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

[ChopChopDigDig]

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

But what benefit would there be? What are they trying to achieve by moving a team from one location to another, where there is no real short term or long term growth?

 

[Firestarter]

But what benefit would there be? What are they trying to achieve by moving a team from one location to another, where there is no real short term or long term growth?

Giving the Dogs Arden Street?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

But what benefit would there be? What are they trying to achieve by moving a team from one location to another, where there is no real short term or long term growth?

If they can make more cash, they'll do it.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

If they can make more cash, they'll do it.

But as above, I don't think they will make any more cash? They're not an NFL state and at 500k population wouldn't figure into the TV rights discussion. They've got 7 games in Tassie this year, so having a local team to add a couple more games would hardly have an impact. They've got 15k members, and adding 10-20k more would hardly have an impact.

Any team in Tassie (new, or relocated) are going to need significant financial support both short term, and long term. I can't see ANY reason why they'd want a team down there.

If there was a club who were legitimately struggling (like bankrupt struggling), I could see the AFL "bailing them out" with a re-location, but currently there's no team in such bad shape - especially North.

 

[Viper2Jester]

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

Agree.

Tasmania definitely 'deserves' it's own team based on history and being a committed AFL state (certainly in front of the fabricated expansion markets they are pouring money into instead for "growth") but for the reasons you state amongst many others it is not an economic reality for a very $$$ driven organisation such as the AFL.

 

[numchuks]

it's not about relocation, it's about co-location.

The aim will be have North pick up those 4 games the Hawks play in Tassie and have us playing 7-8 matches in Tassie a year.

That's what we're fighting against. That's what JB supported in the past, but luckily was blocked when the Hawks renewed their deal. That's what will be offered and that's what we'll be expected to accept in the future.

Ominous signs emerging.

 

[GarnerSmash]

it's not about relocation, it's about co-location.

The aim will be have North pick up those 4 games the Hawks play in Tassie and have us playing 7-8 matches in Tassie a year.

That's what we're fighting against. That's what JB supported in the past, but luckily was blocked when the Hawks renewed their deal. That's what will be offered and that's what we'll be expected to accept in the future.

Ominous signs emerging.

And thats why making hay in the next 5 years is key. Tas gov funding will be key to having 8 games a year down there. This will require agreements between TasGov, NMFC and the AFL. We would have to agree to any such deal and our position to reject such a notion will depend greatly on the position we are in at the time. A vital 5 years coming up.

 

[LT Smash]

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.

In fairness to Zondor, 2007 was not the consequence of playing 11 home games in Melbourne as that hadn't happened for several years, what with the Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast experiments.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

it's not about relocation, it's about co-location.

The aim will be have North pick up those 4 games the Hawks play in Tassie and have us playing 7-8 matches in Tassie a year.

That's what we're fighting against. That's what JB supported in the past, but luckily was blocked when the Hawks renewed their deal. That's what will be offered and that's what we'll be expected to accept in the future.

Ominous signs emerging.

If this happens, the club will no longer have my money.

 

[Viper2Jester]

In fairness to Zondor, 2007 was not the consequence of playing 11 home games in Melbourne as that hadn't happened for several years, what with the Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast experiments.

The (failed) outside forays did contribute to 2007 yes.

But far from the sole reason, and I have little doubt a similar consequence would have arisen if playing 11 home games during that period instead.

In fact the reason those markets were pursued was because 11 home games in Melb was not, and IMO still not, seen as financially responsible. I'd rather thrive than just survive, and I think we are headed in that direction now under better administration and handling the dual-market approach in the fashion we should have to start with.

 

[giantroo]

Carl spoke about Tassie: From the 9 minute mark.

listen to this on Audioboo

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

But as above, I don't think they will make any more cash? They're not an NFL state and at 500k population wouldn't figure into the TV rights discussion. They've got 7 games in Tassie this year, so having a local team to add a couple more games would hardly have an impact. They've got 15k members, and adding 10-20k more would hardly have an impact.

Any team in Tassie (new, or relocated) are going to need significant financial support both short term, and long term. I can't see ANY reason why they'd want a team down there.

If there was a club who were legitimately struggling (like bankrupt struggling), I could see the AFL "bailing them out" with a re-location, but currently there's no team in such bad shape - especially North.

More people would be intersted in Football in Tassie than the Gold Coast.

 

[Limerick]

Certainly need to keep alert to this. I believe that a co-location is the model that the AFL has in mind. It was spoken of strongly in 2007.
This is based on two factors i) Tassie will struggle to financially support an AFL team over the short, medium and possibly long term and ii) co-location will enable the relocated Club (us) to retain around 50+% of our existing non Tasmanian membership i.e a co-located North Melbourne with no Hawthorn in Tassie could realisticly have a low 30k membership in years 1 and 2 helped by a good Melbourne deal that would be watered down over time. Also expect some drafting help in the early stages. When the Constitutional change to limit us to 4 interstate games without Membership input wa sdiscussed, the Club appeared to want to be able to move quickly to more than 4.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

More people would be intersted in Football in Tassie than the Gold Coast.

Correct, however QLD has the long term growth potential.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Correct, however QLD has the long term growth potential.

But will that growth result in more football fans?

I don't think so.

 

[tazaa]

Certainly need to keep alert to this. I believe that a co-location is the model that the AFL has in mind. It was spoken of strongly in 2007.
This is based on two factors i) Tassie will struggle to financially support an AFL team over the short, medium and possibly long term and ii) co-location will enable the relocated Club (us) to retain around 50+% of our existing non Tasmanian membership i.e a co-located North Melbourne with no Hawthorn in Tassie could realisticly have a low 30k membership in years 1 and 2 helped by a good Melbourne deal that would be watered down over time. Also expect some drafting help in the early stages. When the Constitutional change to limit us to 4 interstate games without Membership input wa sdiscussed, the Club appeared to want to be able to move quickly to more than 4.

Whilst contracts are in place and its at 3 games I want to see how much we can get our back office in order by 2020. If we cant we might as well co locate.

 

[shintemaster]

Whilst contracts are in place and its at 3 games I want to see how much we can get our back office in order by 2020. If we cant we might as well co locate.

The back office is in order now though. It's not about that per se, it's about having enough extra to wear whatever pressure we are under (be it market pressure, on field downturn pressure or AFL pressure). We are stronger now than we have been in, actually forever. We need to be the position that if we had to play 11 home games in Melbourne and those home games were against GWS, GC, Freo, WC, PA, Adel, Syd, Bris & Saints, Mel, WB that we are in position to grin and say no worries.

 

[Dan]

In terms of voting, is co-location in the club's constitution?

 

[Ry009]

Carl spoke about Tassie: From the 9 minute mark.

listen to this on Audioboo

Awesome work as usual GR.

"Critical part of our business" hmmmm. I get its from a supporter base point of view , but some strong verbage when comparing us to Hawthorn there.

 

[giantroo]

Awesome work as usual GR.

"Critical part of our business" hmmmm. I get its from a supporter base point of view , but some strong verbage when comparing us to Hawthorn there.

Definitely worrying.

 

[Dan]

They want 40K by round 1? This sorta shit isn't gonna help.

 

[Zondor]

Definitely worrying.

Yep.

These turkeys that run our club need to get their heads out of their arses.

Yah want a growth market. Focus on Melbourne. Destined to become the biggest city in Australia by 2069. :stern look

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Awesome work as usual GR.

"Critical part of our business" hmmmm. I get its from a supporter base point of view , but some strong verbage when comparing us to Hawthorn there.

This is what scares me.

 

[gokangas]

The thing I hate about this sort of chatter again is the destabilisation it causes. Couldn't stand a Gold Coast scenario again of will we or won't we, relocate or colocate etc etc etc. I just don't trust the AFL. Every time there is speculation about increasing our Tassie games relocation/colocation will become a media topic. All credit to the club for the current scenario that does deliver $$$s. If the AFL buys Etihad lets see if they give us a better deal or status quo so they can 'pay off the loan'. If we get a better deal then this crap will go away - but if they find a reason not to then relocation/colocation will become a bigger story as we rely more on that money stream.

 

[Devington]

I agree with those saying that co-location is the game here.

While even the prospect of just that leaves a sour taste in my mouth, there are some scenarios I could see working out if the club chooses (or is forced) down that path.

There are a lot of points to consider when I'm trying to think of the best case scenarios (not that co-locating in and of itself should be seen as a 'good' regardless of how well we hypothetically do it), as well as some aspects that are irredeemably and unspinnably bad. So in no particular order, and knowing that there is an incredible overlap of themes...

Identity.
Hard to really see a good outcome here. No matter how you spin it, the history books and a lot of us in the present, will see it as an admission of failure. That we were either unable to be viable based in Arden Street alone OR that we lacked the strength and fortitude to successfully fight against the wishes of the AFL and maintain our Arden Street identity. Cases could be made that we get strong-armed into it (our presence being not-so slowly chewed away by virtue of AFL house handing certain things in our sphere of influence to the Bulldogs etc, and whatever else the AFL can think of to screw our viability as a Melbourne club over, or conversely by making us too dependant on our LIMITED Tasmanian adventures and then threatening to cut us off from it completely), that it would have been crazy or irresponsible NOT to accept the deal (if AFL house were to go all out and give us concession after concession, in monetary terms, contractual arrangements, AFL-led marketing, infrastructure support, academy access etc etc etc). Even if in the long run we made out by bandits, it would still have been a betrayal to many people, living and dead.

Games.
In terms of what can be done to mitigate the damage done to our identity and pride as a Melbourne club, the biggest one by far is games. Firstly replacement games would be a must. Screwing over Melbourne supporters even more by limiting and lessening the number of home games would have to be avoided at all costs. It can't be completely, but the blow can be lessened. Perception is a big one. calling them 'replacement' home games is slightly insulting. Instead I would propose that the way the games in Melbourne and Tasmania are perceived is to be changed. Instead of calling Tasmanian games 'North Home games' they should be marketed as 'Tasmanian games'. Drop north from the label. It would be an oxymoran anyway. Tasmanian games are defacto North games. The games North plays in Tasmania should be 'Tasmanian games' and all the games we play as the primary team in Melbourne should be referred to as 'North home games'. I don't care if this means we end up effectively playing 18 home games. There can be compromises made in terms of labelling and perception, and on such things north SHOULD NOT compromise with the AFL. In monetary terms it would make nary a difference to the AFL. It might make the other clubs and their supporters a bit pissed, but as a lot we always are about something anyway. Conversely it WOULD go a long way to keeping some of North's and their supporters prideful.

Presence.
This is another one that there will always be some loss. You can't spend so much time in Tasmania and NOT make the Melbourne folks lose out. However, once again there are things that can be done to negate this to some effect. Instead of 6-8 games in Tasmania during the season. 4-6. With two of three NAB cup games played in Hobart each year by North, as well as another 1 or 2 played by other teams. It might be of lesser quality, but I can vouch for Tasmanians when I say we love Footy, even if it is NAB cup. And considering the scarcity of games here anyway, people would take it. ESPECIALLY if they are smart with the scheduling and don't give us 2 games here in a row, and don't give us 7 week gaps between them. The fixture is exactly that. A fix. Fix it in the club and Tasmania's favour and make sure there is a game here every 3-5 weeks. You could easily get away with one or two less premiership games here a year if they are smart about it. Speaking of NAB, we have the preseason. Don't just send the new kids and one or two players down here for a week long camp like they normally do. Think bigger and better. New Tasmanian academy? New near-state of the art training base for the guys we would normally send to Utah for intensive blocks. Yes you lose on some of the advantages of Utah, but a large point of them was to catch up our older and core players on where they should have been at as AFL players anyway, hence why we don't send as many of them there anymore anyway. **** it. Build the academy on top of Mount Wellington for some altitude. Build the cafe and restaurant they've wanted there for years. Build the ****ing cable car already (we have this beautiful tourist attraction but refuse to utilise and monetise it). There are ways Tasmania can benefit from a one team arrangement OTHER than by virtue of having a team play here for a third of the year. The afl has cash and influence out the arse, many Tasmanians have been screaming for Mt Wellington developments for decades. It can be worked out, and everyone can benefit, and Tasmanians can know that in no small part North is to thank. With that kind of goodwill the club can effectively spend less time down here (and more time in Melbourne) than they otherwise would. We already have training camps down in Hobart. We already have appearances and a presence. You don't have to double that just so you account for the North of the state as well.

A lot of the ways the negatives of co-locating to Tasmania, in terms of being a proud Melbourne club comes down to the afl accommodating us on things. And most of these accommodations would cost them almost nothing. Schedule our first Nab game in Hobart/Launceston, and instead of just a half arsed training camp with half the team a month earlier, we have a 3-5 day one leading into the first Nab game utilising Bellerive oval and a swanky new Tasmanian Academy cum North Gym/Training-Base, with a half dozen players doing light media duties for a half hour before/after training on certain days.

IF co-locating were to happen. There ARE things that can be done to benefit the club greatly, including in ways that would drastically lessen the potential blow to our Melbourne heritage and presence. And a lot of them would cost the AFL very little money.

Money is what the AFL cares about. If they are willing to co-locate a team down here and establish an academy, they are willing to build that infrastructure in such a manner as would benefit the co-locating club as well.

IF they are willing to co-locate a team down here WITH that club smiling and grinning and not destroying the AFL's image (Something that goes a long way towards how much money they make), then they are willing to go out of their way to reword a few things, to schedule to that clubs benefit (in terms of allocating time between Tasmania and Melbourne), and probably to put a bit of extra money and political pressure into and on the Tasmanian and Federal government that ends boosting the Tasmanian economy and tourism attractiveness (thus getting more people down to watch the games and making the AFL look like saints to the locals).

Everything I said is filled with if's buts and maybes. Personally I hope we don't get to the stage where we do have to co-locate. But if we do I hope the club scraps with all their might to get the best deal for the club in terms of the tangibles, and in some ways even more-so the intangibles namely our perception as a Melbourne club and the pride that comes with that.

Co-locating isn't ideal by any means. But it can be done ****ing horribly, or it can be done smartly and smoothly where the Melbourne supporters and our pride suffer considerable less than it would already have to. Apologies for ranting, raving, pipedreaming, and being far too optimistic in some places. But the issue of co-location is once again looking like a real one, and I think we need to be prepared for it as best we can if that is to happen, and that preparedness includes thinking about the type of things, and the ways, we can make the Club and the AFL put as much in our favour while simultaneously ripping away the least amount of our pride and identity.