Selling home games to Darwin

[Adzman 2,154]

We need the cash. If it means the club survives, keep selling games to Darwin.

[Nasher 33,607]

UMM, let's see? Smallest supporter base in the league, Lowest Auskick Numbers in the league, Oldest membership in the league. 2 new clubs to compete for the dollar with. That should do it - Off to Darwin we go!!!

Thank you for ignoring my point completely and waffling on about crap I already knew. I feel much wiser now.

I'm not against playing in Darwin in general, but there needs to be a bit more sense put around when it happens. I like Jacey's suggestion of putting that fixture directly before the mid-season break (or a bye in next year's fixture). That solves the crux of the issue in my eyes.

[Guest Thomo]

The Weather in Darwin is normally cooler and less humid this time of year. All the papers, T.V, locals were talking about how they could not believe the weather. The trip will not normally be this taxing on players, it was bad luck.

Anybody who attended to the game would not be asking this question. Awesome trip. I'm sure everything that they experienced travelling to Darwin the will enhance the team culture, and have long team benefits. For a young team to play in those conditions and fight for a one point win will build confidence and character.

[hoopla 418]

Theres a lot of emotional value about this( these) games but scrutinies from a cold hard reality have we really gone there firstly for the money then set about justifying it with all the wrappings ?? Would we have even gone there at all had we been more financial ?

I think this needs some more consideration going forward

This has been an excellent discussion ( thanks R&B&T for raising the question) . Many good points both ways.

I fully support the initiative in our current circumstances - but whether or not we continue depends upon the fixture. I think I have heard DB say that in future we will ask that the game precede the mid-season break.If the AFL agrees to this then the benefits must surely outweigh the costs.

It is interesting that we only have our "toe in the water" - with an agreement to play 2 yrs in every 3.There is an argument to say that if you are going to do it then you should do it properly. Do we want to build a strong base there - or are we really just helping Port consolidate its presence? It would seem to make more sense to do it before the break every year.

Edited May 28, 2010 by hoopla

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

That makes it even less of a 'home ground' advantage for us.

It also gives us even less of a foothold in Darwin, relative to the other four sides involved.

While we'll be playing two games there every three years, so will Richmond and the WB.

Trumping us all, Port will be playing six games in the next three years, triple the amount we are.

Apparently there will also be two games per year for 2013 and 2014, but who plays there is still up in the air.

If we're coming into a premiership 'window' then, we might be happy to give Darwin a miss.

Agree.

All the PR hoopla and match payments aside, I would not be wanting to have to do a road trip like that again if we were in finals mode.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

^ This reason is what makes the OP a very good question IMO. By all reports, that game was an absolute killer, and it was 100% due to the weather, which was a typical evening in Darwin in May.

As I understand it, they don't even play footy in Darwin until the wet season, which is our summer. That tells me that the Darwinians don't think this time of year is the best time of year to play footy there, so why do AFL clubs think it's a good idea?

the Darwin season only finishes just before the AFL season starts, in fact we should be playing in Darwin in mid June or anytime in July, i am from Darwin, and in June July the humidity is much less, and the nights are about 10 degrees cooler in June July, then they are the wet season, but the weather is changing, usually may is a lot cooler then it is at the moment. SO you don't really know anything about the weather, its cooler in dry season and hotter and more humid in wet season. iF we played in july it would not have been high humidity,it would have been 40% humidity and it would have been aroud 20 to 25 degrees, instead of 90% humidity and 30 degrees.

I dont know why this has not been told to the AFL, it would make senes to play in july

[Nasher 33,607]

SO you don't really know anything about the weather

No doubt - I'm from the other end of the country and I've never been to Darwin. My post was just based on my understanding, which was obviously incorrect. Do you know why they play footy there during the eastern summer then? I had always assumed it was because that was when the weather was more favourable, but that doesn't sound like it's the case at all.

iF we played in july it would not have been high humidity,it would have been 40% humidity and it would have been aroud 20 to 25 degrees, instead of 90% humidity and 30 degrees. I dont know why this has not been told to the AFL, it would make senes to play in july

In that case, the point that the timing could be better stands. Either way, I don't like that our players are being subjected to such brutal conditions. In 'development' years it doesn't matter so much, but if we were a premiership contender then that's a significant disadvantage IMO.

[the fork 357]

The Weather in Darwin is normally cooler and less humid this time of year. All the papers, T.V, locals were talking about how they could not believe the weather. The trip will not normally be this taxing on players, it was bad luck.

Anybody who attended to the game would not be asking this question. Awesome trip. I'm sure everything that they experienced travelling to Darwin the will enhance the team culture, and have long team benefits. For a young team to play in those conditions and fight for a one point win will build confidence and character.

Agree Thomo. Anyone who was at the game would agree it was a fantastic thing for the club. We were in the paper and on the TV everyday we were up here, with the clubs NT connections being spruced at every opportunity. It was massive PR, for however , a very small population, but I would argue, a very important population. With the current team, we have an opportunity to get a foot in in the NT like never before, the new Essendon if you like. Those at the game would have seen Tiwi mob covered from head to toe in Demons gear, screaming their lungs out with the rest of us. Being on the boundary and seeing the players having their photos taken with local mob was special. For the supporters and the players as well.

I agree the game was every taxing on the players however it was freakish weather, not normal for this time of year. As has been discussed if the timing of the game could be modified there would be no issue, the plusses would far outweigh the negatives.

For the record the Dry is the best time of year to play footy. The season up in Darwin runs during the wet to accommodate players from southern leagues who play, which the competition relies on. Also impossible to play cricket during the wet, if it wasn't played during the Dry it wouldn't exist.

[Inner Demon 1]

Selling home games is just another bi-product of the inequalities that exist in the competition deliberately created by the AFL.

You can put as much spin on it as you like but the reality is we wouldn't be doing it if we weren't forced to.

There is not one single advantage we gain from it other than a bit of cash.

I think it stinks.

Do you really believe the AFL "deliberately create" a situation where Collingwood, Essendon, etc attract more players to games and higher numbers of supporters?? Wake up.

The question put forward by this thread is indeed, a very sensible and thought provoking one. The realistic among us realise the benefits from a club-building and cultural standpoint in continuing our work in Darwin. However, given the reports we've been hearing about the difficulty in recovering from the ordeal of playing up there, it is a serious question as to whether when Premierships are on the line, we ought to be putting the players through it.

It's the kind of question you'd love to ask both Dean Bailey & Cameron Schwab at the same time.

[Sir Why You Little 36,971]

Do you really believe the AFL "deliberately create" a situation where Collingwood, Essendon, etc attract more players to games and higher numbers of supporters?? Wake up.

The question put forward by this thread is indeed, a very sensible and thought provoking one. The realistic among us realise the benefits from a club-building and cultural standpoint in continuing our work in Darwin. However, given the reports we've been hearing about the difficulty in recovering from the ordeal of playing up there, it is a serious question as to whether when Premierships are on the line, we ought to be putting the players through it.

It's the kind of question you'd love to ask both Dean Bailey & Cameron Schwab at the same time.

Until the Casey Business plan is in full swing we need Darwin as the 2nd tier. Don't forget the Club still has a large debt to pay which includes monthly interest payments that equate to money gone.

Yes the fixture needs to coincide with the Pre season break, so that both competing sides have time to recover.

But the Concept of MFC being part of Darwin is great-They LOVE Aussie Rules up there so it can only be beneficial.

But yes the Timing of the game is crucial.

[Rogue 585]

One, how much 'market value' is there in Darwin, and how are we placed to get it? What's the population and what can be converted into money for us? How many people can we win over? Is playing there much less than Port, and the same amount as Richmond and the WB, leaving us well placed to tap into that market?

Two, how important is that revenue/access to Darwin worth? Can other revenue make up for the $500K (plus whatever else you think we're gaining) we get for putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage on-field (Port will play there much more often, despite us being the 'home' team, and there are significant impacts on the players)?

How do you weigh the two? Is trying to gain a foothold in Darwin (and note that two other teams are playing there as much, while one is playing there triple the amount) worth more than giving ourselves the best shot at a flag?

PS. All those advocating that the problem's solved by having the game before the break seem to be ignoring two things. First, there's another game in Darwin that I assume would like the same rest, wouldn't they? Second, that's not the only competitive disadvantage - we're also losing a real home ground advantage to play Port at a ground they'll play much more than us.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Do you know why they play footy there during the eastern summer then? I had always assumed it was because that was when the weather was more favourable, but that doesn't sound like it's the case at all.

There really isn't a good time to play footy there but it would be a waste of time playing cricket up there over Christmas. Maybe during the wet the grounds are not as hard and at least you have a very good chance that the rain would come and cool you down for 5 minutes.

[Roost It 1,434]

Thank you for ignoring my point completely and waffling on about crap I already knew. I feel much wiser now.

I'm not against playing in Darwin in general, but there needs to be a bit more sense put around when it happens. I like Jacey's suggestion of putting that fixture directly before the mid-season break (or a bye in next year's fixture). That solves the crux of the issue in my eyes.

Fair point, I was having a waffle. Playing the game prior to the Mid season break will probably make to much sense for the AFL but you can only hope. Games such as this are going to be necessary for this club for the foreseeable future. Playing Port at the MCG in front of 25,000 just won't cut it, of course you already know this!

Edited May 28, 2010 by Roost It

[GRUN DEE 69]

We need to play 2 regular season games and 1 pre-season game there per year.

One of those games definitly has to be before the split round. The other I think should be early in the season. Round 3 or 4! Or even Round 2! Both games need to be agianst interstate teams. Port + other. Maybe GC or GWS! Freo would be my pick.

[1858 285]

Our contingency for Darwin games has to be absolutely spot on in future. There are both pros and cons of playing up in Darwin so I won't get into that debate but our recovery is critical.

Firstly I agree with others who mention playing before the split round, that is common sense and I think the club got a bit of an eye opener up there (despite the weather being unseasonal for May).

Secondly. although we move into OP soon, our immediate recovery program before coming back to Melbourne is just as important, in light of this I am curious as to what standard of recovery facilities the players had up at TIO and after the game. All the PR work that the players do before and after game day is great but it is also taxing (I would imagine). The players come first. If the club has an optimal contingency in place then I am happy atm with the Darwin games and the benefits they bring although I am conservative about measuring the impact the club will make (in my view Port are a big winner out of all of this and potentially steal some of our market). I suspect though that the way we go about it next time may be a little different.

Down the track when we are pushing for finals I must admit I may not feel as positive about playing in Darwin (similar to some others).

On another note, I will obviously watch the Dees this week but I'll make a special effort to watch the Port game as well. I'm curious to see if there is any obvious difference in the way the teams have recovered fitness wise. Obviously Port play the cellar dwellers at home and we play one of the best teams ever away so I won't be going by the game results, just the movement of the players.

[H_T 3,043]

On another note, I will obviously watch the Dees this week but I'll make a special effort to watch the Port game as well. I'm curious to see if there is any obvious difference in the way the teams have recovered fitness wise. Obviously Port play the cellar dwellers at home and we play one of the best teams ever away so I won't be going by the game results, just the movement of the players.

Am interested in seeing how Port go.

I heard that out of the 4 games they've played in Darwin (before the Melbourne game), they have lost the next week.

Will be interesting to see how the Demons go against the best. Rain is forecast for most of the day. Tough day at the office.

[Timmuns 16]

Just with regards to the weather in Darwin...

Like most of the people who obviously live up there and know the weather have said, I think playing in the evening in the dry season would make a huge difference. (compared to this one instance where the dry hasn't come through yet)

I have been up there in July last year and June the year before (well and truly into the dry season) and the weather at night was perfect, no different to a game you'd play early season in Melbourne where its still mid 20s coming out of Summer/Early Autumn...

We were just unlucky with the way the weather turned out this year, usually the dry is in full swing by now and I can say, once the dry season comes, it stays VERY, VERY consistent - low humidity, no rain, perfect evenings.

Just a bit of bad luck in the end really...

[Guest fatty]

Do you really believe the AFL "deliberately create" a situation where Collingwood, Essendon, etc attract more players to games and higher numbers of supporters??.

Yes I do. It means more revenue for the AFL.

MFC are a second-tier club. Its why we never get Fri/Sat night games and why we're never on free-to-air.

Its also why we went to Darwin to play in sweltering heat.

I think you should wake up.

[Inner Demon 1]

Yes I do. It means more revenue for the AFL.

MFC are a second-tier club. Its why we never get Fri/Sat night games and why we're never on free-to-air.

Its also why we went to Darwin to play in sweltering heat.

I think you should wake up.

You're confused about cause and effect. The AFL didn't give the top clubs more supporters, those clubs earned them one way or another. From there it is a market system, there is greater demand for more popular clubs on free to air, so that who the networks choose to broadcast. If Melbourne had 50,000 members and drew that number to each game then we would get the plum time slots. But we don't.

[Rogue 585]

You're confused about cause and effect. The AFL didn't give the top clubs more supporters, those clubs earned them one way or another. From there it is a market system, there is greater demand for more popular clubs on free to air, so that who the networks choose to broadcast. If Melbourne had 50,000 members and drew that number to each game then we would get the plum time slots. But we don't.

You're right in that the AFL didn't create the inequalities - there wasn't even an 'AFL' when this occurred.

However, the AFL's policy creates a vicious cycle whereby the rich get richer, and the poor need to do far better than the rich just to get even.

It's akin to determining income based on wealth.

[Guest DeesPower]

You're right in that the AFL didn't create the inequalities - there wasn't even an 'AFL' when this occurred.

However, the AFL's policy creates a vicious cycle whereby the rich get richer, and the poor need to do far better than the rich just to get even.

It's akin to determining income based on wealth.

I'd agree if there wasn't the example of hawthorn. They used to be a club with one of the smallest supporter bases and struggling financially (remember the merger??). Today they vie with collingwood for the biggest supporter bases in Victoria and one of the

ost powerful clubs in the land. They made a few right decisions: selling games to the Tasmanian government; relocating to waverley park when it was closed down as a venue; having a politicly powerful and high profile President; and winning a fluke of a premiership.

We are in the process of putting many of these foundations in place and will I predict in 5 years time also top 50k members like hawthorn and collingwood.

[Rogue 585]

So, six out of six losses in the week after playing a match at Darwin.

The sample's too small to draw any conclusions from the stats alone, but put the results together with the theory that playing at Darwin's going to take a heavy toll and you've got a reasonable argument for hoping you're not playing games there when you care about winning.

I'd agree if there wasn't the example of hawthorn. They used to be a club with one of the smallest supporter bases and struggling financially (remember the merger??). Today they vie with collingwood for the biggest supporter bases in Victoria and one of the

ost powerful clubs in the land. They made a few right decisions: selling games to the Tasmanian government; relocating to waverley park when it was closed down as a venue; having a politicly powerful and high profile President; and winning a fluke of a premiership.

We are in the process of putting many of these foundations in place and will I predict in 5 years time also top 50k members like hawthorn and collingwood.

I'll be honest and say I don't know a great deal about the off-field history of Hawthorn, and how they found themselves in merger talks in '96.

However, even if I agreed Hawthorn was an exception it wouldn't invalidate my point

As an aside, it's a little late to debate the idea that they're one of the most powerful clubs in the land right now but I'm sure someone will challenge this assertion before I get back to this thread.

I'm thinking they might challenge this idea on a number of fronts, including the accuracy of the membership numbers, the breakdown of those members by membership type, and that even the idea they're one of the most powerful clubs in Victoria, let alone in the competition (perhaps citing the membership waiting lists at some of the interstate sides with [relatively] small home grounds).

[Guest fatty]

You're confused about cause and effect.

The only thing that confuses me is how people continue to buy the argument that we have no right to the same free to air coverage as other clubs.

But don't feel bad. Most people also think like you and believe that we have to suck it up because its okay for the AFL to make money at the expense of what its real function should be to provide a fair competition with a level playing field for all clubs.

[Inner Demon 1]

Interesting fact: The AFL did not invent the capitalist, market-based system.

More clubs than not have nearly gone broke over the last 20 years, regardless of their on-field successes, some of those clubs are now thought of as "power" clubs and/or are quite wealthy and turning good profits, ie. Hawthorn, Fremantle & Carlton. If it were true that the AFL somehow held down the poorer clubs and created an expanding gulf in wealth inequality then these clubs couldn't possibly have climbed back up. Melbourne is currently treading this path back up, with considerable assistance from the AFL.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'd agree if there wasn't the example of hawthorn. They used to be a club with one of the smallest supporter bases and struggling financially (remember the merger??).

Sorry thats a fallacy.

On the back of their glory years of the 70s and 80s, the Hawks had developed a large supporter base which carries them through today.

The only thing that confuses me is how people continue to buy the argument that we have no right to the same free to air coverage as other clubs.

But don't feel bad. Most people also think like you and believe that we have to suck it up because its okay for the AFL to make money at the expense of what its real function should be to provide a fair competition with a level playing field for all clubs.

He is right you are confused about cause and effect.

And you dont undertand the objective of the AFL. Its not the self serving "level playing field" dogma you're fantasizing above.