Enough beating around the bush, do you want Norf to fold?

[Waynesworld]

If North weren't around your club would not be missed, unlike the Tiges.

Yep you are right. I would miss the Tiges if you weren't around.

I would miss making fun of your club for missing the finals every year.
I would miss making fun of you fans (especially KFC boy).
I would miss making fun of your drug taking players.
I would miss how your club tells your players who they aren't allowed play with.
I would miss laughing at cry baby Riewoldt spitting the dummy every week.
And finally, we would all miss the annual "lose to the Gold Coast after the siren with a kick from an NRL player" comedy act that you guys put on.

So please everyone make sure the Tiges stay around for ever.

 

[bontshow]

I take this as a compliment (realising, of course, that you were again trying to point out some failing of North). It's very gratifying that our club has fought against tremendous odds to achieve what it has. It's why we love North Melbourne.

It was a compliment. The supporter resistance to the GC move was a great thing, and why I am so dirty on JB for getting on the end of it for his personal gain.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

It was a compliment. The supporter resistance to the GC move was a great thing, and why I am so dirty on JB for getting on the end of it for his personal gain.

I don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion. JB certainly makes no incremental financial gain, nor does he need to be an AFL president to be famous. So, what is he actually gaining? Also, have you considered the massive personal investment he has made in the club (no, I'm not talking financial, though his contribution there is non-trivial, too)?

 

[jacko57]

It was a compliment. The supporter resistance to the GC move was a great thing, and why I am so dirty on JB for getting on the end of it for his personal gain.

No-one else was putting their hand up to take on the job at the time. JB already enjoyed a media profile at the time. I daresay he has put substantial $ into the club (as I expect all club presidents would, but especially those at financially-challenged clubs). So what exactly is the 'personal gain' you refer to?

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

I don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion. JB certainly makes no incremental financial gain, nor does he need to be an AFL president to be famous. So, what is he actually gaining? Also, have you considered the massive personal investment he has made in the club (no, I'm not talking financial, though his contribution there is non-trivial, too)?

JB is a Narcissist. It's all about him. Look at the way he ostracised so many powerful Norf factions from the club and has tied to rewrite the GC "win" as a personal victory. In reality he had little to do with it and those that did the most have been left out of Norfs history.

Also, before Norf he was a cricketer and tv buffoon. Now he adds chairman to his cv and pretends he's been competent in his role. If you think he hasn't gained anything you don't know JB at all - he wants to be saviour.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

But Booshy, we all work hard for personal gain, no?

It's similar to the Eddie situation, sure they both enjoy the prestige of the role, but they have also made invaluable contributions to their clubs. And neither needed the roles to be set financially and have a high public profile.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

But Booshy, we all work hard for personal gain, no?

It's similar to the Eddie situation, sure they both enjoy the prestige of the role, but they have also made invaluable contributions to their clubs. And neither needed the roles to be set financially and have a high public profile.

JB is Eddie Lite. Eddie has achieved far more for Collingwood. JB has done little but use his media profile to deceive the public and Norf fans into thinking its been a success. Fact is without increased AFL handouts Norf would have folded. The previous admin could have done that.

 

[jacko57]

JB is Eddie Lite. Eddie has achieved far more for Collingwood. JB has done little but use his media profile to deceive the public and Norf fans into thinking its been a success. Fact is without increased AFL handouts Norf would have folded. The previous admin could have done that.

The previous admin, under Graham Duff, was certainly working towards North either folding, or moving to the Gold Coast. (Same thing).

 

[Sanecow]

2.As already answered prior, we have changed from North to The Kangaroos once.

Seriously, do any of you nuffies know anything about your club?

 

[jacko57]

JB is a Narcissist.

Is there an ornamental pond at the Aegis centre?

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

The previous admin, under Graham Duff, was certainly working towards North either folding, or moving to the Gold Coast. (Same thing).

Because they didn't know the AFL would continue to give handouts if you stayed. JB bluffed about white knights, said he'd have Norf financially sound and independent of additional funding from the afl and debt free within 3 years. He did none of those things. Moved the goalposts and begged the afl to keep up the handouts.

 

[bontshow]

No-one else was putting their hand up to take on the job at the time.

No more bullshit Jacko. I want links for proof in every post you make to me or I'm ignoring you.

So what exactly is the 'personal gain' you refer to?

Increasing his public profile. Do you think he did the Caro interview on Footy Classified for free?

 

[jacko57]

Because they didn't know the AFL would continue to give handouts if you stayed. JB bluffed about white knights, said he'd have Norf financially sound and independent of additional funding from the afl and debt free within 3 years. He did none of those things. Moved the goalposts and begged the afl to keep up the handouts.

'handouts'? Do you mean entirely justifiable compensation for inequities in the draw and stadium deals? Has your club ever received what you call 'handouts' from the AFL?

 

[jacko57]

No more bullshit Jacko. I want links for proof in every post you make to me or I'm ignoring you.

Nice tanty! Does it upset you that much when someone points out some of the more irrational aspects of your bizarre obsession?

 

[jacko57]

Increasing his public profile. Do you think he did the Caro interview on Footy Classified for free?

he did that to demolish the Vile Serpent............are you seriously suggesting he demanded/was paid an appearance fee?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

No more bullshit Jacko. I want links for proof in every post you make to me or I'm ignoring you.

C'mon griffo, don't get personal. Play the ball and not the man!

LOL.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

JB is Eddie Lite. Eddie has achieved far more for Collingwood. JB has done little but use his media profile to deceive the public and Norf fans into thinking its been a success. Fact is without increased AFL handouts Norf would have folded. The previous admin could have done that.

All the presidents are Eddie Lite.

The rest of your post went downhill (again). The "Fact" that you assert is applicable to many clubs including Melbourne, and it's just a bullshit take on the evolution of the competition.

Do you know anything about the Duff admin?

 

[Bigeasy]

If North weren't around your club would not be missed, unlike the Tiges.

The VFL/AFL have managed quite well without the Tiges over the last 30 years.

 

[Jumbo]

I vote keep them
Any club that has more interest in Port's recruiting than their own club invokes some interest.

 

[bontshow]

C'mon griffo, don't get personal. Play the ball and not the man!

LOL.

I just want proof for his assertion, that's all. He keeps making things up.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Please explain?

I know that North made the crucial vote in favour of Geelong staying in the VFL many years ago.

I know that Aylett (as VFL president) was culpable in South Melbourne's demise ; don't know if the club also voted for that, but if so, I doubt that 2 votes for and 10 against would have carried the result. Likewise when Fitzroy was 'merged' with Brisbane.

And more to the point, the support of Ron Casey and North was crucial in allowing Sydney to continue as a club after their abject business failure in the early years led to a vote on whether they would be wound up.

What a load of shit from a bitter South Melbourne supporter.

Do you flogs really not know anything about the history of your own club?
When Sydney were in serious trouble following the Edelstein disaster, Carlton proposed that the Swans be wound up, and that Carlton would play all their away games in Sydney, (and wear a patch on their shorts for away games to tribute the Swans), obviously only the most gutless of clubs could support such a decision, so it was no surprise that the Kangaroos were front and centre in support.

Fortunately Collingwood and Essendon could both see what a stupid proposal it was, and the presidents of both clubs rallied every other club in opposition and thus the motion was defeated.

And here ends the history lesson for those Norf muppets who cant even be bothered to learn the history of their own club, no wonder they are perpetually on the brink of trouble now.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Do you flogs really not know anything about the history of your own club?
When Sydney were in serious trouble following the Edelstein disaster, Carlton proposed that the Swans be wound up, and that Carlton would play all their away games in Sydney, (and wear a patch on their shorts for away games to tribute the Swans), obviously only the most gutless of clubs could support such a decision, so it was no surprise that the Kangaroos were front and centre in support.

Fortunately Collingwood and Essendon could both see what a stupid proposal it was, and the presidents of both clubs rallied every other club in opposition and thus the motion was defeated.

And here ends the history lesson for those Norf muppets who cant even be bothered to learn the history of their own club, no wonder they are perpetually on the brink of trouble now.

Except for the Carlton bit, the rest of that is crap. Try this:

"Herald Sun

October 13, 1992 Tuesday

BLUES PLOT

CARLTON wants to play its away games at the SCG from next season if the Sydney Swans fold as expected.

But the Blues can expect hostile opposition from other AFL clubs. Only a last-minute reprieve will save Sydney, which has asked the other 14 clubs to approve a special financial rescue package at tomorrow's board of directors meeting at AFL Headquarters. But most clubs indicated yesterday they would vote against any financial assistance, effectively killing the AFL's first privately-owned club and its bold plan of a national competition.

The Swans' demise would leave a licence free for the AFL to include another interstate side. The Blues' proposal to play out of Sydney includes the choice of Sydney's top three players. Brisbane is expected to receive the next four picks with the rest of the players either becoming free agents or going into the draft. Carlton's proposal includes being sponsored by Sydney brewery Toohey's and playing under the name of Toohey's Blues - the company's light beer.

But opposition clubs say the proposal would give the Blues an unfair advantage. The clubs say Carlton would have up to 19 homes games, two cities from which to draw corporate support, enormous television coverage, the three top Sydney players, as well as forcing other clubs to forfeit a home game.

Collingwood president Allan McAlister said last night his club would never play Carlton at the SCG. He said it would be unfair for other clubs to give up a home game so Carlton could capture the Sydney market. "And any move to give Carlton the opportunity to pick the eyes out of the Swans will be opposed," McAlister said.

"If the Swans aren't around, all of their players should be declared free agents and clubs can negotiate with them - but they must still be within their salary cap." He said it was ludicrous if Carlton had virtually a season of home games.

Carlton fans could also oppose their team's move to the SCG because they would see half as many games in Melbourne. Carlton's proposed move to the SCG would fill the television void left by the expected departure of the Swans. Despite the AFL Commission's plea, it seems certain the clubs will turn their backs on the interstate pioneers.

A Herald-Sun poll yesterday indicated only one club - West Coast - would support a financial bail-out.

Carlton, Collingwood, Footscray, St Kilda, Richmond, Essendon and Melbourne said they would not support any financial assistance for the Swans, who are understood to have cost owners $9 million.

North Melbourne, Fitzroy, Hawthorn, Geelong, Brisbane and Adelaide said they would wait for the commission's recommendations before making a decision.

The Swans have lost millions for three owners since shifting from South Melbourne in 1982. The AFL yesterday refused to make any comments about the future of the Swans.
For the past three days, the AFL has detailed to clubs the options regarding Sydney. They include the club folding if assistance isn't given and a Melbourne-based club playing away games at the SCG.

The Swans' owners, headed by television personality Michael Willesee, have warned for months they would dump the club unless the AFL supported a complete restructuring- financially and with recruiting assistance. The Swans' owners, who paid $5.8 million for the licence in December, 1988, were originally given until December 31 to decide whether they would continue with the club beyond next year.

Carlton is understood to have been working for several months on its SCG proposal. There is speculation it has already agreed to play at the SCG from next year.

Last night, an Australian rules group in the ACT again offered to provide facilites for the Swans at the Bruce Stadium in Canberra. The AFL would need a side playing games at the SCG to satisfy the TV agreement with Channel Seven, which has paid $47 million for the exclusive rights for three years.

Asked how important those rights were to the overall coverage of football, Channel Seven's network producer of sport Gary Fenton offered a one word reply: "Very." Repayments by the Swans owners for the $5.8 million licence fee, according to a recent AFL statement, were to be spread over 15 years.."


You might not remember it, but I do. North ended up being the good guys and helped the Swans survive as a standalone entity. Collingwood and Essendon were in fact not supportive; indeed Sydney was irrelevant to them although it benefitted from McAlister's anti-Carlton stance.

Then North president, Ron Casey, was strong in his support for Sydney to the extent that he was thanked by them. Not long after, that gutless flog Richard Colless (you know, the guy who a few years later signed Terry Wallet as coach causing him to leave Footscray before the season ended, only to back down when he saw the support for Paul Roos) did everything he could to sabotage North's attempts to establish a Sydney market. The feeling that Sydney had shafted us after we supported them was a part of what made the 96 flag so special.

 

[Waynesworld]

Seriously, do any of you nuffies know anything about your club?

OK dimwit, let me explain it in simple terms for you.

PRE-VFA:
During it's inception North Melbourne merged with Albert Park to become North Melbourne cum Albert Park in 1876.

VFA:
In 1887 during the initial period of the VFA they amalgamated with Hotham cricket club and were known as the Hotham Football Club.
In 1907 North amalgamated with West Melbourne to try and gain promotion to the VFL, which failed.

VFL / AFL:
In 1925 North Melbourne entered the VFL competition as the North Melbourne Football Club.
From 1925 to 1999 , we have been known as the North Melbourne Football Club, and between 1999 and 2007 the Kangaroos Football Club.

This is the only period that is relevant to this discussion.

So here endeth the lesson.

I hope you learnt something champ.

 

[Waynesworld]

Except for the Carlton bit, the rest of that is crap. Try this:

"Herald Sun

October 13, 1992 Tuesday

BLUES PLOT

CARLTON wants to play its away games at the SCG from next season if the Sydney Swans fold as expected.

But the Blues can expect hostile opposition from other AFL clubs. Only a last-minute reprieve will save Sydney, which has asked the other 14 clubs to approve a special financial rescue package at tomorrow's board of directors meeting at AFL Headquarters. But most clubs indicated yesterday they would vote against any financial assistance, effectively killing the AFL's first privately-owned club and its bold plan of a national competition.

The Swans' demise would leave a licence free for the AFL to include another interstate side. The Blues' proposal to play out of Sydney includes the choice of Sydney's top three players. Brisbane is expected to receive the next four picks with the rest of the players either becoming free agents or going into the draft. Carlton's proposal includes being sponsored by Sydney brewery Toohey's and playing under the name of Toohey's Blues - the company's light beer.

But opposition clubs say the proposal would give the Blues an unfair advantage. The clubs say Carlton would have up to 19 homes games, two cities from which to draw corporate support, enormous television coverage, the three top Sydney players, as well as forcing other clubs to forfeit a home game.

Collingwood president Allan McAlister said last night his club would never play Carlton at the SCG. He said it would be unfair for other clubs to give up a home game so Carlton could capture the Sydney market. "And any move to give Carlton the opportunity to pick the eyes out of the Swans will be opposed," McAlister said.

"If the Swans aren't around, all of their players should be declared free agents and clubs can negotiate with them - but they must still be within their salary cap." He said it was ludicrous if Carlton had virtually a season of home games.

Carlton fans could also oppose their team's move to the SCG because they would see half as many games in Melbourne. Carlton's proposed move to the SCG would fill the television void left by the expected departure of the Swans. Despite the AFL Commission's plea, it seems certain the clubs will turn their backs on the interstate pioneers.

A Herald-Sun poll yesterday indicated only one club - West Coast - would support a financial bail-out.

Carlton, Collingwood, Footscray, St Kilda, Richmond, Essendon and Melbourne said they would not support any financial assistance for the Swans, who are understood to have cost owners $9 million.

North Melbourne, Fitzroy, Hawthorn, Geelong, Brisbane and Adelaide said they would wait for the commission's recommendations before making a decision.

The Swans have lost millions for three owners since shifting from South Melbourne in 1982. The AFL yesterday refused to make any comments about the future of the Swans.
For the past three days, the AFL has detailed to clubs the options regarding Sydney. They include the club folding if assistance isn't given and a Melbourne-based club playing away games at the SCG.

The Swans' owners, headed by television personality Michael Willesee, have warned for months they would dump the club unless the AFL supported a complete restructuring- financially and with recruiting assistance. The Swans' owners, who paid $5.8 million for the licence in December, 1988, were originally given until December 31 to decide whether they would continue with the club beyond next year.

Carlton is understood to have been working for several months on its SCG proposal. There is speculation it has already agreed to play at the SCG from next year.

Last night, an Australian rules group in the ACT again offered to provide facilites for the Swans at the Bruce Stadium in Canberra. The AFL would need a side playing games at the SCG to satisfy the TV agreement with Channel Seven, which has paid $47 million for the exclusive rights for three years.

Asked how important those rights were to the overall coverage of football, Channel Seven's network producer of sport Gary Fenton offered a one word reply: "Very." Repayments by the Swans owners for the $5.8 million licence fee, according to a recent AFL statement, were to be spread over 15 years.."


You might not remember it, but I do. North ended up being the good guys and helped the Swans survive as a standalone entity. Collingwood and Essendon were in fact not supportive; indeed Sydney was irrelevant to them although it benefitted from McAlister's anti-Carlton stance.

Then North president, Ron Casey, was strong in his support for Sydney to the extent that he was thanked by them. Not long after, that gutless flog Richard Colless (you know, the guy who a few years later signed Terry Wallet as coach causing him to leave Footscray before the season ended, only to back down when he saw the support for Paul Roos) did everything he could to sabotage North's attempts to establish a Sydney market. The feeling that Sydney had shafted us after we supported them was a part of what made the 96 flag so special.

Isn't it amazing how many so called "experts" there are on the North Melbourne Football Club out there?

Nuffies...

 

[jacko57]

Do you flogs really not know anything about the history of your own club?
When Sydney were in serious trouble following the Edelstein disaster, Carlton proposed that the Swans be wound up, and that Carlton would play all their away games in Sydney, (and wear a patch on their shorts for away games to tribute the Swans), obviously only the most gutless of clubs could support such a decision, so it was no surprise that the Kangaroos were front and centre in support.

Fortunately Collingwood and Essendon could both see what a stupid proposal it was, and the presidents of both clubs rallied every other club in opposition and thus the motion was defeated.

And here ends the history lesson for those Norf muppets who cant even be bothered to learn the history of their own club, no wonder they are perpetually on the brink of trouble now.

Read the following post from LuvTheKangas, that lays out the FACTS, and see if you can explain why you have made such a complete arse of yourself in this thread.

Should be entertaining.