Analysis Should we be pursuing a secondary market post-Hobart? If yes, then where?

[The Nostradamus]

Why would we follow what the Saints are doing? I'd sooner have the Suns as a role model.

It’s more following most other clubs model

No need to sell games

 

[Ocha905]

I care most about winning games and having a chance to win a premiership. This deal works against those aims. Selling games off to the clubs with the best Home Ground advantage means we're going to lose more games than we should. It being a short contract probably means if this is a "success" we'll be selling more games there in the next contract, like how the Tassie deal went from 2 to 3 to 4 games. This will be worse competitively than the Tassie deal too as at least that was for a neutral location.

It'll also be interesting to see if the club actually plays less games in Tassie for the rest of the contract. Getting out of contracts is hard. We'll have to cough up some compensation unless the AFL come to our aid.

It's great we still have a club to support but we will continue to be a non-contender whilst constantly having to give up our biggest innate competitive advantage (having a home ground to play half our games at). That this is being celebrated is weird. To me it's a sobering reminder that we exist to make up the numbers.

 

[Outtatym]

I care most about winning games and having a chance to win a premiership. This deal works against those aims. Selling games off to the clubs with the best Home Ground advantage means we're going to lose more games than we should. It being a short contract probably means if this is a "success" we'll be selling more games there in the next contract, like how the Tassie deal went from 2 to 3 to 4 games. This will be worse competitively than the Tassie deal too as at least that was for a neutral location.

It'll also be interesting to see if the club actually plays less games in Tassie for the rest of the contract. Getting out of contracts is hard. We'll have to cough up some compensation unless the AFL come to our aid.

It's great we still have a club to support but we will continue to be a non-contender whilst constantly having to give up our biggest innate competitive advantage (having a home ground to play half our games at). That this is being celebrated is weird. To me it's a sobering reminder that we exist to make up the numbers.

I agree somewhat, but are we winning a flag in the next 3 years? Probably not.

 

[Chadwiko]

If the benchmark is Singapore, every city is "dirty".

Look, not wrong.

But the poster I was replying to specifically named 'Singapore and Taipei' as their comparison queries.

 

[Danni_Benson]

A cool $1m per game.

Extremely good business. We took the AFLs growing problem in fixture travel and made bank off it.
Brilliant

$$ sound good and I’m happy for the North WA supporters. Share the love so to speak! Cant wait to stop playing in Tassie.

 

[Chadwiko]

 

[Tjblues]

I’d hate it as a Melbourne based fan, but a couple of million bucks is nothing to be sneezed at, I rate the thinking outside the box that the north board have done.

You’d hope it could be wound back to just the Bunbury game plus an away game at Optus over a 2 week block when the club is ready to push for finals on field but I kinda like it

 

[Ocha905]

I agree somewhat, but are we winning a flag in the next 3 years? Probably not.

It's inarguable we will continue to lose more games than we should by selling home games. For a recent example - If the Hobart game against the Eagles this season was played in Melbourne we win. Now we're going to face an even bigger disadvantage against them!

The model for the Squiggle gives West Coast and Fremantle a 10+ point advantage for a home game against an interstate side. We get about a goal advantage for a home game against an interstate opponent. Location matters. We have to be roughly 3 goals better to get a close victory in WA than we would in Melbourne as a result of this deal. Not ideal.

As for the premiership aspirations, agree we aren't winning one anytime soon. It would take a miracle given the competitive disadvantages we have, some we're voluntarily adding to.

 

[Uncle_Leo]

If it’s 9 and 2 it’s a good deal once Tassie come in

If it’s only 5 home games in Melbourne next year they’ve lost me

Feel so sorry for Tassie members who have already started paying assuming getting 4 games

Anyway, as a wise man once said - shut up and buy a membership

 

[cybercrab]

I’d hate it as a Melbourne based fan, but a couple of million bucks is nothing to be sneezed at, I rate the thinking outside the box that the north board have done.

You’d hope it could be wound back to just the Bunbury game plus an away game at Optus over a 2 week block when the club is ready to push for finals on field but I kinda like it

We already play 4 matches in tassie anyway, the plan will be 2 in WA and at most 2 in tassie in 2025. Then returning to 9 home games in melbourne in 2026

 

[giantroo]

 

[Mr north man]

If it’s 9 and 2 it’s a good deal once Tassie come in

If it’s only 5 home games in Melbourne next year they’ve lost me

Feel so sorry for Tassie members who have already started paying assuming getting 4 games

Anyway, as a wise man once said - shut up and buy a membership

If this club went to 5 games it will the end

 

[Uncle_Leo]

We already play 4 matches in tassie anyway, the plan will be 2 in WA and at most 2 in tassie in 2025. Then returning to 9 home games in melbourne in 2026

Is it? Where has this been said?

I remember the plan was 1 in Tassie, then 2, then 3, then 4 because we will make finals off the back of it and I’ve seen about 20 wins in 6 years since

 

[Roogal]

I'm on the record with this. BENDIGO!

The State Government of Victoria built a stadium in Ballarat for the Western Bulldogs to take two games per season in Western Victoria, so why on Earth can't they spend $40 million to re-develop the QEO in Bendigo and play two NM games for the benefit of Northern Victoria?

It's only fair. North were shunted from Ballarat in 2014 and games in Bendigo would allow the NM's Victorian members the opportunity to attend "sold" home games at least in their home state less than 2 hours drive, or a two hour train trip from Melbourne instead of shelling out hard cash to fly hundreds or thousands of kilometers to watch a damn game.

 

[andana]

North Melbourne, AFL, WA government set to bring games to Bunbury's Hands Oval

Under a deal currently being negotiated, West Coast or Fremantle will play North Melbourne in Bunbury — the first home and away season games to be played outside of Perth.

www.abc.net.au

 

[year of the roo]

I'm on the record with this. BENDIGO!

The State Government of Victoria built a stadium in Ballarat for the Western Bulldogs to take two games per season in Western Victoria, so why on Earth can't they spend $40 million to re-develop the QEO in Bendigo and play two NM games for the benefit of Northern Victoria?

It's only fair. North were shunted from Ballarat in 2014 and games in Bendigo allow the club's Victorian members the opportunity to attend "sold" home games at least in their home state instead of shelling out hard cash to fly hundreds or thousands of kilometers to watch a damn game.

You're also on the record of saying you're not a North supporter anymore, so the rest of your post is white noise.

 

[andana]

That’s a big leg up for WCE and Freo, essentially an extra home game for them for the next three years…

Yea but if the players and fans drive there they'll be minus their cars after the game

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I care most about winning games and having a chance to win a premiership. This deal works against those aims. Selling games off to the clubs with the best Home Ground advantage means we're going to lose more games than we should. It being a short contract probably means if this is a "success" we'll be selling more games there in the next contract, like how the Tassie deal went from 2 to 3 to 4 games. This will be worse competitively than the Tassie deal too as at least that was for a neutral location.

It'll also be interesting to see if the club actually plays less games in Tassie for the rest of the contract. Getting out of contracts is hard. We'll have to cough up some compensation unless the AFL come to our aid.

It's great we still have a club to support but we will continue to be a non-contender whilst constantly having to give up our biggest innate competitive advantage (having a home ground to play half our games at). That this is being celebrated is weird. To me it's a sobering reminder that we exist to make up the numbers.

You're not thinking this through very well now are you? We don't have 2 homes games against the same team to sell. That's not how fixtures work.

 

[Ocha905]

You'd be jumping for joy if you were the Eagles or Dockers. Lock in a home game against a historically poor side every year. This is will be like Melbourne selling their home game to the Lions and going 2-5 in those years. Except who knows when we will end the competitive disadvantage.

For the record, against us -

West Coast are:
17 wins, 10 losses at home
11 wins, 14 losses away

Fremantle are:
12 wins, 9 losses at home
5 wins, 10 losses away

Seems important...

...nevermind we get money so woohoo!

 

[Ocha905]

You're not thinking this through very well now are you? We don't have 2 homes games against the same team to sell. That's not how fixtures work.

Lol. You're telling me you think there's no chance we'll sell a home game to WA against a non-WA team? Who's not thinking this through now

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

We already play 4 matches in tassie anyway, the plan will be 2 in WA and at most 2 in tassie in 2025. Then returning to 9 home games in melbourne in 2026

Is it? Where has this been said?

I remember the plan was 1 in Tassie, then 2, then 3, then 4 because we will make finals off the back of it and I’ve seen about 20 wins in 6 years since

There has been no official announcement from the club, the AFL, or the WA govt so all discussion is based on media leaks today. Given that's all we have to work with, this should at least soothe you for now...

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Lol. You're telling me you think there's no chance we'll sell a home game to WA against a non-WA team? Who's not thinking this through now

No chance at all. None. Zip. Forget about it. That deal would make very little sense for the people writing the cheques.

 

[DocSholl]

You'd be jumping for joy if you were the Eagles or Dockers. Lock in a home game against a historically poor side every year. This is will be like Melbourne selling their home game to the Lions and going 2-5 in those years. Except who knows when we will end the competitive disadvantage.

For the record, against us -

West Coast are:
17 wins, 10 losses at home
11 wins, 14 losses away

Fremantle are:
12 wins, 9 losses at home
5 wins, 10 losses away

Seems important...

...nevermind we get money so woohoo!

Perth is like the only place we actually win in the past few years

 

[gerry101101]

Likely sacrificing potential wins, at some point, for $2 million.

Can’t we just get 30,000 Melbourne based members to chip in another $65 per year?

Or take this years membership income and put it all on black?.. We’re due some luck.

Oh well, if we missed out on getting Hardly Read to North, at least we’re taking North to Hardly Read…

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I'm missing something.

• 7 games Melb
• 3 Tassie
• 2 WA

So...that means we're getting a commitment to have 12 home games till 2028 - and for gather round to always be an 'away' game?

If WA is our safety net after Tassie, fine. But I would much prefer if the AFL identifies this as an exciting opportunity for the Bulldogs so that Ballarat can be returned to its rightful owners. Make it happen somehow Euge!

Where are you seeing 3 Tassie games reported?