Wayne Jackson

[PottSie2]

You have to question what these people are following the AFL for? Surely the VFL is more suitable for their needs?

If people are annoyed at there being so many Victorian clubs, why follow AFL ? Surely the WAFL or SAFL would tick all your criteria ?

The AFL is Victorian dominated because that is where the code's heartland, pride and passion resides, that and the fact that you can't base a code like the AFL in backwater towns.

 

[MightyHawks]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacko57
Well from the Hawks' point of view, I guess it is a good thing : giving up some home games in Melb is compensated for by the extra $ from the Tas govt. Seems the club has handled it well in terms of getting local (Tas) fans to get on board. I guess the question is, where to from here if the Tas govt decides the sponsorship has served its purpose? Or if the AFL ever admits a Tassie team?

I'd say Buddy is worth 5-10 thousand extra through he gate so the hawks could be headed on a generational growth into a stronger team. More games in melbourne would be great for us right NOW

Hawks have a 5+5 deal with the Tassie Government. We have an option for the second 5 years. So that sees us through til 2015. The AFL probably want 8 Vic clubs, so if there's only 8 left by 2015 then we're secure.

Our team looks pretty good at the moment - 2007-2013 should be years that we are thereabouts. If we can play good football in that time and pick up a couple of flags then that'd give a really good boost to our supporter base. If we have a similar period of success to what North had in the 90s then we need to capitalise on it.

Glad that the Sun and the Age have given us more coverage this year than pretty much anyone else. The papers are obsessed with Clarko, Buddy and the boys.

 

[Alberton_Magpie]

I think it would suck knowing that your club is a chance of going under but I honestly Beleive that Melbourne and North Melbourne will merge in the mid 2010s and Tasmania will come in. Then when the time is right Footscary and St.Kilda will merge for a Newcastle side.

 

[tandino]

I think there are simply too many teams in Melbourne. I think we will look silly, as a national competition...

God forbid the league being looked at as silly, we can't have those leagues interstate and overseas laughing at us, can we.

Incidentally, you know what's silly? the AFL having to look at building a third stadium when we had a perfectly good stadium not 8 years ago. That was pretty silly of you for selling it, wasn't it Mr. Jackson.

....in another 20 years' time, if we've got 20 teams and 10 or 11 are based in Melbourne,

10 or 11 teams based in Melbourne? For a start, there are only 9 teams in Melbourne. Counting Geelong, where is this extra team going to come from? Bendigo? Ballarat? Fitzroy? South Melbourne?

How long was this bloke running the competition?

 

[jacko57]

You love resorting to personal insults, don't you? *sighs* I'll explain it again, as you do not seem to understand how 1+1=2. Our eight game offer gave the AFL an open invitation to have us relocate further down the track, as you clearly want us to do. By making this offer, we wouldn't just be dipping our toes in the water like those other times with Sydney and Canberra and easily pull out...can't you see that? What's the problem then?



You don't seem to comprehend the effects that hoaring ourselves off to Sydney and Canberra over the past decade had on our existing base in Melbourne, but then again you wouldn't know would you? 30000 is apparently the benchmark set by the AFL, and I think it's worth a shot now that our administration has made it clear we're not going anywhere.



Enlighten me...actually don't bother.



Yeah, fair enough. They've bailed out a few other clubs as well, though, Richmond and Carlton among them. But they're not in your crosshairs.



Well if that's the case, and the upside is there to be had, then cut off the drip and let them go. If they swim, great, if not, bad luck.



Yeah, but are they successful according to the criteria that you're applying to my club. I think not.



You so blinked in your view that you accuse me of being anti-national, but I'm using them as examples. I actually don't care about whether Brisbane and Sydney survive. If the AFL wish to support them, fine. But they're not prospering like they should be given the market they're working with. Maybe you need to go and ask the adminstrations of those clubs as to how they feel about the introduction of these two new teams. Chances are they're not exactly jumping for joy.

You say you don't have an agenda, but seem to have placed us on the chopping block even though there are others in the same boat (e.g. Melbourne). Why is that?



Victoria has got the greatest population growth in the country atm, and the vast majority of them are migrants who have no ties to AFL, so I don't know where you get your numbers from, but you'll need to check them again. As for the Western Sydney market, it's not just about numbers either. Dunno about them being 'without a club' either. There needs to be evidence that AFL is a product they're remotely interested in.



That's what I thought when I saw the score in the derby.



What's pathetic and naive is that you actually beleive the AFL's well being is influenced by our existence. But hang on a sec, you said the competition is doing well, so where's your evidence? If it was they would've stopped bailing us out ages ago. Do the math.



Me thinks the chip thing is all in your head, not mine. Again, personal insults don't win you an arguement. Would've thought your vast intellect would get that.



Well good for you. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I don't have an anti-national agenda. You and others here seem to perceive any criticism of the interstate teams from Melbourne-based supporters as anti-national, when you're the ones who choose to take cheap potshots at our clubs first. I just want you to get off my club's case. But you seem set in your ways, so I'll leave it there. Would rather watch Doctor Who instead.

kitty

Sorry, but facts and reason are wasted on bunsen-burner. He's made up his mind (such as it is).

 

[jacko57]

Of course WJ was 100% correct.

There are too many clubs in Melbourne, and the only people who disagree are the fans of the strugging Victoroian clubs who feel this way, because of their own vested self interest, and not that of the code.

If they had the best interests of the code at heart, they'd admit that probably two clubs need to go.

And we know who those clubs are.

The Kangaroos and the Demons have virtually no support, no geographical support, limited TV appeal, and have limited value to the AFL.

Having one or both relocate would clearly be ideal. Fans of those clubs might disagree because of bias, but but bias aside and they know it's the right thing to do. We all know.

South Melbourne and Fitzroy are perfect examples. Yes, it's sad for the supporters of thoe clubs, that they no longer play in Melbourne, but it was clearly good for the game and we are clearly better off with 10 clubs Victoria, than we would have been with 12.

The AFL would be better off without Melbourne and North Melbourne playing their home games in Victoria, and that is virtually unarguable. It is plain to see for any objective football fan.

Virtually no support? 34000+ members this year.

Limited value to the AFL? Are you really that stupid??????????

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I do think it's highly likely that within 20 years one or two Melbourne clubs will either relocate, drop down to the VFL, or merge with another. The AFL, as the code's keepers, will not (and should not) continue to tolerate spending a fortune to prop up struggling Melbourne clubs that can't pull their weight and certainly don't anything to the value of the national league.

North Melbourne's back is most against the wall and I think their days in the national league are numbered.

 

[footyfreak]

I support an SANFL team, and have since I was born. The SANFL used to draw massive crowds - they were sacrificed because a National Comp was seen as the right way to go; maybe we can deal with it better because we've already had to go through the process of seeing our team (SANFL) gutted of players and support because it was in the best interests of the game?

Correct weight and all clear!. Some of the utter crap and bleeding hearts retoric in this thread is staggering.

Talking about passion and saying if Wayne Jackson had it he wouldn't be saying what he is, is naive at best.

All south aussie football fans had their clubs r*ped pillaged and plundered within a six month period for the "good of the game" Overnight, the teams we grew up with and loved with as much passion as you love your clubs were r*ped of their best talent and driven to the edge of extinction.

It was as if every bodies team was suddenly relegated. You think about how distraught English soccer fans are when they get relegated. Think about your club suddenly being robbed of all its good players and being sent to a second tier comp. Now think about that happening for the entire comp (you can x that by 2 and throw in the whole WAFL and its rich history too) but it's forever and the worst thing is, you didn't even know a week earlier that it was a possibility.

For 2 teams it was the end. Woodville and west Torrens had to merge that very year to survive.

Guess what? One of these teams (west torrens) was the team that Wayne Jackson played for, coached, was chairman and president of, and was also a life member.

So to say he doesn't know what its like to lose a club you love to the economic and social realities of todays world could not be further from the truth.

Maybe, rather than just bagging the guy for having an informed opinion, maybe it's worth listening, even just for a moment, to what he is saying as he understands better than most of of us exactly what the reality is.

I'm sure he'd love for someone to find a way that all Melbourne based teams could survive forever, all he was doing was telling it the way he sees it, and the guy is better qualified than most of us to do so.

So stop looking like complete uneducated tossers who think the universe revolves around them and that you are the only ones to ever know what football and passion means because it's completely laughable and pathetic.

 

[footyfreak]

Makes him a brainless South Australian.

Because your contribution to the thread has Stephen Hawking doing doughnuts in his wheel chair through sheer excitement at your intellect

Seriously, I hope you are 7 years old so you have a legitimate excuse for failing so badly.

 

[Crow-mo]

I heard this goose interviewed on the radio today, droning on about how it would look ridiculous if there are still 10 Victorian clubs in the national competition in 4 years time ; and it is inevitable that 2 or 3 Vic clubs will relocate.

You had your chance to kill off a few clubs, you weren't able to do it, how about you just go back under your rock and enjoy your retirement on the bloated payout you received without earning it, and just STFU?

this goose?

and who are you exactly?

 

[Crow-mo]

Of course not. But then, the AFL isn't 'propping' North up, is it? We get compensated for our restraint of trade issues, such as being forced into a bad stadium deal due to the AFL's guarantees, and lack of prime time coverage for us to sell to our members and sponsors. Give us a decent stadium deal and our fair share of Friday night/live FTA exposure, and we won't need any funding form the AFL.

this isn't really true. but I can see why you wish it was, but time to uncross your fingers here...

you are not a popular club, you know that. you have few supporters, and few corporate coteries. you are a minority entity. this isn't news.

you talk about how the AFL is holding back your abiility to earn, but it isn't. your lack of supporters are.

when you ask for a fair share of fixturing - what you mean is a share in excess of your ability to draw. you want more prime fixtures where money will come to you, because of the fixture, because of your opponents, not because of who you are and what innately is your support.

if everything was fair, you wouldn't negotiate a great stadium deal because you have no leverage; you wouldn't get prime time fixturing because you are a low drawing team with little support, and you wouldn't get a lot of TV money because your lack of support makes you unappealing to commercial interests.

the afl equalisation policies work in your favour, not against you. if you only got what you deserved on an arms length basis you'd get less than now, not more. you want more AFL support by a different name.

 

[Crow-mo]

So North doesnt have a prolonged history of poor management and a failure to meet benchmarks?

Wasnt it Brayshaw himself that said the clubs future wasnt assured and certainly he has discussed the inability of the club to pay its way if AFL "assistance" was pulled.



So what you are saying is that North and other small, poorly supported clubs with few supporters (relatively) are not scheduled on the big stages and in key FTA time slots because they would reduce league revenues - because they are poorly supported?

If I am a key employee because I drive sales & growth and add value to the business at a great rate and you, working in the same part of the company, underperform, dont make sales and are a drain on the business then likely, you either improve and become an equal contributor or you get sacked. I mean, why should I carry you and have revenues that my performance generates diverted to you because you are still around?

Its a reasonable analogy. North, as one poor team, cant draw TV ratings or big crowds and so the AFL uses its power teams to maximise revenues and then North gets a redistribution of some of those revenues to "compensate" for its inability to pull its weight (via crowds and TV ratings). You argue that such a redistribution is compensation for various disadvantages but these arent really disadvantages - they are simply the results of your team being poorly supported. I mean if you had Collingwoods (or Essendons, Richmonds, Carltons etc etc) fan base the draw would be built around you.
The compensation is compensation for you not being able to draw a crowd on your own (Live or on TV) - which is just another way of saying its a handout for being a poor performing team.

Jackson is right, Melbourne by any objective measure has too many teams. Of course most Victorians seem incapable of objectivity in this matter.

this is entirely, inconveniently true.

 

[Crow-mo]

What an epic failure of a comment by Jackson.

The game is Melbourne's/Victoria's blood. Just listen to what Caro said this morning on 3AW - absolutely spot on.



I'll take North Melbourne the club, the team and the footballing and community institution ANYDAY over the Crows.

FFS this game was built on sides like North. Absolutely insensitive comments from supporters who support teams which joined the competition only recently is just ridiculous.

Hope the wheel turns and these clubs meet their makers.



Just like we all laughed when the karma bus arrived at Subiaco Oval in 2007-2008.

Seriously, that's as insensitive as it gets.

stay in school, you're not cooked yet.

 

[Crow-mo]

Why's that? North have been around since they were known as Hotham, which is a fair old while back. Teams like that are an institution. Not a team which has been either fabricated or weaved in.

http://www.bookshops.com.au/book/3220/3505537

buy yourself a copy and educate yourself about the game.

 

[Crow-mo]

Virtually no support? 34000+ members this year.

Limited value to the AFL? Are you really that stupid??????????

c'mon, you're the only one looking stupid here.

you average 38,000 in melbourne. yet you have 34,000 ticketed members this year

where are they then? or does it look a bit funny when the family cat and dog try to use their season ticket?

just on a 50/50 split, 38,000 means you provide, on average no more than 20,000 odd people to your games. doesn't that tell you something?

 

[jacko57]

c'mon, you're the only one looking stupid here.

you average 38,000 in melbourne. yet you have 34,000 ticketed members this year

where are they then? or does it look a bit funny when the family cat and dog try to use their season ticket?

just on a 50/50 split, 38,000 means you provide, on average no more than 20,000 odd people to your games. doesn't that tell you something?

Stupid? Nah, I think you have me covered here.

34,000 members. So that should translate into 34,000 attendances every week does it? Is that the case for every other club in the AFL, or just North?

Sure, there are some sympathy members from other clubs. There are others who follow and support the club passionately, but live interstate or in the country ; some who can't get to games depending what day they are on. But even if you want to redefine it as 30,000 or even 28,000 'real' supporters, it isn't an insignificant number.

 

[jacko57]

Makes him a brainless South Australian.

As Crow-mo has demonstrated here, that's a tautology.

 

[jacko57]

If you have 34000 members then surely you should be getting atleast 50-60k against other Melbourne clubs every match. Lower for Interstate clubs ofcourse. And does this happen?

If we have 34,000 members? It's not an if.

 

[kaysee]

Makes him a brainless South Australian.

^^^ ... says some "hero with a keyboard" about a man who has been the Cheif Executive Officer of:

- a leading Wine company
- a leading Beer company
- and Australia's biggest sporting insitution... the AFL.

Really, some people should be banned from life.

 

[richardnose]

Ok, three obvious points that jump out at me:

1.) North were never offered a package to relocate. They were offered a package to merge with Southport. The offer also required us to add gold to our colours, and hand 'ownership' of the new entity over to the AFL. If this dead had have gone through, then by 2020, there would be more Fitzroy in the competition than North Melbourne.

that's not how i recall it. i think this is irrelevant anyway, if the offer had been for a "relocation" with north's jumper etc, would north have accepted the offer ? no. north were very clear that they were deciding to stay in melbourne regardless of the offer.

2.) People who compare airlines to the AFL are morons and don't have a clue about how businesses are run. Airlines are for-profit organisations who exist solely to make a profit on their operations. The AFL is a NON-PROFIT organisation which exists solely for football. Clubs are also non-profit organisations. Generating money can be good for the code/club, as it enables them to re-invest in their actual goals (Administrating and expanding the competition, winning premierships). But it is NOT the reason why they exist.

the afl IS the 16 clubs. the clubs appoint the commission and the commission appoints the ceo. the difference between demetriou and wayne jackson/ross oakley is that jackson and oakley were much more transparent about their intentions than demetriou. the afl is a competition that hasn't yet fully transitioned from a state comp to a balanced national comp. demetriou is playing the politician's game of not answering the question when he's asked if he will continue to prop up the clubs that can't pay their way. all jackson did was state the bleeding obvious.

3.) North are not broke. It has been years since we made a loss.

broke = bankrupt = financially insolvent = can't pay the bills. if the afl didn't give you (and footscray) extra financial assistance every year, your club (and footscray) would be broke. brayshaw and smorgon have stated this. no idea why you insist it isn't true.

the afl have stated that they will review their policy of extra financial assistance to poor vic clubs at the end of next year. this is around the time that the existing tv contract ends and the new clubs are getting ready to come in.

the afl (meaning the clubs will vote) will withdraw the extra funding and provide more merge/relocate deals. unless someone comes along with a big bag of cash, north will have to decide whether to merge, relocate or die.

 

[jacko57]

^^^ ... says some "hero with a keyboard" about a man who has been the Cheif Executive Officer of:

- a leading Wine company
- a leading Beer company
- and Australia's biggest sporting insitution... the AFL.

yet comes out making half-arsed statements about how silly it would be if we 'continue' to have 11 teams in Melbourne..........

by your criteria, John Elliott should be respected as a credible expert.

 

[Hawkk]

this goose?

and who are you exactly?

What did Wayne Jackson do?

The Fremantle and Port Adelaide expansion clubs were set up under Oakley's watch, Fitzroy's death - Oakley, West Coast success - Oakley, setting up Docklands - Oakley.

The only signficiant move made under Wayne Jackson's watch was shutting down Waverley, which the AFL I'm sure are thrilled with today, given the supposed need for another cheap stadium in Melbourne.

 

[kaysee]

yet comes out making half-arsed statements about how silly it would be if we 'continue' to have 11 teams in Melbourne..........

by your criteria, John Elliott should be respected as a credible expert.

If you're going to quote someone do it correctly! He stated:

"I think there are simply too many teams in Melbourne. I think we will look silly, as a national competition, in another 20 years' time, if we've got 20 teams and 10 or 11 are based in Melbourne"

He did not say "continue"... he referred to the AFL's future plans for expansion.

Short sighted people chit me...

- South Sydney fans kicked up a stink when they relocated to Sydney. Now the general population accepts it.
- Fitzroy fans kicked up a stink when they merged with Brisbane. Now the general population accepts it.
...
- More Victorian clubs will fold/merge/relocate in the future, fans (such as you) will kick up a stink, but not long after the transition the general population will accept it.

Funny thing is it has nothing to do with state loyalties as some Victorians suggest. I don't care if North, Melbourne or whoever elses remains or goes... just that the AFL should spend their $$$ elsewhere.

For those suggesting the non-Victorian clubs to pull out of the AFL... I guarantee Victorian clubs would crumble even faster. Imagine an all Victorian AFL... imagine Collingwood having to hand half of it's profits to struggling Vic clubs? Eddie would have a fit.

For the record: John Elliott has a lot more credibility then you, myself and probably 98% of the other posters here on BF.

 

[Hawkk]

The comment by Jackson was logical and fairly muted. Longer term Melbourne probably needs to shrink to 5/6 plus Geelong. Which will involve third teams in WA, SA and a team in Tassie or maybe just a much smaller league with larger playing lists.

So we shrink the Melbourne market, but bring a new side into the competition that already has a smaller market share then the existing 10 club Victorian market?

Not to mention another side in SA, when clearly the 2nd SA side is struggling for support against the front runner in that market

 

[nicky]

I heard this goose interviewed on the radio today, droning on about how it would look ridiculous if there are still 10 Victorian clubs in the national competition in 4 years time ; and it is inevitable that 2 or 3 Vic clubs will relocate.

You had your chance to kill off a few clubs, you weren't able to do it, how about you just go back under your rock and enjoy your retirement on the bloated payout you received without earning it, and just STFU?

I agree with him 100% and it annoys me clubs like yours wont do what it needs to for it to survive... Oh well, when you fold completely you can't whinge that you weren't given your chances.