North Melbourne and Hobart games

[LETSGOKANGAS]

Don't we have the best fan base to membership conversion?

If majority of members are like us, a few extra games in Tassie won't deter us from not signing up.

In terms of growth? Just keep having babies

 

[rooboy71]

Don't we have the best fan base to membership conversion?

If majority of members are like us, a few extra games in Tassie won't deter us from not signing up.

In terms of growth? Just keep having babies

Ok........has your Mrs. stopped smoking????

 

[Quivorir]

Any more than 3 and im done with my membership. We are North Melbourne, not ****ing Hobart.

 

[LETSGOKANGAS]

Ok........has your Mrs. stopped smoking????

Hahaha no. Not yet

Go for number 3.

 

[True North]

3 is ok if we pay 100% of Salary Cap.

I don't want to be debt free and shizen onfield.

I'd barrack for CBA if a nice balance sheet was considered first prize.

 

[Saintly31]

Don't we have the best fan base to membership conversion?

If majority of members are like us, a few extra games in Tassie won't deter us from not signing up.

In terms of growth? Just keep having babies

I suspect that's exactly what Admin are thinking.

They would assume 99% of Melb and interstate people would see the greater good (only a few dummy spitters) and continue their support. Then continue striving for growth which won't happen in Melb, with the aim towards building a stronger club with its home still of course being Nth Melb.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

4 games in Hobart, considering the financial benefits, and 7 home (being Melb) strikes an ideal balance for mine.

It is very close to the Hawks model which has proven to be very successful.

Exactly right.

4 games in Hobart = more money for the club
More money for the club = higher salary cap spend, higher FD spend, more access to free agents
Those 3 things = more on-field success
More on-field success = more members, better game attendances
More members and attendances = a sustained model for continued success

It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Limerick]

The Club can't negotiate for 4 until the minimum number of game required to be played at Etihad is reduced in 2016 (I think). Even then other
Clubs e.g. Carlton are looking to move some games to the MCG.

3 is OK for 2014-15/16 and in isolation I can live with 4 from 2017 onwards. We need to use the additional funds to wipe off our debt.

BUT what pressure will we leave ourselves open to when the AFL convinces the Hawks to return to Melbourne in 2016 or later. The AFL
will want us to back fill Launceston with another 4 games i.e. 8 in Tasmania. The next step is to become the Tasmanian Kangaroos playing
10 home games in Tasmania with an agreement for 6 games in Melbourne (remember Fitzroy).

However at the last AGM JB promised that he would change our Constitution at the upcomiong AGM to deal with "relocation" so I think we are safe.

 

[LETSGOKANGAS]

I suspect that's exactly what Admin are thinking.

They would assume 99% of Melb and interstate people would see the greater good (only a few dummy spitters) and continue their support. Then continue striving for growth which won't happen in Melb, with the aim towards building a stronger club with its home still of course being Nth Melb.

Sounds good short term. Until we end up with more Tassie members than Melbourne members.

70,000 members but with a dual identity. Could happen.

 

[TommyVercetti]

For season 2013, the North Melbourne Football Club plays 15 games in Melbourne. 1 less isn't going to change much. More money is only a good thing.

 

[Saintly31]

Sounds good short term. Until we end up with more Tassie members than Melbourne members.

70,000 members but with a dual identity. Could happen.

Nah, never happen. Nearly all Hobart people have their own club,already, only passionate types will sign up as per Hawks. I'd say 15k would be the ceiling, and would be a fantastic benefit going forward if we can make it happen above 10k.

 

[Saintly31]

For season 2013, the North Melbourne Football Club plays 15 games in Melbourne. 1 less isn't going to change much. More money is only a good thing.

And likely an interstate opponent, of which usually draw lower crowds in Melb anyway.

 

[TommyVercetti]

And likely an interstate opponent, of which usually draw lower crowds in Melb anyway.

Agreed. The game over GWS was attended by 15,438 people, which probably should have been played in Tassie. There is no point only having 30% of the stadium filled, people will start to show up when we're top four.

 

[gokangas]

I am as anti interstate as anyone, and probably more than most. But I can cope with 4 in Tassy if we get what the club says in terms of financial return. Everytime we go interstate it is going to be our financial panacea yet we are still in debt and paying well under the cap (maybe, depending who you listen to). Do four, but show me the money!

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I am as anti interstate as anyone, and probably more than most. But I can cope with 4 in Tassy if we get what the club says in terms of financial return. Everytime we go interstate it is going to be our financial panacea yet we are still in debt and paying well under the cap (maybe, depending who you listen to). Do four, but show me the money!

Will the club be seduced by the money?

 

[Saintly31]

Exactly right.

4 games in Hobart = more money for the club
More money for the club = higher salary cap spend, higher FD spend, more access to free agents
Those 3 things = more on-field success
More on-field success = more members, better game attendances
More members and attendances = a sustained model for continued success

It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Spot on Mr Blonde, very well explained the flow on effects

People say "don't compare to Hawthorn", of course it's not exactly the same (different starting position, different Govt funding, different state of growth in Vic etc) but even so this approach is very similar to how they built their club back to the very healthy position it is now.

 

[gokangas]

Will the club be seduced by the money?

I think we have to play some games interstate but everytime we have it hasn't been the financial solution they promised. Its just the number of games we can all argue about. I can cop four but make sure the money does what the club says it will.

 

[Saintly31]

I think we have to play some games interstate but everytime we have it hasn't been the financial solution they promised. Its just the number of games we can all argue about. I can cop four but make sure the money does what the club says it will.

That's because they were picking the wrong places. Hiding to nothing going to Syd or Canberra but remaining as Nth Melb.

IMO were poor decisions at the time and we should have been the Hawks but really missed the opportunity - was always going to be a real money spinner especially with Govt backing.

 

[sross]

Just came up on the 'coming up next' bit of local news. Will edit with any notes when it comes on.

Negotiating at the moment.
Clear growing fan base down here.
Brad and the rest of the club feel there is unlimited potential in Tasmania.
CEO says clubs focus is on Hobart, not willing to look to Launceston while Hawks are contracted.
Club says the redeveloped Blundstone is fast coming a selling point to committing.
New kids program set up in Hobart.
Looking at 3 games a year in new contract.

It was stated at the Ineer Sanctum function earlier this month that we would be looking to increase it to three

 

[Tas]

Don't we have the best fan base to membership conversion?

If majority of members are like us, a few extra games in Tassie won't deter us from not signing up.

In terms of growth? Just keep having babies

I am not sure, I don't need my membership to access games so I see it as more of a donation, given the gap between our membership base and our attendances you would have to think there are a fair few others.

Lets just say I am more prepared to donate to keep North as a Melbourne team than donate to fund it's eventual relocation and death. I believe JB has good intentions but he is naive, AFL will come at us again and if we are badly exposed with Tasmania we might not dodge the bullet the second time around.

 

[Rockstar6]

2 is plenty! unless when we have our "replacement" home games we actually get access to level 1 without paying at the gate or online if you hold a level 1 membership as opposed to only getting level 3 GA. I 100% agree with numchuks the Melbourne based supporters are priority number 1. Tasmanian fans are still very valuable and we love you down in Hobart but I for 1 pay decent money to only have 9 games out of a possible 11 genuine home games

 

[Shagga is all Class]

3 is ok if we pay 100% of Salary Cap.

I don't want to be debt free and shizen onfield.

Critical point and I think North will renew our deal to 3 before Hawthorn's is up and be pressing 100% of the cap.

At 100% of the cap I would expect top 6 which of course gives you 2 games against the top teams per year.

At that time you would expect a contender with the bigger games to have a membership spike.

See no reason why debt reduction should be a major issue or games extended for a top 6 team.

 

[Saintly31]

2 is plenty! unless when we have our "replacement" home games we actually get access to level 1 without paying at the gate or online if you hold a level 1 membership as opposed to only getting level 3 GA. I 100% agree with numchuks the Melbourne based supporters are priority number 1. Tasmanian fans are still very valuable and we love you down in Hobart but I for 1 pay decent money to only have 9 games out of a possible 11 genuine home games

I don't really see it as "priority". There are members/supporters from all over Aust and no doubt overseas - it just so happens there is obviously far more in Melb as it is our home.

But to suggest it is about pleasing Melb fans first is not correct IMO. I think the club should be doing it all it can to for the best result for all concerned, and in doing so the majority being Melb fans should see those benefits.

I do 100% agree though if it moves to 3 or 4 games in Hobart then memberships need to be tailored well to reflect that change - sounds like some of this "replacement game" hasn't worked well so far, the club should be notified in this instance.

 

[MaddAdam]

Happy to play 4 down there as long as we get replacement games in Melbourne. We need the cash and a secondary market is vital for a small Melbourne club.

 

[ArjenTheGreat]

4 low drawing games are fine by me.
We need to thrive, not just survive.