as i said earlier today. We pick up crumbs others do not want.

Only the battlers go up North.

exactly. dont see carlton or collingwood chasing 160 members in remote areas. good on the club for giving it a crack and lets hope we can gain some revenue from the NT government but to think this is going to be a gold mine for us is delusional. its the kids in the melbourne and victorian schools that is our gold mine. right now id say the poor kid with the demons scarf is getting bashed behind the bike sheds but lets hope some sustained success on field is around the corner. if a bit of revenue from the NT comes our way then great.

Just to be a pedant, DC, the scum in 2000 (not that I blame anyone here for forgetting that ) To get really nit-picky, St Kilda went within a certain part of a bee's anatomy in 2009, and 2010, but maybe that just proves the curse ..

You're right R&B i'd completely blocked 2000 out of my consciousness and i don't thank you for reminding me

It's one game! Who the f___ is going to buy a 3 game membership for $70 when they see only one game and the other games are 1000's of kms away?

This mug.

Except I have to travel to see that one game anyway.

This mug.

Except I have to travel to see that one game anyway.

I should have phrased that better...

Melbourne Supporters will buy a membership even if they are in Darwin and can only see one game.

But neutral supporters, or supporters we hope to turn, want better value for money. In Canberra - there are a few thousand GWS 'members' who only became members because for $80 they get 4 games of footy.

And 1858 - I realise that they effort in attracting members in Darwin is a multi-faceted strategy that is not just about how many games you can get to, but that point is moot because we are obviously not in Darwin to get 1000 $70 memberships (a huge windfall of $70k...times that number by 4 or 5 and that is all the money NM is getting from their Tassie members) - we are there for the $1m+ payday of bringing footy to Darwin.

Frankly I see our big latent market in the millions who hate Collingwood with a passion. Surely they should then be logically convinced fervent MFC supporters as we are the traditional rivals form the 1950s-early 1960s and the only Club that had their measure.

Frankly I see our big latent market in the millions who hate Collingwood with a passion. Surely they should then be logically convinced fervent MFC supporters as we are the traditional rivals form the 1950s-early 1960s and the only Club that had their measure.

You cant live in the past forever, its time for new rivals, i remember reading West Coast when they first started considered us to be there rivals, they loved beating us, unfortunately they kept winning, so that burnt out after about 1994.

And 1858 - I realise that they effort in attracting members in Darwin is a multi-faceted strategy that is not just about how many games you can get to, but that point is moot because we are obviously not in Darwin to get 1000 $70 memberships (a huge windfall of $70k...times that number by 4 or 5 and that is all the money NM is getting from their Tassie members) - we are there for the $1m+ payday of bringing footy to Darwin.

We have a partnership with the NT Government, it's why we're there. Membership has no bearing on the success of that deal - most of us realise that. It don't agree that it automatically makes membership in that part of the world moot though. Membership on a national level is something we need to constantly strive to harness. My point is more about opportunity (something you grab) but admittedly it isn't a major arguing point.

My original use of "appalling" was an over-reaction though, just a bit surprised at the time.

I must confess other than a training local with a difference I really am at a loss as to why we bother with the NT . The potential is so very limited.

Just for comparisons.. NT pop qtr million.. Tassie over Half million.

DArwin a bit over 125,000 Hobart over 200000.

I wont even bother about demographics or pop densities but I just cant see what in the world the club really expects to achieve with aligning with the such a place, so far away.

Im not, and never have been much of a fan of this. All i see is the selling of a few games. Please dont try to sway me on any other reason or potential.

The City of Casey alone has more people than the NT. it makes far more sense to this little black duck to put monies and efforts into a MELBOURNE location in order to build a support for a team called MELBOURNE. . The opportunities and ability and physical feasibilities of creating a relationship with a young and growing population are inherently more logical there than up in NT.

Weve been over this many many times. There are a number of camps re thinkings..

Quite simply the easiest and most sensible way of increasing supporters and hence members is to simply win. None wants to associate with a loser no matter where they are.

On the subject of of following.. its not that hard to figure out. One of the lowest supporter bases would equate directly to one of the least successful clubs of modern times. Does it really need to be spelled out much more. Win...people come. its not hard. Who would jump aboard a train going nowhere ?

I must confess other than a training local with a difference I really am at a loss as to why we bother with the NT . The potential is so very limited.

Just for comparisons.. NT pop qtr million.. Tassie over Half million.

DArwin a bit over 125,000 Hobart over 200000.

I wont even bother about demographics or pop densities but I just cant see what in the world the club really expects to achieve with aligning with the such a place, so far away.

Im not, and never have been much of a fan of this. All i see is the selling of a few games. Please dont try to sway me on any other reason or potential.

The City of Casey alone has more people than the NT. it makes far more sense to this little black duck to put monies and efforts into a MELBOURNE location in order to build a support for a team called MELBOURNE. . The opportunities and ability and physical feasibilities of creating a relationship with a young and growing population are inherently more logical there than up in NT.

Weve been over this many many times. There are a number of camps re thinkings..

Quite simply the easiest and most sensible way of increasing supporters and hence members is to simply win. None wants to associate with a loser no matter where they are.

On the subject of of following.. its not that hard to figure out. One of the lowest supporter bases would equate directly to one of the least successful clubs of modern times. Does it really need to be spelled out much more. Win...people come. its not hard. Who would jump aboard a train going nowhere ?

Comparing Darwin and the NT unfavourably against Hobart and Tassie on the basis of populations loses credibility when you consider that Darwin is the gateway to hundreds of Millions of Asian neighbours and Hobart is the gateway to Antarctica and a couple of hundred thousand penguins!

Comparing Darwin and the NT unfavourably against Hobart and Tassie on the basis of populations loses credibility when you consider that Darwin is the gateway to hundreds of Millions of Asian neighbours and Hobart is the gateway to Antarctica and a couple of hundred thousand penguins!

sorry what ??

I only used tassie by way of comparison to show the nature of market sizes .

You reference to antartica is folly. Are you suggesting there is no afl market in Tassie. You better go tell Jeff.

Why do you need Nt to access the Asian markets ? Are we looking to import members in containers.?

What is the purpose of thst mention ?

Asia has lots of tellies ! You can play non poibts exhibition /traing games there for more benefit that the couple of hundred members you might gain out of the NT. Total costs per head in the NT would /should prove prohibitive and/or certainly non advantageous.

Darwin will grow in importance from a transport logistics perspective but thats about it. With the total mechanisation of most logistics very few people are actually needed nowadays to do it.

NT is and will be for quite some time a relatively small market for.......anything, except beer !!

In the next 10 years the pop of Casey(environs) will double/triple; depending on whom you believe as well as economy forces.

I would suggest the chances and opportunities of garnering supporters and more importantly PAYING members in Melbourne far outstrips other locales.

sorry what ??

I only used tassie by way of comparison to show the nature of market sizes .

You reference to antartica is folly. Are you suggesting there is no afl market in Tassie. You better go tell Jeff.

Why do you need Nt to access the Asian markets ? Are we looking to import members in containers.?

What is the purpose of thst mention ?

Asia has lots of tellies ! You can play non poibts exhibition /traing games there for more benefit that the couple of hundred members you might gain out of the NT. Total costs per head in the NT would /should prove prohibitive and/or certainly non advantageous.

Darwin will grow in importance from a transport logistics perspective but thats about it. With the total mechanisation of most logistics very few people are actually needed nowadays to do it.

NT is and will be for quite some time a relatively small market for.......anything, except beer !!

In the next 10 years the pop of Casey(environs) will double/triple; depending on whom you believe as well as economy forces.

I would suggest the chances and opportunities of garnering supporters and more importantly PAYING members in Melbourne far outstrips other locales.

Your right BB59

and I think most posters agree on points you raised

We need to concentrate on our strengths while working on our weaknesses

Casey could well be an expanding local market having some team training based there raises the profile and perception of identity within that market

The MFC is the oldest and with perhaps a geographically dispersed membership because of that fact.

We are the team of MELBOURNE the home of the game

Perception will also matter as the game expands to that large regional market. While most will watch on TV a seemingly asian link through the small outpost at Darwin with training and 2 games will showcase a progressive club wiling to build on its reputation as the originator of the game.

As long as it costs little and does return in excess it is a great innovation and we should be encouraging this expansion while regaining our pride and respectfor our past.

OH and winning will certainly help

I think the idea of US marines attending matches as entertainment has definite promise, that we should put energy into.

The troops themselves have a largely disposable income, and the US Navy has deep pockets, and wants their men entertained & out of trouble.

In the end, it's may not lead to memberships, but it'll be handy income.

i have no problem with the money, but don't tell me it's not also about memberships.

I do not buy that. You may be happy, i'm not.

It's not about the memberships, if it was we wouldn't be there it is about the money plain and simple

It's not about me being happy it's about seeing the reason for the move into NT

I think the idea of US marines attending matches as entertainment has definite promise, that we should put energy into.

The troops themselves have a largely disposable income, and the US Navy has deep pockets, and wants their men entertained & out of trouble.

In the end, it's may not lead to memberships, but it'll be handy income.

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!

It's not about the memberships, if it was we wouldn't be there it is about the money plain and simple

It's not about me being happy it's about seeing the reason for the move into NT

i can see the reason for the cash grab as clear as you.

But to only have 160 names on the data base after 4 years i find very poor.

To me both are very important.

Interesting topic, thanks HG for the OP.

Found a couple of articles that will be of interest to most posters;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/demons-open-to-darwin-game-deal/2009/05/27/1243103592913.html

States that the NT government were prepared to offer up to $1.2m a year for any club that wanted to "do a Hawthorn in Tassie", which inclided community programs, sponsorship and playing game/s annually up there. Also had CS indocating that the MFC would prefer an arrangement like that, rather than the cash grab similar to the ACT days and the home games in Brisbane.

So, looking at it from that point of view, the membership numbers aren't as important as getting hold of all of that $1.2m a year that the NT government want to throw an AFL club's way.

But, I can imagine some on here would be thinking that $1.2m a year is only generating an extra $500k on top of the $700k we already get, well...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/darwin-to-host-melbourne-demons-at-marrara-oval/story-e6frf7jo-1225749440840

From the reports in this article, it looks like we only get around $400k a game, which is around what I remembered situations like that to be, so I'm not sure who came up with the $700k amount.

All of a sudden, a 2nd/3rd home game in Darwin has to be on the radar over the coming years, wspecially if we are wanting to get as much of the NT government pie. At least that way, as the like of RPFC has indicated, we can sell 3-game memberships and would probably find that our membership numbers increase significantly in the NT should this be the case.

Anyone going to ask about this subject at the AGM on Wednesday?

Interesting topic, thanks HG for the OP.

Found a couple of articles that will be of interest to most posters;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/demons-open-to-darwin-game-deal/2009/05/27/1243103592913.html

States that the NT government were prepared to offer up to $1.2m a year for any club that wanted to "do a Hawthorn in Tassie", which inclided community programs, sponsorship and playing game/s annually up there. Also had CS indocating that the MFC would prefer an arrangement like that, rather than the cash grab similar to the ACT days and the home games in Brisbane.

So, looking at it from that point of view, the membership numbers aren't as important as getting hold of all of that $1.2m a year that the NT government want to throw an AFL club's way.

But, I can imagine some on here would be thinking that $1.2m a year is only generating an extra $500k on top of the $700k we already get, well...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/darwin-to-host-melbourne-demons-at-marrara-oval/story-e6frf7jo-1225749440840

From the reports in this article, it looks like we only get around $400k a game, which is around what I remembered situations like that to be, so I'm not sure who came up with the $700k amount.

All of a sudden, a 2nd/3rd home game in Darwin has to be on the radar over the coming years, wspecially if we are wanting to get as much of the NT government pie. At least that way, as the like of RPFC has indicated, we can sell 3-game memberships and would probably find that our membership numbers increase significantly in the NT should this be the case.

To sell 3 games a year the club would want at least 1.8 million, otherwise its not worth it unless they find decent sponorship up there.

Anyone going to ask about this subject at the AGM on Wednesday?

It's probably a fair question to raise, given the first article was published back in 2009.

Given that it is obvious we are doing what they (NT govt) wanted "a" club to do, I'd be wanting to know if we have got a 3-5 year plan as to how this will work, especially with an increase in games per season, as well as the Northern Territory "logo" appearing somewhere (similar to the Tasmania one on the HFC).

I always thought this would be a better approach for the Chinese market, ie Tourism China getting some form of sponsorship, rather than targeting individual Asian companies. Carlton did/does it with Malaysia tourism.

To sell 3 games a year the club would want at least 1.8 million, otherwise its not worth it unless they find decent sponorship up there.

Leaving out Queens birthday tell me the games where the MFC makes a profit of $400 000.

To sell 3 games a year the club would want at least 1.8 million, otherwise its not worth it unless they find decent sponorship up there.

Well MJT, if the figures are correct in that we get $400k a game, then $1.8m would make it $1.2m for games played, and $600k for "other" conditions, such as naming on jumpers/shorts. I would expect that we could ask for more, especially if we are "selling" 3 home games, our preseason camp, jumper sponsorship, plus community programs when we are up there. It should be worth >$2.5m per season.

Leaving out Queens birthday tell me the games where the MFC makes a profit of $400 000.

If your going to do it, do it like the Hawks, if they want 3 games a season they can pay top dollar for them, the way i see it is we play 3 games elsewhere a season more people will turn up to the G when we have a home game, thats what happened with the Hawks, there home games attendances increased dramatically.

Anyone going to ask about this subject at the AGM on Wednesday?

Well OD you really stuffed us up again.

Like all AGM's they are orchestrated to avoid the tricky answers.

Now that you've mentioned it on D'Land, they will announce that we will not answer questions about.

1. Cadbury Sponsorship

2. Future games and sponsorship in NT

3. New Training ground at Docklands.

4. What the response was to the AFL re: TANKING.

If your going to do it, do it like the Hawks, if they want 3 games a season they can pay top dollar for them, the way i see it is we play 3 games elsewhere a season more people will turn up to the G when we have a home game, thats what happened with the Hawks, there home games attendances increased dramatically.

So from above I assume we do not make $400K at any games in Victoria.

Yep happy to do 3 a year

Happy to follow the Hawks example

So from above I assume we do not make $400K at any games in Victoria.

Yep happy to do 3 a year

Happy to follow the Hawks example

Who wouldnt want to be financially viable and play finals every season, i would be over the moon to follow the Hawks model.