NMFC Board... are they managing decline?

[littleduck]

NMFC will never be a Melbourne-based powerhouse in the sense of Collingwood or Essendon or Carlton... so they have always been battling for the crumbs in Melbourne.

Even if they turn things around in Melbourne from down the bottom in the pecking order of 10 Victorian clubs... the highest they could probably get if all their wet dreams came in one night would be 7th or 8th in the pecking order?

Nevertheless, the topic of the thread is this...

is the NMFC Board managing decline regardless what they do?
is the writing on the wall?

 

[frankc]

A comment that was made by Brayshaw was that the Kangaroos 'hadn't even tried yet' in the context of making the club sustainable. If this is true and the comment wasn't taken out of context, this attitude is reprehensible and shows the laziness that permeats through the kangaroos due to the continual funding from the AFL.

Secondly, this attitude beggars belief as surely the NMFC must have realised why they have been continually given a lifeline - i.e. potential merger. If they honestly didn't realise this was the case, they have shown they no ability to read the landscape the club lives in and in some respects, this is even worse than simply sponging off the AFL.

The whole situation reeks of Fitzroys last few years. This club had options to pursue (i.e. relocate to QLD and later on the ACT) but kept ignoring them, and ulitmately was forced to merge with Brisbane. The same will happen to the Kangaroos - if they continue to reject the opporutunities available, they will be left to hang out and dry and will die via merger.

If this is the case, it will be the clubs fault.

 

[DaSawx]

A comment that was made by Brayshaw was that the Kangaroos 'hadn't even tried yet' in the context of making the club sustainable. If this is true and the comment wasn't taken out of context, this attitude is reprehensible and shows the laziness that permeats through the kangaroos due to the continual funding from the AFL.

I agree. They say they are going to start to give it a red-hot go to stay in Melbourne, shouldn't they have been doing this already?

 

[NimChief]

A comment that was made by Brayshaw was that the Kangaroos 'hadn't even tried yet' in the context of making the club sustainable. If this is true and the comment wasn't taken out of context, this attitude is reprehensible and shows the laziness that permeats through the kangaroos due to the continual funding from the AFL.

That is not true.

North Melbourne have offered before to have all AFL funding removed in exchange for a fairer draw and better FTA coverage, the AFL refused.

I agree. They say they are going to start to give it a red-hot go to stay in Melbourne, shouldn't they have been doing this already?

Yes, we should have, but for to long the shareholder structure has resulted in bad administrators taking hold of our club because of the lack of accountability to members.

When you have some board members who laugh at supporters for wearing merchandise with old sponsors on them at events, or when they abuse the loyal members by saying they don't deserve a club to follow...I think that shows that the wrong people are leading us.

Arch has promised accountability, that is a key, and it should go along way to getting us on the right tracks.

 

[greennick]

That is not true.

North Melbourne have offered before to have all AFL funding removed in exchange for a fairer draw and better FTA coverage, the AFL refused.

The AFL does not determine FTA coverage, that is up to the networks as part of the agreement. The networks MUST be allowed to determine who they telecast as otherwise it would greatly reduce the benefits of holding the rights and therefore the amount received.

What do you mean a fairer draw? What is not fair about your draw?

Yes, we should have, but for to long the shareholder structure has resulted in bad administrators taking hold of our club because of the lack of accountability to members.

When you have some board members who laugh at supporters for wearing merchandise with old sponsors on them at events, or when they abuse the loyal members by saying they don't deserve a club to follow...I think that shows that the wrong people are leading us.

Arch has promised accountability, that is a key, and it should go along way to getting us on the right tracks.

The shareholder structure is your fault. You put yourself in that position so you can not blame anyone else for that. You would think the shareholders would be in support of you anyway. Maybe some of your actual die-hard members should have been purchasing shares. Why didn't you guys get together years ago and purchase shares off the existing shareholders?

Arch has promised you accountability? What will accountability achieve? You need a viable business plan, not accountability!

 

[DapperDon]

What do you mean a fairer draw? What is not fair about your draw?
!

I'd say he means fairer coverage of North games, which is fair enough but unlikely with the AFL caring about the all mighty dollar than the fans.

 

[NimChief]

The AFL does not determine FTA coverage, that is up to the networks as part of the agreement. The networks MUST be allowed to determine who they telecast as otherwise it would greatly reduce the benefits of holding the rights and therefore the amount received.

What do you mean a fairer draw? What is not fair about your draw?

I'm just pointing out that we've offered to not receive funding and that frankc's accusations are unfair.

The shareholder structure is your fault. You put yourself in that position so you can not blame anyone else for that. You would think the shareholders would be in support of you anyway. Maybe some of your actual die-hard members should have been purchasing shares. Why didn't you guys get together years ago and purchase shares off the existing shareholders?

Arch has promised you accountability? What will accountability achieve? You need a viable business plan, not accountability!

I didn't blame anyone. It's a fact that our club has been poorly run for a long time.

 

[Roughie]

I'm just pointing out that we've offered to not receive funding and that frankc's accusations are unfair.

Too this date, what has the Roos shown that they could survive with our funding?

How much are you in debt right now with funding?

The AFL is fathering the Roos for a reason, to try help the books and not let the Roos get in any more strife then they are already in. Regardless if Brayshaw was out of context or not, if he believes the Roos havent even tried he should piss off. Personally as a member of a club, if I found out my board hasnt even tried and were now in debt, I would be spewing!

Why the hell would the AFL strip their funding from you? You guys would further collapse in to debt with out it?

 

[greennick]

I'm just pointing out that we've offered to not receive funding and that frankc's accusations are unfair.

No, you've made a bullshit offer to not receive funding. You said you wanted more guaranteed FTA coverage. This is determined by the TV stations, not by the AFL, so how is the AFL going to get you more FTA coverage?

 

[NimChief]

Too this date, what has the Roos shown that they could survive with our funding?

How much are you in debt right now with funding?

The AFL is fathering the Roos for a reason, to try help the books and not let the Roos get in any more strife then they are already in. Regardless if Brayshaw was out of context or not, if he believes the Roos havent even tried he should piss off. Personally as a member of a club, if I found out my board hasnt even tried and were now in debt, I would be spewing!

Why the hell would the AFL strip their funding from you? You guys would further collapse in to debt with out it?

The Debt is not recent, it was acquired when Greg Miller decided to go and purchase the Broadmeadows Town Hall to turn into a pokie venue before he'd acquired a gaming licence from the council. The council ended up not giving us a licence so the venue has now been left to rot. Just one example of poor management.

Members have known for along time that the club hasn't been fully trying properly. I mean we are the ones in the past that have phoned up to renew our memberships and been met with an answering machine. Go read the North Board, people are pissed, and I agree, those that are not trying are not fit for the job.

But Brayshaw has put his hand up and says he will leave no stone unturned in his quest for us to remain Melbourne based. He has been working with leading business identities and has created a viable plan to remain here. He's gotten Arch's backing, you can't argue with Shinboner of the Century.

Brayshaw is not the problem and I don't see why he should be the one to piss off when he's the only with the guts out there to have thrown his hat into the ring.

 

[Long bombs to snake]

You said you wanted more guaranteed FTA coverage. This is determined by the TV stations, not by the AFL, so how is the AFL going to get you more FTA coverage?

Last i looked the AFL ran the competition, not TV stations. The AFL organises the "rigged" draw with requests from the clubs and the broadcasters. This is obviously done to maximise revenue for the betterment of the competition.

 

[Tas]

I agree. They say they are going to start to give it a red-hot go to stay in Melbourne, shouldn't they have been doing this already?

Have a red hot go means heavy advertising and grass roots development costs, we haven't had the ability to generate the kind of funds required in the past and the CBF has never been a mechanic to help clubs resolve their issues as it has at best allowed clubs to break even with a budget designed for minimal expenditure. It has only been CBF plus on-field performance that has allowed clubs even a chance to make a small surplus.

If we have a red hot go here and that obviously means little to no AFL support then it means we have to generate a significant amount of revenue ourselves, beyond what is the norm. I believe there are those working behind the scenes to help generate the funds required.

 

[NimChief]

No, you've made a bullshit offer to not receive funding. You said you wanted more guaranteed FTA coverage. This is determined by the TV stations, not by the AFL, so how is the AFL going to get you more FTA coverage?

Rubbish.

The AFL is not powerless. They negotiate the deal, they can assure any amount of FTA.

The offer was made. Even draw and even coverage for all clubs and we would not take anymore funding then others.

Isn't this the model you guys advocate, sink or swim??

This all semantics, fact is the wrong people have been at the helm for too long. This is now going to change. The writing is not on the wall, there is a good business plan out there that will allow us to thrive here.

 

[ARDENSTREETforever]

North Melbourne like Fitzroy's final few years?
Geez give me a break.
Can't recall any games where we have played infront of sub 5000 people like the Roys did in 95 and 96.

 

[greennick]

Rubbish.

The AFL is not powerless. They negotiate the deal, they can assure any amount of FTA.

The offer was made. Even draw and even coverage for all clubs and we would not take anymore funding then others.

Isn't this the model you guys advocate, sink or swim??

This all semantics, fact is the wrong people have been at the helm for too long. This is now going to change. The writing is not on the wall, there is a good business plan out there that will allow us to thrive here.

The agreement with the networks has already been signed! So, the AFL is powerless. The only way they can renege on the deal is to get the TV networks to agree to another one. They will not agree to one which gives equal coverage to the Roos because most of the punters could not give a stuff about them.

You may well have had the wrong people at the helm, that is nobody's fault but your own. Didn't you all agree to the share sale and passing control to the shareholders? Fantastic decision that was.

Anyway, I still have the question, how is the draw not fair? What would make it fair?

 

[greennick]

Last i looked the AFL ran the competition, not TV stations. The AFL organises the "rigged" draw with requests from the clubs and the broadcasters. This is obviously done to maximise revenue for the betterment of the competition.

The AFL takes requests from the broadcasters to organise the draw. However, the two broadcasters choose which games will be on FTA and which on Foxtel. Get it? It is not the AFL that chooses which will be on FTA. The AFL runs the competition, but the broadcasters run the telecast.

Let me know if you are having trouble keeping up.

 

[Rob]

Anyway, I still have the question, how is the draw not fair? What would make it fair?

Funny how this question rarely, if ever, gets answered by the Roos brigade that run around whining about an unfair draw.

Their draw, if anything, it actually favourable. At worst it's average.

 

[Ricardo]

1 thing the AFL can do to guarantee North FTA games is more Friday Night fixtures, for a team that finished 4th last season (and were doing well when the draw was being done) they really don't get a reasonable amount of FN games.

Their draw overall is pretty much average for the league (but with less FTA games then average IIRC).

 

[The Chad]

kangaroos football club would lose its identity if it wasn't a club of battlers. why do you think all their fans on bigfooty all tow the same lines and generally post the same rubbish? kangaroos football club appeals to a certain personality type, which mercifully, is not common in society. but common enough to have sustained the club for now. in an ideal world for a kangaroos football club fan their club would still be in the smallest 2 or 3 in the league but they would stick it up the big teams with their so-called superior development structures and so-called superior team support. after all, us non-kangaroos football fans are repeatedly told we know "nothing" (just look at any thread tipping them for bottom 4 last, this or next year) and that any knowledge of the game a non-kangaroos football club fan has is inferior to that of a kangaroos football club fan.

 

[The Chad]

That is not true.

North Melbourne have offered before to have all AFL funding removed in exchange for a fairer draw and better FTA coverage, the AFL refused.

that is one hell of an accusation to make against kangaroos football club.

you're saying that kangaroos football club openly attempted to sabotage player wages by attacking the value of the sport and actively attempting to lower the tv rights price at the next round of negotiations.

pretty big accusation to make.

 

[r_boy]

Funny how this question rarely, if ever, gets answered by the Roos brigade that run around whining about an unfair draw.

Their draw, if anything, it actually favourable. At worst it's average.

Mate I'll tell you what's not fair, teams like North Melbourne, who finished 3rd in 2007, get two friday night games in 2008, whilst Essendon who finished 12th, get 6 friday night games. Care to explain how that is fair? Don't say that the AFL can't do anything about it, of course they can. If we were to move to Gold Coast they would demand the television networks televise our games, and it would happen. The whole thing is ****ing rigged and unfair.

 

[The Zebra]

Funny how this question rarely, if ever, gets answered by the Roos brigade that run around whining about an unfair draw.

Their draw, if anything, it actually favourable. At worst it's average.

Maybe because you change the argument as it suits.
Why should the 3rd place team get an average draw with less free to air coverage?



After all, didn't you say this in August?

There is no correlation between the CBF and fixturing. None, zip, nada, f**k all. You got a sh*t draw this year because last year you were sh*t. Last year you received an above average number of Friday night matches because the previous year you were half decent. Next year you'll probably get an above average number again.

 

[Rob]

Maybe because you change the argument as it suits.
Why should the 3rd place team get an average draw with less free to air coverage?



After all, didn't you say this in August?

And, funnily enough, I was spot on.

You get an above average number of Friday night home games in 2008.

Do you even know your own team's draw?

 

[Rob]

Mate I'll tell you what's not fair, teams like North Melbourne, who finished 3rd in 2007, get two friday night games in 2008, whilst Essendon who finished 12th, get 6 friday night games. Care to explain how that is fair?

North get 7 Melbourne home games. 2 of them are Friday night matches, well above the AFL average of 1 in 8 matches being Friday night games.
Essendon may well get more, but 14 other clubs aren't Essendon. Getting an above average number of Friday night games is no f**king evidence that you've got an unfair draw.

Don't say that the AFL can't do anything about it, of course they can. If we were to move to Gold Coast they would demand the television networks televise our games, and it would happen. The whole thing is ****ing rigged and unfair.

There's that word again, unfair. How the f**k is your draw unfair? Just because you don't get the best draw in the league doesn't make it unfair.

You guys seem to think that it's a conspiracy because you don't get as good a draw as Essendon or Collingwood.

 

[The Zebra]

And, funnily enough, I was spot on.

You get an above average number of Friday night home games in 2008.

Do you even know your own team's draw?

2?

Only two Vic (Rich and Melb) teams get less and they both didn't win more than 5 games.

And this year each of those teams got 4 each after their massive 2006 seasons.

And we get the equal lowest free to air games.

Yep - finishing 3rd pays of just like you predicted.