Cunnington Cartel
All Australian
- Nov 18, 2022
- 770
- 1,216
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Thread starter
- #101
I’m aware that Jen Watt’s comments over the weekend have been discussed in other threads as well; however, I thought it would be timely to bump this thread as well. One thing that shone through with her comments was that she was adamant we’d need another secondary market outside of Melbourne after Hobart.
In light of this, here’s a summary of the preferences and ideas previously discussed in here, as well as my thoughts on the issue (a long-winded essay/rant, but feel that it’s necessary):
1. Most respondents had a preference for us to have 11 home games in Melbourne (like St Kilda currently do) after we leave Hobart, and focus efforts on growing our supporter base in Melbourne’s outer Northern corridor (similar to Eddie McGuire’s suggestion a couple of months ago).
2. If, like Jen said, it’s essential for the club to establish a new secondary market outside of Melbourne (to replace the $2m pa that we’ll lose after leaving Tassie) then many of us were united on the following:
I haven’t been there before, but Queen Elizabeth Oval looks decent. AFL pre-season game standard, but would need some work before it was ready to host regular season games (which could be a huge barrier if the government and AFL aren’t interested). We really don’t have any former ties to the region - that doesn’t matter though. There are also question marks about whether the local council, tourism bodies etc would pay us enough for playing there, since the tourism impact might be limited due to its proximity to Melbourne.
Albury-Wodonga is another solid option. Lavington Oval is just about AFL ready and the region has reportedly been looking for more AFL content since the last redevelopment. It’s obviously much further from Melbourne than Bendigo, but still within driving distance for many, and far enough that many people would spend time in the region for a day or two, boosting local accommodation, hospitality establishments etc.
O&M’s is our old zone, so we have a strong historical connection to the area. We even had the Murray Kangaroos playing in the VFL just over 20 years ago. Another benefit of playing in this region is that it’s far enough from Melbourne that it’s likely many footy fans from all over NE Vic and the Riverina would buy tickets to attend a top-level game that’s closer to home. These reasons all increase the likelihood that it could generate sufficient financial backing to make the venture worthwhile.
If we have to sell games, and options like this could be on the table, then:
- Why would Jen Watt come out and say that they’re essentially prepared to sell to the highest bidder, even if it’s an interstate market?
- After 12 consecutive profits, is our financial position really that grim?
- Also, haven’t we learnt our lesson after hopping around to new locations for the past few decades as soon as a shiny, new offer comes along?
I hope the club has responses to these kinds of questions, and in due course, I’d like them to have a level of transparency with members about the rationale of their decision-making on this issue.
Less than 48 hours after Jen’s comments we also hear about the plan to give North the NT as an NGA academy zone. As a Tasmanian, I have done a lot of reading about the Tas license bid, and subsequently, the NT bid for the 20th license. The conversation around us being given the NT as an academy zone concerns me for a number of reasons:
1. In the NT’s strategic business case for an AFL team (image attached), it shows that NMFC receives $5.5m pa above base-level funding (BLF) from the AFL. A standalone NT club is projected to have a funding gap of $18.89m pa above BLF. For reference, GWS and GCS both receive $12m above BLF, but unlike the NT they are based in the largest and 3rd largest markets in the country.
This demonstrates that an NT club isn’t viable without extensive government/corporate support, or with a different club model that addresses this funding gap (along with a host of other issues like facilities, pathways, player retention, climate, excessive travel etc).
2. The NT business case has an assessment of 7 club options (image attached). The three highest ranked options involve a club partnership that sees an increase in FIFO games with a build towards their own side over 7-10 years. The Suns’ Darwin deal expires at the end of 2026. There’s no way they or the AFL would want them increasing their commitment to more than two games per season if they’re trying to grow the game in Qld. That obviously leaves the door ajar for another club to partner with NT for 2027 onwards.
The NT’s Government’s aspiration is to have their own club, so they will clearly be handing out plenty of money to any club that moves games there and will ensure that academies are well-funded too. But aside from some quick cash, what’s really in it for us if we’re facing the prospect of being booted out for their own side in less than a decade? Would’ve thought a long-term strategy and partnership would be the wiser move.
3. In Colin Carter’s review of the Tasmanian business case, he proposed that a relocation / joint venture (co-location) model would be a more sustainable model for the 19th license. Tasmania was dead against these options and they were able to prove their viability as a standalone club; however, I very much doubt the NT will have that luxury. Carter spruiks the rationale behind a joint venture with a Victorian club (images attached).
4. Northern Australia (NAU) hybrid option - on p.179 of the NT’s business case - was an alternative club model that wasn’t assessed, but identified as a consideration requiring further attention with the next phase of the bid (image attached). It involves a joint venture (co-location) between an existing club at its home base, Darwin and Cairns, whereby a club would evenly split its home games e.g. Melbourne 4, Darwin 4, Cairns 3. It states that this option would have a reduced funding gap compared to a standalone club and sit in the middle ranks of the AFL wealth ladder (the terminology used in Carter’s review to outline why a relocation or joint venture would be more sustainable than a new club), because they would have a fanbase, sponsors etc across three locations.
5. As many of us would know, North’s constitution was amended after the AFL’s attempt to ship us up to the GC (image attached). 75% of voting members need to approve any merger or relocation proposals. This was a great undertaking, because it ensured that any future proposals were unlikely to get up unless they were absolutely essential for the club’s future and had an overwhelming majority of members backing it.
However, the constitution defines a relocation as: “… an arrangement that requires the club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside the state of Victoria”.
Now, I don’t believe this definition protects us in the same way against the threat of co-location. If we ended up with a home game split of 4, 4, 3, and we played, for example, 7 away games in Vic then the club would still have 11 Vic games and be based at Arden St. Although, I think we’d all agree that this kind of outcome is totally unacceptable, as the NMFC as we know it would cease to exist, the fabric of the club changed forever, and we’d potentially be on a slow burn for a full relocation in the proceeding decades.
6. The final recommendation of the strategic business case, was for a detailed business case to be prepared (image attached) to further assess the project and be presented to the AFL. Of course, the chair of the detailed business case taskforce (announced a few weeks back) is none other than Andrew Demetriou, supported by Territorians, such as Buckley and McLeod.
As demonstrated above, it’s highly unlikely that the NT is viable as a standalone club. Combining with Cairns as an NAU club also presents a range of logistical issues. If, as expected, these options are ruled out - then what do you think they’ll turn to as a compromised solution that’ll get the tick of approval from the AFL and rival club presidents?
Back in the 2000’s Andy D tried his very best to undermine his former club and ship us up to the Gold Coast. I don’t want to be a fear merchant, so someone please tell me to take my tinfoil hat off if I’m off the mark, but when you start to join the dots, you can’t help but feel we might be confronted with history repeating itself again. Except this time it’s by stealth and our amended constitution unfortunately may not provide us with any protection against it. Our board must be accountable in keeping us informed, as much as they can, about any manoeuvrings in this space over the next few years.
One positive from Jen’s comments were that she said they’re in no rush to make a call on their next secondary market move. For me, this points to the next few years being crucial for our club. We are still battling through one of the worst eras in our history; however, finally, there’s some light at the end of the tunnel as we are amassing the most talented list of young players that our club has had since the early 90’s. How this list develops and performs could literally shape the direction of the club.
By the time we leave Hobart (the contract ends next year, but I’m tipping that we’ll try to extend until the end of 2026), we could be contending for the 8, getting better fixture slots, experiencing some growth in memberships and attendances. Overall, an improved financial position that leaves us less reliant on the AFL and secondary market cash.
If this pans out then we might be able to settle for a secondary market arrangement (if it’s still required) that’s a better outcome for our supporters, players, and prospects of success (due to a smaller travel burden than trips to somewhere like Darwin). For example, 2-3 games at Albury-Wodonga or Bendigo. We need to be gunning for this, instead of facing the prospect of a new market that’s a long way from home, in a region that’s desperate for a license of its own, and will result in a sustained volume of negative speculation about our club.
Time for all North people to get behind the club in a big way. The last month is the first time I’ve been genuinely excited about our on-field future in years. That’s trending in the right direction, now it’s time to improve the off-field situation as well, because that will be the best method we have to prevent any possible underhanded ploys to change the fabric and future of our club.
NT Strategic Business Case:
https://tfhc.nt.gov.au/__data/asset...lub-establishment-strategic-business-case.PDF
Carter Review of Tasmania’s business case:
https://mcusercontent.com/7cd32ad25...8abfa/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf
NMFC Constitution:
https://resources.nmfc.com.au/aflc-...4271-8b8d-5972542c9789/Final_Constitution.pdf
In light of this, here’s a summary of the preferences and ideas previously discussed in here, as well as my thoughts on the issue (a long-winded essay/rant, but feel that it’s necessary):
1. Most respondents had a preference for us to have 11 home games in Melbourne (like St Kilda currently do) after we leave Hobart, and focus efforts on growing our supporter base in Melbourne’s outer Northern corridor (similar to Eddie McGuire’s suggestion a couple of months ago).
2. If, like Jen said, it’s essential for the club to establish a new secondary market outside of Melbourne (to replace the $2m pa that we’ll lose after leaving Tassie) then many of us were united on the following:
- We are well and truly over selling games interstate.
- Selling four games is too many. Most seemed to think that two would be a better number if we had to do it.
- The overwhelmingly favoured secondary market options were either Bendigo, or Ovens and Murray (mainly Albury-Wodonga with a few suggestions of Wangaratta).
I haven’t been there before, but Queen Elizabeth Oval looks decent. AFL pre-season game standard, but would need some work before it was ready to host regular season games (which could be a huge barrier if the government and AFL aren’t interested). We really don’t have any former ties to the region - that doesn’t matter though. There are also question marks about whether the local council, tourism bodies etc would pay us enough for playing there, since the tourism impact might be limited due to its proximity to Melbourne.
Albury-Wodonga is another solid option. Lavington Oval is just about AFL ready and the region has reportedly been looking for more AFL content since the last redevelopment. It’s obviously much further from Melbourne than Bendigo, but still within driving distance for many, and far enough that many people would spend time in the region for a day or two, boosting local accommodation, hospitality establishments etc.
O&M’s is our old zone, so we have a strong historical connection to the area. We even had the Murray Kangaroos playing in the VFL just over 20 years ago. Another benefit of playing in this region is that it’s far enough from Melbourne that it’s likely many footy fans from all over NE Vic and the Riverina would buy tickets to attend a top-level game that’s closer to home. These reasons all increase the likelihood that it could generate sufficient financial backing to make the venture worthwhile.
If we have to sell games, and options like this could be on the table, then:
- Why would Jen Watt come out and say that they’re essentially prepared to sell to the highest bidder, even if it’s an interstate market?
- After 12 consecutive profits, is our financial position really that grim?
- Also, haven’t we learnt our lesson after hopping around to new locations for the past few decades as soon as a shiny, new offer comes along?
I hope the club has responses to these kinds of questions, and in due course, I’d like them to have a level of transparency with members about the rationale of their decision-making on this issue.
Less than 48 hours after Jen’s comments we also hear about the plan to give North the NT as an NGA academy zone. As a Tasmanian, I have done a lot of reading about the Tas license bid, and subsequently, the NT bid for the 20th license. The conversation around us being given the NT as an academy zone concerns me for a number of reasons:
1. In the NT’s strategic business case for an AFL team (image attached), it shows that NMFC receives $5.5m pa above base-level funding (BLF) from the AFL. A standalone NT club is projected to have a funding gap of $18.89m pa above BLF. For reference, GWS and GCS both receive $12m above BLF, but unlike the NT they are based in the largest and 3rd largest markets in the country.
This demonstrates that an NT club isn’t viable without extensive government/corporate support, or with a different club model that addresses this funding gap (along with a host of other issues like facilities, pathways, player retention, climate, excessive travel etc).
2. The NT business case has an assessment of 7 club options (image attached). The three highest ranked options involve a club partnership that sees an increase in FIFO games with a build towards their own side over 7-10 years. The Suns’ Darwin deal expires at the end of 2026. There’s no way they or the AFL would want them increasing their commitment to more than two games per season if they’re trying to grow the game in Qld. That obviously leaves the door ajar for another club to partner with NT for 2027 onwards.
The NT’s Government’s aspiration is to have their own club, so they will clearly be handing out plenty of money to any club that moves games there and will ensure that academies are well-funded too. But aside from some quick cash, what’s really in it for us if we’re facing the prospect of being booted out for their own side in less than a decade? Would’ve thought a long-term strategy and partnership would be the wiser move.
3. In Colin Carter’s review of the Tasmanian business case, he proposed that a relocation / joint venture (co-location) model would be a more sustainable model for the 19th license. Tasmania was dead against these options and they were able to prove their viability as a standalone club; however, I very much doubt the NT will have that luxury. Carter spruiks the rationale behind a joint venture with a Victorian club (images attached).
4. Northern Australia (NAU) hybrid option - on p.179 of the NT’s business case - was an alternative club model that wasn’t assessed, but identified as a consideration requiring further attention with the next phase of the bid (image attached). It involves a joint venture (co-location) between an existing club at its home base, Darwin and Cairns, whereby a club would evenly split its home games e.g. Melbourne 4, Darwin 4, Cairns 3. It states that this option would have a reduced funding gap compared to a standalone club and sit in the middle ranks of the AFL wealth ladder (the terminology used in Carter’s review to outline why a relocation or joint venture would be more sustainable than a new club), because they would have a fanbase, sponsors etc across three locations.
5. As many of us would know, North’s constitution was amended after the AFL’s attempt to ship us up to the GC (image attached). 75% of voting members need to approve any merger or relocation proposals. This was a great undertaking, because it ensured that any future proposals were unlikely to get up unless they were absolutely essential for the club’s future and had an overwhelming majority of members backing it.
However, the constitution defines a relocation as: “… an arrangement that requires the club to relocate from its Melbourne base to a location outside the state of Victoria”.
Now, I don’t believe this definition protects us in the same way against the threat of co-location. If we ended up with a home game split of 4, 4, 3, and we played, for example, 7 away games in Vic then the club would still have 11 Vic games and be based at Arden St. Although, I think we’d all agree that this kind of outcome is totally unacceptable, as the NMFC as we know it would cease to exist, the fabric of the club changed forever, and we’d potentially be on a slow burn for a full relocation in the proceeding decades.
6. The final recommendation of the strategic business case, was for a detailed business case to be prepared (image attached) to further assess the project and be presented to the AFL. Of course, the chair of the detailed business case taskforce (announced a few weeks back) is none other than Andrew Demetriou, supported by Territorians, such as Buckley and McLeod.
As demonstrated above, it’s highly unlikely that the NT is viable as a standalone club. Combining with Cairns as an NAU club also presents a range of logistical issues. If, as expected, these options are ruled out - then what do you think they’ll turn to as a compromised solution that’ll get the tick of approval from the AFL and rival club presidents?
Back in the 2000’s Andy D tried his very best to undermine his former club and ship us up to the Gold Coast. I don’t want to be a fear merchant, so someone please tell me to take my tinfoil hat off if I’m off the mark, but when you start to join the dots, you can’t help but feel we might be confronted with history repeating itself again. Except this time it’s by stealth and our amended constitution unfortunately may not provide us with any protection against it. Our board must be accountable in keeping us informed, as much as they can, about any manoeuvrings in this space over the next few years.
One positive from Jen’s comments were that she said they’re in no rush to make a call on their next secondary market move. For me, this points to the next few years being crucial for our club. We are still battling through one of the worst eras in our history; however, finally, there’s some light at the end of the tunnel as we are amassing the most talented list of young players that our club has had since the early 90’s. How this list develops and performs could literally shape the direction of the club.
By the time we leave Hobart (the contract ends next year, but I’m tipping that we’ll try to extend until the end of 2026), we could be contending for the 8, getting better fixture slots, experiencing some growth in memberships and attendances. Overall, an improved financial position that leaves us less reliant on the AFL and secondary market cash.
If this pans out then we might be able to settle for a secondary market arrangement (if it’s still required) that’s a better outcome for our supporters, players, and prospects of success (due to a smaller travel burden than trips to somewhere like Darwin). For example, 2-3 games at Albury-Wodonga or Bendigo. We need to be gunning for this, instead of facing the prospect of a new market that’s a long way from home, in a region that’s desperate for a license of its own, and will result in a sustained volume of negative speculation about our club.
Time for all North people to get behind the club in a big way. The last month is the first time I’ve been genuinely excited about our on-field future in years. That’s trending in the right direction, now it’s time to improve the off-field situation as well, because that will be the best method we have to prevent any possible underhanded ploys to change the fabric and future of our club.
NT Strategic Business Case:
https://tfhc.nt.gov.au/__data/asset...lub-establishment-strategic-business-case.PDF
Carter Review of Tasmania’s business case:
https://mcusercontent.com/7cd32ad25...8abfa/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf
NMFC Constitution:
https://resources.nmfc.com.au/aflc-...4271-8b8d-5972542c9789/Final_Constitution.pdf
