North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

[Rich01]

She spoke to SEN about it:

Jen Watt on SEN - November 13, 2024 - Roos on Radio

North Melbourne CEO Jen Watt joined SEN to discuss the three-year deal to play six home games in WA

omny.fm

Also spoke to 3AW about it:

'I don't agree with you': North Melbourne CEO grilled over decision to sell home games

North Melbourne CEO Jen Watt and Wide World of Sports host Sam McClure have clashed over the club’s call to sell two home games to Western Australia from next season. The Roos will play ‘home’ games against West Coast and Fremantle in Bunbury in 2025, while in 2026 will completely withdrawal...

www.3aw.com.au

And did a press conference:

In regards to long term strategy or the rationale for this shorter term tactic? I haven’t heard hear outline her long term plan for the club, but if I missed it I’m happy to be corrected.

 

[Roylion]

These sound like day to day tasks that every club has. Geez how inspiring…

What exactly do you want to hear? North have outlined what they want long term and since 2008 have been working towards that goal. I've already outlined what they've achieved in the last 15 years.

Stay alive, eventually play all your games in Melbourne, and with some luck it will all come together onfield

It will come together onfield. The AFL is set up so that clubs will have periods of success.

and the sponsors and crowd will come running.

Hopefully their current CEO isn’t as blasé when setting the clubs direction as you have been.

I'm not setting the club's direction, but even as a non-supporter I know what that direction is. If you want specific details of every deal that is in the works then I don't have that. However it's clear what North is working towards.

Then again we haven’t heard boo from her in regards to this so for all we know you might be on the money.

That's been answered. Both in the short term and the long term.

 

[Rich01]

What exactly do you want to hear? North have outlined what they want long term and since 2008 have been working towards that goal. I've already outlined what they've achieved in the last 15 years.


It will come together onfield. The AFL is set up so that clubs will have periods of success.


I'm not setting the club's direction, but even as a non-supporter I know what that direction is. If you want specific details of every deal that is in the works then I don't have that. However it's clear what North is working towards.


That's been answered. Both in the short term and the long term.

You’re saying the same thing over and over. Sounds like you are relying on the AFLs equalisation policy to sort the club out on the field which has a flow on effect to membership and sponsorship right? Then survival in Melbourne is the only long term objective?

Geez this CEO thing must be super easy in your eyes. Just about anybody could do that.

I’ll tell you what I want to hear…

What’s the long term vision for the club on and off the field for the next ten years? Here are some basic examples…

Is it premierships for the men’s and women’s teams? What’s the off field aspirations? Is it just survival? Is it money in the bank or investing back into the football dept for a stronger chance to execute the on field vision?

What are the key enablers for the above?

Best in class facilities? A club that attracts quality free agents (what does this look like)? A fully structured and funded football dept? Growth in membership - by how much and how? Growth in sponsorship (and allowing to compete better against middle tier vic clubs) - how much and how? Selling games - how much revenue as a percentage to total revenue this makes up as part of their mix. A solid core of players- to recruit and also retain - what are the plans to do both? If these are in the plan what is being done to proactively achieve them?

Saying the strategy has been set since 2008 and it’s about survival is just pissing in the wind. You are kicking the can down the road for years on end.

I’m not saying selling games interstate is wrong. I’m just asking where it fits into the clubs long term plans.

No one has been able to answer that.
And I don’t expect you too either btw. Theres no visibility of it from those that are paid good dollars to work on it and enable it.

If you think you know the answer and if it is survival and playing games in Melb then god help them. What fodder for the rest of the comp if that’s a clubs aim.

 

[McIvor]

A club that attracts quality free agents (what does this look like)?

C'mon man; they did get Griffin Logue and Jared Polec. Give them a break. Oops, missed the "quality" part.

 

[Roylion]

You’re saying the same thing over and over. Sounds like you are relying on the AFLs equalisation policy to sort the club out on the field which has a flow on effect to membership and sponsorship right?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that North's on-field fortunes will improve and that will likely result in increased membership and crowd attendances as a result. It will also possibly result in greater access to marquee time-slots

Then survival in Melbourne is the only long term objective?

Continuing in Melbourne - given the constant talk about North Melbourne relocating - is of course the aim. As is winning their next premiership. North has publicly stated that their long-term objective is to deliver sustained on-field success.

I’ll tell you what I want to hear…

What’s the long term vision for the club on and off the field for the next ten years? Here are some basic examples…

The next ten years is not a long term vision. It's a short to medium term vision. A long term vision is setting the club up for sustained financial health for the next fifty years in order for the club to continue to adequately compete against the financially stronger AFL clubs as a Melbourne based club. That includes the development of AFL class training and administration facilities in Melbourne, finding and developing sustained revenue streams via sponsorship (Mazda, McDonalds, Puma etc.) and striving to grow the supporter and membership base most importantly in Victoria but also outside Victoria.

The CEO and board will have these broad aspirations and will look at a series of actions to see that come to fruition. You've just seen one of those actions with the two games played in WA.

Is it premierships for the men’s and women’s teams?

Clubs are always striving to win their next premiership. North's women's team may well do that this season. The men's team is rebuilding and Clarkson has another three years to further develop that rebuild in order to become a premiership contender.

What’s the off field aspirations? Is it just survival?

Like every AFL club, sustaining and growing revenue streams. North have publicly stated that they want to invest in the football department, in particular player payments, which will give them the best opportunity to achieve on-field success. They also aim to grow football revenue - in particular membership - whilst also increasing sponsorship, sales, events and fundraising revenue. They want to investigate new markets while continuing to maintain their existing strong Melbourne based supporter areas to further increase revenue.

Is it money in the bank or investing back into the football dept for a stronger chance to execute the on field vision?

A balance of both. Such is the lot of a smaller Melbourne club. North are travelling pretty well off-field and investing in the football department would be part of that. In 2023 an extra $3 million was invested into their football department.

What are the key enablers for the above?

Best in class facilities?

I've already spoken about the $17 million upgrade to the Arden Street facilities.

A club that attracts quality free agents (what does this look like)? A fully structured and funded football dept?

Onfield success helps attracts free agents. So do AFL standard class facilities. Is North's football department currently underfunded?

Growth in membership - by how much and how? Growth in sponsorship (and allowing to compete better against middle tier vic clubs) - how much and how?

Their aims are to increase their record membership each year.

Selling games - how much revenue as a percentage to total revenue this makes up as part of their mix.

Revenue is about $50 million. The WA deal of $2.5 million a year for two home games) appears to be more lucrative than the Tasmanian deal, so this is likely to increase, given that from 2026 there will also be two extra home games in Melbourne.

A solid core of players- to recruit and also retain - what are the plans to do both? If these are in the plan what is being done to proactively achieve them?

You'd have to ask the North Melbourne recruiting and list management team for that. North do plan to continue recruiting through the draft, retain desired draftees and seek to fill list holes through Free Agent acquisitions.

Saying the strategy has been set since 2008 and it’s about survival is just pissing in the wind.

It's not just about survival.

I’m not saying selling games interstate is wrong. I’m just asking where it fits into the clubs long term plans.

As I said earlier, by assisting to sustain and grow their existing revenue streams to further invest in the football department, in particular player payments.

No one has been able to answer that.

It should be obvious. They've been forced to exit Tasmania and have found an alternative revenue stream. It's a great deal for North.

Theres no visibility of it from those that are paid good dollars to work on it and enable it.

The goals and objectives (both long and short term) of the North Melbourne Football Club are publicly available.

 

[speedpeck23]

These sound like day to day tasks that every club has. Geez how inspiring…

Stay alive, eventually play all your games in Melbourne, and with some luck it will all come together onfield and the sponsors and crowd will come running.

Hopefully their current CEO isn’t as blasé when setting the clubs direction as you have been. Then again we haven’t heard boo from her in regards to this so for all we know you might be on the money.

Not sure what exactly upsets you about the North move . The reality is the AFL is a Club competition ..not a State competition....players come from all over as do supporters. Clubs play all over the country.....people in WA don't have to follow Freo or West Coast.....they can follow North or Richmond or anybody. The days of the VFL suburban comp are gone.

I remember in 1965 when Richmond moved from Punt Road to the MCG.....shocked the little footy world here in Melbourne. Then they played Sundays and Friday nights.....No team wanted to play Friday nights...except North.....then they all wanted to play Friday nights.

Then Collingwood left Victoria Park!!, crazy... then even crazier...earlier this year they wanted to sell their West Coast game to play on the Gold Coast. I'd watch this space for more Victorian Clubs selling home games out of Melbourne.....after all the SCG is vacant every second weekend during the footy season.

 

[Rich01]

Not sure what exactly upsets you about the North move . The reality is the AFL is a Club competition ..not a State competition....players come from all over as do supporters. Clubs play all over the country.....people in WA don't have to follow Freo or West Coast.....they can follow North or Richmond or anybody. The days of the VFL suburban comp are gone.

I remember in 1965 when Richmond moved from Punt Road to the MCG.....shocked the little footy world here in Melbourne. Then they played Sundays and Friday nights.....No team wanted to play Friday nights...except North.....then they all wanted to play Friday nights.

Then Collingwood left Victoria Park!!, crazy... then even crazier...earlier this year they wanted to sell their West Coast game to play on the Gold Coast. I'd watch this space for more Victorian Clubs selling home games out of Melbourne.....after all the SCG is vacant every second weekend during the footy season.

I’m not shocked by the initiative.
It’s a good short term money grab for them. Richmond did this a decade ago as well to make some quick coin.

 

[Obzerva]

I’m not shocked by the initiative.
It’s a good short term money grab for them. Richmond did this a decade ago as well to make some quick coin.

I think the issue is that by the time the current WA deals comes to its scheduled end in 2027, North will have been doing this short term money grab for almost 30 years.
Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, Hobart, WA.

The quick coin doesn’t seem to have an end date, which is fine if that’s your business strategy, but it might make it a harder sell to new supporters or potential players.

 

[Billy ray]

hope they take over darwin in 2028

 

[big_e]

I’m not shocked by the initiative.
It’s a good short term money grab for them. Richmond did this a decade ago as well to make some quick coin.

It was a short-term money grab when Richmond sold games, and when Carlton sold games for a few years.

But for the Bulldogs, Melbourne, St Kilda, Hawthorn and North Melbourne, playing home games outside of Melbourne is part of our business model, and has been for a couple of decades. I don't get why people still get their knickers in a knot about this.

 

[Scotland]

If there's one thing the AFL are consistent with it's their desire for centralised control.

I don't really care if North want to play home games in WA or anywhere else, just like I don't care if Geelong want to play 11 home games at Kardinia Park or Melbourne teams want to play 11 home games at only one of the MCG or Marvel. At this point Geelong's home games in Melbourne provide access to Melbourne based supporters and media exposure but financially they are better off just staying in Geelong. North tried to play in WA years ago and the AFL had kittens. Somehow now while North and one of the WA sides are at the bottom it is OK. Sure the landscape for Tassie has changed but it's still as "unfair" as it was 10 or 15 years ago.

North in Hobart, Hawthorn in Launceston, Melbourne in Alice Springs etc. just locks in the same handful of teams to play at those venues. Melbourne have played 10 times at Traeger Park. 4 times vs Port, 1 vs Adelaide, GC, WC, Freo, GWS and 1 vs St Kilda as the sole Victorian team to go there. Bit more of a spread at Marrara Oval with WB, Melb, GC all playing home games there but one trip for 5 teams and none for 4 others over a 20 year period. The AFL just uses these niche fixtures to further skew the fixture.

The AFL don't want clubs negotiating with venues and levels of government etc. They want to be doing that and for the clubs to take what they are given. The AFL are usually a step or two behind the NRL but can already see with Gather Round that the AFL is now prepared to play 'neutral' fixtures during the season. Can see the AFL pushing for greater revenue sharing and seeking to take control over every fixture impacting contract they can. Games outside the 4 cap cities and Gold Coast won't be linked to specific teams. The people of Bunbury will be stoked to have AFL footy in their city but most don't care that North are involved and plenty would still go along if Freo/WC aren't involved.

As a WC fan all of our home games are 90%+ home fans and mostly made up of season ticket holders so we both don't put much into the ticket sales pot and get zero favours to boost our crowds anyway. Plenty of other clubs have genuine gripes about a fixture designed to maximise select fixtures.

 

[Rich01]

It was a short-term money grab when Richmond sold games, and when Carlton sold games for a few years.

But for the Bulldogs, Melbourne, St Kilda, Hawthorn and North Melbourne, playing home games outside of Melbourne is part of our business model, and has been for a couple of decades. I don't get why people still get their knickers in a know about this.

If that’s your business model and part of your long term plan to generate a percentage revenue that’s fine.

And if it’s set up that way, the trade off is finding it challenging to obtain sponsors and top $$$ from them. As well as hold a decent supporter base in Melb, which has implications on crowd numbers, which have flow on effects to adverse scheduling which have flow on effects to tv viewership, which all loop back into effects on attracting sponsors.

If it’s a long term plan, this would already be known. But I don’t think you can do this without the other elements of revenue generation being adversely affected.

 

[big_e]

If that’s your business model and part of your long term plan to generate a percentage revenue that’s fine.

And if it’s set up that way, the trade off is finding it challenging to obtain sponsors and top $$$ from them. As well as hold a decent supporter base in Melb, which has implications on crowd numbers, which have flow on effects to adverse scheduling which have flow on effects to tv viewership, which all loop back into effects on attracting sponsors.

If it’s a long term plan, this would already be known. But I don’t think you can do this without the other elements of revenue generation being adversely affected.

What do you mean "if"? We've been doing it for 30 years, it's very clearly our business model and a long-term plan.

We had a couple of years playing all home games in Melbourne in the last 2000s and very quickly went back to selling games again, which probably tells you a lot about how the maths works out when we don't sell home games.

 

[Rich01]

What do you mean "if"? We've been doing it for 30 years, it's very clearly our business model and a long-term plan.

We had a couple of years playing all home games in Melbourne in the last 2000s and very quickly went back to selling games again, which probably tells you a lot about how the maths works out when we don't sell home games.

Yep, and your challenges finding decent paying sponsors.

 

[Outtatym]

What do you mean "if"? We've been doing it for 30 years, it's very clearly our business model and a long-term plan.

We had a couple of years playing all home games in Melbourne in the last 2000s and very quickly went back to selling games again, which probably tells you a lot about how the maths works out when we don't sell home games.

To be fair this was when the AFL didn't own Marvel and the small clubs were getting bent over to pay the joint off.
Approx 30k or we were writing a cheque, against interstate sides it was a given.

 

[speedpeck23]

If that’s your business model and part of your long term plan to generate a percentage revenue that’s fine.

And if it’s set up that way, the trade off is finding it challenging to obtain sponsors and top $$$ from them. As well as hold a decent supporter base in Melb, which has implications on crowd numbers, which have flow on effects to adverse scheduling which have flow on effects to tv viewership, which all loop back into effects on attracting sponsors.

If it’s a long term plan, this would already be known. But I don’t think you can do this without the other elements of revenue generation being adversely affected.

With respect you are arguing that clubs expanding their supporter base outside the 'home' state is detrimental to
" other elements of revenue ". You state it will be harder to find sponsors and TV viewer numbers.....the reality is that it's the complete opposite.

A club has a bigger profile if it's supporter base extends beyond the home state and a national profile is better for sponsors and the home state supporters will be watching in bigger numbers on TV. The reality in North's case they will still have 13 games in Melbourne (11 of which will be designated as home games for Vic supporters) same as WA and SA clubs, more than QLD and NSW clubs in their respective states.

All Victorian clubs have been playing less often in Victoria than they used to for 30 odd years and all clubs memberships have increased significantly over that time.

 

[Rich01]

With respect you are arguing that clubs expanding their supporter base outside the 'home' state is detrimental to
" other elements of revenue ". You state it will be harder to find sponsors and TV viewer numbers.....the reality is that it's the complete opposite.

A club has a bigger profile if it's supporter base extends beyond the home state and a national profile is better for sponsors and the home state supporters will be watching in bigger numbers on TV. The reality in North's case they will still have 13 games in Melbourne (11 of which will be designated as home games for Vic supporters) same as WA and SA clubs, more than QLD and NSW clubs in their respective states.

All Victorian clubs have been playing less often in Victoria than they used to for 30 odd years and all clubs memberships have increased significantly over that time.

Tell me, after the last 4 years, do you believe the club has strengthened their position and placed them well for future years in the following….

Members - Melbourne based and Tassie based (the latter of which with their exit and the Devils pending arrival would surely be under threat).

Sponsorship- Have they replaced their recent major sponsor they lost with one of equivalent $$$? And have all sponsorship opps covered including a shorts sponsor?

TV timeslots- with this broader exposure you speak of, how many blockbusters do north get each year? Many Thursday or Friday night games or a lot of Sunday afternoon games?

What you say makes a little sense in theory but when it’s played out in reality it doesn’t quite work that way.

 

[Outtatym]

Tell me, after the last 4 years, do you believe the club has strengthened their position and placed them well for future years in the following….

Members - Melbourne based and Tassie based (the latter of which with their exit and the Devils pending arrival would surely be under threat).

Sponsorship- Have they replaced their recent major sponsor they lost with one of equivalent $$$? And have all sponsorship opps covered including a shorts sponsor?

TV timeslots- with this broader exposure you speak of, how many blockbusters do north get each year? Many Thursday or Friday night games or a lot of Sunday afternoon games?

What you say makes a little sense in theory but when it’s played out in reality it doesn’t quite work that way.

Which sponsorship have we lost? I'm assuming you are referring to spirit of tas? As far as I'm aware they are on board for next year?

 

[Rich01]

Which sponsorship have we lost? I'm assuming you are referring to spirit of tas? As far as I'm aware they are on board for next year?

Apologies. I didn’t think you had a shorts sponsor. Who are they?

 

[Outtatym]

Apologies. I didn’t think you had a shorts sponsor. Who are they?

It's a fair point, there's no sponsor on the shorts. According to wiki it's actually been the spirit of tas for the last 2 years.

 

[speedpeck23]

Tell me, after the last 4 years, do you believe the club has strengthened their position and placed them well for future years in the following….

Members - Melbourne based and Tassie based (the latter of which with their exit and the Devils pending arrival would surely be under threat).

Sponsorship- Have they replaced their recent major sponsor they lost with one of equivalent $$$? And have all sponsorship opps covered including a shorts sponsor?

TV timeslots- with this broader exposure you speak of, how many blockbusters do north get each year? Many Thursday or Friday night games or a lot of Sunday afternoon games?

What you say makes a little sense in theory but when it’s played out in reality it doesn’t quite work that way.

Agree with you re Tassie....the AFL a few years ago blocked them going to WA. Not sure whether this was because Freo were still building and struggling to get critical mass. Obviously the current AFL administration now look at this differently. Can't compare WA to Tassie. Much bigger population in WA....North will be guaranteed a big crowd..

To me however this discussion is not just about North...it's about all Victorian clubs . Clearly the sponsorship and popularity of the game has grown significantly since the AFL became a national competition. All clubs have benefited. GC and GWS are still problematic but to me underutilized by the AFL.

In my view the AFL is currently wasting the opportunity they have created by having 2 clubs in each of QLD NSW WA and SA..... The existence of these 8 clubs allows the AFL to leverage more games out of Victoria and as radical as it may seem presents an opportunity for the big Victorian clubs to grow targeted membership bases interstate where there are large population bases particularly Sydney and Brisbane. A smaller club like North is best suited to a traditional AFL footy state with a large population who simply want to see more matches and their local teams travel less.

My argument is that the AFL in a sense needs to continue to assist growing all clubs and boosting each clubs national profile. Who knows the Tigers may one day reach 200,000 members. I think their best secondary base would be Qld.
...they've already won a flag up there and Ash Barty is a big fan!