my view is North are genuine in attempting to grow a 2nd market.

 

[Zondor]

Alright Turkeys. It is like this.

I wouldn't know a Wham member if it appeared in a Glory Hole in front of me. :stern look

And I couldn't care less if these "Old Fart" types are using this topic to undermine the current board.

The amendment is a step in the right direction. Regardless of if WANM came up with the idea. If PDR, RJ and Ansett support the idea. Even if these "Old Fart" types are having their say in the media. Big Deal. Once this vote is over with we will all move on. At least for this year. :stern look

Having said that let me say this. I'm voting for the amendment because I believe in the amendment. Because it is a safeguard. Because it gives me a right to vote on the issue of playing more than 4 home games outside of Victoria. Couldn't care less who came up with the idea. Don't care if "Old Farts" are using the idea for political point scoring.

By and large James Brayshaw and his board have done a good job.

But place blind faith in this Turkey?

I think not.

 

[Woodson]

The most important decision was returning the North Melbourne name back to the members/ club. I'm not going to propel any further innuendo into this debate but from what I've been told personally.. but I'm not surprised that the club is extending it's stronghold in Hobart.

 

[Grogg]

Brayshaw: ‘We’re on the march’

After five years at the helm and no challenges to his Board at the upcoming Annual General Meeting, James Brayshaw can safely claim he has the support of Kangaroos’ fans.

“The overwhelming majority of North Melbourne members and supporters couldn’t be happier,” Brayshaw told Bill Brownless on Triple M’s Rush Hour program on Tuesday.

“…I think in a lot of ways, and we’re obviously biased so we see things from the North way, but the club’s been one of the great news stories of the off-season. Brad Scott just re-signed, the biggest names at the club Ziebell, Wellsy have all re-signed, debt is down, record membership, revenue is up over 30 million, so we’re on the march and everyone in footy knows it.”

Addressing a proposal to make a change to the club’s Constitution, Brayshaw was again forced to voice his concerns.

“This particular motion, which has brought all this negativity out, I am on public record as saying I don’t agree with it. This is the signatures have been handed to the club and the motion that no more than four games should ever be allowed to be played outside of Melbourne (Victoria) without an EGM.

“The reason I don’t agree with it Bill, is that I think the wording is very restrictive for future administrations because you’ve got to be able to run the business and you’ve got to be able to grow the business and you can’t do that if you have things like this in your Constitution stopping you when opportunities arise.”

Brayshaw pointed to the incredible work that’s been done since late 2007, adding North is here to stay.

“We’re not going anywhere. The footy club is committed to being a Melbourne-based club. (We’ve spent) $2 million on the ground, $15 million on the facility so the club’s not going anywhere but we must keep growing.”

However he pointed out he’s more than happy to accept the members opinion, come March 19.

“We’ve got an AGM later this month…they will vote. If they get the majority and the motion gets in, it gets in. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.”
The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2013-03-05/brayshaw-were-on-the-march

 

[Shinboner Schem]

...
It is quite clear to me that if there was no underlying plan to play more games down the line somewhere, why on earth would the board not want to pass the motion for the change to the constitution?
...

This question needs to be repeated.

The fact that Ron Joseph or any other past administrators put their support behind the motion should be completely irrelevant.


And Hard_to_Beat don't give me any rubbish about holding the club for ransom or putting our trust in the board. Does that mean you don't think the Australian Government should have the power to do absolutely anything without a referendum?

 

[kangalover]

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2013-03-05/brayshaw-were-on-the-march

" Restricting for future adminstrations" spot on with that comment JB, this is precisely what the amendment is intended for.
Therefore you should endorse it so as to end ongoing speculation about the possibility of playing more games in the future.
Strange you do not want to support the motion, what would the reason for that be?
This motion has not brought out negativity, the negativity comes from your refusal to restrict any future admins from playing more games in tassie, do not put the blame on others for wanting to put an end to this ongoing speculation, when you can end it once and for all by endorsing the motion.

One would think that if you were committed to playing only 4 games during your tenure that one would ensure this was put in stone so as to prevent future admins from playing more, yes "restricting future administrations" is what this is all about.

 

[Saintly31]

Considering all the discussion centres around hypotheticals, Limerick, Horace, Kangalover etc please answer this hypothetical for me. I'll try and put my view a different way.

At the end of the current agreement with Hobart, its agreed that a 5 game deal in Tas (whether just in Hobart, split Nth/Sth, whatever as who knows what the Hawks do in future) is the way forward. The board think it is appropriate and in the best interests of the club, its a financial windfall looking at the figures, AFL back it with replacement games for Melb fans, etc etc. Happy days one would suspect.

Yet when it goes to vote, especially as you need 75% agreeance let alone 50% and a huge majority live in Melb, knock it back (most likely because too many games outside Melb, for those simple minded types who will have a whinge and moan that they cant see as much of NM as they used to). Tas/Hobart then immediately offer the same deal to WB and Melb instead considering the infrastructure is ready to go, contract stays as first planned, the AFL are happy, Tas still gets AFL footy without any notion of relocation, and it's snapped up - and i'm sure it would be, especially by the Dogs.

At that time we don't have Ballarat ready to go as a replacement, AFL go out of their way to make life even more difficult for us considering our refusal to do what we promised and to grow as a club, and we're basically screwed financially.

I appreciate its very (very) much only a hypothetical, but also is the rationaile to why the proposal needs to be implemented "for safety reasons" because "who knows the current or future board will do".

Is this the kind of result you would be happy with by implementing the proposal? Would you have any regrets if such a situation played out that way even if it was very detrimental to the future and long term health of the NMFC?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2013-03-05/brayshaw-were-on-the-march

The president has spoken!

If you can't trust this bloke then you can't trust anyone, and all the amendments on that planet aren't worth a pinch of shit.

Trust him.