North Melbourne to Tasmania

[SweetLeftFoot]

Today we are in more trouble, but there's no question of any club relocating 'today'. Obviously there are degrees of everything. The fact that we may be in more trouble 'today' doesn't mean that North aren't in trouble, or Footscray for that matter.

Will we be in more trouble than North in 3 years time ?

We'll see.

Good post. I've always said this whole thing is a game of musical chairs. Pretty much every Vic club bar Essendon has been staring into the abyss at one point over last 25 - 30 years. Fitzroy and South didn't have a chair when the music stopped for them. We were bloody lucky to knock ourselves one up last year.

Sometimes - like with Hawthorn - clubs can spectacularly rebuild into seeming impregnability. Others, like mine under the old admin, and Melbourne, and Footscray, seem to keep bumbling along with their noses just above the waves.

But North is improving and improving fast, and there's nothing to say it will be either you or Footscray in the shit when the music next stops. Football's a funny game.

 

[medusala]

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

You cant possibly let Melbourne die.

They have history. All important history.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

You cant possibly let Melbourne die.

They have history. All important history.

Yes, history that ends in 1964.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: there is a strong tendency among many (not all) Melbourne supporters to believe this crap about their history, or the name, acting as some sort of safeguard to their demise.

This is utter bollocks. I don't want to them to go under, but I struggle to muster much sympathy for them either.

You guys realise how much work was needed in 96 and did it accordingly. same with us last year/this year/coming years.

Too many Melbourne supporters seem to be wandering along saying 'hello clouds, hello sky', believing that the AFL, or the banks, will decide to save them simply on the grounds that there 'needs to be a Melbourne'.

Even though there is no 'Perth'. Or any 'London' EPL team.

North will get more members than them this year, we'll take less off the AFL, we'll made a profit, we've got a major sponsor and we'll do far better on field.

But because some senile old has been crook shoots his mouth of to the paper in the silly season, melbourne fans - that's you whelen=legend - start acting like they are home and hosed.

FFS.

 

[Hawkk]

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?

Really?

The problem was that even 2 years ago Melbourne still struggled, in spite of their mid table abyss, probably because their supporters still had the same complacency they have in this thread

 

[Hawkk]

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.

Fundementally its the same 3 clubs that have recieved the most handouts dating back to 2003 (just about a football cycle)

These are the same 3 clubs mentioned prominantley in this article

I think since 2003.

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?

Diamond Joe anyone?

How much money has Pratt put into Carlton to keep them afloat?

Fact is, these clubs have passionate supporters willing to put money into the club to make sure it remains independent from the AFL and had dignity.

Since 2003 the same 3 clubs have consistantly struggled to attract profile (over the 5 year cycle) despite all clubs (save Richmond and Carlton) making the finals (sometimes numeriously) in that time.

The problem for these clubs, it appears, is that they havent built themselves up over 10-15 years of economic stablity to encounter the difficult 2-3 years to come.

 

[Zvim]

lol Elliot is so pathetic, the same old broken record he has been singing since the 80s. Yeah, lets listen to the vision of someone who almost destroyed the richest club in the AFL. He should worry less about us and worry more about his worhtless reputation and credibility.

New states deserve their own new teams. At the end of the day it is as simple as that. Why would you expect a new state to accept a failed club?

The loss of even one Victorian game would see a massive reduction in income for all the clubs. For what it costs the competition, it is peanuts compared to what we will lose if support here diminishes by just one local game.

The broadcasters got this message through to the AFL finally and now for the first time the AFL is actually doing something about representing the smaller clubs so they get a fairer deal, something they should have done a long time ago and had they we would never be in this situation talking about clubs relocating or dying. We have lost tens of millions by the AFL abusing clubs like us to repay off TD in record time, an asset that will be owned by all clubs, not those paying the debt off.

 

[Moo]

The loss of even one Victorian game would see a massive reduction in income for all the clubs.

Just interested mate in what aspects would there be a massive reduction?

 

[medusala]

The loss of even one Victorian game would see a massive reduction in income for all the clubs. For what it costs the competition, it is peanuts compared to what we will lose if support here diminishes by just one local game.

How did the competition manage to survive the loss of two Vic clubs then?

As for the loss of just one local game North and other clubs have done that by selling home games.

Fans might not love it but it hasnt caused huge losses to the AFL,

 

[fishmonger]

Yes, history that ends in 1964.

right .....

i guess we can forget the 2000 AFL Grand Final happened then

 

[medusala]

right .....

i guess we can forget the 2000 AFL Grand Final happened then

Why not? I am sure Melbourne supporters would like to given the flogging they received.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

How did the competition manage to survive the loss of two Vic clubs then?

As for the loss of just one local game North and other clubs have done that by selling home games.

Fans might not love it but it hasnt caused huge losses to the AFL,

In strict terms, they haven't been lost. The South Melbourne Swans and the Fitzroy Lions are, in the official version, still around, just in different forms.

And both those clubs are still financial basketcases in their new forms.

And we don't sell home games anymore.

That's your bag, not ours.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

right .....

i guess we can forget the 2000 AFL Grand Final happened then

Did they win that in some weird alternative universe you're posting from then?

 

[harmesy 37]

lol Elliot is so pathetic, the same old broken record he has been singing since the 80s. Yeah, lets listen to the vision of someone who almost destroyed the richest club in the AFL. He should worry less about us and worry more about his worhtless reputation and credibility.

Agree 100%.

The next time Caroline Wilson and The Age seek the opinion of Elliott I want them also to seek an opinion of any past president from any other club from the 1990's. He is as relevant to today's football as any other past president, but gets singled out as he is a way the media can damage the Carlton brand.

The huge shame is that many people's first association that springs to mind with Carlton is that crook-as opposed to the first association that should be Jezza, Doull, Harmesy, Silvagni and others.

Elliott should keep his mouth shut. His opinions do not reflect my opinions.

 

[Bollox]

Unfortunately any moneys invested in North's welfare simply disappear forever...there is no return to the game in doing it other than "goodwill" ..and unlike some business the goodwill isnt an investment either.

Elliot's a goose and irrelevant...what IS relevant tho is how it may become even tougher for a club like North to continue being a drain whilst providing no benefit to a national competition...and no likelihood of any future benefit.

Cant see North making it to 2015 in its current form..its simply not a business u ,me or any other sensible person would invest in...offers no upside whatsoever.

 

[Trav 20]

North will get more members than them this year, we'll take less off the AFL, we'll made a profit, we've got a major sponsor and we'll do far better on field.

You took more off the AFL in 2007. And I doubt you'll pass our membership this year, but last time I looked membership figures didn't earn you 4 points anyway.

There are a couple too may wills instead of probablys in the above paragraph.

As I said in the North forum, you many think that you're a bit prettier than us, but it doesn't mean that you're not dog ugly.

We both need a facelift.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Children, children, children

I have read 6 pages of this crap ( I don't know why ) and you have veered off the topic ( surprise, surprise ).. Sometimes BF can be so childish with all the "ohhh my clubs richer than your club" and "no, we got the youngest list in the league" and all that bulls**t. Let's take off the rose tinted glasses we wear when discussing our own clubs and try to develop non biased, informed opinions on football. Is it possible a thread can start without it disintergrating into petty, childish arguements?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Unfortunately any moneys invested in North's welfare simply disappear forever...there is no return to the game in doing it other than "goodwill" ..and unlike some business the goodwill isnt an investment either.

Even though we made a good profit and incresed our membership. Our trend is up.

Elliot's a goose and irrelevant...what IS relevant tho is how it may become even tougher for a club like North to continue being a drain whilst providing no benefit to a national competition...and no likelihood of any future benefit.

Even though there's at least two clubs who are a bigger 'drain' than us.

Why are we singled out?

Cant see North making it to 2015 in its current form..its simply not a business u ,me or any other sensible person would invest in...offers no upside whatsoever.

I can't see the Swans lasting to 2011 without another whole cloth bailout.

And no-one can even invest in you, you're a zombie franchise run by the competition itself.

 

[Royal Flush]

Cant see North making it to 2015 in its current form..its simply not a business u ,me or any other sensible person would invest in...offers no upside whatsoever.

LOL and any sensible person would invest in Sydney or for arguments sake Collingwood?

Investing in Football clubs anywhere in the world RULE 1;

Football clubs are a good way to make $1 million dollars, however thats after you've invested $100 million.

 

[medusala]

Let's take off the rose tinted glasses we wear when discussing our own clubs and try to develop non biased, informed opinions on football.

Too true.

North are experiencing some discomfort but have the bit between the teeth and are making ground.

The same cant be said of all other struggling clubs one of whom may as well have the motto "dieu et mon droit"

 

[Zvim]

Just interested mate in what aspects would there be a massive reduction?

They didn't talk about numbers on the radio when they reported it, they just said it would be significant, which was the term which came from the broadcasters. They broke down the structure of th current agreement, 2/3rds makes up the FTA component and 1/3rd is the Pay-TV component. The bulk of the value in the FTA component is from the night games and blockbusters and for Foxtel it is the live and exclusive games that make up their value, all of those games are in Melbourne.

The more the broadcasting deal rises, the more it relies on income from Pay-TV because the FTA market has limits, especially given the ratings from sports even in a highly contrived scheduling system that we have is not great compared to popular programs. We are likely to see more and more games being sold off to pay-tv in the future and they will want more Melbourne games.

ATM the teams struggling are also the teams that make up a significant component of the Foxtel live and exclusive games, these are often live against the gate and they don't profit from the extent of exposure on FTA, ie the reason Collingwood and Essendon get so much money for their sponsorships is because of the air time on FTA and particularly the extent of prime time exposure.

There is just a very disproportional allocation of revenue, if clubs were allocated revenue based on value of contribution you would have clubs like Collingwood and Essendon up way high because of their saturation but you would then see the clubs that facilitate the pay-tv element (the struggling clubs) next behind them but in reality they get nothing for all the negatives associated with a lot of pay-tv exposure.

 

[Bollox]

Even though we made a good profit and incresed our membership. Our trend is up.

Even though there's at least two clubs who are a bigger 'drain' than us.

Why are we singled out?

I can't see the Swans lasting to 2011 without another whole cloth bailout.

And no-one can even invest in you, you're a zombie franchise run by the competition itself.

Huh ?...how's the trend up ?
Your trend is still WAY DOWN...unless you're some sort of claytons pies fan that believes one in a row is a trend.

Norths increased membership was just another gift...a gift from fans of OTHER clubs. The profit is temporary...in fact the entire club is temporary and we ALL know it....u included. Thats just the way it is whether we like it or not.

North simply do not exist without gifts of some description...its constant..its a drain..its a terrible unsustainable business that would normally trade insolvent without annual gifts and artificial profits.

I'll excuse the insecure desperate quip about Sydney...that just came across looking sad.

 

[Trav 20]

Children, children, children

Is it possible a thread can start without it disintergrating into petty, childish arguements?

It amuses me when 'try hards' attempt to be condescending yet can't spell some of the most basic words in the English language.

 

[Zvim]

Unfortunately any moneys invested in North's welfare simply disappear forever...there is no return to the game in doing it other than "goodwill" ..and unlike some business the goodwill isnt an investment either.

Elliot's a goose and irrelevant...what IS relevant tho is how it may become even tougher for a club like North to continue being a drain whilst providing no benefit to a national competition...and no likelihood of any future benefit.

Cant see North making it to 2015 in its current form..its simply not a business u ,me or any other sensible person would invest in...offers no upside whatsoever.

All that dribble is just opinion, like Elliot only worse as at least he has had some insight on what it takes to run a club.

We have had some significant business leaders review the Gemba report on the club's viability and came to the opinion that they could make it work if the club was managed better. Unless you are privvy to that information and can claim to have better business accumen then your opinion is just a biased one against a club you have always had poor opinion of, so why should anyone care what your opinion of our future is?

 

[Zvim]

How did the competition manage to survive the loss of two Vic clubs then?

As for the loss of just one local game North and other clubs have done that by selling home games.

Fans might not love it but it hasnt caused huge losses to the AFL,

Introduction of pay-tv is what turned AFL around, sports are a mainstream source of revenue for pay-tv while there is a link between live and exclusive games are subscription uptake for pay-tv. AFL never got what it was worth from FTA but since PTV came out they were forced to meet market value.

As for clubs selling home games, it has no impact on Pay-TV because not all our games are on pay-tv, but should a club move or die there would be fewer Victorian games.

Anyway, it is not an opinion of mine I am trying to justify, it is what the broadcasters have made clear to the AFL and it is why the AFL have finally got their arse out of neutral and suddenly give a shit about the smaller Victorian clubs.

 

[Z_K]

North simply do not exist without gifts of some description..d.

Laughable from a Swan. Just ridiculous.