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

[Pykie]

I think most reasonable people are willing to accept such a trade off for this legislative protection.

I think this should be put to members and any person recontesting board seats.

100%

The cost of this from a board perspective should be the constitutional inclusion of a game cap. At 4.

Any resistance to this from the board, could have serious consequences given the history of the club over the last 20 years No Bull.


The current supporter base are like middle aged WWI veterans, we defended the club once before when there was no member power, we are hardened to this sort of stuff, if WWII comes, we will happily mobilize again, this time with a lot more constitutional clout.

5 games in Tassie would be like an invasion of Poland to us......

 

[trueroo]

I have 4 premiership club memberships and now have decided not to renew unless I get similar facilities for the 4 replacement games
I don’t want a seat in a bay
I have been a member for in excess of 25 years and I can spend the money elsewhere

 

[RobZombie]

Thanks for dropping in No Bull.

For my part, I was going to redo my arrangements this year since one of the kids won’t be a junior next year. My plan was to upgrade to premiership club for myself and keep the kids on cheap memberships for the sake of their consecutive years streak, and make use of guest tickets but I’ll be canceling my auto renew and not doing anything until the replacement game situation is clear.

I’ve been pro-Hobart on the whole but really don’t like this.

 

[GreatBradScott]

100%

The cost of this from a board perspective should be the constitutional inclusion of a game cap. At 4.

Any resistance to this from the board, could have serious consequences given the history of the club over the last 20 years No Bull.

Agreed. Anyone with an issue, take it to the ballot box.

Things have been quiet on the AGM front since around 2013, and I think this issue has gotten away from people a bit.

Does anyone know who's up for re-election next?

I think there are a few like minded people with some ideas both on and off this board with today's developments.

 

[Twinkletoes]

No Bull if it was consitutionally set as a maximum of 4 home games playable interstate there would be a lot less apprehension.

Given this proposal was floated but opposed, well you can see where this is going............

 

[gokangas]

Agreed. Anyone with an issue, take it to the ballot box.

Things have been quiet on the AGM front since around 2013, and I think this issue has gotten away from people a bit.

Does anyone know who's up for re-election next?

I think there are a few like minded people with some ideas both on and off this board with today's developments.

Thats if they give you permission to run.

 

[Pykie]

Agreed. Anyone with an issue, take it to the ballot box.

Things have been quiet on the AGM front since around 2013, and I think this issue has gotten away from people a bit.

Does anyone know who's up for re-election next?

I think there are a few like minded people with some ideas both on and off this board with today's developments.

It's absolutely cut and dry.

We knew when we wanted a game cap at 3 and it was rejected, that 4 was coming.

If they reject a game cap at 4, we know they intend to look at 5.


5 is completely unacceptable and a pseudo semi-relocation. It's 25% of the season ffs.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Thats if they give you permission to run.

I'm banned from six nightclubs, four wine bars and two RSL's. It would be a very Trumpian ascension.

But seriously, I think more about establishing a movement and greater discussion on it.

 

[RobZombie]

Two mores random thoughts

At least they got this out before the aut renewal rolled over

Jeez it annoys me when Funky Carl refers to footy as “content”

 

[Shinboner roo]

Aaron hall likes this :stern look

 

[the big lebowski]

Guys, understand the angst but perhaps it would help if I asked Carl to come on here and answer some questions etc directly? Thoughts on that? I reckon it might be helpful.

I too am a passionate North supporter and live in Melbourne with all of my family, so I am also sensitive about playing games interstate and once feared the whole relocation/AFL master plan. However, I've been here 10 years now and everything I have been privy to or part of is about the opposite and how we can cement ourselves in Melbourne.

Half our office has been blocked off because we are extending the facility and adding more resources. We've added so many staff over the past few years including in media and everyone lives in Melbourne. No one is thinking relocation, only growth. I'm the spin doctor so I get why you won't believe some of what I'm saying, but I reckon over the journey I've been nothing but honest with you all on a range of topics.

re reserved seat memberships, the club is speaking with other tenant clubs and the stadium to secure Level 1 or 2 seating for games. This is looking positive. So those affected the most, will be looked after. GA memberships remain the same in terms of access.

Further the Hawks have this same model and have used it to grow substantially. Hopefully we can do the same, especially if we can lock in (or improve our chances substantially for) 4 wins because of our record at Blundstone and improved list.

Any way - keen to provide you guys with as much detail as possible. Let me know what you think.

Heath

Thanks for the input as usual Heath.

I too am a level 2 reserved seat holder. Getting a replacement seat at replacement games is important to me.

Overall I understand and support a 4th game in tassie as a way of increasing income. However like you and the club have acknowledged, it is a balancing act.

Coupled with the stated aim of the AFL of north playing out of Launceston and Hobart at the end of 2021, in a business where perception is everything, I feel the club really needs to communicate with members and the broader football public that 4 games is the absolute maximum that the club are prepared to look at.

I do fear a self fulfilling situation in 2020/2021 when the afl start to pressure the hawks to drop tassie and ratchet up pressure on north to fill the void. This will see members drop off and the club pushed towards tassie just as we were the Gold Coast.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Thanks for the input as usual Heath.

I too am a level 2 reserved seat holder. Getting a replacement seat at replacement games is important to me.

Overall I understand and support a 4th game in tassie as a way of increasing income. However like you and the club have acknowledged, it is a balancing act.

Coupled with the stated aim of the AFL of north playing out of Launceston and Hobart at the end of 2021, in a business where perception is everything, I feel the club really needs to communicate with members and the broader football public that 4 games is the absolute maximum that the club are prepared to look at.

I do fear a self fulfilling situation in 2020/2021 when the afl start to pressure the hawks to drop tassie and ratchet up pressure on north to fill the void. This will see members drop off and the club pushed towards tassie just as we were the Gold Coast.

Summed up my own thoughts perfectly mate. Ta

 

[wolvesRoos]

Vaguely remember a figure of 500k per game. Club needs to be transparent about the remuneration of the extra game.

Could we not get our very generous rich fellow to pull that out of his sock draw?

 

[Marstermind]

Not impressed.

Just 7 opportunities to go to a live "HOME" game??

 

[No Bull]

It's absolutely cut and dry.

We knew when we wanted a game cap at 3 and it was rejected, that 4 was coming.

If they reject a game cap at 4, we know they intend to look at 5.


5 is completely unacceptable and a pseudo semi-relocation. It's 25% of the season ffs.

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.

 

[Gumble Frankieton]

Is the club reducing the price of memberships to reflect the change from 8 to 7 home games?

 

[Grogg]

By as early as 2028, it's projected to be Australia's biggest city. By 2050, it will have grown to 8 million — the size of London and New York.

"It's the fourth-fastest growing developed city on the planet today," demographer Bernard Salt said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10...-biggest-city-which-party-has-policy/10358988

This gives the current and future boards a tremendous opportunity for home town growth.

Food for thought.

 

[trueroo]

The need for the 4 games is solely because we have a poor stadium (well it’s not even a deal ) .
When the Nmfc has paid (with the other tenant clubs) the majority of the money for the stadium why do we not get the same return as Geelong the s a and w a clubs ?
why do we still not know what the club earns from its home games ?
Regards member 17222
By the way my memberships are on hold

 

[Pykie]

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.

Thanks for the response No Bull/Carl.

Carl,

I will take impracticality and extra expenses for a member vote for a game in China or NZ, a hypothetical that has so far never existed for the NMFC, over the piece of mind for the entire member/supporter base regarding future relocations. This, 12 years after a massive, corrupt, relocation attempt from the governing body.

As you said, the members own the club now, we want our money in the bank, not hiding under our mattress' so to speak. We want safety and surety, we don't want statements, we don't want words. If you are serious about representing the members and their views, don't appose the next game cap (which will surely come as a motion in the next 12 months). We are deadly serious when we say we want this set in stone at a constitutional level. As you said, "future boards" have extremely differing views on certain things for our football club (As we've come to experience), we want something constant, unwavering and not readily broken like the amended consitution.

Not everything is about the bottom line, if it was, we would of jumped at the golden hand shake the AFL was presenting us for the GC.

There has to be more innovative ways of raising revenue other than just shipping the team off for another $500k.

Thanks for the response.

 

[B4Bear]

There is as they say, no free lunch.

Four games was always on the cards (look at the Hawks). Without a substantial overhaul of our current stadium deal, we are never really going to be able to generate the cash we need to expand the club; at least not without significant AFL monies.

The idea of being out from under the thumb of the AFL is pretty appealing. So in the end it comes down to, do we continue to rely on 'equalisation' and all the strings that has, or do we play four a year in Hobart, with replacement games (and I am not ignoring the seating issue here) and a significant boost to our coffers?

 

[GreatBradScott]

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.

Heath and Carl, I appreciate you taking time out and speaking to supporters on this issue.

I think what most people want is certainty.

Given we’re at 4 games now, will the club allow a motion to cap interstate games at 4, and will this be included in the AGM materials for members to vote on it?

 

[G0ther00s]

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

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.


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.

Jesus these points don't fill me with any confidence at all. Sounds like he's leaving the door open if the money is right. Not impressed, we want a constitutional cap at 4 games. At some point if you keep playing more games interstate just to keep up financially, you're not the club that everyone has come to love anymore anyway.

 

[PokerRoo]

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

I think this is the exact reason why a limit of 4 should be in there. The Members should be able to say enough is enough, even if it is a one of game in China, no matter the amount of money.

I am a supporter of 4 games in Tassie, but am of the belief that it is the only amount of home games we should be selling regardless of location

 

[shintemaster]

My concerns with regards to 4 games are not limited to concerns over our future. To be blunt, I like going to the football. I especially like going to home games at the football. I have 4 less of these now than I did 10 years ago. 7 out of 11 home games I now don't get to see. To be frank, it is pissing me off and I'm sick of coughing up money only to get lip service out of the club.

 

[Zondor]

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.

So you see it as compelling to play a 4th game on the Map from a Football Performance Perspective? Maybe you need to review the performance of the current Football Coach and GM of Football over the last nine years as opposed to playing an additional home game interstate. :stern look

As for longer term member growth shouldn't you be concentrating that growth in our Primary Market? Melbourne? After all we are North Melbourne. How many additional members are we truly going to sign up in Tasmania? I want figures. No wishy washy response. :stern look

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.

Hey there are always compromises in life. You want us to accept this idiotic idea of playing this fourth home game on the Map. Well you and the Board need to come to the party. Now don't you? :stern look

Oh yeah and I'll never forget how your buddy Brayshaws seriously explored the idea of playing 7 home games on the Map so there are trust issues there my friend. :stern look

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.

Yes your perspective. How about the AFL's perspective? Brayshaws had a differing perspective in the past. The constitution must be amended. :stern look

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.

Good. Tasmania should not be a part of our long term strategy. Being the North Melbourne Football Club playing 11 home games in Melbourne should be the important part of our long term strategy. So on that topic what is our Exit Strategy from the Map? Do you even have one? Do you want the club to be reliant on Tasmanian Money for ever and a day? If so that is an idiotic business module. :stern look

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.

No. You need to grow our Victorian Base. Not just preserve it. What does our current Stadium Deal look like at Marvel Stadium? I want figures. :stern look