Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[Shagga is all Class]

[SIZE=3
[SIZE=3]Your question LT Smash is one that might well be classed as a “leading” question or, if we were in parliament, a “Dorothy Dixer”. I wonder if maybe you are a little closer to some of the people on the board, but then again maybe I’m just a suspicious person. I hope that the question is just one out of idle curiosity rather than maybe pointing to something else that maybe many of us do not know yet. [/SIZE]

By leading I assume you mean a deal for selling games is voted down and possibly an existing one scrapped only to go belly up the following year.

In which case the AFL will do whatever it wants with NMFC.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

You're going a bit tinfoil hat on us with that last comment. Honestly guys, I like the idea of the proposal and what you are hoping to achieve, but the faux naif argument over why the board does not support you is starting to wear thin. You are too intelligent to get away with pretending you don't understand the board's position.

That's nowhere near as ludicrous as some of the other hypotheticals on here (e.g. an offer of $2m to play a single game in NZ when we're already playing 4 in tassie).

What's am i pretending not to understand?
I understand perfectly: they don't want this restriction on future boards. The current board has guaranteed we will not relocate, but there is no guarantee of this from future boards. Nor is there anything preventing a co-location scenario (i.e. more than half interstate).

If you can explain why it is too restrictive, then i'd love to hear it.

 

[Limerick]

By leading I assume you mean a deal for selling games is voted down and possibly an existing one scrapped only to go belly up the following year. In which case the AFL will do whatever it wants with NMFC.

If we need to sell a 5th or 6th home game interstate simply to starve off insolvency the following year wouldn't that indicate that playing 4 home games interstate was a total disaster?

 

[Shagga is all Class]

If we need to sell a 5th or 6th home game interstate simply to starve off insolvency the following year wouldn't that indicate that playing 4 home games interstate was a total disaster?

Hawthorn came close to losing the $3.6M a year deal plus the 9,000 members in one hit. Some knees in the preseason and you are up to $5M. What a year or 2 max for us?

Once you announce to the world a 4 game limit the obvious counter is to play sudden death with us if another party wants to play hardball.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

If we need to sell a 5th or 6th home game interstate simply to starve off insolvency the following year wouldn't that indicate that playing 4 home games interstate was a total disaster?

No, it would indicate that we wanted to shelve another 1-2 games that lose money or make nothing in Melbourne, for another big cheque.

 

[Limerick]

No, it would indicate that we wanted to shelve another 1-2 games that lose money or make nothing in Melbourne, for another big cheque.

You haven't answered the question. The scenario you outlined was that we needed to exceed 4 games to prevent going belly up the following year. In that situation the members would most likely agree to the increase but more importantly hpw would we get to this situation when getting $2m+ from the 4 games already being played?

 

[Limerick]

No, it would indicate that we wanted to shelve another 1-2 games that lose money or make nothing in Melbourne, for another big cheque.

So we would be in a situation where we couldn't make money on 6 of our 11 home games. What happened to the Board making us secure in Melbourne?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

So we would be in a situation where we couldn't make money on 6 of our 11 home games. What happened to the Board making us secure in Melbourne?

We are secure in Melbourne.

Could you do a better job?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You haven't answered the question. The scenario you outlined was that we needed to exceed 4 games to prevent going belly up the following year. In that situation the members would most likely agree to the increase but more importantly hpw would we get to this situation when getting $2m+ from the 4 games already being played?

Answered what question?

The majority of your premise is based on ridiculous comparisons and tea leaf readings.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

You haven't answered the question. The scenario you outlined was that we needed to exceed 4 games to prevent going belly up the following year. In that situation the members would most likely agree to the increase but more importantly hpw would we get to this situation when getting $2m+ from the 4 games already being played?

Well gee we were at zero games and tried to cut Hawthorn's grass and as I said they would have been left with a 4-5 M hole per year.

 

[LT Smash]

Your question LT Smash is one that might well be classed as a “leading” question or, if we were in parliament, a “Dorothy Dixer”. I wonder if maybe you are a little closer to some of the people on the board, but then again maybe I’m just a suspicious person. I hope that the question is just one out of idle curiosity rather than maybe pointing to something else that maybe many of us do not know yet.

I assure you I have not consulted anyone at the club on this issue. My questions was, as you say, purely speculative, idle and just a little curious. However, as I serve on a couple of boards and the committee of an amateur sports association, and having managed a company through a financial crisis, I certainly feel a certain empathy for board members who are criminally liable in the event that they knowingly allow the club/company to trade while insolvent. And in the case of an AFL club like ours, technical insolvency can be as close as one late or withheld AFL distribution payment at just the wrong time.

 

[Mr Reliable]

I normally feel pride that any person has put the jumper on and gone out to battle representing the club, he is one of the very few exceptions.

I admired him as a player. Very courageous and always gave his all. My dislike and distrust of him arose well after he finished playing.

By the way, I was in the members on the day he got dragged to the bench between two trainers after Lethal Leigh's shirtfront. It was a sickening blow.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I assure you I have not consulted anyone at the club on this issue. My questions was, as you say, purely speculative, idle and just a little curious. However, as I serve on a couple of boards and the committee of an amateur sports association, and having managed a company through a financial crisis, I certainly feel a certain empathy for board members who are criminally liable in the event that they knowingly allow the club/company to trade while insolvent. And in the case of an AFL club like ours, technical insolvency can be as close as one late or withheld AFL distribution payment at just the wrong time.

EXCELLENT points.

 

[Horace]

I assure you I have not consulted anyone at the club on this issue. My questions was, as you say, purely speculative, idle and just a little curious. However, as I serve on a couple of boards and the committee of an amateur sports association, and having managed a company through a financial crisis, I certainly feel a certain empathy for board members who are criminally liable in the event that they knowingly allow the club/company to trade while insolvent. And in the case of an AFL club like ours, technical insolvency can be as close as one late or withheld AFL distribution payment at just the wrong time.

Thanks for clearing that up LT Smash. And how convenient technical insolvency triggered in that manner might be for an organisation like the AFL, with an agenda that might be difficult/impossible to achieve otherwise.

There is no doubt that in 1996, when the AFL wanted to achieve an outcome for Brisbane; an outcome that it might never have achieved otherwise; it was very convenient that Fitzroy went into administration. And although it probably has never been suggested elsewhere, the fact that it left another Melbourne based club in the case of the NMFC, vulnerable to merger or relocation interstate, I am sure satisfied the perverse objectives of some at the AFL at that time.

Without wanting to trigger a debate about the merits of a possible North Fitzroy merger in 1996, I suspect that such a merged club would be very secure here in Melbourne today. I think it is doubtful that we would have had to go through all of the various ventures from 1999 onwards trying to achieve financial stablity through selling games interstate. Instead along with a couple of other clubs, we remain in the AFL's sights as a potential relocation candidate.

 

[rooboy75]

Well the AGM sure is going to be a belter. I am still undecided on which way to vote, however I do applaud WANM for their work to raise a key issue. I just hope that posters like Limerick continue to work for the club they clearly love despite some of the keyboard warriors on here taking cheap shots.

I think the proposal does have merit in it's intent, however I do also worry about the wording and the 75% making it too restrictive. The ideal scenario is that JB puts up something similar as an option, however can't see that happening after the co location drama with Tas a couple of years ago. Someone earlier posted that the AFl might not be happy if the board supported it and they probably have a point. That possibility alone makes me lean towards supporting it.

question for hard to beat, were you at Dallas Brooke's hall the day JB was appointed Chairman?

 

[Tas]

Well the AGM sure is going to be a belter. I am still undecided on which way to vote, however I do applaud WANM for their work to raise a key issue. I just hope that posters like Limerick continue to work for the club they clearly love despite some of the keyboard warriors on here taking cheap shots.

I think the proposal does have merit in it's intent, however I do also worry about the wording and the 75% making it too restrictive. The ideal scenario is that JB puts up something similar as an option, however can't see that happening after the co location drama with Tas a couple of years ago. Someone earlier posted that the AFl might not be happy if the board supported it and they probably have a point. That possibility alone makes me lean towards supporting it.

question for hard to beat, were you at Dallas Brooke's hall the day JB was appointed Chairman?

Of course the AFL wont like it, Dictators don't like power in the hands of the people. Even if the proposal goes through, it doesn't mean a good proposal will be rejected, but it means members have to support losing a massive chunk of their home games.

When I read about us offering co-location or the selling of 7 home games I wasn't really happy. If it happens again I might be tempted to just move on from football to some other pass-time because actions speak louder than words and we have heard enough bullshit to last us a lifetime. I am concerned by the actions, not the words.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

There is no doubt that in 1996, when the AFL wanted to achieve an outcome for Brisbane; an outcome that it might never have achieved otherwise; it was very convenient that Fitzroy went into administration. And although it probably has never been suggested elsewhere, the fact that it left another Melbourne based club in the case of the NMFC, vulnerable to merger or relocation interstate, I am sure satisfied the perverse objectives of some at the AFL at that time.
.

"Seduced by North,
R***d by Brisbane,
F****d by the AFL"

I feel your pain.

 

[Horace]

"Seduced by North,
R***d by Brisbane,
F***** by the AFL"

I feel your pain.

The famous words from the cheer squad banner at out last game at Victoria Park. Quite an appropriate spot to hoist it too. Got a magnificent response from the crowd and didn't the f******* at the AFL hate it.

 

[Horace]

Here it is.

 

[Horace]

And who says the AFL doesn't care?

This thread worth a read. Have a look at post 26. How to make sure you comply with an agrement.

We too could be so lucky.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/merger-agreement-broken-again.979512/

 

[Shagga is all Class]

View attachment 12918 View attachment 12918 Here it is.

100% true.

Could have easily been North. Circa 1993 a month before the season started we had no coach, no captain, no sponsor were ordinary the year before and the year before that Carlton tried a hostile taken over. 8,653 turned up to the MCG for Rd 1.

Remember going with mates to Fitzroy games at PP and also standing on the gravel at the WO with ordinary crowds.

Reminds me of the tv show "The Walking Dead." My father in law thinks it is about killing zombies. It is about survivial and wavering priniciples and moral compass until of course you reach the end and you know you are f*****d.

 

[Zondor]

What if this vote gets up, the current admin get a 4 game deal on the map, Ponting speaks to Tenulkar and there is a chance to have a one of $5 Million dollar offer to play a game at Roland Garros New Dehli? The poor old board will be hamstrung. They couldn't do the deal. Baby Jesus will cry. Why can't simply place Blind Faith in this guy.

I don't get it. He saved the club. White Knights on their steeds came prancing and a dancing onto Hardon St to give $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to our Football Club. That Euge guy, he did nothing. Bloody Collingwood Halfwit. Couldn't organise a root at Tender Touch. And as for Ansett and PDR, their shares meant nothing. It didn't matter what they thought about keeping the club in NMFC hands. Their voices were minor. Fricken Old Farts just die. And as for RJ. South Melbourne Flog. Planted by the AFL to **** us over. Turd.

P.S. Lick my hairy balls. :stern look

 

[Limerick]

What if this vote gets up, the current admin get a 4 game deal on the map, Ponting speaks to Tenulkar and there is a chance to have a one of $5 Million dollar offer to play a game at Roland Garros New Dehli? The poor old board will be hamstrung. They couldn't do the deal. Baby Jesus will cry. Why can't simply place Blind Faith in this guy.

I don't get it. He saved the club. White Knights on their steeds came prancing and a dancing onto Hardon St to give $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to our Football Club. That Euge guy, he did nothing. Bloody Collingwood Halfwit. Couldn't organise a root at Tender Touch. And as for Ansett and PDR, their shares meant nothing. It didn't matter what they thought about keeping the club in NMFC hands. Their voices were minor. Fricken Old Farts just die. And as for RJ. South Melbourne Flog. Planted by the AFL to **** us over. Turd.

P.S. Lick my hairy balls. :stern look

"$5 Million dollar offer to play a game at Roland Garros New Dehli?"
The Motion doesn't prevent this! This offer, if it were to eventuate, isn't going to come with a 48 hour time limit.
The fixture is set around October for the following year. If the Club allowed for electronic voting for these types of issues
(no need to vote on this type of administrative Constitutional change) then a member vote would be relatively inexpensive
and timely and we would truely be a Member based Club.

 

[GarnerSmash]

So it appears that the perceptions of the options available are:

A board that can, and will, do what it wants in relation to selling games;

or

A membership that is too parochial/ill-informed to count on to make the right decisions regarding selling games.

Question, just say the motion gets up and the board need to request the membership to pass any decision to sell more than 4 games interstate. In the process of doing so do those pushing the amendment expect that the club to provide a clear rationale, including financial figures, as evidence of the need to sell more games at the time of such a decision being made? And if so, are WANM happy for those outside the club to be provided with a clear picture of where our club is at financially?

 

[Limerick]

Question, just say the motion gets up and the board need to request the membership to pass any decision to sell more than 4 games interstate. In the process of doing so do those pushing the amendment expect that the club to provide a clear rationale, including financial figures, as evidence of the need to sell more games at the time of such a decision being made? And if so, are WANM happy for those outside the club to be provided with a clear picture of where our club is at financially?

The Club issues a public financial statement annually. Membership and attendance totals are public knowledge. What the members would be seeking in the above scenario would be what is the strategy behind requesting a 5th or more interstate or international home games.