North Melbourne want to play in Perth

[richardnose]

You mentioned the ANZAC Day game, not me.

Yes two guaranteed games a year between sides can cause ups and downs in a club's fortunes. It will average out over time.

Selling a home game to an interstate club will NEVER average out. It will weigh in favour of the team that paid for the home ground advantage.

you're hitting your head against a wall there tim.

 

[bomberclifford]

C'mon now, you can choose where to play but not the opponent? That's where it crosses the line is it? I mean, that would be like choosing who to play and on what specific weekend it should happen! And a few times a year at that.

Nicely put.

 

[bomberclifford]

Read the next post. Guaranteed fixtures can have a massive impact on whether a club can pick up extra premiership points. Particularly when the team you have a guaranteed fixture against may be going through a rebuild. You can't see the easy premiership points in that?

What a ridiculous argument. That applies to playing ANY team at ANY time who is considered an easybeat, rebuild or not.

 

[richardnose]

We don't have an equivalent debt level that they had during their demise. They also didn't have 30,000 members. If they did, then they would still be around.

If anything, North has been gaining ground on clubs like Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon. Membership-wise, you have a poor conversion of supporters to members. Past is a good thing to have but it doesn't mean the future will follow similar patterns, Hawthorn have already left you for dead. I am sure the last thing you want is another successful club getting their shit together off-field.

hi mate. i've noticed a number of north supporters touting a massive increase in members as being an example of brayshaw's good work. i just saw that someone listed the afl game attendances up until round 11 this year. here it is.

COLLINGWOOD 565,574
CARLTON 551,631
ESSENDON 532,107
HAWTHORN 474,274
RICHMOND 453,097
GEELONG 415,088
ADELAIDE 389,022
WESTERN BULLDOGS 387,270
WEST COAST 370,836
MELBOURNE 358,019
ST.KILDA 353,916
BRISBANE 322,483
SYDNEY 317,949
FREMANTLE 311,668
NORTH MELBOURNE 304,415
PORT ADELAIDE 300,245

sorry to burst your balloon.

fwiw - i'd rather that north didn't end up becoming one of the two melbourne-based clubs that will inevitably disappear.

my point is simply that i believe brayshaw is the emperor with no clothes. you're closer to oblivion now and it'll be probably be too late by the time you realise it. you need a hard-nosed business man running the show to have any hope of turning the ship around. stop drinking the kool aid, it's not helping.

 

[Moo]

Look it is OK to say yay Roos do it ..and from a WA persepctive if it becomes an ongoing trend

So the Roos will probably end up playing their home game against the WA team in Perth ...I can see the Dogs and Melb jumping on that bandwagon too.

I could also see Carlton or St Kilda saying ...what the **** 3/4 million for a low drawing game against Freo - sure play it there. Doggies are talking about Adelaide already.

Crows, Eages and Dockers could be looking at 4 home games a year being moved ....

The AFL either say no and stick to developmental markets only or they say 'yes' and it is open slather (or we could just admit that there are too many games in Melb).

One request though ...if the Roos do get this concession and then Melb or Doggies get it too - can we not have a repeat of Roos are the trailblazers and everyone is following us type threads. Your selling a home game as you do not have the support at home - it is hardly a rad concept.

 

[Rob]

Read the next post. Guaranteed fixtures can have a massive impact on whether a club can pick up extra premiership points. Particularly when the team you have a guaranteed fixture against may be going through a rebuild. You can't see the easy premiership points in that?

That's always going to change from year to year - Essendon (for example) are no more likely to be going through a rebuild than any other club you'd potentially be scheduled against to play twice. It doesn't change the likelihood of winning more or less premiership points over a period of time. I agree that it compromises the fixture, but really only to the extent of club financials rather than any bearing on the ladder. But that happens with a lot of clubs, including yours. eg. You seem to get a guaranteed home game against Collingwood every year.

A better comparison would be the games moved to neutral venues, where a club loses it's home ground advantage and it's replaced with no advantage for either side, improving the chances for the away team to win premiership points. However that can at least be justified to be in line with the AFL's aims to increase the popularity of the game in areas that wouldn't otherwise see live football, as well as allowing clubs to develop a support base in a new area.
What does the Roos playing WC in Perth achieve for football? Nothing. It won't get the Roos any more fans (it could arguably cost them fans), it doesn't promote the game anywhere, the only purpose is selling the prospect of premiership points for dollars. IMO, that's where you have to draw the line. Why the **** would we bother having a salary cap if clubs can do this?

And why are North fans so defensive about this? I would have thought they'd be ropeable, especially given at least one other club is drawing more in handouts from the AFL than they are. It's OK to say your club might be doing the wrong thing.

 

[Hoser]

What a ridiculous argument. That applies to playing ANY team at ANY time who is considered an easybeat, rebuild or not.

NO, it applies to ANY team who gets to play another team TWICE in every given season, or even 8 out of every 10 seasons.

It would be a crap argument if the teams we played twice this year, we only played once the next year and vice versa. That would be luck of the draw and good luck to you for getting as many easybeats in a season as you can. But that is not how the fixture works is it?

 

[speedpeck23]

What does the Roos playing WC in Perth achieve for football? Nothing. It won't get the Roos any more fans (it could arguably cost them fans), it doesn't promote the game anywhere, the only purpose is selling the prospect of premiership points for dollars. IMO, that's where you have to draw the line. Why the **** would we bother having a salary cap if clubs can do this?

And why are North fans so defensive about this? I would have thought they'd be ropeable, especially given at least one other club is drawing more in handouts from the AFL than they are. It's OK to say your club might be doing the wrong thing.

More people get to see an AFL game in Perth. West Coast or Freo supporters get an extra game to go to. Better image for footy having 30.000 at for eg. WC v North than 15,000 at Docklands or MCG. North would still have more games in Melb. than Freo or WC have in Perth over a season.

 

[jacko57]

hi mate. i've noticed a number of north supporters touting a massive increase in members as being an example of brayshaw's good work. i just saw that someone listed the afl game attendances up until round 11 this year. here it is.

COLLINGWOOD 565,574
CARLTON 551,631
ESSENDON 532,107
HAWTHORN 474,274
RICHMOND 453,097
GEELONG 415,088
ADELAIDE 389,022
WESTERN BULLDOGS 387,270
WEST COAST 370,836
MELBOURNE 358,019
ST.KILDA 353,916
BRISBANE 322,483
SYDNEY 317,949
FREMANTLE 311,668
NORTH MELBOURNE 304,415
PORT ADELAIDE 300,245

sorry to burst your balloon.

fwiw - i'd rather that north didn't end up becoming one of the two melbourne-based clubs that will inevitably disappear.

my point is simply that i believe brayshaw is the emperor with no clothes. you're closer to oblivion now and it'll be probably be too late by the time you realise it. you need a hard-nosed business man running the show to have any hope of turning the ship around. stop drinking the kool aid, it's not helping.

Yes, attendances aren't great ; several factors at play, but one is that we need to get more members attending home games.

But you are really are talking crap with this anti-Brayshaw line. 22k members in 07, 34 in 08, 30 in 09 ; and you reckon we're closer to oblivion?

Oblivion beckoned in October 07 when the Vichy faction running the club wanted to take the 30 pieces of silver to turn NMFC into the Gold Coast Kangaroos, owned 100% by the AFL.

 

[Rob]

[/I][/U]

More people get to see an AFL game in Perth. West Coast or Freo supporters get an extra game to go to.

Still probably won't create a single additional supporter of the game. Won't be any more promotion for the game either, footy already dominates the media.

Better image for footy having 30.000 at for eg. WC v North than 15,000 at Docklands or MCG.

Maybe, but you'd imagine the image of the league would take a bit of a whack from a team selling home games to the opposition in the first place. Does it happen in any other sporting league in the world?

North would still have more games in Melb. than Freo or WC have in Perth over a season.

So what?

At best, only very minor benefits for the game can be identified from this. Is it really worth allowing the prospect of premiership points being sold for dollars just to achieve it?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Maybe, but you'd imagine the image of the league would take a bit of a whack from a team selling home games to the opposition in the first place. Does it happen in any other sporting league in the world?

Been happening for about a decade at least now with different clubs doing it, and the AFL's image doesn't seem to have suffered disastrously that I've noticed.

Not like when Fitzroy were killed by Oakley and co, for instance...

 

[Bollox]

Is this further evidence of genius from Eugene ? I think it might be

Amazing foresight they have..they'll probably whinge about conspiracies and North V The World again when given the same answer the others got.

 

[Wallaby]

Why bugger around with playing the game in Perth?

Just sell the 4 points to the Eagles and stay here in Melbourne and have a Sat Night dinner/fundraiser. Probably clear a couple of hundred grand and save on the air fares/accommodation. Put on 'Footy Flashbacks' and you'll probably get the same ratings for Channel 7.

Lions, Dockers and Swans will all be in it, too. Try the Cats down the Highway as well.

The thing that pisses me off most about the AFL is the fact that we have a semi-pro competition - dodgy draw, clubs propped up, clubs selling games. Just fix it. If that means my club suffers or doesn't make the cut, well, too bad. But this unfair rubbish we get just cheapens the credibility of the comp.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Thirdly, and let's just pretend there are 12 clubs and a legitimate draw is in place, North Melbourne are entitled to play 11 home games. How the hell is it anyone's business bar North Melbourne's where they choose to play these games? If North want to play bloody Richmond at Subiaco Oval then that's their prerogative. Richmond are entitled to play 11 home games too. If they want to play their return fixture with North at Lords, then good for them!

if that's the case, then they should just be called the Kangaroos again.

and there are many stakeholders in this, particularly the club's themselves. the most basic aspect of a league season is the home & away concept. it is in every professional league sport. this was pushed to the side a longtime ago in the VFL as the league moved high-drawing games to neutral venues such as Waverly Park and the MCG, and is at a point where it is generally accepted by clubs, fans and media alike that it isnt a considerable aspect of the competition.

but as the national league has a flawed composition of clubs, the admin has allowed the clubs themsleves to further tamper with this fundamental facet of the competition...........of any league competition.........because certain clubs are not viable in the region they are based. certain clubs need the windfall of selling games in attempt to run in the black. but i find it astounding that people consistently ignore its effects on the sporting competitive advantage aspects within the competition as a whole.

the home ground competitive advantage needs to be applied consistently across the league, or all matches should be played at a neutral venue. people think that the kangaroos selling a home game to west coast only affects the kangaroos themselves. how extremely short-sighted.

it also affects West Coast (in a positive way), and other interstate clubs (negatively) who are required to travel Melbourne to play the Kangaroos. these other teams should also be awarded the home competitive advantage when playing the kangaroos in a kangaroos home game if the issue is to be applied consistently. ultimately, it affects the consistent application of the sporting competitive advantage, and hence the integrity of the entire competition.

but it's gone so far now, and stakeholders of the game are conditioned to disregard the importance of it that they any request is considered acceptable. the joke's on them.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Been happening for about a decade at least now with different clubs doing it, and the AFL's image doesn't seem to have suffered disastrously that I've noticed.

the AFL know they have the football public wrapped around their little finger.

there isnt much the league cant do that'll affect sheeple following the game. from a shit website, to weekly umpiring controversy, to the fixture........the sheeple keep coming back.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The antidote to this situation, where a number of Melbourne clubs are forced by economic necessity to play the odd home game on opposition turf, is a proper resolution of the stadium cost issue at Etihad.

The MCG deal still hasn't been finalised either - (although I would say the Demons have done very well financially since midway through last year, regardless of that issue) but the biggest and most obvious problem is this situation at Etihad Stadium.

 

[mcgarnacle]

The thing that pisses me off most about the AFL is the fact that we have a semi-pro competition - dodgy draw, clubs propped up, clubs selling games. Just fix it. If that means my club suffers or doesn't make the cut, well, too bad. But this unfair rubbish we get just cheapens the credibility of the comp.

 

[mcgarnacle]

The antidote to this situation, where a number of Melbourne clubs are forced by economic necessity to play the odd home game on opposition turf, is a proper resolution of the stadium cost issue at Etihad.

The MCG deal still hasn't been finalised either - (although I would say the Demons have done very well financially since midway through last year, regardless of that issue) but the biggest and most obvious problem is this situation at Etihad Stadium.

teams were selling home games before docklands stadium. kangaroos were one of them. who can forget their enterprising push into NSW and the 3 home games at the SCG.

it's the flawed composition of the comp which is the fundamental problem. it'll always exist.

 

[Dan26]

The AFL should, and hopefully will, ban the awful practice of selling home games to an oppositions home ground.

It's different if you play a home match In Tasmania, Canberra, Darwin because these places don't have teams, and it's effectively neutral.

But playing a home game agaisnt West Coast IN Perth is totally farcical. It gives the fixture an element of farce. I know the fixture isn't fair anyway, but this is totally different. When Melbourne was playing home games at the Gabba against Brisbane it made for a farcical situation, that compromises the integrity of the competition.

You'd never see New York playing a home game against the San Francisco 49ers In San Francisco. Because it would be totally stupid.

There are lots of ways to make money. Selling home games to Perth and Adelaide shouldn't allowed to be one of them. Find another, more appropriate way.

 

[Rob]

Been happening for about a decade at least now with different clubs doing it, and the AFL's image doesn't seem to have suffered disastrously that I've noticed.

It's happened three times - the Roos, and subsequently Dogs to Sydney and Melbourne to Brisbane. In all cases each respective club got slagged for it, and the AFL didn't look good. Particularly Melbourne. North less so, because they were doing it as part of a broader strategy to attract more supporters by playing a few home games in Sydney, and not as much just for the money. If they were to do a similar thing in Perth, there would at least be some potential long term merit in it, especially if they were to target an outlying area like Mandurah.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

It's happened three times - the Roos, and subsequently Dogs to Sydney and Melbourne to Brisbane. In all cases each respective club got slagged for it, and the AFL didn't look good. Particularly Melbourne. North less so, because they were doing it as part of a broader strategy to attract more supporters by playing a few home games in Sydney, and not as much just for the money. If they were to do a similar thing in Perth, there would at least be some potential long term merit in it, especially if they were to target an outlying area like Mandurah.

As far as the Demons doing it - when we did do it - well, let's just say I'm a lot happier now with a guy like Jim Stynes as our President, and with his management team in general.

I agree on your analysis of the motivation behind North's NSW moves in the recent past as well. And in regard to this shifting of one or more matches in the future to Perth, well, North Melbourne do have a substantial supporter base in WA which they would be able to build up further as a result, I think.

According to the information I've seen on this subject, North have about 5000 members over there at present....

 

[Hawkk]

It is a bit rich coming from a supporter of a club that has 50k members who is making $5m profit who is selling games and going to sell MORE games.

I'm against selling more games down there but its a chalk and cheese comparison

One 'sells' games to a neutral territory in a bid to raise revenue and membership in a region without consistant football, the other is a cash grab, giving away home ground advantage to a rival club (potentially at the determent of 14 other clubs, not just North Melbourne) cashing in on the popularity of the West Coast Eagles without boosting North's support base or membership

North should be looking to places like New Zealand rather than Perth

 

[Hawkk]

According to the information I've seen on this subject, North have about 5000 members over there at present....

More like 1-2,000 probably

Clubs only get allocated 500 seats when they travel to Subiaco

The Lions don't even have 4,000 members in Melbourne

 

[Rob]

As far as the Demons doing it - when we did do it - well, let's just say I'm a lot happier now with a guy like Jim Stynes as our President, and with his management team in general.

Don't blame you. Selling matches to neutral venues is bad enough (and could be seen as a necessary evil), but how a supporter could actually defend selling home games to the opposition purely for dollars has me stuffed.

I agree on your analysis of the motivation behind North's NSW moves in the recent past as well. And in regard to this shifting of one or more matches in the future to Perth, well, North Melbourne do have a substantial supporter base in WA which they would be able to build up further as a result, I think.

According to the information I've seen on this subject, North have about 5000 members over there at present....

That may well be true, although I doubt it because they've never had anything remotely close to that ever show up to a game. They get a sizable number of fans (i.e 1500-2000), but North would be behind at least 5 other interstate clubs in terms of match day support in WA. (for reference, Collingwood, Essendon, Sydney, Carlton and Hawthorn all appear to have larger support bases in Perth. Maybe Richmond as well).

 

[speedpeck23]

But playing a home game agaisnt West Coast IN Perth is totally farcical. It gives the fixture an element of farce. I know the fixture isn't fair anyway, but this is totally different. When Melbourne was playing home games at the Gabba against Brisbane it made for a farcical situation, that compromises the integrity of the competition.

quote]

The idea of calling these "home" games is only an arbitrary concept to establish which club gets the match receipts. Carlton as the "home" team last night was farcical. North Melbourne could easily play 8 games interstate...(twice at each interstate venue) and 16 in Melbourne...the AFL would nominate from which matches North gets the gate receipts.

There are many "farcical" things about the AFL comp...the players come from all over the country or overseas...their allegience to a team is totally random based on the draft. Supporters come from anywhere...they don't have to have any "valid" connection with the club they follow...Clubs don't really solely represent the people who live in their suburb/state..people in those states/suburbs don't necessarily support the club which supposedly represents them. The most important thing is that the AFL is a club based competition and the clubs simply represent themselves....supporters can follow whoever they like. If you love the game you choose a club for whatever reason and good luck to you !!!!