North Melbourne to Tasmania

Remove this Banner Ad

How was it any different of a takeover compared to how Melbourne were taking over Hawthorn?

Thankfully the Hawks supporters and members had a bit of ticker and blocked it...and 12 years on the clubs are in such different positions both on and off field that Hawthorn could probably afford to sponsor Melbourne, the Dees could have a big 'HFC' across their backs.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thankfully the Hawks supporters and members had a bit of ticker and blocked it...and 12 years on the clubs are in such different positions both on and off field that Hawthorn could probably afford to sponsor Melbourne, the Dees could have a big 'HFC' across their backs.
It's always going to change year by year to who did better out of the merger. 2 years ago it was the Melbourne fans bragging, now it is Hawthorn and a couple of years down the track it will be Melbourne again.

Nobody can deny it was a Melbourne takeover. That was the whole premise of Don Scotts rally. That it was going to still be 'Melbourne' and that Hawthorn would be completely gone. What do you think ripping off the Hawk symbol and showing a Melbourne jumper represented?
 
How was it any different of a takeover compared to how Melbourne were taking over Hawthorn?
Apart from the Hawks not being dead and buried,the difference is the Hawks would have a certain amount of say in the merged club.
Fitzroy on the other hand would have had None.
 
Why do Hawthorn supporters have it in for the Dees?

It's like you want Melbourne to perish from the rubbish that comes from your presidents mouth all the way down to supporters like you.

Leave the Dees alone. They will be back one day as a powerhouse, mark my word.

"Supporters like you"??? He writes a post filled with logic, and you come back with that crap.

Maybe there's a problem with supporters like you, mate. You scan the list of potential clubs to merge (or cease to exist), and instantly scrap Melbourne as a candidate because their name is Melbourne. Do you know how ridiculous that logic is?? One club has a fundamental right to exist because of their name, yet North Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs, and even previously Hawthorn are considered worthy of being dissolved just because we aren't named after the capital of the state? That's ridiculous.

A club should be considered on their merits, and if you think North are in more of a precarious position than Melbourne, then fine...but spare us the naive childlike arguments about their friggin' name ruling them out.
 
It's always going to change year by year to who did better out of the merger. 2 years ago it was the Melbourne fans bragging, now it is Hawthorn and a couple of years down the track it will be Melbourne again.

Nobody can deny it was a Melbourne takeover. That was the whole premise of Don Scotts rally. That it was going to still be 'Melbourne' and that Hawthorn would be completely gone. What do you think ripping off the Hawk symbol and showing a Melbourne jumper represented?

It changes year by year? How many times over the last 12 years has Melbourne received a $1mil plus handout from the AFL, and how many times have the Hawks got a handout?
 
It changes year by year? How many times over the last 12 years has Melbourne received a $1mil plus handout from the AFL, and how many times have the Hawks got a handout?

Most years. I'm not sure about 08, but you had a handout in 07.

There are degrees of everything and some clubs are more sustainable than others, and we are trying to ween ourselves off our present need for such hefty financial contributions, but with the model of the AFL competition and ownership structures NO club is financially independent or viable without AFL support.
 
It changes year by year? How many times over the last 12 years has Melbourne received a $1mil plus handout from the AFL
I think since 2003.
and how many times have the Hawks got a handout?
Since the AFL sold Waverley? And also, how many times did Dicker put in a shitload of $ to the club to keep you afloat in the past 12 years?
Prove what?
That the Hawks wouldnt of had a say in the merge
or
Fitzroy would,ve had none with North?
Both?
 
The Hawks have never had a handout.

We recieved compensation from the AFL for breaking our Waverley contract, but no gifts. We do not and have never owed the AFL anything.

All Presidents put in time / cash / networks.
 
Melbourne will finish with more members then North this year despite finishing 9 spots lower on the ladder. Melbourne can draw very respectable crowds when going well onfield (36,000 vs West Coast @ the MCG in 2005) while North Melbourne can't.

Just wait until Melbournes onfield situation turns around and North are at the bottom, the gap will be massive. That is why around 2004-2006 when Melbourne were making finals we were never in the merger/ relocation discussions on BigFooty.

Yet North make a preliminary final and almost ship off to the Gold Coast.

FWIW i think no club will relocate. But to say North are in a stronger position then Melb is plain stupid.

West Coast played in a grandfinal that year- they have good support in VIC. Can't really claim all the credit on that one. I think the dogs (who didn't make the 8) even got close to 30K against them at the G that year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Hawks have never had a handout.

We recieved compensation from the AFL for breaking our Waverley contract, but no gifts. We do not and have never owed the AFL anything.

All Presidents put in time / cash / networks.


Breaking the Waverley contract damaged our club immeasurably. If anything, Hawthorn were under-compensated as we lost thousands of members and the AFL lost many supporters in the South East altogether. We are only now getting some of the latent support back from when we lost our home ground.

Does dicker the governing body representing 16 clubs? I didn't realise Dicker had an obligation to distribute his donations evenly to the 16 AFL clubs?? Agreed - All Presidents put in time / cash / networks.

According to the compensation package we were to have 11 MCG home games...
 
Breaking the Waverley contract damaged our club immeasurably. If anything, Hawthorn were under-compensated as we lost thousands of members and the AFL lost many supporters in the South East altogether. We are only now getting some of the latent support back from when we lost our home ground.

Does dicker the governing body representing 16 clubs? I didn't realise Dicker had an obligation to distribute his donations evenly to the 16 AFL clubs?? Agreed - All Presidents put in time / cash / networks.

According to the compensation package we were to have 11 MCG home games...

All fair points I reckon. Really there is one bigger question that's more important. Why don't Hawthorn fight for this compensation if it's their right? Would love to hear the answer.
 
Unless your financially viable and a net contributor to the finacial viability of the game over the long term - you have no place in a professional league.

Simply react to the economic downturn and start reducing payments from the CBF ....in a short while one of the teams will blink first and realise that they can not make it.

That is the club who have a choice ...hand in your AFL licence and go and play in the VFL, relocate or find a new dance partner in the AFL.

In footy we say let the best team win, in these circumstances we should say let the best clubs win.

If we dropped off one Melb club - in a generations time there will be more supporters for the other clubs and less competition for sponsors.

No one should just say it is North Melb or Melb or whoever .....cut back the AFL payments and let the world take its natural course.
 
I agree. Elliott is a walking disaster. What right does he have to talk about this matter?

Does this mean that we will interview all past presidents from the 1990's to ask them what they think should happen about this matter?

Let's ask say Richmond's president from 1991 what he thinks about the two teams in south australia and plaster a big review on it in The Age.

This is just a blatant attempt to give Carlton bad PR. Every time Elliott opens his mouth he damages the Carlton brand and Caroline Wilson is loving it.

I'm not knocking Carlton mate.:thumbsu:

I am fully aware that just about every sober Carlton supporter considers that man to be an embarrassing buffoon.
 
Do you Carlton people still think the AFL world revolves around you??

It doesnt revolve around us but the AFL needs a strong Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood and to a certain extent Richmond.

They draw the biggest crowd numbers and have the largest fan bases. The AFL thrives when these big 4 are strong. Its a fact.
 
Do you Carlton people still think the AFL world revolves around you??



The AFL had been after your corrupt mob for years because you had been breaking the damn rules for years; whats next the mafia complainig about being chased by the police for years; here is a hint if you don't break the rules over a number of years you don't get chased by the authorities over those years!!



Well and treuly deserved for your clubs corruption in deliberatly breaking the rules.



And money to assist you in the upkeep of Princess park as it was falling apart after Elliot allowed it to be run down in pursuait of putting all you eggs in teh new grandstand basket.

Relocation and/or merging is the only thing that will save "some" Victorian clubs.
Whether they like it or not.

The sad fact is the above statement is true. As much as we would all love it to be, the fact is 10 teams can longer exist in Melbourne.

Would you rather your team relocate or be taken over such as Fitzroy?
 
I think North/Dogs/Dees/Anyone perhaps could sell some home games to bellerive 9after the GC comes in and the $$$$ for sold games up there aren't about) and have a southern base to rival the Hawkers Northern base at Aurora and therefore sort of copy the lead of the Hawks but not barge in on "their turf". Bellerive is woefully underused, has lights coming in and holds a good crowd. Personally as an ex-pat i'd like to see tassie with its own team but the AFL will make the state crawl before they can walk.
I know this ain't gonna be a popular idea but in my view it is not a bad one.

So who is going to pump the millions of dollars into bellrieve to make it an AFL standard ground ??:rolleyes:
 
Stuff Tasmania. Its too small and the population just isn't big enough.

I've been looking around and found the perfect market home for them ....

Place: North Melbourne
Population: 9,962
Area: 2.4 km² (0.9 sq mi)

:thumbsu:

:p
 
Why would any club move to Tasmania?
If you can't make money with a 5% share of the Melbourne market, you'll lose it even faster in Tassie. And the AFL doesn't have the same incentives as in NSW and Qld to keep a side afloat.
Any side who moved to Tassie would only be making the possible inevitable.
 
Why do people keep mentioning North?

Are they the least financial club?

If not why would/should they go first?

Elliott, the crook who drove his own companies, and his club, into the ground, has always hated us ever since we thwarted his vile attempt to buy us out.

FWIW - there's Melbourne clubs in far worse financial difficulty than us.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

North Melbourne to Tasmania

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top