the $problems at Etihad continue

Remove this Banner Ad

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.

What you've got to remember is the fluid nature of things around 1998-2000.

North were home at the MCG, but, playing games in Canberra, and then Sydney - - in many cases, hosting Port, or some such side. Back in Melbourne, through much of the '90s, North, and even the Doggies would host interstaters at Princes Park.

So, even for a North to go to Docklands, if Princes Park were still an option for hosting interstaters - then it might not be so bad. Those are the real killer games.

North didn't leap at Docklands - why would they? They had a nice thing going still through '98 of being the MCG Friday night specialists.

So, a few things conspired. The AFL got drawn into the Docklands project by the Govt (and agents of the govt including Graeme Samual who was a foot in both camps re the Docklands precinct and AFL). The AFL got in a fight over broadcast rights with Ian Collins at Princes Park. And other clubs pushed hard to get Friday night games and squeezed North out of both Fridays and the MCG......well, the AFL reserves the right effectively to schedule whom they want, where they want.

And we know the 'end game' for the AFL was to push a North Melbourne either into a merger or interstate.

The Gold Coast option - I thought we should've taken ..... after all, if you go on your own terms of retaining jumper, song, heritage......

But, I much, much prefer the GCFC process (growth via TAC to VFL to senior AFL) and option for the 'good of the game'.

re the GWS, had North taken up the option - - probably, same criteria, 18th team needed and a 2nd one in NSW. And the same external factors such as the A-League and Aust WC 2006 campaign would've still provided urgency.
 
On what basis would it have produced a strong club?

On the basis of what the AFL were offering to any clubs who took up the merger offer.

You’d basically have North’s current situation with 10k additional supporters, at least. Instead most of those people are lost to the AFL.

Plus they’d have had the inducements the AFL was offering to a merged club.

Plus probably a very strong period at the start of the millennium (Brisbane style), and any additional support amongst kids that could have brought – perhaps not much, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.

They wouldn’t be Collingwood, but I guess its relative. They’d be a hell of a lot more viable than North are now, plus the former Fitzroy people would have a club.
 
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. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Too many teams there jac - there wasnt enough talent for 17 x AFL teams this year & it'll be worse next year.
The greater the number of teams the lower the strength of the comp - full stop!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Everybody is in agreement about how bad Eithad is but why has nobody ever been willing or able to produce actual data on how much playing at Eithad costs relative to other stadiums?
 
Clubs have different arrangements at Etihad & the MCG - there is not one set of charges for all.

At Etihad the business, there is a budgetted profit, the Bombers have a good deal that generates good dollars for them, the rest of the clubs have to make up the difference.

Similar @ the G, but its the Pies that have the good base deal.

So, the clubs with the good deals are effectively subsidised by the 'also rans'.

It goes back to the clubs acting for themselves, being cherry picked by the stadiums & the AFL watching on until it was too late.
 
There are too many teams in Melbourne .... the national comp would be stronger if North took the Gold Coast deal

How noble. I'm assuming that if I tell you that the world would be a better place if you hung yourself, you will head straight to Bunnings to get a length of rope.

In the interests of a better society of course.
 
How noble. I'm assuming that if I tell you that the world would be a better place if you hung yourself, you will head straight to Bunnings to get a length of rope.

In the interests of a better society of course.

You see Arden these inept sheep understood that we remain in Melbourne and look to grow in Melbourne and wished us the best of luck. Whilst we address issues when making the decision which are holding us back they tell us you should of gone to the gold coast:rolleyes:
Its as if there was no hardwork to do and staying in Melbourne was all rosey daisy kick your feet up and chill.
Pathetic ineptitude.
 
What am i letting go ? I didnt bother to go further coz i couldnt give a shit. No point trying to back track, reroute what was mentioned or be purposefully misleading to save face.
Its very simple.
You intimated the reason Norf's crowd numbers were crap was because they didnt/werent playing finals or a top 4 team like the aints...even came out with this shit, perhaps thinking some idiot might believe it.
So your using examples of years where North doesnt play finals as compared to when St.Kilda finish top4??
Its a pretty simple example.
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
Ordinarily i dont bother with pissants, but stupidity isnt an answer, trying to backtrack, abusing me or purposefully twisting to hopefully not look so dumb isnt an answer either.
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:thumbsu:
....i thought i;d just put it back up and ask for an explanation how playing "finals or being top 4" explains this discrepancy in crowd numbers at Docklands/Etihad...or maybe why you thought it was just the last 4 years it had been going on.

You do understand dont you ?...u havent been living under a rock ? Everyone else seems to realise it and its no crime..its just a reality that your mob DRAWS SMALL CROWDS AND HAVE DONE FOR A LONG TIME.

No need to bullshit or abuse people or pretend it aint so. Its just a fact whether u like hearing it or not.
 
Stop complaining North. West Coast and Fremantle pay rent and profits to the WAFC. The AFL give compo to North as part of the equalization fund. That balances it out.

Then you guys sell some home games to Hobart and making interstate teams travel further, and needing to get 4 fights for a game in Tassie.

Get more supporters to your games and then you can get better stadium deals.
 
Stop complaining North. West Coast and Fremantle pay rent and profits to the WAFC. The AFL give compo to North as part of the equalization fund. That balances it out.

Then you guys sell some home games to Hobart and making interstate teams travel further, and needing to get 4 fights for a game in Tassie.

Get more supporters to your games and then you can get better stadium deals.

Not true. The equalization fund only just begins to balance it out.

IMHO the AFL hierarchy have only just begun to understand the extent of the problem, and if they don't increase their efforts then the rich will continue to get richer etc.

Long term these stadium deal inequalities must be fixed, and the lesser teams must be compensated for not getting the "big" fixtures. Logically every team being supported equally means a stronger competition, even though pragmatically it won't happen all the time. Collingwood was down financially once, so I expect things tend to be cyclic.
 
Too many teams there jac - there wasnt enough talent for 17 x AFL teams this year & it'll be worse next year.
The greater the number of teams the lower the strength of the comp - full stop!
OK, let's cut the comp back to 8 teams. The TV stations will still pay the same for broadcast right, won't they? And the higher average attendances will make up for the lower total attendances, won't they? :rolleyes:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

OK, let's cut the comp back to 8 teams. The TV stations will still pay the same for broadcast right, won't they? And the higher average attendances will make up for the lower total attendances, won't they? :rolleyes:

As long as 1 + 1 = 2 you will be challenged Jac.

You quoted my comments on the depth of the comp & disappeared down a tangent Jac - 8 teams you suggest, can you imagine the concept of an elite comp, $200 for the cheapest seat, sell outs offsetting reduced TV revenue from pay for view, or would there be less money from pay for view?

Div 2 for div 2 clubs ... now, guess the current teams that dont cut the mustard in a national comp, come on Jac spit it out :p:p
 
Not true. The equalization fund only just begins to balance it out.

IMHO the AFL hierarchy have only just begun to understand the extent of the problem, and if they don't increase their efforts then the rich will continue to get richer etc.

Long term these stadium deal inequalities must be fixed, and the lesser teams must be compensated for not getting the "big" fixtures. Logically every team being supported equally means a stronger competition, even though pragmatically it won't happen all the time. Collingwood was down financially once, so I expect things tend to be cyclic.

Port are getting screwed by the SANFL.

North Melbourne don't get big games or free to air games due to lack of supporters. They need to stop complaining and work on their support base.
 
Stop complaining North. West Coast and Fremantle pay rent and profits to the WAFC. The AFL give compo to North as part of the equalization fund. That balances it out.

Then you guys sell some home games to Hobart and making interstate teams travel further, and needing to get 4 fights for a game in Tassie.

Get more supporters to your games and then you can get better stadium deals.

It is not complaining for the sake of complaining. AFL wants an even competition, it is why we have a draft, salary cap, etc. There is no point having on-field limitations when the off-field limitation which have a significant impact to the competition are left to run out of control.

North supporters don't care if we will never be as big or as rich as other clubs, but if the AFL want to have a competition where anyone has a chance of success then they have to address the off-field issues.

AFL has adopted most of the NFL model, except the income equalisation. It is what keeps Green Bay alive. They wouldn't be able to compete on-field without it and the NFL has a far more equitable scheduling system.

A lot of the problems we have are problems created by the AFL. If the AFL and it's stadium managers met their end of the bargain at Docklands then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is ultimately their failure which has for some reason become our burden, there was no contract for us to inherit this shit. AFL force us to endure it because it is their stuff up and they don't want to admit it.

They are meant to generate 150 non-AFL events per year and subsidise the cost of playing AFL, how many do you think they generate a year? That was what clubs had signed up for. I doubt they have racked up 150 since their inception.
 
Port are getting screwed by the SANFL.

North Melbourne don't get big games or free to air games due to lack of supporters. They need to stop complaining and work on their support base.

&/or take a reality check - they are a smaLL group of fans that have no genuine appeal to the masses.

Maybe they should up their membership cost, up the walk up price to games & appeal to elitist types, North fans are not that common in anywhere, even in Errol Street.

BUT !!!! North have 2 xAFL premierships, they do cut the mustard where it counts, on the field !!!
 
Interesting interview with the departing WAFC CEO on Pattersons@Subi & its contribution to making WA footy go:
What does Patersons Stadium generate for football?
Overall it is $44 million, including the Eagles and the Dockers. For us, it generates about $12.5 million.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/11377454/in-good-shape-and-exciting-times-ahead/

and part of the challenge over there should there be a brand new 60K capacity stadium is to hope that the 'footy' money doesn't get sucked dry due to stadium 'costs'.
 
Massive victim mentality right there,

Stop blaming other clubs for showing initiative, and running a successful business model.

If Geelong sell more membership packages than seating allows, then good luck to Geelong. It means they are a popular brand.

They don't rely on other clubs' fan base to buy Geelong memberships, out of pity.

Yeah North should really show some initiative.

If only we started playing in a new timeslot that no one wanted to play in and made it a huge TV ratings success.

Oh wait.
 
Yeah North should really show some initiative.

If only we started playing in a new timeslot that no one wanted to play in and made it a huge TV ratings success.

Oh wait.

As a North person, I agree, however, sadly, during that mid-late 90s era, we kinda lost our way, bumming rides to Canberra, Sydney and finally the Gold Coast and starting to stand for nothing - throw in the 'ressies' with the Murray Kangaroos and then aligned with Port Melb and then the split with half trekking down to Tassie, and amongst that, missing out on Davey and Riewoldt from under our noses.......


.....so, now, I'm just hoping that we can start to stand for something, Werribee has sorta been working as a 'west' of Dudley St locale.

If the Ballarat thing can see us play games up there one day - fabulous.

Hobart is the wildcard now - and, re the VFL alignments, is 7 years too late.

North needs to be careful how it moves forward. We need to show initiative but, not burn partners.
 
Given Etihad has always had a genuine stigma associated with it due to the well published money gouging machine it is do you think that would change if the AFL do happen for arguments sake to own it in the next 12 months?

If this happens and the AFL implement fair and reasonable deals for all home clubs, look after the turf by not having concert from January to March, offer cheaper food and drink for "home" team members, cut the prize of parking etc. etc. etc. would public perception change from attack to admiration or would it be a losing battle?

From a commercial perspective it would be hard for the AFL to "break even" with this model and perhaps that's the reason they haven't pushed harder to buy it earlier as they can currently remain at arms length with private entities the current owners.

Thoughts?
 
When the afl struck the deal with the company that effectively owns docklands the deal they struck at the time was ok for them as it was before the first major tv deals (involving 9 and then 7 after). So the $$$ they had was limited.
Demetriou and co has for all his knockers worked wonders with the financial side of things. Better than expected. If the deal was done with the current financial backing the clubs would not be "paying" for the bloody thing.
I don't know why they can't buy it outright but it must be like a massive home loan. Before they new tv deal was done they afl had around 100 mil I'n 3 nab accounts. That's
just the cash in nab. They would have more I'n long term savings somewhere.
With the new tv deal they could buy it many times over now i think. However it must be better off to subsidize clubs and invest I'n other ways. Like expansion teams I'n new tv markets.
What I'm getting at is they must have crunched the numbers and it's better financially to stay I'n the current deal.
 
The Stadium managment will be making X dollars per year profit. It would be pretty massive profit IMO.
For the AFL to buy it out they will need to offer more than the current lump sum equivalent to the total profit they will make over all the years until the AFL are entitled to take over.
Would still be a huge amount I think, but decreasing each year.

As far as food and drink go, prospective vendors probably submit a tender as to how much they will pay the stadium management to operate there. The winning bidder then needs to charge horrific prices to make a bit of profit. If everyone avoided buying food and drink there ( like I do ) the vendor would suffer or go broke, in which case the next sucker would have a go.
 
Nope, because our crowds would be heavily inflated by playing a local rival every second week.

im sick to death of this argument. interstate teams might not gain as much revenue, from local rivalries, but they not only travel more (are more used, and more professional at travelling), but their home advantage is far more superior to that of victorian teams...

if you dont like it, go back to following the port adelaide magpies in the SANFL.


Yeah North should really show some initiative.

If only we started playing in a new timeslot that no one wanted to play in and made it a huge TV ratings success.

Oh wait.

richmond, as an example, played plenty of sunday and twilight games over the last two years, and have won less games than north, but have had pretty decent crowd numbers, and as a result, play 9 of 11 home games, at the MCG, and only 2 games all up at Etihad.

your ridiculous fixtue, should result in many many wins, and encourage your supporters to actually attend the football from 2013 on, and maybe your deal will result in crowds over 35000/40000 consistently.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

the $problems at Etihad continue

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top