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

[Woodson]

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?

Interesting point that …. (pardon the pun).

I recall the AFL stating when the expansion teams 17 & 18 joined, they stated their would be a even rotation of the schedule. *insert Jack Elliott's catch cry of the 90's here*

Here's the reality for the AFL's dismal handling of 'such rotation'…

2010 was the season the last time the WCE played in Melbourne vs North.

2011: Played once: Season opener at Subiaco - Result: controversial loss after Brady Rawlings pelvis was deemed a concussion hazard.
2012: Played twice: Lost both times by aggregate of 27. Loss at Blundstone was by 2 measly points.
2013: Played once: Round 8 loss by two points again at Subiaco / Domain.
2014: Played once: Round 11 victory by 38 at you guessed it.. Subiaco / Domain
2015: Played once: Round 10 victory by 10 against the odds - gale at Blundstone..

Six trips to Subiaco including debacle EF loss in 2012. Eagles ZERO trips to Melbourne (vs North) in that timeframe and just TWO trips east!!

AFL hotch potch fixturing at it's best!!! F***** useless as you've already noted Only Forwards well pointed out. I'm just providing facts to all to see.

 

[Tas]

Since we said No to relocating to Gold Coast, we had a short-term surge in membership which settled down in 2010 during rebuild mode to 29,272. Since then it has been:
2011: 30,362 +1,090
2012: 33,754 +3,392
2013: 35,246 +1,492
2014: 40,092 +4,846
2015: 41,418 +1,326
2016: 35,023 to date 4,598 new members, 11,257 unrenewed (should hit 45k)

From the last publication of membership stats by the AFL we were the third highest club for junior supporters which represents the hard work we put in with the development work but there is a disconnect between membership and match attendance, I think a large part is due to a large number of junior members and interstate members, kids don't attend a lot of games, especially night games. The youth takes some time to evolve from juniors to adult memberships, we saw the strong junior numbers 10 years ago result in a significant surge from around a 25k base to where it is now. So where will it be in 10 years? 20 years?

If we sustain the recent growth rate of 2,429 members over the last 5 years over the next 10 years then that means 65k members by 2025. If the majority of that growth comes from Melbourne then they will impact the type of crowd we can pull, with a membership base of that size Docklands would be the perfect size for us, by 2025 AFL will own it even if they don't buy it out beforehand.

I just feel the way our club is tracking it would be a bad decision to not engage with these supporters. Fans become conditioned to not watching certain type of games and we have been conditioned to some extent and Hawks are now starting to feel the same effects drawing 17,904 fans to their game against GWS in 2014, their rare game against a low drawing opponent in Melbourne.

If AFL pushes for a one club Tasmanian team and it's neither us or Hawks then both clubs should ensure they are on a very strong footing here at home.

 

[Dirty_11]

Hawthorn have won the last 3 flags on the back of:

-some ballsy list management,
-quality drafting
-an excellent and innovative coach
-already having a strong list when the expansion clubs were introduced, prolonging their dominance whilst other clubs require longer trying to get their lists up to the pace.

Playing home games in Tassie hasn't been the key to their premiership success, or their spike in membership. Their member growth stems from a large 'fan' base due to an 80's dynasty. This resulted in thousands of young supporters jumping on board waiting for their side to be successful again.

For what it's worth, most Hawks supporters I know dislike them playing home games in Tassie also.

 

[numchuks]

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

 

[numchuks]

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.

Hawthorn weren't playing 8 games in Tassie a year, when they were growing at a cosmic rate in Melbourne.

All the very best trying to replicate that.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

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?

Next year will be all melbourne based teams.

You watch.

 

[Viper2Jester]

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

There's a few single minded turkeys here for sure needing to be weeded out.....and they aren't the Tasmanian supporters or more importantly our very professional admin team

 

[Kimbo]

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

Not advocating it, so much as reading the writing on the wall and indicating where the line is for me. I too would prefer all 11 home games in Melbourne, but it doesn't happen now and in a new five-year deal it will be 3 or 4 games.

What do you think it will be if we're the only team playing out of Tassie? Where is the line for you? If none, is it NMFC now?

If you're concerned, act now, not later. Take that motion back to the AGM, get support, ask questions etc. Like climate change, after a while, it becomes next to impossible to reverse.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Not advocating it, so much as reading the writing on the wall and indicating where the line is for me. I too would prefer all 11 home games in Melbourne, but it doesn't happen now and in a new five-year deal it will be 3 or 4 games.

What do you think it will be if we're the only team playing out of Tassie? Where is the line for you? If none, is it NMFC now?

If you're concerned, act now, not later. Take that motion back to the AGM, get support, ask questions etc. Like climate change, after a while, it becomes next to impossible to reverse.

The motion will be knocked back if the admin disgaree with it.

 

[Quinz]

Interesting point that …. (pardon the pun).

I recall the AFL stating when the expansion teams 17 & 18 joined, they stated their would be a even rotation of the schedule. *insert Jack Elliott's catch cry of the 90's here*

Here's the reality for the AFL's dismal handling of 'such rotation'…

2010 was the season the last time the WCE played in Melbourne vs North.

2011: Played once: Season opener at Subiaco - Result: controversial loss after Brady Rawlings pelvis was deemed a concussion hazard.
2012: Played twice: Lost both times by aggregate of 27. Loss at Blundstone was by 2 measly points.
2013: Played once: Round 8 loss by two points again at Subiaco / Domain.
2014: Played once: Round 11 victory by 38 at you guessed it.. Subiaco / Domain
2015: Played once: Round 10 victory by 10 against the odds - gale at Blundstone..

Six trips to Subiaco including debacle EF loss in 2012. Eagles ZERO trips to Melbourne (vs North) in that timeframe and just TWO trips east!!

AFL hotch potch fixturing at it's best!!! F***** useless as you've already noted Only Forwards well pointed out. I'm just providing facts to all to see.

We get some weird ones as well, like playing Brisbane 8 times away in our last 10 meetings, or 9 of our last 12 against Collingwood away. Haven't played Sydney at the SCG in 6 years etc.

I think the Eagles-North one is a combination of

a) We always request fewer trips over East that aren't at the MCG/Docklands, which are usually ignored until we're doing well enough to play Hawthorn at the MCG like this year coming up. Otherwise we get Hawthorn at York Park, Melbourne at Marrara etc.

b) North probably have the second highest proportion of fans here in the West after Collingwood. They always show up in big numbers. 10 games against the Dockers as well that have been at Subiaco in the last 10 years v 5 over East. It was only four or five years ago that North were exploring the option of playing a home game a year at Subiaco, which the AFL denied because it would be "unfair" (while allowing Brisbane to get "away" games at the Gabba against Melbourne.. but hey, NRL market so the rules are different).

It's great though, WA North fans have been able to see some remarkable West Coast wins in the last five years.

 

[Horace]

We play Brisbane, Port and GWS all in Melbourne.

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

Yeah, but, 20000 or less in attendance against those three clubs just proves we can't draw crowds, have very few supporters and so of course we should be shoved off to Tasmania to play most of our home games.

 

[Zondor]

Hawthorn have won the last 3 flags on the back of:

-some ballsy list management,
-quality drafting
-an excellent and innovative coach
-already having a strong list when the expansion clubs were introduced, prolonging their dominance whilst other clubs require longer trying to get their lists up to the pace.

Playing home games in Tassie hasn't been the key to their premiership success, or their spike in membership. Their member growth stems from a large 'fan' base due to an 80's dynasty. This resulted in thousands of young supporters jumping on board waiting for their side to be successful again.

For what it's worth, most Hawks supporters I know dislike them playing home games in Tassie also.

This is a very good post.

 

[Horace]

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.)

Now Kimbo, I hate to argue with your good self, but I think I was the one in this thread who first introduced the notion that we as member are clients of the club. I think I also first mentioned the AFL membership that I hold separately.

My basis for saying I would stop paying for the $185 reserved seat 8/3 game membership is because that does mean 8 games, plus the 3 replacement games. If those 8 games became just 3 and in theory include 8 replacement games, the reality is that if they still want to charge $185, then I can't see the value in such an arrangement. There is nothing even remotely similar between watching a home game in the North members area and watching a replacement game in who knows where that might be. The value in the package is simply not the same, yet I'm pretty sure they would still want to charge the same amount for what I view as a vastly inferior package. With an AFL membership there is a designated area at Etihad you can sit, while at the MCG there is never a problem getting a seat in the AFL Members stand.

When I first started watching football many many moons ago, the season used to be 18 games long, then it expanded to 22 games long. Then as someone living in Victoria, it was perfectly possible to go to every game that your club played in. Today the best we can hope for is 14 games a year, 8 of which are genuine home games compared to in the old days 11 home games or as I am sure a few old timers on this board might have done, all 22 home and away games.

As each Melbourne based game drops off, the value of the package diminishes and as far as I am concerned there will come a time when economic reality, together with the diminished viewing opportunities each year, has to be addressed.

When Brisbane took over Fitzroy, the number of games I could realistically go to see the Royboys dropped to around 5 or 6 times a year and along with all of the other emotions of those times, weighed heavily in my decision to stop supporting the Lions and change my allegiance to North. After the 1996 debacle, as a sweetener to disenfranchised Fitzroy supporters, the AFL offered quick access to an AFL membership, Brisbane Lions support, which I took up for 1 year. (I also bought a basic North membership in 1997, which I have retained ever since.)

At the end of 1997 I switched the AFL membership to a North Club support and have retained that ever since and by the way has helped me to get to both the 1998 GF loss and the 1999 wondrous day, plus 11 GF's since then.

Why then would I retain something that gets me to just 3 genuine home games, when I can go to 22 games or more each year, including the replacement games, by using an AFL Membership?

Let me say this also. I admire those such as you, who live so far away from where the club you support is based, who buy a membership each year. Everyone in that category is to be congratulated.

But. there is a fundamental difference between us and that is you are pretty much getting the same (very minimal) value from your membership as you did back when the AFL was the VFL. Those of us here in Victoria are slowly but surely seeing the value of their membership dwindle away. In my view, little wonder then that we are railing against that now.

 

[Horace]

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.

Again with the greatest respect to you Kimbo, my introduction of the term "client", was to highlight a situation of how taking your client (supporter base) for granted, can have a disastrous outcome. This particular business lost 50% of its revenue of $400000 a year in less than a year, because the clients could no longer see the value and felt they were being treated like idiots. What I'm trying to highlight is that if the club takes its members for granted and reduces the value in terms of games and expects the same revenue, it simply won't work. Some will continue irrespective, but some won't and that is a very important issue in this argument.

 

[Zondor]

Not advocating it, so much as reading the writing on the wall and indicating where the line is for me. I too would prefer all 11 home games in Melbourne, but it doesn't happen now and in a new five-year deal it will be 3 or 4 games.

What do you think it will be if we're the only team playing out of Tassie? Where is the line for you? If none, is it NMFC now?

If you're concerned, act now, not later. Take that motion back to the AGM, get support, ask questions etc. Like climate change, after a while, it becomes next to impossible to reverse.

The line has been passed already and I feel I'm eating that Shit Sandwich. I still consider us as the NMFC. 3 home games interstate is the most we have ever played in our history. We are there at the minute. I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. And this dislike stems from a mistrust of not only the AFL but also from our Board and in particular our President.

Now if we had a staunch keep North in Melbourne sort of a President in charge of the club who made it quite clear that there was a cap in the amount of home interstate games that our club would ever play in a year and that the primary objective was to one day have our club back to playing 11 home games in Melbourne then I wouldn't be no where near as vehement in my opposition to these games being played on the Map as I am now.

Now note that I've been a member of the NMFC since 1993. In that time we have gone thru merger proposals and relocation talk. I won't give up on my club as easily as those who had that loser's mentality. Those who felt that merging or relocation was our only option for survival.

What is sickening is that after the shit talk of mergers and relocation in the past is that a new breed of "we need Tassie to be strong or we will fall in a screaming heap" types have come out of the woodwork. There is that losers mentality rearing its ugly head again amongst some of our faithful. And unfortunately some of those Turkeys sit on our board.

Anyways I still hold out hope that we will revert back to an 11 home game in Melbourne scenario one day. Brayshaws won't be President for too much longer and the Docklands will be a "cleaner" Stadium that doesn't suck so much money in due course.

One can only cross their testicles and hope. That or win Oz Lotto and act. :stern look

 

[Kimbo]

Again with the greatest respect to you Kimbo, my introduction of the term "client", was to highlight a situation of how taking your client (supporter base) for granted, can have a disastrous outcome. This particular business lost 50% of its revenue of $400000 a year in less than a year, because the clients could no longer see the value and felt they were being treated like idiots. What I'm trying to highlight is that if the club takes its members for granted and reduces the value in terms of games and expects the same revenue, it simply won't work. Some will continue irrespective, but some won't and that is a very important issue in this argument.

I get it mate. Sorry if I my summary of various views misrepresented yours.

 

[Horace]

I get it mate. Sorry if I my summary of various views misrepresented yours.

Kimbo all is good with me. Absolutely no need to say sorry.

 

[Horace]

BTW, I don't want to bang on about the Fitzroy thing because I'm sure everyone here is sick of me mentioning it.

But I'll just say this. Every time I read or hear the word Fitzroy, every time there is a mention of an old Fitzroy player or a bit of old footage flashes up, I get the same dreadful feeling of loss. It never ever fails to hit me. Dunno what I would do if North went the same way.

 

[Kimbo]

Now Kimbo, I hate to argue with your good self..

No need to. I get concern with 'diminishing value' as a client/member and I get there is a threshold beyond which NMFC ceases to be NMFC. I was addressing the dummy-spitting.

18 games? Did they throw Christians to the Lions at half-tine?

 

[Dugdale2Dwyer]

Is that Josh Gibson at Dallas Brookes hall?

 

[Horace]

No need to. I get concern with 'diminishing value' as a client/member and I get there is a threshold beyond which NMFC ceases to be NMFC. I was addressing the dummy-spitting.

18 games? Did they throw Christians to the Lions at half-tine?

Absolutely. And you should have seen the Chariot races. Sensational.

 

[LT Smash]

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'm sure we've had this conversation before as I grow tired of pointing out the bleeding obvious. Choice of opponents in Hobart is not about dispatching the weaker-crowd drawing expansion teams away from Melbourne. It is about providing the major sponsor of the games - Spirit of Tasmania - with the maximum number of travelling fans from Melbourne as well as maximum exposure into this market. That is best achieved by fixturing 2 Melbourne sides so the supporters from both clubs are exposed to the service that Spirit of Tasmania offers.

 

[D23D]

BTW, I don't want to bang on about the Fitzroy thing because I'm sure everyone here is sick of me mentioning it.

But I'll just say this. Every time I read or hear the word Fitzroy, every time there is a mention of an old Fitzroy player or a bit of old footage flashes up, I get the same dreadful feeling of loss. It never ever fails to hit me. Dunno what I would do if North went the same way.

Horace, I'm halfway through the Dyson Hore-Lacey book now and I truly feel for you.
Actually I already felt for the Roy's supporters before I started that great (and terribly sad) book.
But it is a real life account of what the afl and their reps will do that can murder a club.
It can happen to us. And by virtue of the fact it seems to be happening slowly, I am actually more alarmed.
I applaud everyone who takes a cautious view and believe we, the NMFC, need to be occasionally over cautious to protect what's ours.

 

[JD-Roo]

I'm sure we've had this conversation before as I grow tired of pointing out the bleeding obvious. Choice of opponents in Hobart is not about dispatching the weaker-crowd drawing expansion teams away from Melbourne. It is about providing the major sponsor of the games - Spirit of Tasmania - with the maximum number of travelling fans from Melbourne as well as maximum exposure into this market. That is best achieved by fixturing 2 Melbourne sides so the supporters from both clubs are exposed to the service that Spirit of Tasmania offers.

That may well be the case now (and by god it sucks big dogs balls that it is) but that is NOT how it was envisaged in the beginning until the Taswegian heirarchy started bitching about getting the same interstate sides over and over. The original intention was ALWAYS for the low drawing games that COST us money to play at Docklands getting shifted to MAKE us money in Tassie.

 

[The Other Dean]

I'm sure we've had this conversation before as I grow tired of pointing out the bleeding obvious. Choice of opponents in Hobart is not about dispatching the weaker-crowd drawing expansion teams away from Melbourne. It is about providing the major sponsor of the games - Spirit of Tasmania - with the maximum number of travelling fans from Melbourne as well as maximum exposure into this market. That is best achieved by fixturing 2 Melbourne sides so the supporters from both clubs are exposed to the service that Spirit of Tasmania offers.

'Seasickness for those who don't usually get seasick'. That's quite the service.

Some quality discussion in this fred. From both sides.

And I say that as a card-carrying member of the 'don't increase our games in Tassie' camp. To me, 'co-location' is no less abhorrent that 're-location'. Both involve an irreversible alteration (read: pollution) to the proud heritage of the NMFC and its 140+ year history. And thus, to quote one of this forum's more visionary posters, both are for the tip. I think upping our involvement is a dangerous game to play, and am yet to be convinced that it is in any way a necessity. (I'm also of the belief that Melbourne is a far from a tapped-out market, but that's probably a discussion for another time.)

Admittedly, I form this opinion without being privy to the inside details of our financial situation, or the AFL's exact intentions in all of this. But that's okay because those folk that would disagree with me on here are working from the same base.