News North might be done in Ballarat

[Flawed Genius]

Gordon: Ballarat is part of greater western Melbourne, it's a natural fit for us as the Club of the west, for the west. #BeMoreBulldog

 

[SMaturin]

Oh gagf.

 

[SMaturin]

Is Adelaide part of greater western Melbourne too?

 

[Twinkletoes]

Good to see us partnering with Deep South Melbourne then.

 

[GarnerSmash]

.@DanielAndrewsMP has pledged $31.5 million to a redevelopment of Eureka Stadium to bring it up to AFL standard.

Interesting.

The Blundstone Arena redevelopment (a stand and 4 light towers) cost $19.8 million. I wonder if the AFL is going to pitch in?

 

[SMaturin]

I reckon it'd rub many a Ballaratian the wrong way, being told they live in Greater Western Melbourne.

 

[Twinkletoes]

I hope we now dump the North Ballarat alignment and focus on Werribee instead, with a view to going solo down the track.

 

[themilkman888]

this is a joke right? will we atleast get a home match there away from the money pit that is Etihad?

 

[Tas]

Once the AFL signalled their intent to Ballarat that the Dogs be the team they want I doubt we stood a chance regardless if our Ballarat contacts advised us as such or not. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the AFL asked them to keep discussions on the downlow until some point at which an announcement was to be made.

Warning would have been a factor, if we had any legitimate desire to play games there. While there will be more seats available at Eureka it will have zero corporate box facilities, the ability to make money there would be worse than a run down Princes Park.

Your points about our spend is somewhat fanciful. Remove the Tassie income over the last few years and our overall revenue drops to last in the comp.

That is due to our lack of pokies. What do we get from Tasmania? $1m. What does it cost us to facilitate it? We have all these programs in Tasmania as well.

We wouldn't have any of the off field signings we currently have and in that environment we struggle to sing any FA's. Yes, we won flags on a shoestring in the 90's but those days are long gone. Our staff are excellent but without the resources to back them and the extra coin for the other additions to the back room team we would at best be fighting to remain in the discussion around competitive teams.

What resources are we lacking? What do FAs have anything to do with this? TPP is 100%, it doesn't matter if you pay your home grown players or you pay free agents. TPP still remains at 100%. We have room for free agents because our home grown players haven't done enough to warrant being paid more, that isn't a positive, we are trying to plug gaps in our list where development has failed.

The way i see it the Tassie deal has enabled us to adequately support this push for a flag whilst we have a decent group of older players.

Push for a flag? That is optimistic, we still don't execute the basics very well, and by very well I mean consistently. When under pressure we can't clear the ball out of our defensive 50 with any kind of purpose. I have never seen a potential premier play as badly as we did through the 2014 H&A season in as many games as we did. We will live or die based on the development of our 22-27 year old players, not the free agents. Every year half of these players take a forward step, the other half a backward step, we need a lot more forward momentum from this group.

Without that support we would be a team on the cusp of finals and on the verge of losing number of older players who we would be replacing with mid range draft picks, consigning the guys like Ziebell and Cunners to potential careers in a perrenial middling team.

lol wow, short memories. The only thing that made us a perennial middling team was having delusions of grandeur which resulted us in topping up a side that needed rebuilding and youth development believing it was on the cusp of greatness. Two massive steps backwards was under Pagan after 99 and pretty much all through Laidley's reign has left the side with a lack of quality mature age leadership which we are still looking to bring in via free agency.

Our recruitment has been first class, our player development has left a lot to be desired though.

We needed to make the jump from mid/high $20mil revenue to low/mid $30mil revenue over the last few years. Ballarat was not going to do that (and potentially wouldn't for another 5 years) and pokies wouldn't do it without a significant debt burden.

Cost of running a football team is very high, that rapid inflation is largely driven by player salaries, which the AFL tends to cover the vast majority through broadcasting rights distributions.

However, name ANY investment opportunity that is going to make a lot of money that isn't going to come without a significant debt burden? It doesn't exist, you don't get high reward without any risk. Our problem isn't that we are not getting into pokies, our problem is we are not getting into anything. We have no plan, no strategy on how to increase non-football revenue, it is why we are being left behind.

As a wise business strategy that provides the club with the best chance for success both on and off field now and in to the future Tasmania is by far the best option. That is not to say that i am comfortable with the 7 game option.

You realise that there will be no Tasmania in the future unless we commit a larger number of games, which puts the club's future in dire risk. You claim that strategy is wise?

I'm not. It is a risk that must be managed. But to turn our backs on Tasmania over the promise of Ballarat would have done far more damage to our club on and off field over the last 3 years. We would likely be seen as a boring, dull team with little hope of attracting new sponsors or members and certainly not have the momentum in the public psyche that we currently do.

Ballarat was a good idea in 2007, but it is 2014. The landscape has changed radically from 2012 to 2014, being 2 years in the past puts you so far out of date that your ideas are obsolete, being 7 years behind makes you more of a liability than an asset.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Warning would have been a factor, if we had any legitimate desire to play games there. While there will be more seats available at Eureka it will have zero corporate box facilities, the ability to make money there would be worse than a run down Princes Park.



That is due to our lack of pokies. What do we get from Tasmania? $1m. What does it cost us to facilitate it? We have all these programs in Tasmania as well.

$1.5mil up front. Pretty sure we get game day income also, as well as membership $$$, mercy sales etc.

What resources are we lacking? What do FAs have anything to do with this? TPP is 100%, it doesn't matter if you pay your home grown players or you pay free agents. TPP still remains at 100%. We have room for free agents because our home grown players haven't done enough to warrant being paid more, that isn't a positive, we are trying to plug gaps in our list where development has failed.

We do not have the recruitment networks of larger clubs, although we are better than what we are, we do not pay 100% of the cap. Without the perception of us being a vibrant club on the up do you thing FA's would be keen on joining us? I think that there would certainly be more pause for though if we hadn't signed Walsh and Tudor for example. If Dal Santo was as close to joining * as the rumours say he was I reckon we would not have landed him without the extra FD support the tassie coin has delivered.

Push for a flag? That is optimistic, we still don't execute the basics very well, and by very well I mean consistently. When under pressure we can't clear the ball out of our defensive 50 with any kind of purpose. I have never seen a potential premier play as badly as we did through the 2014 H&A season in as many games as we did. We will live or die based on the development of our 22-27 year old players, not the free agents. Every year half of these players take a forward step, the other half a backward step, we need a lot more forward momentum from this group.

Separate discussion. We are clearly focussed on a flag push now. The signing of FA's is not a gap filler but for added quality. The basis of the flag push is on the back of the FA's and the projected development of the 22-27 year olds. The club clearly believes the time us upon us. Whether or not you or I agree is a separate discussion.

lol wow, short memories. The only thing that made us a perennial middling team was having delusions of grandeur which resulted us in topping up a side that needed rebuilding and youth development believing it was on the cusp of greatness. Two massive steps backwards was under Pagan after 99 and pretty much all through Laidley's reign has left the side with a lack of quality mature age leadership which we are still looking to bring in via free agency.

Our recruitment has been first class, our player development has left a lot to be desired though.

Our recruitment on a shoestring is as much to blame for our predicament from 2001 - 2006 as topping up, as is the perception that we could not bottom out or we would be killed off. No coin, no good draft picks, poor early draft selections in the Stibbard era = middling. Of late our recruitment is better, but we are still not getting access to many early picks.

Cost of running a football team is very high, that rapid inflation is largely driven by player salaries, which the AFL tends to cover the vast majority through broadcasting rights distributions.

However, name ANY investment opportunity that is going to make a lot of money that isn't going to come without a significant debt burden? It doesn't exist, you don't get high reward without any risk. Our problem isn't that we are not getting into pokies, our problem is we are not getting into anything. We have no plan, no strategy on how to increase non-football revenue, it is why we are being left behind.

Any suggestions other than pokies? It would be good to have some, any brought up for discussion. Regardless, playing home games somewhere else is the easiest, most profitable, less burdensome method. That is of course we can stave of quasi relocation.

You realise that there will be no Tasmania in the future unless we commit a larger number of games, which puts the club's future in dire risk. You claim that strategy is wise?

No, I'm not aware. Can you provide a statement from the AFL to this effect please?

Ballarat was a good idea in 2007, but it is 2014. The landscape has changed radically from 2012 to 2014, being 2 years in the past puts you so far out of date that your ideas are obsolete, being 7 years behind makes you more of a liability than an asset.

So you too agree that Ballarat is a silly idea? Good if so.

 

[LT Smash]

We should sever our ties to Nth Ballarat asap, let them run on their own 2 feet.

I hope we now dump the North Ballarat alignment and focus on Werribee instead, with a view to going solo down the track.

What makes you think that hasn't already been set in stone? More to the point, was that decision not a precursor to this whole initiative from AFL House? Many people on here demanding a single aligned VFL team possibly playing out of Arden St. Well those things cost and we may well be witnessing the down payment.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

What a load of shit. Push us out and then agree to play matches there. Not like we tried to do that for years or anything

 

[Hearts to hearts]

What makes you think that hasn't already been set in stone? More to the point, was that decision not a precursor to this whole initiative from AFL House? Many people on here demanding a single aligned VFL team possibly playing out of Arden St. Well those things cost and we may well be witnessing the down payment.

Dear God, demands by posters on Bigfooty actually influence government and AFL decisions? That is a scary thought.

To the point, has there been a decision by North to end the alignment with the Roosters?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I can't believe any media can report this with a straight face. It's exactly the same as last time, but with the part of JB being played by Peter Gordon.

 

[LT Smash]

Dear God, demands by posters on Bigfooty actually influence government and AFL decisions? That is a scary thought.

To the point, has there been a decision by North to end the alignment with the Roosters?

I don't believe I said Big Footy demands have influenced this decision. More the point, be careful what you wish for. As to your question, all signs point to yes.

 

[LT Smash]

I can't believe any media can report this with a straight face. It's exactly the same as last time, but with the part of JB being played by Peter Gordon.

And in both instances, the lines appeared scripted by a political party flack. JB/Gordon looking like a deer in the headlights mouthing the words. Very little club involvement in either case. All manipulations of the AFL and ALP.

 

[Devski]

That is due to our lack of pokies. What do we get from Tasmania? $1m. What does it cost us to facilitate it? We have all these programs in Tasmania as well.

NMFC is sponsored for $600,000 per game with three games a year in Tasmania.

Closer to 2mil a year than it is to 1.

I should also point out that this is the money directly from Sponsors.

It does not include the usual income from match fees and merchandise as well as increased memberships.

It's probably best not to spend multiple pages trash talking the deal when you aren't even aware of what the deal actually is.

 

[Twinkletoes]

As to your question, all signs point to yes.

So be it.

 

[AGC]

Let's hope the Labor party doesn't get into office then!

 

[SMaturin]

'Tis the season of political promises. Carry pinches of salt at all times.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Let's hope the Labor party doesn't get into office then!

Settle down.

 

[SugarCoat]

Very little club involvement in either case. All manipulations of the AFL and ALP.

ALP and AFL interaction was rampant in old regime.
At one point old mate Vlad was being pushed to run in Gillard's old seat.
Gill though is very much Liberal backed, his uncle is a member of the Federal Liberal team.

 

[Tas]

$1.5mil up front. Pretty sure we get game day income also, as well as membership $$$, mercy sales etc.

I don't remember the specifics but don't think it is that much, due to us sharing the revenue with AFL Tasmania and Cricket Tasmania, pretty sure we were overall ending up with about $500k net per game overall and the 2 year extension is on less per game from what I remember. If you can find the specifics that would be great.

Merchandise isn't a very lucrative market for us, we get about $0.12 in the dollar, so from a $120 footy jumper we make about $14, last year we made I think about $140k overall which is better than not making anything but it isn't really anything that is funding the club dramatically.

We do not have the recruitment networks of larger clubs, although we are better than what we are, we do not pay 100% of the cap. Without the perception of us being a vibrant club on the up do you thing FA's would be keen on joining us? I think that there would certainly be more pause for though if we hadn't signed Walsh and Tudor for example. If Dal Santo was as close to joining * as the rumours say he was I reckon we would not have landed him without the extra FD support the tassie coin has delivered.

It is great having that external perception, however, that is largely due to the expectation of the young group of players moreso than anything else, even if they were middle of the road draft picks. The question is if we can only afford free agents ONLY from selling games to Tasmania and not from other revenue generating activities, I don't believe Tasmania is the only answer, it was just the most convenient at the time.

Separate discussion. We are clearly focussed on a flag push now. The signing of FA's is not a gap filler but for added quality. The basis of the flag push is on the back of the FA's and the projected development of the 22-27 year olds. The club clearly believes the time us upon us. Whether or not you or I agree is a separate discussion.

Well, we artificially created that environment in terms of chasing free agents. We could have still focused on youth development. We have gained from NDS' recruitment but several midfielders have gone backwards in the process, Ziebell and Bastinac in particular who have been displaced. Waite and Higgins will displace other players who are playing roles up forward. Just saying these things aren't all win all the time. I hope it doesn't stall the development of too many players.

Our recruitment on a shoestring is as much to blame for our predicament from 2001 - 2006 as topping up, as is the perception that we could not bottom out or we would be killed off. No coin, no good draft picks, poor early draft selections in the Stibbard era = middling. Of late our recruitment is better, but we are still not getting access to many early picks.

We as a club have generally been great at turning ordinary footballers into solid team playing footballers, but there is only so far solid can take you. You simply wont get access to much better talent unless you are crap rather than bad and can be crap for longer and not trying so hard to improve for a while when you are crap. AFL rewards mediocrity. That doesn't sit well with North supporters though, and it shouldn't.

No disrespect to anyone on our list but we have some ordinary footballers most contenders wouldn't touch with a barge pole and they are best 22 for us. We back a trier and give them a lot of opportunity to succeed but we wont give a talent person perceived not to be working as hard the same opportunity. A team like Hawthorn though persist with guys like Rioli, Hill, Smith, etc they wouldn't get games ahead of plodders at our club. There is a reason Hawthorn never elevated Gibson but he is a hard worker and at North that is rated higher than pure talent.

Any suggestions other than pokies? It would be good to have some, any brought up for discussion. Regardless, playing home games somewhere else is the easiest, most profitable, less burdensome method. That is of course we can stave of quasi relocation.

We have done this subject to death since 2002, some even took highlights of our ideas to the club and the club said they weren't interested, because most of the ideas were long-term strategies rather than short-term get rich quick schemes. We as a club typify the battler that lives from pay cheque to pay cheque, when we get more money, we just spend it. There isn't a whole lot of planning for the future and this has been a problem since the 70s when we have had the opportunities to plan long-term we haven't so that in 30-50 years in the future the sacrifices of the present put us in a strong position. No North board thinks that far ahead and it is why we have never escaped the situation we have always found ourselves in.

Tasmania is not looking 30-50 years in the future, if it the efforts now plan for us to be involved in Tasmania that long then it will only be as a Tasmanian team.

No, I'm not aware. Can you provide a statement from the AFL to this effect please?

Search Google for Gilligan and his plans for Tasmania.

So you too agree that Ballarat is a silly idea? Good if so.

In 2014? Absolutely. It was a great idea to play games there in 2007. It is because circumstances change that do not make it an attractive long-term proposal now, the same circumstances have made Tasmania toxic if we are pigeonholed there.

 

[Horace]

Let's hope the Labor party doesn't get into office then!

Luckily the election will (I hope) be decided on more than the redevelopment of a football ground in Ballarat.

 

[Horace]

ALP and AFL interaction was rampant in old regime.
At one point old mate Vlad was being pushed to run in Gillard's old seat.
Gill though is very much Liberal backed, his uncle is a member of the Federal Liberal team.

Why am I not surprised?