They were part of a twelve team league that built the thing.
It is/was an asset of the Victorian Football League, now the Australian Football League, and it naturally follows that it is vicariously owned by the member clubs.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Thanks Denis...Thanks a lot...
- Thread starter Yianni
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It is/was an asset of the Victorian Football League, now the Australian Football League, and it naturally follows that it is vicariously owned by the member clubs.
moomba
TheBrownDog
Who do you think paid for it?
a) The tooth fairy
b) the clubs
c) Father Christmas
Answers on a postcard
Moomba
If other clubs have got advances its because they were able to put up a credible business case. After all an advance is simply a loan.
If the major clubs contributed to maintenence of Waverley over the years, this money saved contributed to the AFL's end of year profits.
Therefore North received a benefit when profits were distributed at year end.
moomba
TheBrownDog
I noticed you snipped the part of my post that said it is irrelevent. North is an equal partner and is entitled to 1/16th. End of story.
Moomba
To remain a long term AFL Club you need a healthy two way relationship with your fan base. You need to give them something to hope for (winning regularly is a good start) , and they need to give you plenty of money.
Of course winning flags isn't about crowds. But long term survival is absolutely a popularity contest.
- Banned
- #107
They know that this is true, but every time it gets mentioned they start talking about other stuff.
Basically, the supporters of the NMFC think the AFL should fund their existence because the 20k odd NM suppoerters are the be all/end all.
Typical working class "the world owes me a living' attitude.
Perhaps you could come up with a single shred of evidence of that allegation?
- Banned
- #109
NMFC is in trouble. No one disputes that. A viable solution is to relocate or merge. The club can go on, but their financial situation (due to their small supporter base) is unlikely to get much better over time.
The NMFC has an opportunity to better itself as an entity, but current supporters don't want this to happen because it would mean that they are worse off - although they are worse off, the club will be better off.
That's pretty much selfish in my books.
- Banned
- #110
Just read the thread you idiot.
No, you_idiot is a Geelong supporter, and he's not in this thread.
Oh! You were calling me an idiot! Sorry, my mistake.
Now, I've already read the thread, that's why I commenting. I can't see any alleged 'AFL owes me a living' statements. So if you would be so kind as to present the evidence, you will make me a very happy idiot.
Oh, and you still didn't explain how North fans are being selfish while Hawthorn supporters weren't. You merely restated your opinion on the Kangaroos plight. If I may paraphrase you ...
"Hawthorn was in trouble. No one disputes that. A viable solution was to relocate or merge. The club could have gone on, but their financial situation (due to their small supporter base) is unlikely to get much better over time.
The HFC had an opportunity to better itself as an entity, but supporters of the time didn't want this to happen because it would mean that they were worse off - although they would have been worse off, the club would have been better off.
That's pretty much selfish in my books."
Can you point out the difference to me please. And keep it simple, I'm an idiot after all.
- Banned
- #112
I didn't answer the question now because I have already answered it. Go back and have a look.
I'm sorry but, the Roos supporters seem to be focusing on their share of the Waverly deal as the answer to all their problems. If you go have a look on the Kangaroos board, there is always talk of conspiracies and how badly they get treated by the AFL, and how they would be a thriving club if the AFL helped them out etc etc etc. Whinge whinge whinge. Chip on shoulder.
That's your answer?!
Again I ask, what's the difference?
Thankyou for your insightful comments on this issue.
moomba
TheBrownDog
It's now the third time that I have commented on this, but the club are focusing on a number of issues, all contained in our business plan. This doesn't even factor in getting all of our share of the sale of Waverley. I have mentioned, in this thread a number of those issues, you don't seem to want to address them.
I have gone on about Waverley over the last page or so because you and hotpie seem unable to accept that an asset of over $6 million could be worth a bit to a club with a debt of under $3 million. You hold out no hope for the Roos to turn themselves around as Hawthorn did, and Richmond did and that's fine but if you are going to continue along the lines that the people who do hold out hope that the Roos can turn it around are selfish you can go and get f*cked.
Moomba
moomba
TheBrownDog
As soon as you accept that Collingwood have only earned a minute percent of profits from finals footy over the last 10 years.
Moomba
- Banned
- #118
Hawthorn went through a bad period. All clubs do. They were broke because they were badly managed for short period of time.
The Kangaroos have always struggled. The Hawks had a dip in their fortunes, whilst the Kangaroos have always been flatlining. One is much easier to fix than the other.
North and Hawthorn came into the competition together.
North made the finals first.
North made the Grand Final first.
North was a true 'power' club before Hawthorn ever managed it.
After 1977 (53 years each) North had 2 flags, Hawthorn 3.
Both had always struggled for attendances and members.
The main difference between these two clubs is that Hawthorn's period where it was clearly the best club in the competition and won most of its flags came ten years before the Kangaroos. The Roos, in effect, are still that time period behind Hawthorn.
But the resources and opportunities for both of those clubs remain the same. They've both probably got 100,000 or so real fans to make the club run properly, and they both have to work within realistic budgets and realise they can't have all the trimmings that some more well-supported clubs have.
Are North worse off than Hawthorn right now? Yes. Were they ten years ago? Yes. Were they five years ago. No. Things change.
As for 'conspiracy theories', I would have thought the Fitzroy experience would have all clubs being a little wary of the league legislating in such a way as to artificially inflate costs (above inflation salary cap increases) and basically forcing clubs into a competitive disadvantage on the field (get down to 92.5% or you can't have your own money).
Make no mistake, the AFL does not want 16 teams. They'd love 12, they'd be happy with 14. And if they can smell some blood from a Melbourne club, their record with Fitzroy would suggest that they'll do that club no favours.
North made the finals first.
North made the Grand Final first.
North was a true 'power' club before Hawthorn ever managed it.
After 1977 (53 years each) North had 2 flags, Hawthorn 3.
Both had always struggled for attendances and members.
The main difference between these two clubs is that Hawthorn's period where it was clearly the best club in the competition and won most of its flags came ten years before the Kangaroos. The Roos, in effect, are still that time period behind Hawthorn.
But the resources and opportunities for both of those clubs remain the same. They've both probably got 100,000 or so real fans to make the club run properly, and they both have to work within realistic budgets and realise they can't have all the trimmings that some more well-supported clubs have.
Are North worse off than Hawthorn right now? Yes. Were they ten years ago? Yes. Were they five years ago. No. Things change.
As for 'conspiracy theories', I would have thought the Fitzroy experience would have all clubs being a little wary of the league legislating in such a way as to artificially inflate costs (above inflation salary cap increases) and basically forcing clubs into a competitive disadvantage on the field (get down to 92.5% or you can't have your own money).
Make no mistake, the AFL does not want 16 teams. They'd love 12, they'd be happy with 14. And if they can smell some blood from a Melbourne club, their record with Fitzroy would suggest that they'll do that club no favours.
- Banned
- #121
I've mentioned this a few times. Most people will agree with this statement.
The Kangaroos could have avoided this if they made a move to Sydney 5 years ago.
moomba
TheBrownDog
The easy way out is rarely the best way out. I guarantee you if North moved to Sydney 5 years ago they would have less members, lower crowds, and the AFL would have forked out a hell of a lot more in handouts than they will ever give a side like the Kangaroos. Good for the game, not in my opinion.
Moomba
I cannot see how you could possibly thing that would have been the savior of the club. They would have been the second team in Sydney. The first team can't even support itself as it is. Freeo and Porth have shown that the second team has a hard time getting support. Allegancies in Sydney have already been decided for anyone who follows football. North would have lost Melbourne support and most likely gained little Sydney support.
The ONLY positive would have been increased TV exposure. That has not helped the Swans do much more than rely on AFL money for a large part of it's current incarnation.
IMO North would not currently exist other than a subsidised and therefore despised Sydney basket case if they had moved to Sydney 5 years ago.
Personally I don't think relocation is an answer but if it is the second Sydney side is not something atrractive as an option. Canberra or Tasse would be a huge risk but a better option at present than a second Sydney side.
It's only my opinion but North's Sydney experiment should never be pursued further. It can only harm them. I Cannot see any positives out of it. Canberra may be another thing entirely though. I can only see that working as aa secondary base though.
Groucho
Premium Platinum
A Star Wars Fan
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
Veteran
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2020 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North were never going to move to Sydney 5 years ago but if they did they would be the biggest drain on AFL coffers and you'd all be whinging like mad about supporting them to the tune of $5-10 mill per year. The commission is on record as saying that a viable second team in Sydney could be as far as 20 years away,if ever.
Similar threads
