North Melbourne to Tasmania

[coopers pale]

Why the merger, to make room for a 100% tasmanian team?

You sure don't merge teams to shrink the comp. The majority of the money coming into the league is via the TV deal, which relies on a maximum number of games being played (thus more tv broadcasting). If you merge two teams, you reduce the value of the tv rights by a large percentage, even if it is a poor ratings team. Think about 22 games NOT being played, and thus all of that advertising time being lost to the TV rights bidder.

When you merge two teams, you lose about 50% of the supporters of both teams, so the only value in doing so is to:
a) save money/costs - as the Woodville West Torrens Eagles did in the SANFL, or
b) to make room for another team to enter the comp which will have a bigger membership & viewer base than either of the two merging teams.

I don't see it, the AFL wants to expand, not contract. For the period of the global financial crisis it will just stay with 16 teams, and then look to expand again when the money is again flowing more freely into the AFL coffers.

Which team is 'most suitable' or 'most likely' is a moot point, cos it ain't going to happen.

 

[medusala]

Seriously, for those who keep trotting out this imbecelic idea, go and find me five North members who'd support it, and five Melbourne members.

People are not simple economic units. you can't say 'Oh, they both have 30k members, let's combine them and they'll have 60k'

It doesn't work like that.

The five Melbourne members probably wouldnt be hard to find.

Nonetheless I totally agree with you re mergers.

Ditto relocation to Tas, it wouldnt work. They want their own team not a Vic reject.

The AFL would most likely just let a club die. The problem for them no doubt would be engineering the right team.

As per Souths in the NRL they would be lucky to get away with withdrawing support to North whilst throwing money at Melbourne and the Dogs.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

The five Melbourne members probably wouldnt be hard to find.

Nonetheless I totally agree with you re mergers.

Ditto relocation to Tas, it wouldnt work. They want their own team not a Vic reject.

The AFL would most likely just let a club die. The problem for them no doubt would be engineering the right team.

As per Souths in the NRL they would be lucky to get away with withdrawing support to North whilst throwing money at Melbourne and the Dogs.

Dunno. I reckon they supported merging with you as they saw it as a takeover witha club of similar 'calibre'.

There is just no cultural link between North and Melbourne.

Agreed on a team dying, or more likely IMO, a team being Fitzroyed up into the GC franchise.

 

[medusala]

Dunno. I reckon they supported merging with you as they saw it as a takeover witha club of similar 'calibre'.

They only see it as a takeover in hindsight.

Its like trying to find a French man who will admit he or his family collaborated. They all claim to have been in the resistance.

 

[Moo]

The numbers mustn't be very good if the AFL have taken mergers off the table. Do you have any figures that support a merger?

No idea in regards to members...it is impossible to gauge level of support post merger. It certainly would not be 100% but 33% of the combined total would seem a little low to me.

I think mergers are off the table as no club is taking the cheese, not because they make no sense.

The AFL is just going to let nature take its course now and then not be the bad guy.

Er. Dunno what you mean.

I'm saying that a North/Melbourne merged club would have lower membership than either club does now.

I honestly reckon it would be lucky to crack 20k. Honestly. I wouldn't go and see the bloody thing.

So if we get 32k and melbourne get 30k this year,, that's combined 62k members. And the merged club would get less than the a third. So we'd effectively lose 40k people to the game.

This makes sense HOW?

Seriously, for those who keep trotting out this imbecelic idea, go and find me five North members who'd support it, and five Melbourne members.

People are not simple economic units. you can't say 'Oh, they both have 30k members, let's combine them and they'll have 60k'

It doesn't work like that.

Sorry mate for not being clearer.

I agree it is not just a A + B proposition ...however it is how many members you end up with in the merged team and the new club.

Members aside (which is a lot of guesswork) ...1 team in Melb which is financially secure and an underwritten team in a developing market is better than 2 struggling clubs dependent on funding and the developing market team.

Whether this is by merger or one dropping back to the VFL ...that is the question.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

They only see it as a takeover in hindsight.

Its like trying to find a French man who will admit he or his family collaborated. They all claim to have been in the resistance.

LOL. This is so true. I used to wind up my French ex all the time with that.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Sorry mate for not being clearer.

I agree it is not just a A + B proposition ...however it is how many members you end up with in the merged team and the new club.

Members aside (which is a lot of guesswork) ...1 team in Melb which is financially secure and an underwritten team in a developing market is better than 2 struggling clubs dependent on funding and the developing market team.

Whether this is by merger or one dropping back to the VFL ...that is the question.

I reckon the merged proposition would struggle deeply itself.

North is trending the right way, melbourne is in the crap, but can hopefully sort themselves.

 

[medusala]

I agree it is not just a A + B proposition ...however it is how many members you end up with in the merged team and the new club.

Members aside (which is a lot of guesswork) ...1 team in Melb which is financially secure and an underwritten team in a developing market is better than 2 struggling clubs dependent on funding and the developing market team.

Whether this is by merger or one dropping back to the VFL ...that is the question.

I think you misunderestimate how many people become members out of support for their club rather than because they will go and see many games.

Many of the members of the poorer clubs simply see a membership as a donation to the club. These donations would very quickly die off in the event of a merger.

You only have to look at attendances vs membership for a number of Melbourne clubs to see that large numbers of members dont go the football.

I suspect this is a bit different to the West given membership and stadium pressures.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

I think you misunderestimate how many people become members out of support for their club rather than because they will go and see many games.

Many of the members of the poorer clubs simply see a membership as a donation to the club. These donations would very quickly die off in the event of a merger.

Definitely. I personally know of at least 6 North supporters that fit this category.

I saw 3,000 North supporters show up at the Dallas Brooks Hall to fight against relocation. I never saw one person in support of a merger or relocation. My guess is that less than 20% of the current membership would support a relocated or merged entity.

IMO, the North supporter base (and North IS now a member controlled club) would be far more likely to vote for a continued existence in the VFL.

 

[Moo]

I think you misunderestimate how many people become members out of support for their club rather than because they will go and see many games.

Many of the members of the poorer clubs simply see a membership as a donation to the club. These donations would very quickly die off in the event of a merger.

You only have to look at attendances vs membership for a number of Melbourne clubs to see that large numbers of members dont go the football.

I suspect this is a bit different to the West given membership and stadium pressures.

I was only using membership as an example as it had been mentioned previously.

Same theory applies to attendances.

IMO, the North supporter base (and North IS now a member controlled club) would be far more likely to vote for a continued existence in the VFL.

No issue with that at all.

I think this is the more likely scenario ...not necessarily NM but that one club will be booted out of the AFL.

As I said if one club does go ...a % of the fans will become general watchers of the AFL and still attend some games and others will find another AFL side in Melb worthy of their support (which will help other clubs find their feet), less games in Melb will stop some of this saturation adn all else failing there will be less competition for the next upcoming generation.

 

[Beckers]

Such a merged club would have lower membership than either seperate club does now, and would attract lower match day attendances.

have you ever met one single North or Melbourne supporter who thinks this is a good idea?

The only logical merger was North and Fitzroy, which the clubs voted down to avoid creating a 'super team', then watched helplessly as the Brisbane Lions threepeated.

Chuds.

So we are asking Gold Coast and West Sydney to support a team that is born out of dust but you belive that less than 50% of current members of each club would still support a merged team......one that would still carry some of their heritage?

I cannot see how the ONLY logical merger was North and Fitzroy! Melbourne and North Melbourne are a 9 iron apart and both are pretty small areas with similar names (Melb/North Melb) and colours (Blue/White). Both could maintain a huge part of their heritage in the merger including name, geography, colours and rid one club of the DEMON mascot they detest so much!

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Melbourne and North Melbourne are a 9 iron apart and both are pretty small areas with similar names (Melb/North Melb) and colours (Blue/White).

I see you have given this subject deep thought.

 

[Beckers]

I see you have given this subject deep thought.

I could go on:

Both have f_all money.
Both have f_all supporters
Both have f_all recent success

would you like any more similarities Mario??

 

[Mario the Lothario]

I could go on:

Both have f_all money.
Both have f_all supporters

would you like any more similarities Mario??

Sounds just like 80% - 90% of Hawthorns history.

Timing is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

 

[stickman11]

Melbourne's membership is going better than any other time in history last I heard it was 17,600, miles ahead of North Melbourne +3000 new members. And if the casey region takes of, the club will turn around quickly. Hawthorn a few years ago before they went down to bogan land were a basket case.

The dees have always had a fantastic history, loads of ledgends. If there is one thing Stynes is good at, that is getting the club together. For too long, we had fractured boards he really didn't have much passion.

 

[hawker11]

Sounds just like 80% - 90% of Hawthorns history.

Timing is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

80-90% Now you are re-writing history!!!

 

[hawker11]

Melbourne's membership is going better than any other time in history last I heard it was 17,600, miles ahead of North Melbourne +3000 new members. And if the casey region takes of, the club will turn around quickly. Hawthorn a few years ago before they went down to bogan land were a basket case.

The dees have always had a fantastic history, loads of ledgends. If there is one thing Stynes is good at, that is getting the club together. For too long, we had fractured boards he really didn't have much passion.

Yes, the slums of Waverley - I hear the Hawks wear bullet-proof vests when they train such is the repressive lower-class nature of the area.

Melbourne need a lot more than board-level passion to even start competing with the other AFL teams...

 

[Mario the Lothario]

80-90% Now you are re-writing history!!!

Hawthorn have supposedly been around for 106 years yet, if I remember correctly, Hawthorn were on the bones of their backside prior to 1997. I don't remember Hawthorn ever being a financial or crowd drawing powerhouse prior to 1997. In fact Hawthorn hold the overwhelming majority of the poorest drawing attendance records in VFL history.

 

[doodlefeatures]

Hawthorn have supposedly been around for 106 years yet, if I remember correctly, Hawthorn were on the bones of their backside prior to 1997. I don't remember Hawthorn ever being a financial or crowd drawing powerhouse prior to 1997. In fact Hawthorn hold the overwhelming majority of the poorest drawing attendance records in VFL history.

Wow, how does that chip on your shoulder not crush you, it's the size of Ayers Rock?

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Wow, how does that chip on your shoulder not crush you, it's the size of Ayers Rock?

I'll happily withdraw my comments if you can prove that Hawthorn was a financial and attendance powerhouse prior to 1997.

Until then, keep the idiotic comments for bay 13.

 

[doodlefeatures]

I'll happily withdraw my comments if you can prove that Hawthorn was a financial and attendance powerhouse prior to 1997.

Until then, keep the idiotic comments for bay 13.

How about you prove the Hawks weren't, and I'll happily give you a big kiss

 

[hawker11]

I'll happily withdraw my comments if you can prove that Hawthorn was a financial and attendance powerhouse prior to 1997.

Until then, keep the idiotic comments for bay 13.

Sorry that Hawthorn couldnt cram in 50,000 at Glenferrie!

No-one said we were a powerhouse - but to claim we had f_all supporters and f_all money for 80-90% of our history - you are simply way off the mark. How did we attract so many stars from outside of victoria over the years for starters!

You would think that 1996 went on decades the way some people on here carry on!!

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Sorry that Hawthorn couldnt cram in 50,000 at Glenferrie!

Now you really are talking crap.

No-one said we were a powerhouse - but to claim we had f_all supporters and f_all money for 80-90% of our history - you are simply way off the mark. How did we attract so many stars from outside of victoria over the years for starters!

You would think that 1996 went on decades the way some people on here carry on!!

Far too much drivel.

Okay, I'll state it for you.

Hawthorn were one of the financially poorest and least attended football clubs in the VFL/AFL from 1925 to 1997. The years I have mentioned comfortably amount to 80% of Hawthorns entire history.

Hawthorn appear in 10 of the top 12 least attended matches in VFL history.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/summary.html

Feel free to post any FACTS to dismiss that statement. Hard data and numbers. Keep the drivel to yourself.

 

[rodogs]

So we are asking Gold Coast and West Sydney to support a team that is born out of dust but you belive that less than 50% of current members of each club would still support a merged team......one that would still carry some of their heritage?

I cannot see how the ONLY logical merger was North and Fitzroy! Melbourne and North Melbourne are a 9 iron apart and both are pretty small areas with similar names (Melb/North Melb) and colours (Blue/White). Both could maintain a huge part of their heritage in the merger including name, geography, colours and rid one club of the DEMON mascot they detest so much!

I don't know how far you pitch a 9 iron, but, last time I checked there was West Melbourne, the CBD, the Yarra River and a whole lotta ideological differences between North Melbourne and South Yarra (let's not pretend the Dees incorporate the 'whole' of Melb - never have).

 

[T-Pain]

it's both approrpriate and ironic that north melbourne fans are so passionate about historical arguments.