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

[GreatBradScott]

Regardless of everyone's views, opinions and experiences, the members should have a right to vote on this matter.

Not just for the sake of clarity, but for the sake of giving future boards the ability to act within the expectations of their members.

I think regardless of what everyone thinks, the goal everyone should be working towards is a vote in foreseeable future.

 

[tazaa]

In regards to replacement games, I want my equivalent RESERVED SEAT tickets emailed to me. I do not want to be directed to a bay of first in best dressed.

In regards to the 4 games, how do we go about making it constitutional that we never exceed this? I do not trust anyone anymore when it comes to the handling of our Club.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

The club explained to me that using an individuals membership barcode you would be able to upgrade for FREE to a North reserved seating area for all 4 replacement games. Whether we can do this early on in the year or the week leading up to the game I have no idea.
The reason I am skeptical of this is because there are only 4 other Marvel tenants in the Dons, Blues, Dogs and Saints. Cant see how the Dons give up 5,000 seats when they have 60,000 members and only 40,000 seats to place them in for their home games.
So it means the G becomes an option?

Like I said I dont know how this will work but the club has offered assurances.
Mind you the membership rolls over next Monday for 2019 too

Regardless of everyone's views, opinions and experiences, the members should have a right to vote on this matter.

Not just for the sake of clarity, but for the sake of giving future boards the ability to act within the expectations of their members.

I think regardless of what everyone thinks, the goal everyone should be working towards is a vote in foreseeable future.

Again I quote the clubs stance on this, they advised that if we want to increase any more games from the current number of 4 then it will have to go to a vote.
This isnt in writing anywhere i.e. the constitution so perhaps the club should get on the front foot and do it themselves.

 

[Gasometer]

Trying to read back through this thread as best as I can but I am yet to read how you stop so called North Members allowing their Opposition Supporter BFFs to sit in North designated areas.

It is impossible to police.

 

[Limerick]

Those deals would come up before the fixture is set, not during the season.

So there would be nothing precluding the club form altering the deal with the Tassie Govenrment and reducing it by one game and then taking the other game to China.

The concern of the Club was that when an initial proposal was raised, they would have to hold a membership vote (1-2 months) before they could enter any detailed discussions on the proposal. This would have the impact of having the Club overlooked and therefore missing out. This is a valid concern that can be overcome within a Constitutional amendment.

 

[numchuks]

The concern of the Club was that when an initial proposal was raised, they would have to hold a membership vote (1-2 months) before they could enter any detailed discussions on the proposal. This would have the impact of having the Club overlooked and therefore missing out. This is a valid concern that can be overcome within a Constitutional amendment.

I’m not talking about membership votes or any of the sort.

I’m asking our CEO that if he doesn’t want to jeopardise the board’s ability to have the flexibility to chase one off big cash games, the board simply can reduce the games being played in Tassie by one to accomodate a once off game in China or the US.

It doesn’t and shouldn’t have to come at the expense of a Melborne game for a Melbourne members.

 

[FlyHigh18]

lol "grow our Victorian base" ..... to what? an extra 10k non-band-wagoner members over 5 years?
We already have the highest 'follower' to 'member' conversion rate. Melbourne is dead for growth.

Here are some other facts:

• Apart from STK we currently receive the most cash from the AFL for any VIC club in order to stay afloat
• Constant reliance on member donations to cover debt reduction and infrastructure growth
• We have no pokies

There is no magic wand guys.

Personally I've never cared whether a game is 'home' or 'away'. We play 11 at Etihad and i go to all of them, will continue to do so. (your 'home only membership' will get you into all of them anyway through replacement games).

 

[El Triggso]

No I think we're run by very capable people. Which concerns me, as sometimes spreadsheets can come before soul.

The great Socceroo Alan Davidson was once offered a hefty contract by Bayern Munich... on the proviso he became a German citizen.

Despite the commercial and professional opportunity playing with Bayern represented, he said no. His pride in his identity as an Australian ultimately meant more.

You have to ask the question just how deeply being “North Melbourne” sits in the soul of our administration.

 

[Massive Unit]

Trying to read back through this thread as best as I can but I am yet to read how you stop so called North Members allowing their Opposition Supporter BFFs to sit in North designated areas.

It is impossible to police.

Short answer is, I don't think you can stop them.
I can buy a guest pass for any of my mates to the Premiership Club, irrespective of who they support.
The onus is on us to get better friends!

 

[Gasometer]

Short answer is, I don't think you can stop them.
I can buy a guest pass for any of my mates to the Premiership Club, irrespective of who they support.
The onus is on us to get better friends!

It wouldn't be an issue if they just sat down and shut up

 

[blisk]

Not too sure what the issue is, 4 games in hobart is exactly the same amount the hawks play down in Launceston. Preferably schedule all games we play down there vs. interstate teams or atleast 3 and 1 and this move is fine, generates a boatload of cash for the club.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Melbourne Supporters don't bother turning up

leads to

Less profit and sustainability

leads to

Selling games to Hobart to actually make a profit

leads to

Alienating more Melbourne supporters due to not feeling their membership is worth what they're paying

leads to

less Melbourne supporters bothering to turn up

leads to

Another game sold to Hobart.




Vicious cycle.

(Not a crack at anyone on here, people invested enough to post on an Internet Forum daily about their club are the ones who would actually turn up)

 

[Firestarter]

Awkward time to receive a letter to members in my email...

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

I can live with the 4th Tassie game, but as someone who was looking to upgrade from a GA to reserved seat membership, I'd want to know more about the replacement games before I commit.

My concern is around the AFL's previous statements wanting only one club playing home games in Tassie. If Hawthorn were to pull out of Launceston when their deal expires, I can imagine the pressure would be on us to again up our commitment.

 

[shintemaster]

Too late, the agreement has been entered into under the current constitution. Any proposal will need to accept 4 games.

Nothing to say it can't be written to account for the end of the deal in 2021 (?).

 

[shintemaster]

The club explained to me that using an individuals membership barcode you would be able to upgrade for FREE to a North reserved seating area for all 4 replacement games. Whether we can do this early on in the year or the week leading up to the game I have no idea.
The reason I am skeptical of this is because there are only 4 other Marvel tenants in the Dons, Blues, Dogs and Saints. Cant see how the Dons give up 5,000 seats when they have 60,000 members and only 40,000 seats to place them in for their home games.
So it means the G becomes an option?

Like I said I dont know how this will work but the club has offered assurances.
Mind you the membership rolls over next Monday for 2019 too

It's poor form. This is the kind of rubbish the AFL tries on by bringing out rule changes mid season. The club have already sent out membership advice and they decide to point out afterwards that they're changing the scope of the package? It is amateur hour stuff and insulting IMO. There is a lot of hot air but when it comes down to it they value reserved seat members very poorly - and it shows in their actions.

 

[Limerick]

Nothing to say it can't be written to account for the end of the deal in 2021 (?).

Yes, I agree. This would test the Clubs position that 4 games is the maximum they will agree too.

 

[GeordieRoo]

I imagine this will eventually lead to the entity becoming North Melbourne/Tasmania (as per the AFLW team). Still based at Arden St but the AFL will have us take over the Hawks games in Launceston, leaving us with 3 home games at Etihad.

Wonder if the results of that Arden St fundraiser would have been different if we'd known the 2019 fixture would have a fourth game in Tassie?

 

[Kimbo]

On that first sentence, I find it hard to hear that people have concerns with where we are heading. This club has gone from strength to strength over the past decade and is in a position now where the AFL isn't worried about us financially. We're not the "basket-case" Caroline Wilson and others used to refer to us as being in just about every single article. The Board has made some good moves to secure our future and I reckon we need to remember where we've come from since only 2008 when it was pretty gloomy.

While the place we're in is, administratively speaking, light years from 2007 days, the issues are:

1. AFL agenda (refer to tazaa's earlier post ), and;
2. member power to future-proof us against anyone that wants to relocate the NMFC (AFL, incompetent or weak Board etc.) or increase the number of home games played outside Victoria.

I find it hard to believe that the CEO, producer of KNS, or any Board member wouldn't understand that core concern. It's about learning the lessons of history. It doesn't take a lot for circumstances to change. A Hawthorn-less Tassie, the desire to set up a team in Tassie etc. might create a pressure that isn't resisted like it was in 2007 (by the skin of our teeth).

Further to this, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to draft a motion to amend the constitution that guarantees a four game limit, and enable genuinely one off bonanza opportunities to be seized? Or are we stuck simply because of a lack of creativity or initiative?

 

[Dirty_11]

The club explained to me that using an individuals membership barcode you would be able to upgrade for FREE to a North reserved seating area for all 4 replacement games. Whether we can do this early on in the year or the week leading up to the game I have no idea.
The reason I am skeptical of this is because there are only 4 other Marvel tenants in the Dons, Blues, Dogs and Saints. Cant see how the Dons give up 5,000 seats when they have 60,000 members and only 40,000 seats to place them in for their home games.
So it means the G becomes an option?

Like I said I dont know how this will work but the club has offered assurances.
Mind you the membership rolls over next Monday for 2019 too


Again I quote the clubs stance on this, they advised that if we want to increase any more games from the current number of 4 then it will have to go to a vote.
This isnt in writing anywhere i.e. the constitution so perhaps the club should get on the front foot and do it themselves.

This is where it ****s me no end. I buy reserved seat memberships for the convenience as much as the best viewing. I like to have a meal and drinks with the family close to the ground, arrive at banner time and watch the game. If I have to roll up an hour and a half before a match to make sure I have decent seats where 9 of us can sit together they can jam it up their arses. I will end up coughing up extra to reserve somewhere else or more than likely not even bother now. So sick of this ****.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dirty_11]

lol "grow our Victorian base" ..... to what? an extra 10k non-band-wagoner members over 5 years?
We already have the highest 'follower' to 'member' conversion rate. Melbourne is dead for growth.

Here are some other facts:

• Apart from STK we currently receive the most cash from the AFL for any VIC club in order to stay afloat
• Constant reliance on member donations to cover debt reduction and infrastructure growth
• We have no pokies

There is no magic wand guys.

Personally I've never cared whether a game is 'home' or 'away'. We play 11 at Etihad and i go to all of them, will continue to do so. (your 'home only membership' will get you into all of them anyway through replacement games).

Every situation is different.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Colbys Boots]

Hi Pykie - Carl Dilena here on Heath's account.

Thanks for your comments and views.

I can only offer my personal views. I see four games as a natural limit as it replicates Hawthorn’s deal. I was comfortable with three but a fourth had been something our funding partner was always keen on. We also see it as compelling from a football performance perspective and longer term member growth.

Personally, I was not in favour of a constitutional limitation when it was previously floated as it could act as an unnecessary constraint on future boards. For example; if we are playing 4 games in Hobart and there was a one-off opportunity to play a game in China for $2M, rather than take the opportunity, the future Board would have to go to a member vote. I saw this as impractical and an unnecessary expense for the club. However, I'm more than happy to ensure your sentiments are shared with the current Board.

Let's be clear though, this 4th game is not about setting up for anything bigger - there is nothing on the radar from our perspective.

In the Tasmanian media, there has been a recent campaign to kick out the Victorian clubs. This raises risk for us so its important that we nurture the relationship more than ever. It’s an important part of our long term strategy.

My simple philosophy is that we are a member-based organisation and have to operate in the best interests of our members. The vast majority of our members are in Victoria so their interests are paramount. We need to grow while preserving our Victorian base.

I can’t speak for future boards or administrations, but I would trust they would follow the same philosophy.

In the end, we are all on the same page. We all love the club and want it to succeed. I would never do anything to disadvantage our club or our members and will always be open and honest in any communications.

Thanks for your support.

Regards,

Carl.

Hi Carl, I understand that the auto-renewals are due next week. As you have just taken away one game from the reserved seat members, will you be discounting the cost of membership by 1/8? Or will you act as if the replacement game makes up for it? Because you know as well as everyone else that that's bullshit. And if you know it and you proceed with the auto-renewal at the same price for less games, that seems a little bit careless from a legal perspective. Perhaps you are going to cancel all of the auto-renewals and contact every single member to make sure they are happy to renew for less games?

 

[Dirty_11]

By the way Gillion is probably sitting back laughing at us digging our own grave instead of previously trying to force us into one.

In 2-3 years make no mistake that we will be fighting again to prevent a 7 game push into Tassie with a Tasmania/North Melbourne Kangaroos name attached. Even Dilena couldn't confirm that 4 will be the limit.

The writings on the wall my friends.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Egga]

It's poor form. This is the kind of rubbish the AFL tries on by bringing out rule changes mid season. The club have already sent out membership advice and they decide to point out afterwards that they're changing the scope of the package? It is amateur hour stuff and insulting IMO. There is a lot of hot air but when it comes down to it they value reserved seat members very poorly - and it shows in their actions.

I'm reluctantly willing to accept a fourth game in Tassie, but you're absolutely correct about the manner in which this has been communicated. If the ACCC pursued a charge of misleading and deceptive conduct, they would win.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

If you think we're not trying to do that and haven't been trying to do that for the past decade, then where have you been? We had 23,000 members in 2007 and 34,000 in 2018 ... then 45,000 in 2016 (a record) now 41,000 this season. But Vic-based support, unfortunately, is not enough anymore and that's why smaller club's need secondary markets ... even Richmond played in Cairns until recently! So it's easy to say things like, "just grow our base in Victoria" or "focus on Victoria more and we'll be fine .. we don't need Tasmania" but it's not that simple and anyone who thinks it is, has no comprehension of just how hard this market is. I would love nothing more than to have our club play 11 homes games in Melbourne at the MCG, with average crowds of 60k, but it doesn't mean I can have it despite my best intentions to drive support and increase membership through the media. But, if we can build our strength as a club, like Hawthorn, with respect to on-field success, fan-base size etc ... then who knows what we could achieve. In the coming seasons, if we play 4 games in Tas and win them all (or most) and make the finals ... then make the grand final .. the win a premiership ... the sky is the limit!

Heath (again) ... Carl is in a meeting (sorry to disappoint!)

No Bull,

60k a week at the MCG is a straw man argument - we know you are better than that.

My question is what metrics/hurdles are reasonable for us to slow/stop the inevitable decrease in Melbourne based games.

Do we need an average of 25k north members at each home game at Etihad, 30k? Do we need 60k in members? What are the key sign posts you and the Board are looking at? I imagine we are doing better than St Kilda on all these key measures yet we are having to suffer the loss of home games.

It would help us ig you could explain what improvements to home attendances we needed to achieve? What do we need to do? Or it doesn't matter what we do from hereon in Melbourne - we will always play at least 4 games in Hobart from now on?

And also are the same metrics/hurdles applied to Tasmania ie the need for them to also 'show up' to games before they get additional games - the attendance at North home games in Hobart this year has been poor - they are hardly knocking the door down to get more games.

 

[El Triggso]

There are no replacement games in my situation. I already go to away games and sit wherever access allows.

One of the games I would normally attend in the Premiership Club with friends and family is getting RELOCATED to another state.

Aside from the general concept that “more money is better”, I am failing to understand what specific problem this move addresses in the context we are consistently profitable. Has our financial situation irrevocably changed due to the building works? Is this the only way?