the $problems at Etihad continue

[Tassieboy]

That fixture between us has been well and trule ****ed by the afl. the above figure proves that.

You're right. Yes we were both at the top end of the table then, but seriously, Ess - NM rarely draw 40k now. The rivalry has gone to the shitter. And although Essendon supporters like to beat their chest and go 'what rivalry' there was certainly one building and it would have been great for NM to have a almost 'blockbuster' game that attracted 55k+ every game. We only play once a year now, too.

 

[jacko57]

Oakley, Collins, the AFL commission at the time, Jeff Kennett and his government

Hang your heas in shame. the current sdmins are doing the best they can and clubs are making up the shortfall with low moral pokies venues.

If Oakley and co had spent less time trying to kill clubs and more on doing thier own jobs right the AFL would be better off now.

Hawks presiednet Ian Dicker took one look at the stadium deal and shifted Hawks games to Tasmania. So even then it was just the fools who got sucked in.

It was obvious even then there would still be smaleer games - and now with GWS and GCS we have many more of those

Peanuts telling arocca to increase his crowds by 15,000 have no idea

Very good call.

 

[jacko57]

North had the opportunity to solve all their financial issues by moving out of Victoria, they turned it down. No more assistance should be offered to help them survive by the AFL, they said they could survive on their own merit lets see them do it. The situation they're in is entirely of their own making, the squealing and crying about stadium deals and whatnot got old a long time ago.

Yes, North could have solved all their problems by dying.

 

[tazaa]

Its a business like any other. Unfortunately it has little to do with North and you're somewhat reliant upon things changing for Saints, which isnt a bad thing for you. They're the mob showing the impossible nature of the stadium and will at least help the push. Not that there's much u can do anyway.

Realistically the only reason the issue is getting more airtime right now is because of the Saints. They have been a real and significant money spinner for Etihad and represent a kind of mid road supporter base within the AFL. 40K odd ??? membership plus a decent entrenched sleeper fan base when up and about.
If they are well behind the 8 ball there's realistically no chance for anyone.

If North and St.Kilda traded ladder positions over the last 4 years would it have been any different??
NO. So pot kettle black.

 

[Bollox]

If North and St.Kilda traded ladder positions over the last 4 years would it have been any different??
NO. So pot kettle black.

umm yes, it would... and why just 4 yrs ?

Rnd 6 2004
Saints/Brisbane Docklands....52,500
Rnd 7, 2004
North/Brisbane Docklands....27,500

It hasnt been some sort of secret yanno. You must have noticed.

 

[tazaa]

So your using examples of years where North doesnt play finals as compared to when St.Kilda finish top4??
Im saying success and playing finals has a big impact. If we switched positions i dont think the Saints finishing 11th in 2004 would get a high crowd to the last game of the year.

 

[Bollox]

So your using examples of years where North doesnt play finals as compared to when St.Kilda finish top4??
Im saying success and playing finals has a big impact. If we switched positions i dont think the Saints finishing 11th in 2004 would get a high crowd to the last game of the year.

end of 2003 ladder
norf 10th
aints 11th
after 5 rounds of 2004
Rnd 6 2004
Saints/Brisbane Docklands....52,500
Rnd 7, 2004
North/Brisbane Docklands....27,500

whats it got to do with finals and top 4 ?

 

[tazaa]

St.Kilda was undefeated and was playing a top of the table clash against the Lions. Whereas North had lost 3 in a row playing an angry reigning premier.

 

[Bollox]

St.Kilda was undefeated and was playing a top of the table clash against the Lions. Whereas North had lost 3 in a row playing an angry reigning premier.

lol
u also forgot "A young Riewoldt was on fire"

I know you;re reaching, YOU know you're reaching...but i dont mind.

Whenever you;re right, and u dont care either way, u have the luxury of being simply able to laugh.

You may be swinging a stick at a Pinata...but i'll let it go.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, North could have solved all their problems by dying.

There are too many teams in Melbourne .... the national comp would be stronger if North took the Gold Coast deal, they didnt, & North crying poor remains a blight on footys landscape.

 

[Hill2Pav]

You blokes knocked back the greatest ever deal in Australian sporting history.

What was the greatest deal every in Australian sporting history that the NMFC knocked back??

 

[shintemaster]

What was the greatest deal every in Australian sporting history that the NMFC knocked back??

I think he's referring to the ability for all of Bigfooty to have avoided four years of uninspiring, repetitive, uninformed and by this point, boring, trolling of this topic. Which I'm sure we would all agree would almost have been worth it. This surely would have been a great deal for Australian sport.

 

[tazaa]

lol
u also forgot "A young Riewoldt was on fire"

I know you;re reaching, YOU know you're reaching...but i dont mind.

Whenever you;re right, and u dont care either way, u have the luxury of being simply able to laugh.

You may be swinging a stick at a Pinata...but i'll let it go.

What exactly are you letting go.
Your trying to tell me if North wasnt playing in grand finals we wouldnt be getting higher attendances??
Since we havnt it shows how limited you are by assuming we wouldnt.
Better fixture, more blockbusters, more expousre, more neutrals surrounds the top sides. Keep fighting the good fight

 

[Shinboner Schem]

You blokes knocked back the greatest ever deal in Australian sporting history.

After North rejected the offer, the AFL opened the offer to any club.
If it was the "greatest ever deal", then why didn't no one else take it?

I hope long into the future when the proceeds of the sale of Etihad Stadium are divided up, that North, the Bulldogs and the Saints are appropriately compensated and recognised for what they've been forced to sacfrice by carrying the burden of playing their home games there and copping the financial hits there from day one.

Fat chance!

 

[Bunk Moreland]

There are too many teams in Melbourne .... the national comp would be stronger if North took the Gold Coast deal, they didnt, & North crying poor remains a blight on footys landscape.

Mate if you wanna talk about opportunities… North Melbourne and Fitzroy both wanted to merge in 1996, it created a solution for two struggling Melbourne clubs to unite into one strong club and represent their supporters out of Melbourne.

The plan was skittled by the other clubs and the AFL. In hindsight it was as close to a perfect solution as there was, and from what I understand (happy to be corrected by North / Lions supporters) both parties were willing.

 

[Tas]

Mate if you wanna talk about opportunities… North Melbourne and Fitzroy both wanted to merge in 1996, it created a solution for two struggling Melbourne clubs to unite into one strong club and represent their supporters out of Melbourne.

The plan was skittled by the other clubs and the AFL. In hindsight it was as close to a perfect solution as there was, and from what I understand (happy to be corrected by North / Lions supporters) both parties were willing.

Yes, North supporters were happy to welcome the Fitzroy people to the club and we were in the process of finalising what Fitzroy wanted in terms of alterations to the name, jumper, board composition, etc.

Had we not won the flag in 96 or have been up there then we would probably be North/Fitzroy today and we would probably have a larger supporter base than Hawthorn.

The clubs that blocked the merge opened the door for the AFL to conspire with the Bears to get Fitzroy sold off like a lump of meat. It fractured their supporter base, a small portion that did not want to support a club a liquidator told them to support jumped aboard us, a bigger chunk followed what was in name moved to Brisbane but sadly the significant chunk of Fitzory supporter are lost to football.

Most of the Fitzroy supporters I know do not follow AFL at all any longer.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

This is not totally relevant to the Docklands argument but they are issues which have been kind of raised here, so two questions I have,

1) North played at the MCG from mid-80's up to 1999. Why did they move to Docklands in 2000?

2) If North had taken the Gold Coast offer would the AFL still have pursued a team in GWS? You would assume this was a long term goal of the AFL so they still would have gone there but would they have been trying to push a Bulldogs or someone else up there, or would they have just let the idea die on the vine?

FWIW I don't see why at some point in the future some of the traditional suburban grounds couldn't be upgraded to boutique stadiums similar to Kardinia Park. Western Oval should be able to be upgraded as should Princes Park. Vic Park & Moorabbin obviously can't due to the residential areas surrounding the grounds but no reason Western Oval & PP couldn't. Would make more sense than the idea of building a brand new boutique stadium near Docklands over the rail lines.

 

[MadBomberman]

Remember though, you guys were top of the ladder then. If you think you would get those crowds while being a middle of the road club now, then you're dreaming.

Of course we cannot pull those crowds when we are middle of the road. The problem is, when we get better, we still wont be able to pull those crowds because we play at Etihad and not the G. Lets take 2001. You guys finished 9th. Middle of the road.

Crowd numbers are similar to our middle of the road, especially the Etihad crowds.

52K against Hawthorn at the G.
26K against Dockers at Etihad.
37K against Dogs at Etihad.

Good numbers against Essendon, Carlton and Richmond. 50K against Geelong at Etihad (don't you think that would be more at the G?).

When we get better, we still won't be able to pull those crowds because we are at Etihad and not MCG.

Take St Kilda Vs Essendon as an example. 47K at Etihad sunday twighlight. It was sold out and people were turned away. If this was at the G, we would have had at least 55K or as much as 61K. That is much better numbers. Ess Vs North would have been 50K.

 

[jacko57]

There are too many teams in Melbourne .... the national comp would be stronger if North took the Gold Coast deal, they didnt, & North crying poor remains a blight on footys landscape.

Yes, imagine how much stronger the comp would be if we had just 6 teams in melbourne, 2 in qld, 2 in nsw, 3 in SA, 3 in WA, one in Tassie, one in NT or ACT.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is not totally relevant to the Docklands argument but they are issues which have been kind of raised here, so two questions I have,

1) North played at the MCG from mid-80's up to 1999. Why did they move to Docklands in 2000?

2) If North had taken the Gold Coast offer would the AFL still have pursued a team in GWS? You would assume this was a long term goal of the AFL so they still would have gone there but would they have been trying to push a Bulldogs or someone else up there, or would they have just let the idea die on the vine?

FWIW I don't see why at some point in the future some of the traditional suburban grounds couldn't be upgraded to boutique stadiums similar to Kardinia Park. Western Oval should be able to be upgraded as should Princes Park. Vic Park & Moorabbin obviously can't due to the residential areas surrounding the grounds but no reason Western Oval & PP couldn't. Would make more sense than the idea of building a brand new boutique stadium near Docklands over the rail lines.

Won’t happen, the AFL has a contract with the MCG forever and they’ll own Etihad so will want to make use of that.

There’s 80 - 100 games in Melbourne a year and these stadiums split them.

The suburban ground is dead.

The threat of a second Docklands stadium was the most laughable proposition spouted in football for a while, a simple attempt at a Herald Sun headline. It was never, ever, ever going to happen under any circumstances.

 

[Groggyk]

Yes, imagine how much stronger the comp would be if we had just 6 teams in melbourne, 2 in qld, 2 in nsw, 3 in SA, 3 in WA, one in Tassie, one in NT or ACT.

I'm sick of these short sighted views.

Groote Eylandt has been screaming out for more top line footy not to mention Kangaroo Island, ffs.

 

[Pessimistic]

Agreed. If aus had just one code, 90% of clubs would have developed in sydney and melbourne, so those pretty maps in peoples heads would be more of a pipe dream.

Its far from a 'strong competition' to have teams in usnsustainable places

Just like 90% of soccer's strength is in europe, industrialised europe to boot

 

[Pessimistic]

Won’t happen, the AFL has a contract with the MCG forever and they’ll own Etihad so will want to make use of that.

There’s 80 - 100 games in Melbourne a year and these stadiums split them.

The suburban ground is dead.

The threat of a second Docklands stadium was the most laughable proposition spouted in football for a while, a simple attempt at a Herald Sun headline. It was never, ever, ever going to happen under any circumstances.

Yes, because we blew all our political and financiial capital on a stadium which is basically cooked
We blew ir and are having to live with it, doesnt make it right

 

[MarkT2]

… North Melbourne and Fitzroy both wanted to merge in 1996, it created a solution for two struggling Melbourne clubs to unite into one strong club...

On what basis would it have produced a strong club?

 

[Tiger2709]

This jealousy of Victorian opposition supporters towards Geelong is startling. Lets get a few facts right.

Sure tax payers contributed to the development of Skilled Stadium (or whatever the latest sponsored name is).

Several years ago the Geelong FC hierarchy consciously decided its future would be at Kardinia Park, and not in Melbourne, and the club came up with a blue print to develop the stadium into an all-seat facility. The stadium isn't owned by the football club; it is on crown land vested in the local council. And the local council and state government are astute enough to realise that the long term return to the Geelong community from the development of the stadium will be far outweigh their financial investments.

In Victoria, apart from Melbourne FC, we are the only side to have retained its home ground. And I am bloody grateful the club stuck to its guns.

Richmond still has it's home ground we just don't play h & A on it, good luck to Geelong I say, they have made KP work for themselves, it's one less club the AFL has to support