North Melbourne want to play in Perth

[Zvim]

they did. north went to the afl and proposed playing in canberra again. you're not telling the truth. i stopped reading here.

They didn't. You are just reading the same sentance that sent Caroline Wilson into a hormonal frenzy.

We met with the AFL to talk about playing a game in Perth and after they said no because they wanted to play games in developing markets they ruled out all the developing markets. On the Footy Show JB said his talk with the AFL the ACT came up only in passing when they reviewed the developing markets.

It highlights the problem with the AFL in that they have already allocated the development states and are happy with the level of the AFL's involvement there, that should open the door for us to play in Perth. They have no logical reason to block it given the development states/territories have exposure.

 

[jacko57]

I love North Melbourne. The football equivalent of paying off one credit card with another credit card whilst waiting for K Rudd's bonus payment.

um.....you follow Freo, champ. In onfield terms, the football equivalent of paying off your credit card with monopoly money.

 

[Zvim]

um.....you follow Freo, champ. In onfield terms, the football equivalent of paying off your credit card with monopoly money.

He is a proud passionate Freo fan, they made the finals once and they make money, it is the BF yard stick for success.

 

[richardnose]

They didn't. You are just reading the same sentance that sent Caroline Wilson into a hormonal frenzy.

We met with the AFL to talk about playing a game in Perth and after they said no because they wanted to play games in developing markets they ruled out all the developing markets. On the Footy Show JB said his talk with the AFL the ACT came up only in passing when they reviewed the developing markets.

It highlights the problem with the AFL in that they have already allocated the development states and are happy with the level of the AFL's involvement there, that should open the door for us to play in Perth. They have no logical reason to block it given the development states/territories have exposure.

this, in fact, highlights north's problem - not the afl's. if the afl are happy with their coverage of mature and developing markets, then that's what you'd expect 22 years into a national competition. if this doesn't easily accommodate melbourne-based clubs who don't want to play in melbourne, then that's your problem, not the afl's.

others have already pointed out that you have painted yourselves into this corner by hopping opportunistically between different markets rather than picking one and developing it (ala hawthorn). the fact that you now stand there and lay the blame for your situation at the afl's feet is sadly predictable.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

When Brayshaw sat down and penned the club's business plan, after he wrote the line, "We rely solely on opposition clubs and their supporters proping up our existence" what came next?

"At least we aren't so hopeless as to be going bakrupt in a two town city?"

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

OK I was at the meeting at Dallas Brooks where you?

I was at the AGM where you?

I was at the first President Function against Essendon after the move was knocked back where you?

On all those occasions James Brayshaw addressed the members and made it clear that until we reach a point that we don’t have to then it is more than likely we will have to Sell a game or 2.

.

It is amazing how all these people who weren't there, who aren't members, know more than people who did attend those events and who are North members.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

I probably do not possess the in-depth understanding of the club that all the posters here share, but I have a fair inkling. I am rapt that North finally returned the club to it's members, but the way North conducts every business decision in the media turns me off. There is no real apparent strategy, just public opinion for policy.

Have you considered the notion that North is working with the AFL through the media to increase the pressure on the stadium operators?

That we might be doing this in concert with the AFL?

You know, we were the ones who first started kicking up a stink about the stadium deals.

 

[Zvim]

this, in fact, highlights north's problem - not the afl's. if the afl are happy with their coverage of mature and developing markets, then that's what you'd expect 22 years into a national competition. if this doesn't easily accommodate melbourne-based clubs who don't want to play in melbourne, then that's your problem, not the afl's.

others have already pointed out that you have painted yourselves into this corner by hopping opportunistically between different markets rather than picking one and developing it (ala hawthorn). the fact that you now stand there and lay the blame for your situation at the afl's feet is sadly predictable.

The only thing predictable are stupid responses on BF.

All we are after is to get close to the national average for stadium returns. On average each supporter generates about $33 per game at TD. That is about $1m for a 30k crowd. On average, stadiums around Australia would return $650k back to the club for drawing that crowd.

We have a problem in Melbourne, under the looney tunes deal the AFL setup, on 30k you are looking at losing about $100k.

It is the AFL's mess, they have to fix it. We are willing to do what we can to make some money playing some games elsewhere, and the only way they will put pressure on the stadiums is if they are prepared to move games outside of these two stadiums.

Had we been making $650k off of a 30k crowd in Melbourne, why would we want to sell any games?

This is fundamentally the problem. AFL knows if they fix the stadium issue, the games played in developming markets would ALL die off at the same time. No more games on GC, no more games in Darwin, no more games in Canberra, unlikely there will be anymore games in Tasmania.

AFL have no incentive to make realistic changes unless they are going to be handed the bill for the stadium stuff ups. We are paying off 1/5th of a stadium that we will only have a 1/18th share in. Who isn't paying their way?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Have you considered the notion that North is working with the AFL through the media to increase the pressure on the stadium operators?

That we might be doing this in concert with the AFL?

You know, we were the ones who first started kicking up a stink about the stadium deals.

Here's hoping this effort gets results for you guys in the not-too-distant future as well, in the same way us Demons hope the new MCG deal will be a reality soon - and after these things happen, I suggest that many of the knockers around the place - particularly Smith, Wilson and their ilk, will have to find other targets for their cheap shots, or better yet, try to become real journalists instead...

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It highlights the problem with the AFL in that they have already allocated the development states .

North walked from a developent state. You cant complain that you didnt get an opportunity there.

 

[roylandroos]

No I wasn't. But I do watch the Footy show and I do read the papers.
And the fact I have worked in the media industry for over a decade and possess the requisite skills to see how North operate.

Bradshaw did say you may need to sell games. However, there are not many areas of Australia left where North hasn't been and stuffed it up.
I'm not laying that at Bradshaw's feet, but at the clubs.

You cannot seriously believe that you can act like you have towards Gold Coast, Canberra, etc and other States will welcome you with open arms.
You have damaged your reputation and this kind of policy development continues it.

Not one North poster has even discussed the "Business Plan by Public Opinion" through the media that is a constant with your club. Where is the established business model and solutions that don't change with the wind?

You seriously do not know your facts buddy.
Its BRAYSHAW not Bradshaw.

 

[numchuks]

North walked from a developent state. You cant complain that you didnt get an opportunity there.

Which state would that be mate?

As I recall, North were quite happy to keep play out the contract on the Gold Coast, until the AFL terminated the deal.

 

[Dirrrty South]

MCG was more affordable than TD up until they decided to spend more than half a billion on upgrading it. For whatever reason, MCC had a burning desire to repay what is a multi-generation investment in a short period of time, that was only ever going to happen by ripping off AFL clubs.

So the far better option, at the time was TD. It was only after the circus continued and the AFL and MCC re-negotiated their agreement with the MCC surrendering guaranteed home finals in exchange for greater access to home and away games allowed them to spread the overheads a bit over more games.

TD were also able to offer administration facilities and social club services, which we wouldn't have at MCG, especially during the period it underwent redevelopment.

At the moment there is a very marginal difference. Once we move our administration back to Arden Street in November we will probably be in a better position to review the stadium deal issue soley based on the gate receipt scenario.

Thank you, I always wondered why they left the G, thanks for the answer without the ignorance or Bay 13 style slanging of the other person who quoted my question.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Which state would that be mate? As I recall, North were quite happy to keep play out the contract on the Gold Coast, until the AFL terminated the deal.

North were happy to pull out. The club was beating its chest about the great victory that you were staying in Melbourne.

Lets face it, North are the Goldilocks of the AFL, lost, breaking and entering, moving from room to room to find a chair thats the right size and a bed thats comfortable, and tasting all the porridge to see which is the right temperature, and never being happy.

 

[Dirrrty South]

I won't even try to read that ramble. Don't be scared to use paragraphs next time.

Ok then, don't read it. You asked a question, I answered. You however had no answers and had to resort to trolling. If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest person in the world.

 

[Makka]

I have no problem if North want to host a 'home' game against us at Subi. It'll be a win/win for both clubs in my opinion.

 

[Dc9798]

The only thing predictable are stupid responses on BF.

We have a problem in Melbourne, under the looney tunes deal the AFL setup, on 30k you are looking at losing about $100k.

I thought 30,000 was break even? North lost 100,000 when they hosted Freo with a 15,000 crowd right?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have no problem if North want to host a 'home' game against us at Subi. It'll be a win/win for both clubs in my opinion.

Yeah, they win money to keep the alive for another week and you win four premiership points that you bought rather than earned.

 

[Makka]

Yeah, they win money to keep the alive for another week and you win four premiership points that you bought rather than earned.

Well, we still have to win the game, which at the moment is no guarantee, but as I said, win/win!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Well, we still have to win the game, which at the moment is no guarantee, but as I said, win/win!

When you take the other 14 teams into account its win/win/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose

And its arguable whether its a win for North. They'll get cash but will probably lose the game, which might eventually cost them more money than they picked up.

 

[Chief Crow]

Sorry if this has already been said but this was from the Sunday mail a few weeks ago.

Western Bulldogs look to Adelaide Oval

Article from:

JESPER FJELDSTAD
May 30, 2009 11:30pm

THE high-flying but financially troubled Western Bulldogs say they have been offered Adelaide Oval as an alternative home ground.
The Dogs hierarchy yesterday said they had been approached with a proposal to move up to two home games to Adelaide - with the AFL saying there is nothing legally to stop it happening in the 2010 season.
The audacious bid is set to test the fragile new alliance between cricket and football in South Australia.
Western Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose said the club was seriously considering the Adelaide Oval offer and a decision could be made within two months.
"The club has previously been approached by Adelaide Oval and the club is presently reviewing all our options in relation to selling our home games interstate," Mr Rose said yesterday. SA Cricket Association officials yesterday confirmed that SACA was in ongoing discussions with several clubs about playing home games at the Adelaide Oval. "We are talking to several clubs across several codes," communications manager Rebekah Rosser said. "And we're really excited and encouraged by the recent interest shown."
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said there were no legal hurdles standing in the way of the Western Bulldogs playing a home game at the ground.
Up to two Western Bulldogs home games could be played at Adelaide Oval from 2010 after its current deal for "away" home games in Canberra and Darwin expires at the end of this season. The most attractive option would be to host Adelaide clubs, most likely Port Adelaide, which would be expected to draw only a small crowd in Melbourne.
The Melbourne-based club has said it would be forced to sell home games interstate next year and has considered locations such as Tasmania, Canberra and Darwin. Club president David Smorgon last week said he was open to offers from across Australia.
The Bulldogs are the second club to publicly flag an interest in Adelaide Oval, after North Melbourne voiced some interest in March.
"It is regrettable that our club continually needs to look at these options, however in light of the current unequal and unfair stadium arrangements, we have no other option," Mr Rose said.

 

[Furn]

Seriously why not play all the Eagles and Crows' games at home ?

Its win/win right?

Every team will make more playing their away games to these 2 teams than they could at there home ground.

ANd the Eagles and CRows get to win most of their games. All of them if they are any good.I think its a great idea.

Just what the competition needs



FFS North!!!! Think up something better than selling premiership points for money.

Maybe you can throw some finals too. Think about how much they will be worth to a Collingwod or Essendon.

 

[zero]

?? now the dogs, too?

look the afl has a long standing policy of not allowing games to be sold to places that arent expansion areas.

while perth and adelaide have a fair bit of money on offer for more football, the AFL just arent going to allow home games to go there.

hawthorn have tassie covered, so its canberra, darwin, NSW or QLD im afraid.

and i think it will be a case of if you cant make a buck in any of those places (which constitute 55% of australias population), then tough luck.

 

[Zvim]

Seriously why not play all the Eagles and Crows' games at home ?

Its win/win right?

Every team will make more playing their away games to these 2 teams than they could at there home ground.

ANd the Eagles and CRows get to win most of their games. All of them if they are any good.I think its a great idea.

Just what the competition needs



FFS North!!!! Think up something better than selling premiership points for money.

Maybe you can throw some finals too. Think about how much they will be worth to a Collingwod or Essendon.

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.

 

[Carnthe]

Uh, didn't Melbourne sell home games to Brissy at the Gabba a few years back?