News North might be done in Ballarat

[Kimbo]

Why would they be unhappy with what has been achieved to date? By their own account the economic activity has been huge with the games we played there, Swans and West Coast games were very strong economic drawcards.

Reality is, if Hobart needs Victorians to fill the stadium then it is a dud root right off the bat. The whole point from out point of view is to create games for Tasmanians to attend and watch.

Bringing the dropkicks from Victoria is just going to deny Tasmanians access to the games as foreigners will book well in advance and locals will be shut out.

The Richmond game probably won't need Victorians to fill the stadium. Two things though. It will, regardless, bring Victorians, which TT Lines will appreciate (for the weekend, and opening them up to the experience) AND the popularity of Richmond will help support a sell out, for our first game with the increased ground capacity which is, as yet, unproven.

 

[Kimbo]

Reward sponsors? They are not puppies. According to the government the games have generated more revenue and business activity than had been budgeted for, we don't owe them shit other than what they are paying for. We just come across as cheap whores in this process.

And you come across as a dick. Sorry, I've broken my rule about personal abuse. Mods, pls card me. It was worth it.

 

[Tas]

And you come across as a dick. Sorry, I've broken my rule about personal abuse. Mods, pls card me. It was worth it.

I couldn't give a flying **** how I come across or what you think of me, thought I made that perfectly clear to you in private messages. Need a refresher?

 

[Tas]

The Richmond game probably won't need Victorians to fill the stadium. Two things though. It will, regardless, bring Victorians, which TT Lines will appreciate (for the weekend, and opening them up to the experience) AND the popularity of Richmond will help support a sell out, for our first game with the increased ground capacity which is, as yet, unproven.

Are you suggesting our club requested Richmond and St Kilda in Tasmania or it was forced on us by the AFL?

If the club requested it then they have done the vast majority of their members a great disservice.

 

[Kimbo]

Are you suggesting our club requested Richmond and St Kilda in Tasmania or it was forced on us by the AFL?

If the club requested it then they have done the vast majority of their members a great disservice.

I understand the club requested Richmond (or Geelong) - don't know about St Kilda - and they probably don't give a flying **** what you think of their decision.

 

[Tas]

I understand the club requested Richmond (or Geelong) - don't know about St Kilda - and they probably don't give a flying **** what you think of their decision.

You are right, they don't give a flying **** what their members think which is why they have lost my membership donation.

 

[Zondor]

Look I'm just going to come out and say it. **** Tasmania. **** our Tasmanian supporters who want our club to play home games in Tasmania. We are North Melbourne. Understand that we are a Melbourne club and that's where we should be playing all of our home games. If yah don't like it **** right off and go support the Dogs or some other shit stain club.

The concept of playing home games interstate is idiotic as it isn't a long term fix. No club who has ever played home games interstate have done so on a long term basis other than Hawthorn and I can assure all in Sunbury that this will cease when their next deal expires. It's all about short term gain. The short sightedness and cash grab mentality of our current administration relating to our home gate revenue is sickening. Has any jerkoff from our club considered that playing home games interstate will in all likelihood dampen our ability to grow our primary market? Of course they haven't. But when yah have a cross dressing flog as President should we expect any different? :stern look

What I find interesting is that we are unaware of what is our long term strategy in Tasmania? What is it? Like exactly what is the plan? **** Jame and his wishy washy administrative ways. :stern look

 

[Devski]

Look I'm just going to come out and say it. **** Tasmania. **** our Tasmanian supporters who want our club to play home games in Tasmania. We are North Melbourne. Understand that we are a Melbourne club and that's where we should be playing all of our home games. If yah don't like it **** right off and go support the Dogs or some other shit stain club.

The concept of playing home games interstate is idiotic as it isn't a long term fix. No club who has ever played home games interstate have done so on a long term basis other than Hawthorn and I can assure all in Sunbury that this will cease when their next deal expires. It's all about short term gain. The short sightedness and cash grab mentality of our current administration relating to our home gate revenue is sickening. Has any jerkoff from our club considered that playing home games interstate will in all likelihood dampen our ability to grow our primary market? Of course they haven't. But when yah have a cross dressing flog as President should we expect any different? :stern look

What I find interesting is that we are unaware of what is our long term strategy in Tasmania? What is it? Like exactly what is the plan? **** Jame and his wishy washy administrative ways. :stern look

Mate, you're more clueless than Caro.

 

[Reginald0]

not particularly appreciating the aggressive tone of some of these posts
quite happy to hear the more or less persuasive arguments about the Tassie experiment
no need to get all offensive about it

 

[Dodecahedron]

Back to Ballarat. North should not only ask for compensation but insist on a full, itemised refund of all costs invested over the past 6 years. I'm talking about time, opportunity cost , footies given away, even petrol costs, sunscreen used on the players. F*** it. Gimme the money back you turds with a God complex.

 

[RobZombie]

11 is more than a handful RZ, therefore not guilty.

The stigma attached to future relocation alone negates any positives IMO. Who is going to begin supporting a club with questions over its future, accurate or not. The GC saga was only 7 years ago so you can understand peoples perception.

Nothing against Tassie as a place, but I believe I have a right to be disappointed that another home game has been taken away.

Yeah, I understand that. I guess the point I was trying to make was that if I'm ok with the minimal effect it has on my footygoing lifestyle, then for the general Vic-based membership to feel cheated by a handful of home games being sold, the bar is probably higher than the average BF type might think. This is especially true when Hobart is the sort of place you might actually go to for a long weekend and affordable to get to rather than, say, Cairns or Darwin.

Obviously a whole different story if it was more than half the home games interstate, or worse still the Fitzroy situation with the league reneging on their promised number of Melbourne games. If 7 games rears its head again for real I'll be shitty like everyone here, but until then it's ok.

 

[RobZombie]

Reckon the club would be wise to conduct game day surveys to determine how many Tasmanians are getting to see the footy.

They already do. Or at least the HCC does, and I presume shares data with the club.

 

[boncer34]

2 games in Hobart and 2 in Launceston for, backed with State money in addition to sponsors, is where I feel could be a likely outcome.

Tassie currently has 7 games. In what universe is almost halving that going to be acceptable to them?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Tassie currently has 7 games. In what universe is almost halving that going to be acceptable to them?

We will release the elephant of arden st to distract them.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Lol, no one ever budges an inch in these discussions shitfights. Someone mentions Tasmania and like clockwork 10 pages of vitriol ensues.

 

[Kimbo]

Lol, no one ever budges an inch in these discussions shitfights.

Yes they do.

 

[naturally north]

Look I'm just going to come out and say it. **** Tasmania. **** our Tasmanian supporters who want our club to play home games in Tasmania. We are North Melbourne. Understand that we are a Melbourne club and that's where we should be playing all of our home games. If yah don't like it **** right off and go support the Dogs or some other shit stain club.

The concept of playing home games interstate is idiotic as it isn't a long term fix. No club who has ever played home games interstate have done so on a long term basis other than Hawthorn and I can assure all in Sunbury that this will cease when their next deal expires. It's all about short term gain. The short sightedness and cash grab mentality of our current administration relating to our home gate revenue is sickening. Has any jerkoff from our club considered that playing home games interstate will in all likelihood dampen our ability to grow our primary market? Of course they haven't. But when yah have a cross dressing flog as President should we expect any different? :stern look

What I find interesting is that we are unaware of what is our long term strategy in Tasmania? What is it? Like exactly what is the plan? **** Jame and his wishy washy administrative ways. :stern look

A very harsh appraisal of all things North Melbourne admin one could say.

1) Yes we are a Melbourne club. You do realise one Tassie home game is financially worth about seven in Melbourne.

2) Following the Dogs or Dees etc isn't a valid argument.

3) This is the bit I find interesting. Yes you could argue this may stymie our growth in Melbourne, but I'll tell you what will bring our world crashing down, being dead ****en broke and not being able to compete on field. We'd die within five years. I've followed the Roos since 74 hence my wife follows the Roos my two kids follow the Roos. I'll tell ya they all had no choice.

How do you see playing three games in Tassie as a hindrance to a young kid jumping on-board?The majority of folk follow a side that their parents or mates have lead them down the path of.

We had zero choice and will continue to play games in Tassie until at least the AFL take over Etihad. AFL isn't getting cheaper, we'd bleed FA's and have zero chance of recruiting any decent ones without cash. We don't have Pokies we have Tassie, I know what I prefer.

 

[Horace]

I am certainly not keen to see the number of games we play in Tasmania increased on the 3 this year, however equally in my opinion I don't think that we would be in the financial position we are now in if it was not for the Tasmanian contribution. Further I'm of the view that whether we like it or not, those of us living in Victoria may have to accept a long term Tasmanian presence, however one that we as members should be lobbying the club hard, to cap at no more than 3 games a year. It seems to me that if Tasmania provides to the club for each game played over there, something akin to what Geelong receives from each home game it plays at Kardinia Park, and this sort of revenue stabilises our financial position on a permanent basis, then we may need to accept that situation.

The key is to try to find a way to cap the number of games at 3.

In my opinion, the AFL will never be in a position to relocate or co-locate a Melbourne based team in Tasmania on purely economic and population grounds.

It is worth looking at some numbers which in my view underpin this situation.

As at June 2014, the population of Melbourne was 4,250,000. If for the purposes of this exercise we divide this population between the current 9 Melbourne based clubs (excluding Geelong), then each club has the equivalent of 472000 people to support it.

As at June 2014 the population of Hobart was 218000 people and of Launceston 110000. Ignoring the long standing rivalry between these two cities, that equates to a population of 328000 people supporting, two clubs playing a handful of games in Tasmania.

If however we assume the number of clubs in Melbourne reduces to 8 then each club has the equivalent of 531000 people to support it, as opposed to 328000 to support one club based in Tasmania, again leaving out the difficult factor of North/South rivalry. In other words Melbourne has 1.62 people to support a club, for each person in the combined Hobart/Launceston situation

But then a further factor comes into play. As at 2009/10 Census, the mean net worth of each Melboune household was approximately $420000, while the mean net wealth each Hobart household was approximately $285000. This is a very important factor in determining just how well any region can support any form of recreational activity. Melbourne's net household worth is approximately 1.47 times that of Hobart. For the purposes of this exercise we will assume Launceston's net household wealth is the same as Hobart's.

Effectively on a net household wealth basis each Melbourne club has almost twice the net combined household wealth to support it versus the combined net household wealth of Hobart/Launceston.

Right now a number of Melbourne based clubs remain delicately poised from a financial perspective. In our case our position has improved, however the Dogs, Saints and Melbourne all have some serious financial issues to address. Our position has improved in part due to the Tasmanian contribution.

Clubs play games interstate or forge alliances in different markets, to simply add a relatively small amount to the revenue base and make it less difficult to make ends meet. We are getting a pretty handy "icing" contribution to the cake from Tasmania, but if Tasmania had to become the cake, in my view the cake would not be very palatable financially for very long.

One further comparison. As at 2010, the population of the Gold Coast was 591000 and growing, almost twice that of Hobart and Launceston and equivalent to Tasmania's total population today. The AFL tried to send us there because they viewed the Gold Coast as much more likely to be able to support an AFL team in the longer term. Sadly for Tasmanian's there will never be a time in the foreseeable future where population and economic wise they will ever be able to compete with the GC.

So in my view we are never likely to end up relocated to Tasmania.

 

[Tas]

The key is to try to find a way to cap the number of games at 3.

We didn't even try to cap the number of games and it was still met with betrayal, we just wanted to have a say in moving more than 4 games away from our home. But, no. That was an unreasonable request because it would 'inconvenience' the board from the ability to act like dictators rather and have to instead represent the members.

 

[numchuks]

Look I'm just going to come out and say it. **** Tasmania. **** our Tasmanian supporters who want our club to play home games in Tasmania. We are North Melbourne. Understand that we are a Melbourne club and that's where we should be playing all of our home games. If yah don't like it **** right off and go support the Dogs or some other shit stain club.

The concept of playing home games interstate is idiotic as it isn't a long term fix. No club who has ever played home games interstate have done so on a long term basis other than Hawthorn and I can assure all in Sunbury that this will cease when their next deal expires. It's all about short term gain. The short sightedness and cash grab mentality of our current administration relating to our home gate revenue is sickening. Has any jerkoff from our club considered that playing home games interstate will in all likelihood dampen our ability to grow our primary market? Of course they haven't. But when yah have a cross dressing flog as President should we expect any different? :stern look

What I find interesting is that we are unaware of what is our long term strategy in Tasmania? What is it? Like exactly what is the plan? **** Jame and his wishy washy administrative ways. :stern look

Hear ye, hear ye

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I am certainly not keen to see the number of games we play in Tasmania increased on the 3 this year, however equally in my opinion I don't think that we would be in the financial position we are now in if it was not for the Tasmanian contribution. Further I'm of the view that whether we like it or not, those of us living in Victoria may have to accept a long term Tasmanian presence, however one that we as members should be lobbying the club hard, to cap at no more than 3 games a year. It seems to me that if Tasmania provides to the club for each game played over there, something akin to what Geelong receives from each home game it plays at Kardinia Park, and this sort of revenue stabilises our financial position on a permanent basis, then we may need to accept that situation.

The key is to try to find a way to cap the number of games at 3.

In my opinion, the AFL will never be in a position to relocate or co-locate a Melbourne based team in Tasmania on purely economic and population grounds.

It is worth looking at some numbers which in my view underpin this situation.

As at June 2014, the population of Melbourne was 4,250,000. If for the purposes of this exercise we divide this population between the current 9 Melbourne based clubs (excluding Geelong), then each club has the equivalent of 472000 people to support it.

As at June 2014 the population of Hobart was 218000 people and of Launceston 110000. Ignoring the long standing rivalry between these two cities, that equates to a population of 328000 people supporting, two clubs playing a handful of games in Tasmania.

If however we assume the number of clubs in Melbourne reduces to 8 then each club has the equivalent of 531000 people to support it, as opposed to 328000 to support one club based in Tasmania, again leaving out the difficult factor of North/South rivalry. In other words Melbourne has 1.62 people to support a club, for each person in the combined Hobart/Launceston situation

But then a further factor comes into play. As at 2009/10 Census, the mean net worth of each Melboune household was approximately $420000, while the mean net wealth each Hobart household was approximately $285000. This is a very important factor in determining just how well any region can support any form of recreational activity. Melbourne's net household worth is approximately 1.47 times that of Hobart. For the purposes of this exercise we will assume Launceston's net household wealth is the same as Hobart's.

Effectively on a net household wealth basis each Melbourne club has almost twice the net combined household wealth to support it versus the combined net household wealth of Hobart/Launceston.

Right now a number of Melbourne based clubs remain delicately poised from a financial perspective. In our case our position has improved, however the Dogs, Saints and Melbourne all have some serious financial issues to address. Our position has improved in part due to the Tasmanian contribution.

Clubs play games interstate or forge alliances in different markets, to simply add a relatively small amount to the revenue base and make it less difficult to make ends meet. We are getting a pretty handy "icing" contribution to the cake from Tasmania, but if Tasmania had to become the cake, in my view the cake would not be very palatable financially for very long.

One further comparison. As at 2010, the population of the Gold Coast was 591000 and growing, almost twice that of Hobart and Launceston and equivalent to Tasmania's total population today. The AFL tried to send us there because they viewed the Gold Coast as much more likely to be able to support an AFL team in the longer term. Sadly for Tasmanian's there will never be a time in the foreseeable future where population and economic wise they will ever be able to compete with the GC.

So in my view we are never likely to end up relocated to Tasmania.

Tl;dr - bit of a Tas epic there, Horace?

Actually I did read it and you make a lot of sense. There are two bottom lines - what will sustainably make North the strongest, and what will sustainably feed the AFL with the most money. And right now, the 2014 model looks better for both than either an all-Melbourne or an all-Tasmania picture.

Back on topic. It annoys me that the Dogs and the AFL are undermining the work North has done over a number of years, but it's more on principle than on the impact on our club.

 

[Horace]

Look I'm just going to come out and say it. **** Tasmania. **** our Tasmanian supporters who want our club to play home games in Tasmania. We are North Melbourne. Understand that we are a Melbourne club and that's where we should be playing all of our home games. If yah don't like it **** right off and go support the Dogs or some other shit stain club.

The concept of playing home games interstate is idiotic as it isn't a long term fix. No club who has ever played home games interstate have done so on a long term basis other than Hawthorn and I can assure all in Sunbury that this will cease when their next deal expires. It's all about short term gain. The short sightedness and cash grab mentality of our current administration relating to our home gate revenue is sickening. Has any jerkoff from our club considered that playing home games interstate will in all likelihood dampen our ability to grow our primary market? Of course they haven't. But when yah have a cross dressing flog as President should we expect any different? :stern look

What I find interesting is that we are unaware of what is our long term strategy in Tasmania? What is it? Like exactly what is the plan? **** Jame and his wishy washy administrative ways. :stern look

I'm afraid I can't agree with that sentiment. The fact that in 2007 we didn't have a supplementary source of income at the same level as the Tasmanian games have provided us, was one of the major reasons that put us in a position where the AFL thought they could move us to the Gold Coast. First and foremost football clubs need to put themselves on a financial footing that prevents external influences from ever taking or trying to take decisions out of the clubs hands.

The times are very different now and comparisons can be flawed, but the demise of Fitzroy as an AFL club in 1996, occurred because matters were taken out of the hands of the club, primarily because of its financial position, together with the wheelings and dealings of a number of external forces.

In 2007 the AFL thought they had us on toast, in large part because of our financial position, partly because of a compliant board and partly because of the fact that they underestimated the fierce desire of so many ordinary members to prevent such a move.

One of those factors has definitely changed since then. The factor that has changed is that our financial position has improved. In part our financial position has improved because more people have realised the importance of buying a membership. But I have no doubt that Tasmania has also played a big part in improving the financial position. When else in the history of the club has it been able to secure such a large profit from playing games?

I think it is quite offensive to say f*** Tasmania, f*** our Tasmanian supporters, when they have come to the party in such a major and quantifiable way. Without the Tasmanian dollars we certainly wouldn't be in the same off field financial position we are today and I suspect that the corollary of that is that we might not be in the same on field position as we are.

I wonder how many Hawthorn supporters, who railled against the Hawks playing games in Launceston when the proposal was first floated, now realise that move was one of the best moves the club has ever made?

I'm betting that a lot of their supporters would have threatened not to sign up, or predicted dire consequences for membership numbers when the move was first mooted. Instead now the Hawks have grown significantly in financial terms, are second on the 2014 membership ladder at 68652 members and have coincidentally won flags in 2008, 2013 and 2014, not to mention runners up in 2012. Now the Tasmanian connection isn't responsible for all of that, but what it has done is to provide badly needed supplementary cash to bolster the coffers and enable the Hawks to be able to better fund their operations and recruit and retain quality players.

Last year we were able to secure Nicky Dal, because we were in a better financial position than we have been for a long time and again I say that the Tasmanian dollars have helped us here. This year, rightly or wrongly in terms of their future outputs, we have picked up two more Free Agents in Waite and Higgins, who otherwise we might not have been able to secure.

Let's not demean the good people from Tasmania, who have become members and supporters of our club. They have helped us and we need to respect them.

Instead we should be lobbying our club board to make them understand that the heartland is still the key, the bread and butter of the clubs operations and that we will not view kindly an increase in the number of games played in Tasmania.

And I say this as someone who goes to every game in Melbourne. I hate missing out on watching any game played interstate but I also understand that if our club is not on a sound financial footing, there are far worse ramifications than playing a small number of games in Tasmania. I say this also because of my Fitzroy connection. We tried the Tasmanian thing in the early 1990's but in my opinion it wasn't properly supported by the AFL or Tasmania then. It had huge potential and had Fitzroy survived through to the early 2000's, it might well have allowed the club to survive as an AFL club.

BTW sorry H2H about rambling on.

 

[Tas]

The times are very different now and comparisons can be flawed, but the demise of Fitzroy as an AFL club in 1996, occurred because matters were taken out of the hands of the club, primarily because of its financial position, together with the wheelings and dealings of a number of external forces.

Wut?

AFL expects to get $2b from the 2016 broadcasting rights deal. We have tax on football department spending, we should be debt free in a year or two, AFL is genuinely keen to buy-out Docklands early, AFL acknowledges the disadvantage of the smaller clubs and now has a future fund distribution to clubs, there is a genuine desire to create a more levele playing field on-field.

You would have to say the only thing has kept us from prosperity now is the lack of gaming revenue which ALL of our local competitors have.

This is a ****ing Eutopia environment, if you want to compare the difference look at the Holocaust-like gloom predictions from the Gemba report.

There is no time like the present for sticking to and growing your supporter base in your home state. It is only our weak-willed administration that makes us vulnerable.

 

[Istanbul Roo]

Wut?

AFL expects to get $2b from the 2016 broadcasting rights deal. We have tax on football department spending, we should be debt free in a year or two, AFL is genuinely keen to buy-out Docklands early, AFL acknowledges the disadvantage of the smaller clubs and now has a future fund distribution to clubs, there is a genuine desire to create a more levele playing field on-field.

You would have to say the only thing has kept us from prosperity now is the lack of gaming revenue which ALL of our local competitors have.

This is a ******* Eutopia environment, if you want to compare the difference look at the Holocaust-like gloom predictions from the Gemba report.

There is no time like the present for sticking to and growing your supporter base in your home state. It is only our weak-willed administration that makes us vulnerable.

Tas, most Melbournians already have a team. Those that don't don't like footy.
If you want us to grow in that context, I think you should provide some ideas - briefly - about how to do so. (Ballarat obviously is like Tassie, its not our home base.) The HUB is on initiative with long-term potential - and what other kind of potential is there but long-term, the steady build up of potential supporters through contact with the club?
I would genuinely like to hear some other bullet point ideas.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Forget pokies, the clubs leveraged through pokie ventures will be cooked when the ass falls out of the economy and interest rates hit double figures, property takes a downturn and unemployment goes through the roof. We will be a powerhouse.

Winter is coming.