North in $6m deal to sell WA 2 games a year over 3 seasons

[The_Wookie]

North Melbourne is reportedly finalising a lucrative agreement with the AFL and Western Australian state government to play home games in Perth over the next three seasons.

In the mooted deal, the Kangaroos will play two ‘home games’ in Perth for each of the next three seasons, helping alleviate financial pressure on the struggling Victorian club and allaying the Eagles and Dockers’ fixture stresses.

According to Seven reporter Ryan Daniels, the Roos will ‘host’ the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle next season as part of a two-week venture, with one game to come at Optus Stadium and the other to be played in the state’s south-west — Daniels floated Bunbury’s Hands Oval as the ‘likely destination’.

It is understood that the deal is set to pocket North Melbourne in excess of $2 million per year — with the Optus Stadium fixture alone set to rake in approximately $1.2 million for the Roos — bringing the total to over $6 million across the arrangement’s three-year period.

Daniels added that North is expected to still play games in Hobart next season, though not as many as the four it hosted at Bellerive Oval this year. The Roos also played an away game in Launceston against Hawthorn.

The deal gifts West Coast and Fremantle an extra game in their home state, as well as a tourism kick for the WA state government.

Roos set to sign $6m ‘landmark deal’ to play WA home games for next three years

Vic club set to sign $6m ‘landmark deal’ to play WA home games for three years

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[The_Wookie]

Talks have advanced with the WA state government to play back-to-back matches in the west in 2025, against Fremantle and West Coast.

It is understood discussions have included one of those matches being played in Bunbury, two hours south of Perth, with the other to be at Optus Stadium.

The Roos would not shave off any Melbourne home games in the deal, with the club to still host seven matches at Marvel Stadium next year.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...a/news-story/adfd3708fc8a331e8f28140a1e357d35

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Fire]

That doesn't sound like a lot of money...

In any event, I'm not sure if it's wise to start a precedent of wealthy clubs buying more home games. It's a completely different dynamic to selling games to neutral venues like Cairns, Canberra or Hobart.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

What a terrible decision.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Selling home games to non-football areas (Tasmania, Darwin, Canberra) is one thing.

But selling home games to competing clubs is a massive step in the wrong direction.

Goodbye integrity. Another step in the wrong direction for fixture equality.

And North Melbourne? You are a joke.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Selling home games to non-football areas (Tasmania, Darwin, Canberra) is one thing.

But selling home games to competing clubs is a massive step in the wrong direction.

Goodbye integrity. Another step in the wrong direction for fixture equality.

And North Melbourne? You are a joke.

Selling to other states I have no issue with. The teams in wa and SA want less travel, it's a good offset.
If it secures lesser teams futures, in turn stops them being a drain on the league. It's a good move.

Only becomes an issue if North start demanding an extra away game or 2 in Melbourne to offset the travel

North's history on selling games and failing is a different kettle of fish

 

[kreuze_missile]

Selling to other states I have no issue with. The teams in wa and SA want less travel, it's a good offset.
If it secures lesser teams futures, in turn stops them being a drain on the league. It's a good move.

Only becomes an issue if North start demanding an extra away game or 2 in Melbourne to offset the travel

North's history on selling games and failing is a different kettle of fish

There are some good stats on North Melbourne's board outlining their historical win/loss history against the Dockers/Eagles comparing results in WA vs. VIC.

Long-term data suggests the location shift of these games will have a 20 to 30 per cent impact on the result.

North Melbourne pockets cash.

Eagles and Fremantle get a significant advantage in one game, one less week they have to travel, and in essence an extra home game.

And the 15 clubs not part of this deal get completely shafted.

 

[PhatBoy]

As it is a relatively short term deal I kind of don’t see a problem with it based on the fact that they can do with the money and let’s be realistic, it’s not a team that’s expected to ‘compete’ as such. They are still a team in development.

So these logically aren’t games that are going to, if they lose them, determine if they miss finals or not

Obviously I feel for their fans though

 

[Rob]

Of course it's bullshit, but like I said in the thread on the main board the AFL couldn't give a rats ass about integrity anymore so I may as well just look at whether it benefits my club.

And it does, so cope and seethe ****ers.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

And the 15 clubs not part of this deal get completely shafted.

And every club that isn't in WA has a lower travel burden with regular fixturing, so I don't know why they'd be complaining. Particularly Victorian clubs who don't have to leave their own state for months at a time.

Anyway, it seems North are continuing their tradition of being mercenaries instead of actually trying to build a long term fanbase anywhere outside Melbourne.

 

[dave10]

For a club like the Roos it’s a good concept. The Roos have a strong following in WA so the club will likely offer its WA fans a ‘WA Match-day’ package which will deliver the club strong membership sales growth in WA.

Context. Essendon have about 4,000 WA members but also have a total demand in WA to sell about 10,000 memberships. Issue for Essendon converting these extra 6,000 memberships is it can’t offer these fans a seat at its game(s) in WA.

So, if the Roos have 3,000 members but demand for say 7,000 memberships (being a big club in WA), then it has a chance with match access.

So, it’s bigger than just a fee to play games. It engages its largest interstate network and could reap more financial benefits.

 

[Barrybran]

As a fan of a club that doesn't get to play in their home city 16-17 times per year, I find amusing the suggestion that other clubs are being shafted.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

There are some good stats on North Melbourne's board outlining their historical win/loss history against the Dockers/Eagles comparing results in WA vs. VIC.

Long-term data suggests the location shift of these games will have a 20 to 30 per cent impact on the result.

North Melbourne pockets cash.

Eagles and Fremantle get a significant advantage in one game, one less week they have to travel, and in essence an extra home game.

And the 15 clubs not part of this deal get completely shafted.

Is it only an advantage for one game or is it for 3, one week either side of the game? Maybe the week after one of these games would be an ideal time to fixture the Derbies with both sides having not travelled the week before, so no excuses.

No travel prep and no travel recovery. I don't really care in that sense, but I hope North aren't selling their future.