News NMFC & Tassie (the mass debate re our future there, the academy, attending advice)

[goalieboy82]

Don't like this at all.

lets hope we don't need another Roosistence again.

 

[Zondor]

I've tried telling you turkeys all along. The AFL want one team on the Map and that team is us. To play some idiotic amount of home games there both in Slowbart and Inceston. And we currently have a President who has been open to this idiotic idea. Who didn't want our constitution amended from preventing this to happen. The AFL will want what they want. We need a President who wants North Melbourne to be based at Hardon St playing all our home games out of Melbourne. Not some cross dressing clown who is open to this sell your soul for a dollar nonsense. :stern look

 

[JD-Roo]

Not happy Jan. Flags went up a week or so a go when there were rumblings we were getting Tassie to ourselves for an Academy.

AFL will probably either screw Hawthron hard when their contract expires, of offer them half of Docklands for a $1 like Waverley or something so that all of sudden the music stops and we find we are the only ones left in Tassie without a chair and the AFL will have some sort of contract they wave at us saying how 'their hands are tied' and football is 'obligated to play eight games in the state' etc etc....... laced heavily with pointed eyebrows saying 'you'll play where you're damn well fixtured to play".

 

[Mav]

I've tried telling you turkeys all along. The AFL want one team on the Map and that team is us. To play some idiotic amount of home games there both in Slowbart and Inceston. And we currently have a President who has been open to this idiotic idea. Who didn't want our constitution amended from preventing this to happen. The AFL will want what they want. We need a President who wants North Melbourne to be based at Hardon St playing all our home games out of Melbourne. Not some cross dressing clown who is open to this sell your soul for a dollar nonsense. :stern look

how easily some forget.

 

[Firestarter]

We will be fine. AFL wants our money.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Like it has been for years it is imperative that in the next 5 years that we make ourselves financially independent from the Tassie deal. We have needed this cash to make ourselves competitive on and off field and without it we would be in trouble, but we need to be able to do without it if need be. So, the focus of the new president should be diversification of business interests.

 

[Only Forwards]

I've tried telling you turkeys all along. The AFL want one team on the Map and that team is us. To play some idiotic amount of home games there both in Slowbart and Inceston. And we currently have a President who has been open to this idiotic idea. Who didn't want our constitution amended from preventing this to happen. The AFL will want what they want. We need a President who wants North Melbourne to be based at Hardon St playing all our home games out of Melbourne. Not some cross dressing clown who is open to this sell your soul for a dollar nonsense. :stern look

Is that presidant Scalon?

With his old man tipping in a million bucks to the Adren St refurb surely he has a pretty vested interest in us staying there.

 

[Augustine]

Thank god for hawthorn...

 

[Viper2Jester]

I suspect Hawthorn will be removed from the State by the AFL based on their preference for only one club in Tassie.

North having the State to itself as only team could actually be very beneficial, not detrimental.

I'd say 5 games could be where it will end up - split 3/4 in the South and 2/1 in the North.

More than likely we'll receive a better financial return from those games as well having the backing of all major partners, not just a portion. It's been made very clear that AFL have no interest in having a Tasmanian team, so I don't see relocation as a genuine threat nor would we seriously consider an 8 game style agreement - that takes far too much away from the Melb home base and will alienate too many members to warrant consideration.

The replacement games do need to be sorted out via our memberships regardless of what happens, the current arrangement is unsatisfactory.

In a nutshell look no further than the Hawks/Cats for how success can be built on high/gov't financial returns and a unique home ground with a significant advantage. Both teams have been the most successful over last decade with home grounds in different locations and major government financial backing.

 

[tazaa]

The dude who wanted ONE team for north and south just got fired.
I think Hawthorn is behind this more than us. Since when do we have any pull???

The one thing we should be annoyed is at the academy and the Hawks wanting to bite into our share.

Agree with Saintly tho, we havnt lost a game in Hobart for 3 years. Meaning we just have to win 9 more games elsewhere to make finals.
This is the only reason I am for games in Tasmania. We simply never lose.

 

[Viper2Jester]

The dude who wanted ONE team for north and south just got fired.
I think Hawthorn is behind this more than us. Since when do we have any pull???

The one thing we should be annoyed is at the academy and the Hawks wanting to bite into our share.

Agree with Saintly tho, we havnt lost a game in Hobart for 3 years. Meaning we just have to win 9 more games elsewhere to make finals.
This is the only reason I am for games in Tasmania. We simply never lose.

Yes that's true, but I believe McLaughlin has also been on record multiple times saying that it is the AFL preference also.

I think moving on Wade has been in the works for some time, and for multiple factors outside just issues regarding North and Tassie etc.

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

I hate this idea that we can just move into an area and expect support. Hawthorn have been working hard in the north of Tasmania for years and they should be allowed to continue. Treating fans like mindless idiots who will just support any AFL team that's playing in town is demeaning and arrogant.

 

[Rooboy 96]

AFL: Tasmania's long-term future looks headed for a significant shift
The AFL's long-term future in Tasmania looks headed for a significant directional shift should the competition accept the conclusion drawn by its own review recently completed by former Western Bulldogs chief Simon Garlick.

so I stopped here, can I safely assume the Bulldogs want our scraps again?

 

[Ry009]

It's been made very clear that AFL have no interest in having a Tasmanian team, so I don't see relocation as a genuine threat nor would we seriously consider an 8 game style agreement

I think they don't want to stump up the coin for a start up team, just like they did with Gold Coast, they have form in that area, as does our current president who has already put forward the co-location model.

Im still in the 'James has done heaps for our club/deserves our respect' but the club should knock this on the head ASAP. Hopefully it's brought up at the AGM.

 

[tazaa]

Yes that's true, but I believe McLaughlin has also been on record multiple times saying that it is the AFL preference also.

I think moving on Wade has been in the works for some time, and for multiple factors outside just issues regarding North and Tassie etc.

When Gil talks, most of it is what AFL people want to hear. A one team model in Tasmania gives hope that it will happen one time.
But the AFL isnt interested hence why it hasnt happened yet.

 

[Viper2Jester]

I hate this idea that we can just move into an area and expect support. Hawthorn have been working hard in the north of Tasmania for years and they should be allowed to continue. Treating fans like mindless idiots who will just support any AFL team that's playing in town is demeaning and arrogant.

Huh? North of Tas is hardly Hawthorn centric. Their membership is around 10,000 which is 1/25th of the relevant population.

Secondly the very high majority of Tas people have their own AFL club, it's just that local games are supported by adopting a second team, and it's cheaper to buy a membership to attend those games to watch AFL footy than buy individually.

Only a certain % of that 10K (actual Hawks supporters and children being swayed) would feel aggrieved with them leaving and another club taking over, the rest will be content that Hawks are replaced with another AFL presence. Plenty of their membership figure would be directly transferred IMO, just like if Hawks were take our place in the South.

 

[Viper2Jester]

I think they don't want to stump up the coin for a start up team, just like they did with Gold Coast, they have form in that area, as does our current president who has already put forward the co-location model.

Im still in the 'James has done heaps for our club/deserves our respect' but the club should knock this on the head ASAP. Hopefully it's brought up at the AGM.

Fair points. Whilst I don't think 8 games or similar will happen for multiple reasons, it is always best to wary/cautious as AFL certainly can't be trusted.

 

[Kimbo]

"Wade and his former state football board — disbanded by the AFL which now rules Tasmania from head office..."
This bit and yesterday's (?) reference to his achievement being new governance arrangements were the bit that raised my eyebrows. AFL now pulls the strings in Tassie football.

I've been on record as saying I'm okay with co-location and don't see it as re-location, so long as 'home' is Arden St, there is a ceiling on Tassie games (4, maybe 5) and that the substitute games issue is sorted out. I wasn't happy with the constitutional amendment being knocked on the head.

 

[Zondor]

I suspect Hawthorn will be removed from the State by the AFL based on their preference for only one club in Tassie.

North having the State to itself as only team could actually be very beneficial, not detrimental.

I'd say 5 games could be where it will end up - split 3/4 in the South and 2/1 in the North.

More than likely we'll receive a better financial return from those games as well having the backing of all major partners, not just a portion. It's been made very clear that AFL have no interest in having a Tasmanian team, so I don't see relocation as a genuine threat nor would we seriously consider an 8 game style agreement - that takes far too much away from the Melb home base and will alienate too many members to warrant consideration.

The replacement games do need to be sorted out via our memberships regardless of what happens, the current arrangement is unsatisfactory.

In a nutshell look no further than the Hawks/Cats for how success can be built on high/gov't financial returns and a unique home ground with a significant advantage. Both teams have been the most successful over last decade with home grounds in different locations and major government financial backing.

So yah back pedaling your pro Tasmanian NMFC Nonsense. The AFL have an interest in a Tasmanian side and that being a relocated NMFC. Make no mistake about it. Now yah can't tell me that the Turkeys down at AFL House haven't gazed into their crystal meth balls and attempted to envisage what the AFL Competition will look like in 30, 40 or 50 years time? Why do yah think that the Dogs were handed Ballarat? Its all a part of an undisclosed master plan. We need a strong President that knocks this shit on the head. Not a "Yes Sir, 3 Bags full Sir" Cross Dressing Clown who will bend over at the first sign of a dollar. :stern look

 

[gokangas]

Everything old is new again.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Alert but not alarmed.

 

[Viper2Jester]

So yah back pedaling your pro Tasmanian NMFC Nonsense. The AFL have an interest in a Tasmanian side and that being a relocated NMFC. Make no mistake about it. Now yah can't tell me that the Turkeys down at AFL House haven't gazed into their crystal meth balls and attempted to envisage what the AFL Competition will look like in 30, 40 or 50 years time? Why do yah think that the Dogs were handed Ballarat? Its all a part of an undisclosed master plan. We need a strong President that knocks this shit on the head. Not a "Yes Sir, 3 Bags full Sir" Cross Dressing Clown who will bend over at the first sign of a dollar. :stern look

It's hardly nonsense. It has worked for Hawthorn and has consistently worked for Geelong - both those clubs are at a significant competitive advantage due to their deals/operations.

I think it's a very positive template to follow, which on the surface it strongly appears our admin do also. I understand you view it very differently and prefer 11 home games in Melb regardless of the consequences (like 2007), and that's fine.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

The problem will be if we become overly reliant on the income Tassie provides.

It's a delicate balance that we need to get right.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

The AFL have an interest in a Tasmanian side

I really don't think they do. Tasmania is an AFL owned state, with only 500k total population.

If you look at the national membership numbers, the current take-up rate is at 3% of the population. If you focus on the 'footy states', it's about 4.5%. (In Victoria, with 10 local teams the rate is 8% - assuming all vic based teams members are Victorian residents, which they're obviously not)

If North + Hawthorn have a total of 15k members, that's a 3% participation rate. So for arguments sake, if Tasmania had a wildly successful team & reached the 4.5% rate, they'd only be looking at a total of approx 21.5k members, which as we know is not enough to sustain a successful team. If they reached the lofty heights of victorian comparable participation (8%), they'd have only 40k members.

I cant see any short term, or long term benefit for the AFL to even consider having a Tasmanian based team.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I really don't think they do. Tasmania is an AFL owned state, with only 500k total population.

If you look at the national membership numbers, the current take-up rate is at 3% of the population. If you focus on the 'footy states', it's about 4.5%. (In Victoria, with 10 local teams the rate is 8% - assuming all vic based teams members are Victorian residents, which they're obviously not)

If North + Hawthorn have a total of 15k members, that's a 3% participation rate. So for arguments sake, if Tasmania had a wildly successful team & reached the 4.5% rate, they'd only be looking at a total of approx 21.5k members, which as we know is not enough to sustain a successful team. If they reached the lofty heights of victorian comparable participation (8%), they'd have only 40k members.

I cant see any short term, or long term benefit for the AFL to even consider having a Tasmanian based team.

But if they moved a team, some of the existing members would stay as members.