Chip Scab1
Senior List
- Sep 2, 2024
- 197
- 422
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
We have over 10,000 paid members in WA. Makes sense as we aren't the minnow in WA, we are everywhere else.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Do you think 1 game for 1 of the 2 teams would have a significant impact with that though? I might be wrong but I'd be more inclined to think having road trips for WA clubs to play several games away, and on the flipside having a decent stretch of home games together, like the NBA might be beneficial but equally that mightn't work because of the time between games.Reducing the travel inequality for the WA clubs is a step toward a more balanced competition. This is one of the easiest ways to fix this pretty important issue, a club is literally asking to be the solution lol
Regardless of how you think of it, the AFL has shown that they dont care about adding more inequalities to balance out existing inequalities. They like to have levers to play with to adjust as they see fit, the draft being the main example im referring to.
20% of your membership base is in WA? I call bullshit.We have over 10,000 paid members in WA. Makes sense as we aren't the minnow in WA, we are everywhere else.
The Barry Cable effect perhaps?20% of your membership base is in WA? I call bullshit.
So your solution is to reduce the amount of games vic teams play in melbourne?"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."
"surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."
Well, firstly, because there's more Geelong supporters in Melbourne than there is in Geelong.Functionally, in terms of fairness, how is it any different to Geelong hosting the big Melbourne clubs at the MCG?
Precedent is already set
Well, firstly, because there's more Geelong supporters in Melbourne than there is in Geelong.
The best solution is to reduce the number of Vic teams. But none of them want to hear thatSo your solution is to reduce the amount of games vic teams play in melbourne?
It definitely would help. Doing road trips only works while a playing group is young and has no kids. That was a big part of why the Eagles struggled with the covid hubs, so many of the players had families and they werent given dates for how long theyd be away for. Then there is all the other staff who may have to be away for multiple weeks too.Do you think 1 game for 1 of the 2 teams would have a significant impact with that though? I might be wrong but I'd be more inclined to think having road trips for WA clubs to play several games away, and on the flipside having a decent stretch of home games together, like the NBA might be beneficial but equally that mightn't work because of the time between games.
The fix is to either give the WA clubs an extra home game like SA gets with gather round, or find another way to reduce travel that is not just the WA clubs spending 3 weeks away in a row every year.I appreciate what this would do for both North (financially, not for on field results) and their opponent, and understand that there are some inherent disadvantages which can't really be solved organically, but the fixture (like the draft) is such a mess already so I'm not a fan at all of adding even more quirks to it - rather I think they should be removing them where they can.
I remember they tried this years ago but the AFL blocked it, saying you can’t sell your home games to a location that already has an AFL team.
Could the AFL have changed their tune in the hunt for money?
Would seem a bit of a dangerous precedent where rich clubs could buy home games.
Well, firstly, because there's more Geelong supporters in Melbourne than there is in Geelong.
If you are a keen follower of West Australian football, there is a reasonable chance that North Melbourne would have been your team in the VFL if you were around before 1987.The Barry Cable effect perhaps?
Nah I want a 3rd WA sideTwo games a year could set them up pretty nicely after Tasmania.
Then it reduces the travel burden for West Coast and Freo, increases footy content in Perth, and pretty much negates any need for a third Perth team.
Nah I want a 3rd WA side
That would be the preference, however it's doubtful they are coughing up coin to get games there.They could go to Bendigo or Albury and make it a bit easier for their members to attend
North have been terrible, maybe it would only be 10-15% when we are half decent... but as of Today North have over 10,000 paid WA members. According to the NMFC which I'm not sure they'd lie about to be fair, as there is nothing really to gain.20% of your membership base is in WA? I call bullshit.
Thanks for editing out your weird little tantrum about Essendon.North have been terrible, maybe it would only be 10-15% when we are half decent... but as of Today North have over 10,000 paid WA members. According to the NMFC which I'm not sure they'd lie about to be fair, as there is nothing really to gain.
Well, we have been terrible for a while so 10,000 rusted on members seeing 2 good games per year in front of nearly 60,000 versus 35,000 paid Victorian's (Roughly 5000 Tassie Members too) watching predominantly Sunday's against interstate teams in front of less than 20,000 and getting smashed, geez I wonder.
As an earlier poster made reference to, we and WA footy go back over 50 years and include some of the greatest to ever play... it's not so far fetched. They also have money so maybe 20% of membership is not the same as 20% of fans, but it's still a respectable figure and will be more apparent the better we hopefully get. The North section for WA games is big, huge in fact. It's not so unrealistic.
"Reduce the number of inequalities" is fine in a hypothetical world where they all disappear at the same time, but we all know the AFL has no intention of ever removing Victorian teams (distorting the fixture / travel), nor moving the grand final (statistically shown to be a significant factor in the lopsidedness of the competition). Even within this sphere of travel they haven't even shown a willingness to make Collingwood, Essendon types travel to Tasmania and it's teams like the Perth teams that end up with that extra bit of their already packed travel schedule.Didnt say its the biggest issue, nor is this the first time anyone has raised inequalities within the AFL.
As you'll see in my initial post: "surely the solution is to reduce the number of inequalities moving forward rather than adding new ones."
lol, it's early. I half remember them sending a picture of a map of Australia with those details included. I know it's true, have seen that map more than once!Thanks for editing out your weird little tantrum about Essendon.
Where does the club release the state breakdown of members?