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

[Only Forwards]

The AFL can always work the schedule so members get their 11 game quota regardless if North were to play 5 in Tassie.

Can they though?

for a moment imagine we were looking at playing a strong on field essendon side this year. they have 60k members. How many rank and file Roos members are not getting into that game?

the answer is f***ing heaps.

Replacement game my arse.

 

[Kimbo]

I do find it somewhat amusing to hear people say they wouldn't buy memberships, or would downgrade, or use AFL memberships only on the basis that the value for money wouldn't be there. This coupled with the view that, as members, we are effectively clients.

If Geoff Walsh was CEO, you know what he'd say? "Shut up and buy a membership!" (May or may not be exact wording.)

But seriously, this is the exact issue I raised way back then regarding my measly interstate membership concern. At the time, you paid for it, but still had to pay for a seat at Subiaco. What was the point, I argued, if I get no real benefit? Of course, the good folk on this Board assured me that it was important to show one's support for the club; being a member is non-negotiable, save for money one needs for cancer treatment. So, I pay my money - albeit considerably less than for a full membership - and have convinced my wife to do the same, for club I get to see live once or twice a year. (Actually not at all now, given I reside 400km away now, and refuse to be surrounded by the general WA football following feral idiots.)

So, where do I stand now? I think it's both. We are clients and need to see the 'value for money' for the money we're handing over and I have heard ad nauseum that a key issue for Melbourne supporters will be the replacement game issue. I wonder if the club has?! :sternlook I also think that, a club, even a co-located club (up to 5 games), is still "ours" (we're just sharing the love and market) and deserves to have our continued support.

6 home games, plus other 'away' games against Victorian teams...?

...luxury!

(It's all relative.)

 

[Tas]

Can they though?

for a moment imagine we were looking at playing a strong on field essendon side this year. they have 60k members. How many rank and file Roos members are not getting into that game?

the answer is f***ing heaps.

Replacement game my arse.

From memory JB only made a commitment to 8 Melbourne games, and yes, then we would get dicked with games like Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond away games, even at the MCG it would be a cluster ****. If it is at Docklands like Essendon typically is then most would miss out.

JB isn't being serious about serving the members interests if he believes that scenario would be benefitting the supporters.

 

[Firestarter]

Yeah I'd ark up louder at the threats to boycott the club but I am still poorly attempting to exercise self restraint and modicums of intelligence.

 

[Tas]

The derogatory Tas comments are unnecessary and add nothing to the issue at hand.

Hawthorn sold their soul? Right.....

Our focus is Melb. Thats why we are developing the secondary market to enable us to stay in Melb long term.

Zondor is our friendly troll who makes comments to push people's buttons to get a reaction.

 

[Only Forwards]

(It's all relative.)

I raised the replacement games issue through the club survey, along with quite a few other things.

I haven't down graded my membership nor am I likely to, but I can see that fallacy of having a "replacement' game where the vast majority of Melbourne based North members are not going to be able to attend. However unlike the fallacy that you faced around being an interstate member and having to pay for a seat that you membership should cover. We could travel 5 minutes down the freaking road and we would basically all fit in.

It is this that I find ridiculously frustrating. I have very little issue having replacement games at Etihad vs the Dogs or Saints or Shemons, but the Geelong and essendon game should be at the G.

 

[Woodson]

No problems with your comment but I'm looking for 11 home game experiences in Melbourne. For me its booked seats in the North End with other North members.

They're allowing eight this season. Round 8 won't be a ticketed game so depending on the * progress, the AFL would best to open up the lower level a lot more. Nothing worse than having gaping sections of 'reserved no shows' on the lower level. So that could possibly be Nine games for Members to flock into the Northern section. You'd expect Round 12 & 18 to be ticketed games. Pies fans would be annoyed they play one of their two annual home ES games against ES tenant teams for the second consecutive year. (note: Pies 0-3 at ES in 2015) AFL obviously think they'll fill more b/w filth in at the 'G when both games against interstate teams with 'premiership glory' at ES failed to break 37k.

 

[Only Forwards]

Wait so it only just twigged

Why in the f*** are we playing 2 Melbourne based sides in our 3 Tassie games?

what the f*** sense does that make?

 

[Viper2Jester]

Zondor is our friendly troll who makes comments to push people's buttons to get a reaction.

Thanks Tas. I knew that mate

 

[Zondor]

I do find it somewhat amusing to hear people say they wouldn't buy memberships, or would downgrade, or use AFL memberships only on the basis that the value for money wouldn't be there. This coupled with the view that, as members, we are effectively clients.

If Geoff Walsh was CEO, you know what he'd say? "Shut up and buy a membership!" (May or may not be exact wording.)

But seriously, this is the exact issue I raised way back then regarding my measly interstate membership concern. At the time, you paid for it, but still had to pay for a seat at Subiaco. What was the point, I argued, if I get no real benefit? Of course, the good folk on this Board assured me that it was important to show one's support for the club; being a member is non-negotiable, save for money one needs for cancer treatment. So, I pay my money - albeit considerably less than for a full membership - and have convinced my wife to do the same, for club I get to see live once or twice a year. (Actually not at all now, given I reside 400km away now, and refuse to be surrounded by the general WA football following feral idiots.)

So, where do I stand now? I think it's both. We are clients and need to see the 'value for money' for the money we're handing over and I have heard ad nauseum that a key issue for Melbourne supporters will be the replacement game issue. I wonder if the club has?! :sternlook I also think that, a club, even a co-located club (up to 5 games), is still "ours" (we're just sharing the love and market) and deserves to have our continued support.

6 home games, plus other 'away' games against Victorian teams...?

...luxury!

(It's all relative.)

And I still love that tiny old house with the great big holes in the roof. We won 2 Premierships in the 90's living in that house. What you need to ask yourself is this. What is the North Melbourne Football Club to you? We will always struggle to be that Rich Powerhouse Side. Sure we should aspire to grow but within reason. Not at the cost of our identity.

Some would have told you that if we had relocated to the Gold Coast we would still be North Melbourne. Now I think we can both agree that the notion of North on the Gold Coast still being North was bullshit. There are now some including you suggesting that a co-located club would still be North Melbourne. And Kimbo a 6 to 5 split is co-location. Would it be the same? Not for me here living in Melbourne. Maybe for you 400km outside of Perth.

We were formed in 1869 as the North Melbourne Football Club. We should aspire to remain the North Melbourne Football Club. Based in North Melbourne. Playing our home games out of Melbourne. That is who we are. :stern look

 

[Tas]

Wait so it only just twigged

Why in the f*** are we playing 2 Melbourne based sides in our 3 Tassie games?

what the f*** sense does that make?

Why are we forced to take better drawing teams to development markets when everyone else dumps the shittiest games at theirs and we get a worse deal?

Does our club fight hard enough for the best deal?

 

[Only Forwards]

Why are we forced to take better drawing teams to development markets when everyone else dumps the shittiest games at theirs and we get a worse deal?

Does our club fight hard enough for the best deal?

We play Brisbane, Port and GWS all in Melbourne.

Hold on to your hats its going to be a packed house.

 

[Zondor]

Wait so it only just twigged

Why in the f*** are we playing 2 Melbourne based sides in our 3 Tassie games?

what the f*** sense does that make?

Yep and the third team we are playing on the Map is Sydney. The interstate side you could argue who has the highest supporter base (of the interstate sides) in Melbourne.

And people want to praise Wonder Womans. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

Zondor is our friendly troll who makes comments to push people's buttons to get a reaction.

Sssshhhh. Gots to weed out those Pro Tasmanian Turkeys. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

We play Brisbane, Port and GWS all in Melbourne.

Hold on to your hats its going to be a packed house.

 

[Woodson]

Wait so it only just twigged

Why in the f*** are we playing 2 Melbourne based sides in our 3 Tassie games?

what the f*** sense does that make?

I believe that's a taboo subject to discuss for the footy media.

It's an old story of 'AFL got nothing on me' when it comes to scheduling prowess. Chadwiko can possibly vouch for that.

Nevermind that… WINS are better than losses. North had the Tigers and Saints last year btw.. Record at Blundstone: 7-2 (both loses to interstate teams FYI).

 

[Kimbo]

I raised the replacement games issue through the club survey, along with quite a few other things.

I haven't down graded my membership nor am I likely to, but I can see that fallacy of having a "replacement' game where the vast majority of Melbourne based North members are not going to be able to attend. However unlike the fallacy that you faced around being an interstate member and having to pay for a seat that you membership should cover. We could travel 5 minutes down the freaking road and we would basically all fit in.

It is this that I find ridiculously frustrating. I have very little issue having replacement games at Etihad vs the Dogs or Saints or Shemons, but the Geelong and essendon game should be at the G.

I don't disagree. The replacement game issue is one of the biggest issues the club needs to sort out if it is going to increase presence in Tassie. Has to.

My comments were more cautioning those who see it 'only' as a client service issue. Being a member of a footy club is more than that.

 

[Boozeroo]

Hawthorn has grown in Melbourne at a cosmic rate. Tasmania games have not hindered that at all. Provided the club sends a clear message that it's here to stay, and wins flags, the rest is immaterial.

Where is North's comic growth rate coming from then?

 

[Tas]

Sssshhhh. Gots to weed out those Pro Tasmanian Turkeys. :stern look

As much as I have been vocal against JB's desire to turn us into a Tasmanian team, when I see the Tasmanian North supporters decked in their blue and white and passionately support the club I consider them one of our own. I have kinda softened my stance so do not mind playing some games there, however, it doesn't change my opinion that I see push coming to shove that we will eventually be given an ultimatum to play a considerable number of games there or be booted off for some other club who is destitute enough to agree to terms. I feel for those who have passionately given their 100% for our club from the apple if and when that comes to be.

AFL have proven time and again to be a fork-tongued viper and the more you handle a viper the increasingly likelihood that it's going to bite you.

I think the AFL is under the pump to get a resolution to Docklands and if they don't lock in a club at Tasmania before Dockands then I can't see how anyone would afterwards given a relatively clean Docklands should be significantly more attractive than any agreement you could come to terms with in a development market.

 

[Kimbo]

Wait so it only just twigged

Why in the f*** are we playing 2 Melbourne based sides in our 3 Tassie games?

what the f*** sense does that make?

Because GoDees fans treat Etihad as if it's in the Middle East and don't travel there. Why would you to see the ritual humiliation against the mighty Roos?

Richmond because we can't treat the Tasmanian public who pay to go to the games with contempt, otherwise they'd only get to see only 'also rans' and plastic franchises. It's a balancing act. If we only act on the basis of short-term, game-by-game returns we'll lose longer term support and treating them cynically.

 

[Tas]

We play Brisbane, Port and GWS all in Melbourne.

Hold on to your hats its going to be a packed house.

I'd bring my banana lounge but I don't think they will let me bring that into the ground.

 

[Only Forwards]

I believe that's a taboo subject to discuss for the footy media.

It's an old story of 'AFL got nothing on me' when it comes to scheduling prowess. Chadwiko can possibly vouch for that.

Nevermind that… WINS are better than losses. North had the Tigers and Saints last year btw.. Record at Blundstone: 7-2 (both loses to interstate teams FYI).

So now it is year on year we are having to play Melbourne based sides on the map rather than Port or the expansion sides.


Wins are better than losses, but who are we playing there that is quality?

West Coast? We'd have beaten them at Etihad as well but we haven't played them there in a million years., Boomers 'point of the century" was the last time.

Richmond? we are better than them.

who else?

 

[Only Forwards]

Because GoDees fans treat Etihad as if it's in the Middle East and don't travel there. Why would you to see the ritual humiliation against the mighty Roos?

Richmond because we can't treat the Tasmanian public who pay to go to the games, to see only 'also rans' and plastic franchises. It's a balancing act. If we only act on the basis of short-term, game-by-game returns we'll lose longer term support and treating them cynically.

We should play Port there.
Not a plastic franchise it is generally a quality game and we are never going to get the same sorta crowd in against them in Melbourne as we would against Richmond.

As for the Shemons, again this is a bureaucracy, Melbourne are a MCG based side.

 

[giantroo]

Old thread but same story.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/caro-article-tomorrow.1058600/

View attachment 51787

 

[JD-Roo]

As soon as they took Ballarat off us it was always on the cards that we would be seeing a strengthening of the alignment to Tassie, with a real prospect of a push to a one team model.

Was that on bloody Garlick's recommendations too?

Why the hell would anyone think someone doing a report on footy economics would not have bias in his system? Funny that he's making recommendations and we seem to being slowly uprooted strand-by-strand once again.

Would be interesting to see any reactions from Doggies supporters if it was a North bloke writing this shit and them losing connections.....