9313 and counting

Another skill there....

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.

I agree with the rest, this bit is the only part the really responds to what I asked

North = very solid success in the last couple of decades = on their death bed

Tigers = as bad a few decades as you could imagine = still going strong

Obviously winning a flag will help us, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of the matter, we could win several and still end up in the poo like North, or we could prosper despite not getting the ultimate success due to securing our finances in other ways

I agree there is definitely an argument that you need $$$ to win a flag these days. Collingwood is the only side that disproves the theory, although the Hawks weren't exactly Bill Gates UNTIL they won it and the wheels fell off the bandwagon. Geelong got their act together quite well, helped mainly by their awesome stadium deal and maybe that was the catalyst for their success. Freo, on the other hand, are as rich as anyone and they have a pathetic record. Tough question.

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.

I still think the Kangas will go North. Not straight away, but eventually, by their own hand. The ACT or West Sydney, or North Queensland.

I think a team will eventually find a home in Tasmania, southern Tasmania, Hobart by name.anyone care to guess who that team may eventually be???

North = very solid success in the last couple of decades = on their death bed

Tigers = as bad a few decades as you could imagine = still going strong

What and who does North represent these days? Shinboners....the abattoirs are gone from this battling working class suburb that been partially consumed by the stretch of the CBD. No community backbone to it. They won flags with one of the great players of the 20th century...Wayne Carey. No business model to cash in on. Poorly run at times.

The Tigers golden period...5 flags in 13 years (67 to 80). Won heaps of supporters who are the baby boomers and gen Xers with money to continue to follow them. Strong dynamic community background and connection. Since 1980 poorly run and managed. Last six year have been a golden opportunity thrown away.

Obviously winning a flag will help us, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of the matter, we could win several and still end up in the poo like North, or we could prosper despite not getting the ultimate success due to securing our finances in other ways

No its critical for us. We need to more than one for enduring success like Geelong. However we do need a successful business model that means we need more than 40,000 full paying members to think we can prosper. And we need high paying corporate sponsors.

I agree there is definitely an argument that you need $$$ to win a flag these days. Collingwood is the only side that disproves the theory, although the Hawks weren't exactly Bill Gates UNTIL they won it and the wheels fell off the bandwagon. Geelong got their act together quite well, helped mainly by their awesome stadium deal and maybe that was the catalyst for their success. Freo, on the other hand, are as rich as anyone and they have a pathetic record. Tough question.

Collingwood have one flag in 50 years as one of the most financial and largest membership brands. However they have not got it right on the field and in the footy dept and Eddie and Mick will be the longest losing President and Coach. The Hawks have terrific supporter base from their heyday in 71 to 91 ( 8 flags!!!). Their deal at Waverley and Tassie have been winners. Freo were a basket case till Schwab got hold of them. Freo are only now getting their footy department together.

You need money to provide you with the tools to succeed. However you need to be able to assemble the right tools. Geelong did some long term list planning under Thompson and were blessed with the best F/S deal ever. And how can you not have support from such a big community down there.

Yes Geelong are in a very enviable situation, now they have a clean stadium-a whole town of potential members.

I put them in the same basket as the interstate clubs myself.

Our marketing has to be 5 times smarter than those clubs as our slice of the pie is so much narrower.

I don;t think North Melbourne will be around in 10 years. The operating costs will be to high for their membership numbers (at Present between 30-50 million go through each AFL club per annum) That is why i do not think 9 teams can survive in Melbourne Town.

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.

My post was prompted by your suggestion that a Club like North is not sustainable long-term.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'a Club like North', but it's not like no one's interested - their membership figures still rival that of other AFL Clubs (none of which you suggest are unsustainable), and probably surpass most of the other professional sporting Clubs in Australia!

As I pointed out, the billions in AFL income is primarily generated by the Clubs, and yet they receive a relatively small share.

1/16th of net proceeds would make any Club look very 'sustainable'!*

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).

Your conclusions doesn't logically follow from the facts (not even from those you've presented). After seeing the high number of MFC stickers why didn't you think 'gee, we might have a smaller Club but we have supporters keen show their support!'?

I'd say a better reading of the facts as you've presented them can bring us to a conclusion that's quite the opposite, and it's this:

While Melbourne may have a smaller supporter base they have a very committed supporter base.

For evidence supporting the idea that Melbourne has a smaller supporter base, you can refer to Roy Morgan Research surveys, historical crowd/membership numbers and even proclamations from the Club itself.

I don't think this is a highly contentious idea. You might argue that pooling MFC members and MCC-supporting MFC fans gives you quite a large base, but that MFC-supporting MCC base is continually decling ('dying off' might be an apt term).

For evidence supporting the contention that Melbourne does in fact have a committed supporter base, you can refer to the ratio of members versus supporters (as defined by Roy Morgan), statistics that shows MFC fares well on member retention, the fact we're breaking membership records while sitting at the bottom of the ladder, the amazing efforts of Debt Demolition, and even the number of MFC stickers on cars.

It always stikes me as odd that a Melbourne fan, of all people, would perpetrate the myth that we're less committed than supporters of other Clubs. Oh, crowd numbers were less than we might expect because the weather was shocking or we got pummelled the other week? NEWS FLASH: It happens to every sporing club around.

*Sure, I'm being a little flippant - there are various programs at grassroots level and the like that I support the AFL running - but there's ample opportunity to cut the cake so each slice provides Clubs with enough to not only survive, but prosper.

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?

Footy fans who wish for other clubs to merge, relocate or fold are the lowest of the low...

Doesn't surprise me at all to see the author of this thread.

In his usual form, is RR. Coming from a Melbourne supporter.

Wow.

It bemuses me somewhat that JB is shocked and dismayed that that little puppy down the road hasnt re-signed, nor that Hawthorn supporter..or that Essendon supporter...or that footy figure or that other one.

It somehow doesnt surprise me that these folk who think that many members havent re-signed believed all their own hype. The white knights appeared as real as any storybook and the bandwagon members have found other destinations for their sought after cash.

North is a 'little club now. Their era of punching above their weight has moved on. The business acumen that once buoyed North no longer supports them. In short...and I hate to say it as i know many clubs existence is fragile but the Need for a North has passed.

They had their chance and snubbed it... now the ferryman wants his fare.

JB ought not be dismayed that they dont come to sign up now...he ought to ask who or what did in the first place.

Smoke and mirrors JB....and now the mist is clearing

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.

personally I think a merger with Western Sydney is more likely a la Bears and fitzroy. The Bears were a fiasco just as WS look like being (believe me I know l Iive in Sydney). It would also makemuch better sense for the AFL.

North....North Island >>>>> lol... Wonder when Vlad wants to venture across the pond !!

Footy fans who wish for other clubs to merge, relocate or fold are the lowest of the low...

Doesn't surprise me at all to see the author of this thread.

In his usual form, is RR. Coming from a Melbourne supporter.

Wow.

Oh Princess if you actually followed the argument, you would have noted I am not for merging and North may have been better consider other options than staying here given they have spent the previous 5 years try to unsuccessfully prostitute themselves to Canberra and the "second" side in Sydney. But being able to follow a line of argument has not been your strength and providing low content snipes is really where you revel. A victory of ignorance.

My post was prompted by your suggestion that a Club like North is not sustainable long-term.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'a Club like North', but it's not like no one's interested - their membership figures still rival that of other AFL Clubs (none of which you suggest are unsustainable), and probably surpass most of the other professional sporting Clubs in Australia!

As I pointed out, the billions in AFL income is primarily generated by the Clubs, and yet they receive a relatively small share.

1/16th of net proceeds would make any Club look very 'sustainable'!*

Any income they receive from the AFL is at the behest and standards of the AFL. Aside from that money, North generate a lower proportion of other revenue. As the costs of running a football club are increasing and richer competitors are continually raising the bar, low profile and low membership clubs are going to struggle to meet and compete on those standards.

North's membership has been overstated in recent years by the emotive can rattle and threat of moving. Its reverting to mean and trail other Clubs who know that they need to continually raise the bar on membership. North has little or no profile in the media, no real community representation. There home games are poorly attended and that has been when they were seriously challenging in the top 8 for a number of years.

While the AFL want 16 to 18 teams, NM can rely on the AFL split of the TV rights. But North know that if they are going to do more than make up the numbers they have to increase membership, profile and interest in the brand. I think they will struggle to break out of the financial hole they are in.

Your conclusions doesn't logically follow from the facts (not even from those you've presented). After seeing the high number of MFC stickers why didn't you think 'gee, we might have a smaller Club but we have supporters keen show their support!'?

I'd say a better reading of the facts as you've presented them can bring us to a conclusion that's quite the opposite, and it's this:

While Melbourne may have a smaller supporter base they have a very committed supporter base.

For evidence supporting the idea that Melbourne has a smaller supporter base, you can refer to Roy Morgan Research surveys, historical crowd/membership numbers and even proclamations from the Club itself.

I don't think this is a highly contentious idea. You might argue that pooling MFC members and MCC-supporting MFC fans gives you quite a large base, but that MFC-supporting MCC base is continually decling ('dying off' might be an apt term).

I suspect part of what you say is correct, and there's maybe another part to the story.

I don't doubt that MFC has a relatively small but very committed band of supporters, most of whom are MFC members or MCC members (those numbers are available from MCC and it's not insignificant and I'm not sure there's support for your contention that it's continually declining, but the data would be available). You can observe a pleasingly large number of young MCC members who support the Dees, every game at the 'G. Then there's some supporters, still committed to going to games, but not members of either.

I agree with all that. The commitment is impressive.

Then there's the other side to the story that I think some of us observe. I guess I know close to 100 friends and work colleagues who would call themselves "Melbourne supporters". Maybe a handful of them are MFC or MCC members (5 or 6 come to mind). The rest might go to 1 or 2 games each year, or none.

How did Roy Morgan conduct their statistics, and where are they available? I know many of my contacts are not from traditional football-supporting groups within the community, even from groups who eshew an interest in football, so my observations may be atypical. Some new arrivals support us because we are the MELBOURNE football club, as they start to take their first interest in footy and our culture.

One thing that maybe supports your argument regarding the little stickers is if you've got one, you've had some involvement with the club or its merchandising. In which case, we're quite a force out here in the NE deep in enemy territory!

*Sure, I'm being a little flippant - there are various programs at grassroots level and the like that I support the AFL running - but there's ample opportunity to cut the cake so each slice provides Clubs with enough to not only survive, but prosper.

Agree.

Membership numbers can be deceptive. Hawthorn carry on about having the most members, but many of them are 4 game Tassie memberships that don't contribute much revenue. If you think that North will struggle and should have moved because they have the lowest number of members, consider this information from 2009 season. OF Victorian clubs, Melbourne had the lowest revenie from membership. Hawthorn have only the fourth best membership income (possibly 5th, Richmond undisclosed). Many other things need to be taken into account when assessing the viability of a club, such as sponsorship, expenditure and other revenue, but interesting figures below. Full article is at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-financial-premiership-stakes/story-e6freck3-1225815392261

Club Membership Revenue

COLLINGWOOD

Membership income: $9.58 million

GEELONG

Membership income: $9.41 million

CARLTON

Membership income: $7.65 million

HAWTHORN

Membership income: $7.3 million

ESSENDON

Membership income: $6.4 million

WESTERN BULLDOGS

Membership income: $4.84 million

NORTH MELBOURNE

Membership income: $4.65 million

MELBOURNE

Membership income: $4.2 million

RICHMOND

Membership income: undisclosed

Membership Income is only part of the story but your information is interesting nevertheless. The membership mix is important. Membership numbers can be deceptive particularly if MFC members are MCC Members than pay a token $40 membership.

You need 4 of those members to make the same financial contribution as one normal footy club member. In some ways the MCC is both a godsend and a shackle to MFC.

A club needs to look at all forms of revenue, membership, sponsorship, other trading activites and AFL sourced.

And my comments on North in no way insinuate that MFC isnt one. It is. However I think its opportunities to succeed are slightly rosier than NM and that when they had the chance NM should have seriously contemplate the move given they spent 5 or 6 fruitless years trying to get a leg in ACT/NSW.

However the disposition of NM does not necessarily make it better for MFC. In fact if both manage the future poorly then both will not survive.

Membership Income is only part of the story but your information is interesting nevertheless. The membership mix is important. Membership numbers can be deceptive particularly if MFC members are MCC Members than pay a token $40 membership.

You need 4 of those members to make the same financial contribution as one normal footy club member. In some ways the MCC is both a godsend and a shackle to MFC.

A club needs to look at all forms of revenue, membership, sponsorship, other trading activites and AFL sourced.

Agree, and that's why I wrote something similar earlier.

Just wanted to add some interesting information to the discussion.

Membership Income is only part of the story but your information is interesting nevertheless. The membership mix is important. Membership numbers can be deceptive particularly if MFC members are MCC Members than pay a token $40 membership.

You need 4 of those members to make the same financial contribution as one normal footy club member. In some ways the MCC is both a godsend and a shackle to MFC.

A club needs to look at all forms of revenue, membership, sponsorship, other trading activites and AFL sourced.

And my comments on North in no way insinuate that MFC isnt one. It is. However I think its opportunities to succeed are slightly rosier than NM and that when they had the chance NM should have seriously contemplate the move given they spent 5 or 6 fruitless years trying to get a leg in ACT/NSW.

However the disposition of NM does not necessarily make it better for MFC. In fact if both manage the future poorly then both will not survive.

Rhino, I think you have pretty much summed it up there! We and all the AFL community knows that a lot of MFC supporters are MCC members. It is nothing new. As you have rightly pointed out, a $40.00 membership from an MCC member does not add much to the income we derive from our members. This is one of our major problems.

However, we do know that the MCC tip in, I think about $1mil, a year in support money to the MFC. I ask this of you and others, is it time that the MFC stood up to the MCC and said "right, for every MFC/MCC memeber we sign, you guys will tip in the difference towards a full membership". In other words..So in other words. Say we have 10,000 MCC/MFC members (would love it if someone knew the figure exact) at a cost of $40.00. The full 16 game membership is $285.00. The difference then, between the two option is $245.00. Therefore based on 10,000 members that support the MFC who are MCC members you owe us 2,450,000. As you already give us $1mil we will accept the extra $1.45mil

Anyone think they will buy it? I am not sure ahha. But if they are serious about being realigned with us, it seems reasonable.

Demographically speaking, there are 3 clubs that are well placed to leverage Melbourne's projected population growth over the next 20 years.

Bulldogs, North, and Melbourne.

The key here is tapping into those who don't have a previous affiliation with a club, immigrants, which also happen to be the big driver behind our population growth. Strong population growth is projected for areas that could identify itself as "North Melbourne". To 2026 roughly 170,000 people.

They'll have to hold on for a long time but if they can do that and successfully tap into the growth they might be able to pull themselves out (speaking in the very long term here).

By comparison, the dogs, if smart about it could become a much larger club, the growth there is expected to be 216,000 in 16 years, a large portion of which will be immigration. Melbourne's targeted area Casey/Cardinia is projected to grow by 180,000.

Demographically speaking, there are 3 clubs that are well placed to leverage Melbourne's projected population growth over the next 20 years.

Bulldogs, North, and Melbourne.

The key here is tapping into those who don't have a previous affiliation with a club, immigrants, which also happen to be the big driver behind our population growth. Strong population growth is projected for areas that could identify itself as "North Melbourne". To 2026 roughly 170,000 people.

They'll have to hold on for a long time but if they can do that and successfully tap into the growth they might be able to pull themselves out (speaking in the very long term here).

By comparison, the dogs, if smart about it could become a much larger club, the growth there is expected to be 216,000 in 16 years, a large portion of which will be immigration. Melbourne's targeted area Casey/Cardinia is projected to grow by 180,000.

I am glad you said 2026 because it will take at least a generation for that to have any impact. And that population growth could as easily follow some of the more high profile successful clubs as they could North Melbourne if indeed at all. Any chance they may prefer the world game? Its all big ifs and a pipe dream and some of those clubs mentioned might not survive in their present form to see the fruits if any.

Anyone think they will buy it? I am not sure ahha. But if they are serious about being realigned with us, it seems reasonable.

We need to be careful Balls.

We need them more than they need us. I cant see them tipping any more into us than they do at present

We need to be careful Balls.

We need them more than they need us. I cant see them tipping any more into us than they do at present

Definately understand that Rhino. But I guess what we have to say to them is "Look, this is how many MFC/MCC members we got. There are probably 4,000 more who don't get MFC membership, these people fill out the MCC area week in week out. Forget the fact there is only 23,000 at a game, because 16,000 are siting in the MCC or Northern stand which is operated by the MCC and its people. All revenue from those areas is directly yours. Unlike Southern Stand and AFL members etc etc."

The value for them is having their area packed at every Dee's game. As soon as we string a few wins together that area will be pumpin'.

One last thing I will add. Perhaps we roll the dice. And say, provided we have the numbers in our favour, you can withdraw all funding you provide and in it's place pay the difference on every MFC/MCC membership provided. That way we still generate more revunue than at presnt???

Edited April 16, 201015 yr by Balls_Grinter_14

Are there any overheads for a membership?

Does the club have to pay for the seat they provide in a membership?

I assume no and that the club is allocated a large amount of seating and then it is up to them to sell that seating as memberships.

That is quite a shortfall for the club, but I'm not sure in all good consience the club could ask for much more money from an MCC member when it is essentially a donation.

The MFC members being diluted in the MCC over time will be a good thing for the club, I think.

I wonder if it currently creates a segregation amongst the supporters?

I know that for me trying to attend the game with non-MFC mates is a hassle and I often just offer them my MCC guest card, which I guess deprives the club of money.

I don't doubt that MFC has a relatively small but very committed band of supporters

I thought you were making the opposite assertion...

...most of whom are MFC members or MCC members (those numbers are available from MCC and it's not insignificant and I'm not sure there's support for your contention that it's continually declining, but the data would be available).

The MCC stats are what I'm basing that contention on. I think I've heard Schwab use these stats to make a similar point to the one I made.

As you say, you can probably check these yourself on the MCC site

How did Roy Morgan conduct their statistics, and where are they available?

The Herald Sun tends to publish some results of what seems to be an annual or bi-annual survey.

I don't have time to find the links, but [unsurprisingly] check out Roy Morgan's website if you're interested in Roy Morgan research

Then there's the other side to the story that I think some of us observe. I guess I know close to 100 friends and work colleagues who would call themselves "Melbourne supporters". Maybe a handful of them are MFC or MCC members (5 or 6 come to mind). The rest might go to 1 or 2 games each year, or none.

More than 100 friends/work colleagues who are Melbourne supporters? Given that there are another 15 teams plus people who don't like footy (I know!) you have LOTS of friends and work colleagues. Phew!

Anyway, your point doesn't really mean terribly much unless you're suggesting that there are not large numbers of people in the community who 'have a team' but don't go to games much or actively support their Club or check out some of the research that's been done.

I don't think anyone would make that point, but it's certainly one out of the box. You only need to compare TV numbers with membership figures and gate takings versus the numbers of supporters as quoted in the various polls.

I know many of my contacts are not from traditional football-supporting groups within the community, even from groups who eshew an interest in football, so my observations may be atypical. Some new arrivals support us because we are the MELBOURNE football club, as they start to take their first interest in footy and our culture.

Sadly, the fact that we're the 'Melbourne' football club should see people who don't have terribly much interested/knowledge of the sport pop us down as their 'team' over other Melb metro teams, leading to a somewhat inflated idea of our supporter base. On a more positive note, hopefully we can leverage this to increase our supporter base.

The MFC members being diluted in the MCC over time will be a good thing for the club, I think.

I wonder if it currently creates a segregation amongst the supporters?

I think it will be a bad thing. I feel we're better off if the MCC has a significant number of Melbourne supporters - we can then more easily appeal to the MCC for assistance. The MCC has a greater interest in tipping in - as they're doing now - if there are more, say, Collingwood supporters.

Furthermore, the make-up of the Board might alter to reflect those interests, but at the moment there are a number of MFC supporters afaik.

I think you've side-stepped my argument, which essentially boils down to this:

First, that the AFL has significant revenue.

Second, that the AFL primarily generates revenue based on the 16 (atm) professional teams.

Third, that the Clubs are entitled to a reasonable slice of the cake.

Fourth, that this slice would be large enough to not only sustain a Club, but allow it to prosper.

Given the AFL's sitting on so much coin, it's interesting that there isn't more debate about how the money is used.

I think you've side-stepped my argument, which essentially boils down to this:

First, that the AFL has significant revenue.

Second, that the AFL primarily generates revenue based on the 16 (atm) professional teams.

Third, that the Clubs are entitled to a reasonable slice of the cake.

Fourth, that this slice would be large enough to not only sustain a Club, but allow it to prosper.

Given the AFL's sitting on so much coin, it's interesting that there isn't more debate about how the money is used.

Glad I missed out on the rath of Rogue..shhheeessh!!

What do you reckon of the idea to have MCC give us a proportianate amount based on our MFC/MCC memberships mate? Any comment?