They should have taken the money when they had the chance and settled in the GC.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dropoff-stuns-north-boss-20100414-se2h.html

"North Melbourne's membership is currently 25,534, well under the 26,549 the club had signed up this time last season.

The Kangaroos lag behind their local rivals, with even long-time membership strugglers Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs having easily surpassed North's tally, the Demons currently with 29,218 members, and the much-hyped Dogs at 32,777."

This is the final membership ladder for 2009:

Hawthorn 52,496

Adelaide 46,472

Collingwood 45,972

West Coast 43,927

Carlton 42,408

Essendon 40,412

Fremantle 39,206

Geelong 37,160

Richmond 36,981

St Kilda 31,906

Melbourne 31,508

Port Adelaide 30,605

North Melbourne 28,340

Bulldogs 28,215

Sydney 26,269

Brisbane 24,873

I worry about North. The drop in membership numbers is largely due to their drop in the performance of their team in the last year. You would not think they could survive in their present form if they have an extended run at the bottom of the ladder like we did.

I worry about North. The drop in membership numbers is largely due to their drop in the performance of their team in the last year. You would not think they could survive in their present form if they have an extended run at the bottom of the ladder like we did.

I still think they will.

Bulldogs 32,777 after a strong season last year and then early premiership favortism. A substantial rise already from their final tally last year of 28,215 and presumably more to come. Just shows what success can do for a club. We need that success sooner rather than later.

But on to the Kangas, they could be in dire straits. Up s&%$ creek without a paddle. They don't look like they can have any sort of success with their list in the next two years and I don't know if they can sustain the club for much longer than that until success comes. Very worrying for their supporters.

But when it comes to the crunch, if they do end up in massive trouble and fighting for their existence, I have the feeling that the AFL might either step in or possibly offer another relocation deal to Tasmania.

This is only a suggestion now, but maybe not a bad idea (without knowing everything about the financial requirements of setting up an AFL team). I think possibly creating a Nth Melbourne/Tasmania team and splitting games between Victoria and Tasmania for a while might be a good transition into introducing an AFL team into Tasmania. I feel that the AFL will have pity on North and want to keep some sort of the North Melbourne FC identity. At the same time, they don't feel that the population and business opportunities in Tasmania are sufficient to sustain an AFL franchise. But Tasmania clearly deserves an AFL team more than West Sydney does or even the Gold Coast. So maybe a Nth Melbourne/Tasmania team would suit their needs for a period of time (until a full transfer to Tasmania becomes more commercially viable). Whilst this does create the dilemma perhaps of Tasminians not feeling it is THEIR club, I think the HAwthorn experiment/success in Tasmania has shown that the people there are hungry for footy at the top level and will support a footy team if they feel it will give them a strong committment over a period of time.

I still don't understand why there is a perception that we 'need' to move a club, or merge a club. Why can't we have 9 Melbourne clubs?

Merging is not an option for any Club. The Dees-Hawks fiasco proved that.

I would have thought the adventures of North would have proved that there are too many clubs in Melbourne and that a Club like North is not sustainable longer term.

MFC have this one chance to get things right otherwise its history.

MFC have this one chance to get things right otherwise its history.

And we will. We have to. There is no other option.

A post such as dandeeman's (see thread - A Courageous Club) recognises the steps taken for success through adversity and taking courageous steps. Another thing, our club does stand for something. Demetriou was wrong.

A club that is not only the oldest in the League, but one who's supporters recognise when it's club is in need and recognise's the path that must be taken to not only prosper and be successful, but more importantly survive. You rarely - if at all - get clubs like ours with consecutively successive increases in membership numbers year after year in poor performing years.

I still don't understand why there is a perception that we 'need' to move a club, or merge a club. Why can't we have 9 Melbourne clubs?

I'm not certain it would make it any easier for the remaining clubs.

You'd get a percentage of the loyal members who grin, bear it & continue to sign up despite the distance (like swans & lions).

Some will be jaded and lost to footy.

Young kids deciding on a new team will likely spread their support between the remaining clubs, weighted depending on who is performing and who has the best marketing.

I don't think there'd be much positive to come out of it except for the survival of the team that moves rather than folding.

It's interesting that people throw around the word sustainable, suggesting some Clubs are sustainable while others aren't, but what do they actually mean by that?

I think it's fair to argue that the AFL's income - broadcast deals, sponsorship, etc - is earned by the (atm) 16 teams, so why they shouldn't be entitled to a reasonable sum of that is beyond me.

The argument that some Clubs are independently sustainable is a furphy - all Clubs receive money from the AFL.

Furthermore, the more successful Clubs are successful in large part because they receive non-monetary benefits that they use to make money - better TV exposure and more desirable game scheduling leads to better gate takings, more expensive corporate packages and more sponsorship money.

And we will. We have to. There is no other option.

A post such as dandeeman's (see thread - A Courageous Club) recognises the steps taken for success through adversity and taking courageous steps. Another thing, our club does stand for something. Demetriou was wrong.

A club that is not only the oldest in the League, but one who's supporters recognise when it's club is in need and recognise's the path that must be taken to not only prosper and be successful, but more importantly survive. You rarely - if at all - get clubs like ours with consecutively successive increases in membership numbers year after year in poor performing years.

I agree with you, but at the time Demetrio said the statement he was almost right. We were going down the proverbial gurgler at that moment. In the bigger picture we didn't stand for much at all. But that Statement stirred the club into action, so i am actually glad it was said in hindsight

at the time i was gutted.

But we now stand for something-(How good was it to see the Grand old Melbourne Flag flying strongly on the scoreboard last sunday after the game) B)

The argument that some Clubs are independently sustainable is a furphy - all Clubs receive money from the AFL.

Indeed. And not just a little bit of money either. If any of the clubs lost their AFL revenue they'd go broke very quickly, including the richest ones. The MFC also receive less money from the AFL than Carlton each year, but we're apparently the handout club. Righto then.

Indeed. And not just a little bit of money either. If any of the clubs lost their AFL revenue they'd go broke very quickly, including the richest ones. The MFC also receive less money from the AFL than Carlton each year, but we're apparently the handout club. Righto then.

How is that?

Carlton receive more than us? Based on what?

AFL clubs are a rare breed. Not run for profit, do not need to pay dividends to shareholders, not privately owned.

All the money goes towards their employees and survival.

I agree with you, but at the time Demetrio said the statement he was almost right. We were going down the proverbial gurgler at that moment. In the bigger picture we didn't stand for much at all. But that Statement stirred the club into action, so i am actually glad it was said in hindsight

at the time i was gutted.

But we now stand for something-(How good was it to see the Grand old Melbourne Flag flying strongly on the scoreboard last sunday after the game) B)

Some observations re MFC (that don't apply to North).

I live in Pies territory. I see an enormous number of local cars with that little peel-off Melb sticker. Far more than show their Collingwood allegiance. We have a big supporter base who I suspect are not very committed, not enough to buy a membership. But they're Melb supporters (their little peel-off stickers say so). I rarely see any North stickers on cars. Our supporter base is there to be mobilised by success on field (coming) and by inspirational leadership (Jimmy).

Our name and what we stand for (MELBOURNE football club) are incredibly valuable. We have a new boss (Swedish). It should be easy for me to have him become a MELB FC supporter, much easier than say, North (unless maybe he thinks kangaroos are cuddly).

I can't see the AFL ever not having a Melb FC. But that's not something we can rest on our laurels over...

It's just a pity that North and Fitzroy weren't allowed to merge. It would of bought together two proud and passionate clubs and given Fitzroy supporters a chance to keep their hearts in the game. Shame on the AFL and shame on the other clubs for not demanding better treatment for one of their own.

For those of you calling for north to move north you either have very short memories or very small hearts or possibly both.

Rogue's post above sums up the situation well.

It's just a pity that North and Fitzroy weren't allowed to merge. It would of bought together two proud and passionate clubs and given Fitzroy supporters a chance to keep their hearts in the game. Shame on the AFL and shame on the other clubs for not demanding better treatment for one of their own.

For those of you calling for north to move north you either have very short memories or very small hearts or possibly both.

Rogue's post above sums up the situation well.

Agreed!!

It's just a pity that North and Fitzroy weren't allowed to merge. It would of bought together two proud and passionate clubs and given Fitzroy supporters a chance to keep their hearts in the game. Shame on the AFL and shame on the other clubs for not demanding better treatment for one of their own.

For those of you calling for north to move north you either have very short memories or very small hearts or possibly both.

Rogue's post above sums up the situation well.

I don't think many here on the forum actually want North to move North. I think almost all of us empathize with their current situation. I think we all hope they can turn their fortunes around like we seem to be doing at the moment. I wasn't one who bought a membership when they were originally in strife, but if I had the finances I would have. Having said that, I'm not so sure that other members chipping in like that on a one-off basis is good for them in the long-term. But if it could help them survive until better times came then I think many here would do the same (and some probably did).

North have never had a strong supporter base. Even in the 90s when they were flying. I think in their case they'll either survive or die completely. I personally don't want them to die. I think that for every club that dies (especially Melbourne teams) a part of the game's heart goes away with them. The AFL officially became a heartless, money-craving organisation when Fitzroy merged.

.

For those of you calling for north to move north you either have very short memories or very small hearts or possibly both.

.

Well put.

Some must feel that if another club folds or disappears it will buy us more time by taking the heat of us. If another club disappears, all eyes will then turn to the next vulnerable club - whom ever that may be.

Merging is not an option for any Club. The Dees-Hawks fiasco proved that.

I would have thought the adventures of North would have proved that there are too many clubs in Melbourne and that a Club like North is not sustainable longer term.

MFC have this one chance to get things right otherwise its history.

Another negative post.

And why would it be our last chance or where history?

And why would it be our last chance or where history?

Your tagline about digging holes is uncannily apt.

BTW, its we're history.

It's just a pity that North and Fitzroy weren't allowed to merge. It would of bought together two proud and passionate clubs and given Fitzroy supporters a chance to keep their hearts in the game.

Great two basket cases come together as one.

Why couldn't they keep their hearts in the game through the Lions?

About the same level of connectivity for Fitzroy supporters. At least NM home games would not look so empty.

Some must feel that if another club folds or disappears it will buy us more time by taking the heat of us. If another club disappears, all eyes will then turn to the next vulnerable club - whom ever that may be.

Who ever said that is wrong and misguided. North's dire position is its own. MFC' financial position is its own. Whether North stays or go does not take away from the fundamental requirement for MFC to be a financially viable organisation.

Indeed. And not just a little bit of money either. If any of the clubs lost their AFL revenue they'd go broke very quickly, including the richest ones. The MFC also receive less money from the AFL than Carlton each year, but we're apparently the handout club. Righto then.

I dont think anyone has put Rogue's point up as an argument for sometime. And rightly so. The issue for clubs like MFC and NMFC is that AFL income makes up a higher proportion of their overall revenue take. All Clubs do not AFL funding. However successful clubs need to develop sustainable source of revenue outside the AFL stream to continue to be successful.

Your tagline about digging holes is uncannily apt.

BTW, its we're history.

why don't you answer his question?

then explain the relationship between off-field survival and on-field success with regard to the recent history of Richmond and North

we could get a flag in the next 5 years, we could not. It won't be the only factor involved in our survival

Your tagline about digging holes is uncannily apt.

BTW, its we're history.

Haa is that all you can come up with '''''''

And did you get Digging Holes is the only profession where you can start at the top. or are you being sarcastic

9313 and counting

why don't you answer his question?

then explain the relationship between off-field survival and on-field success with regard to the recent history of Richmond and North

we could get a flag in the next 5 years, we could not. It won't be the only factor involved in our survival

You almost got close to the answer. If we dont maximise the opportunity to win a flag within the next 5 to 7 years then the odds of us ever win a flag will blow out further particularly when there will be up to 18 teams in the competition. Its already going to be a challenge given the relatively small budget we have to run our football department with. And we are only now getting access to reasonable facilities to train.

Why? Because the gulf between the rich clubs and poor clubs gets bigger regardless of the draft, salary cap. The rich clubs can spend the money on facilities, medical, rehabilitation, fitness and support staff, coaches and administrators that poor Clubs only dream about. And the cost of these extras is getting greater. If we are as reliant as we are on AFL funding that we are and struggle to break a profit (not subsidised by tin rattles) we can invest effectively in the development of our players. If you dont believe have a look at the money made by Freo, WCE and Hawthorn and look at the size of the support teams, facilities etc.

The gulf is getting wider for the bottom teams.

Unless the rules change in its favour I cant see NM ever having another serious tilt at a flag let alone surviving in their current format and structure. This group are potentially our last real tilt at a flag in the current structure that is an AFL member based "Melbourne Football Club".

Our inabiliity to operate a profit is a challenge to how we get the best out of this group. If we dont win a flag with this group then how far behind is MFC going to be on the trend setters then. On field success is an important part of building successful brand that has enduring interest and support from people that buy membership and merchandise in such quantities that corporate sponsor want to align with and are prepare to but big dollars to do so. However if we dont have a sustainable profitable business model the ability to achieve that on field success will be restricted.