We will host 3 games in NT next year

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Nah that's wrong - you play 3 from your group of 6 twice , 2 from the middle group and 1 from the top group.

I think you may be right and I'm wrong.

That makes more sense and is a lot fairer commercially.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Did you even read a single word of what I wrote?

I quoted the f**king AFL. Read it again - 'They [teams ranked 13-18, such as Melbourne] will have a minimum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 13-18 and a maximum of three double-meetings of sides 13-18'

FFS.

Settle down it was an honest mistake.

[beelzebub 22,434]

While it is totally not the point (getting in before you B59),

you got that bit right...every bit else was some fanciful trip down Jurrah lane

Some see and understand that in longer terms its folly to sell your soul for short term gain as you dilute your real base to the point of indifference.

The only thing we will all agree on is we have money problems.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

I'd rather a home game in Darwin than Etihad. The former has a strategic and financial benefit. The latter is an insult.

[The Chazz 4,077]

you got that bit right...every bit else was some fanciful trip down Jurrah lane

Some see and understand that in longer terms its folly to sell your soul for short term gain as you dilute your real base to the point of indifference.

The only thing we will all agree on is we have money problems.

Fanciful trip down Jurrah lane?

In a lot of ways I'm critical of the previous admin given that they tried to milk as many royalties as possible from playing Jurrah. These trips by Stynes, Schwab etc to Jurrah's homeland were nothing but a PR exercise. All of a sudden, the NT government saw the "good work" we were doing and stepped in and offered us a few dollars to play a game up there. We saw the dollar signs, which we couldn't knock back at the time, and still can't. We had done a bit in the communities up there, especially when we had a greater number of indigenous players on our list, which made it a lot easier to be accepted. Then, when the shite hit the fan with Jurrah, it would've been easy for the MFC to walk away. The fact that a team, and in this case ours, has taken the time, and given the locals the respect of maintaining the relationship is a big positive for the club, and is giving us the right PR. It's a part of OUR country that loves anything AFL, a number of communities less fortunate than ours, and we are giving something back by playing a couple of games up there a year. In return, we are receiving significant financial benefits from doing so.

You bang on about the short and long term damage to our "real" base by playing home games away. The damage to our "real" base in the past 7 years has been through on and offield performance, not through selling our soul to the NT Government. Simple proof is in the crowd sizes out our "real" home games at the MCG. And no doubt you, like some others, will use the fixturing as an excuse for low crowds for some games. You know what, that's absolute [censored], and actually, as a non-Victorian resident, I find it pissweak that our "real" base use this as an excuse not to attend a game, then in the next breath, they think selling games to the NT is going to have a longterm impact on the club.

Here's the simple solution B59, you don't like us being the NT's [censored]? Well get off your arse and start going to our 4:30pm Sunday arvo games, regardless of our ladder position and opponent. Make sure you pick a few of your front-running mates up on the way to the G. When we start getting 25k-40k to those games, that's when we can walk away from the NT.

From memory, weren't you one that mentioned about playing a game for premiership points in China during our China Experiment days?

[beelzebub 22,434]

Thats right Billy..its about simple solutions inst it. Just take the short terms NT money and all is right. it akin to being given fish or learning to fish. I see noting wrong with the 'odd' game somewhere Be it China , even Darwin for that matter .ts when it being normalised thats thats what we do it becomes a mill stone to anything else. Yo wont get 30-35 at the G if you keep flitting off everywhere else and devaluing the value of Memberships.

There is nothing wrong with doing promo work for either ourselves or the code in remote areas..But not during working thankyou

I'l go to the games I want to ...and /or can but thanks for the advice. It's filed with the rest. The club needs to focus on its performance. That will tweak the eyes of broadcasters and in turn those that schedule things at AFL house. No one likes the graveyard games and dont see why anyone following Melbourne ought to particularly.

You agree that much swings around performance but ignore the effect of a Darwin game . Our performance gain nothing from these.

Billy you dont care if we play up there, I dont like that we do. Yes its about money but I m wanting the club , now it has better people and a better sense of what it ought to be doing to be able to find better solutions than nobbling ourselves for a handout. In reality it isnt a huge payout for the damage it does.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Thats right Billy..its about simple solutions inst it. Just take the short terms NT money and all is right. it akin to being given fish or learning to fish. I see noting wrong with the 'odd' game somewhere Be it China , even Darwin for that matter .ts when it being normalised thats thats what we do it becomes a mill stone to anything else. Yo wont get 30-35 at the G if you keep flitting off everywhere else and devaluing the value of Memberships.

There is nothing wrong with doing promo work for either ourselves or the code in remote areas..But not during working thankyou

I'l go to the games I want to ...and /or can but thanks for the advice. It's filed with the rest. The club needs to focus on its performance. That will tweak the eyes of broadcasters and in turn those that schedule things at AFL house. No one likes the graveyard games and dont see why anyone following Melbourne ought to particularly.

You agree that much swings around performance but ignore the effect of a Darwin game . Our performance gain nothing from these.

Billy you dont care if we play up there, I dont like that we do. Yes its about money but I m wanting the club , now it has better people and a better sense of what it ought to be doing to be able to find better solutions than nobbling ourselves for a handout. In reality it isnt a huge payout for the damage it does.

As I said earlier B59, which you continually ignore (which in turn makes your argument weak) - we play the Melbourne vs Freo game at the MCG on a Sunday twilight instead of the NT, we need some 25,000 crowd to break even. From what PJ mentioned earlier this year, if we have 15,000 turn up to that match (10,000 less than what we need), we lose $100k-$200k. By playing this game in the NT, we are getting over $300k for it - that's nearly 1/2 million $ difference.

Does that make us whores because from a business perspective we are better with $300k in the hand rather than writing off $150k?

I'm not surprised you don't understand the financial and business aspect of it given your history. Clearly out of your depth.

You talk about this crap of giving fish or be taught to fish. We are selling 2 home games. We have 9 other home games that will be played on our turf. 9 games is ample time to be taught how to fish, especially given we will be able to buy the best gear thanks to the NT funding.

[beelzebub 22,434]

What am ignoring Billy do tell.

You seem to ignore much, especially the value to members who have already paid for the games

You are looking at the benefit in a cash handout in isolation and not the big picture Im afraid. Again, and i dont really expect you to understand the hand out isnt THAT big in terms of the total business of the club. We have squandered many times that amount in poor decisions . Maybe we change that, oh hang on..We are.

Theres a saying..its not how you make it , its how you spend it. Its not I out of depth.

In case you are unawares, the league is addressing the imbalance of returns and the effects of gate v deals etc.

[old dee 23,081]

You have my vote billy

[DemonFrog 1,347]

BB you never offered us to go fishing with you!!

:)

[The Chazz 4,077]

What am ignoring Billy do tell.

You seem to ignore much, especially the value to members who have already paid for the games

You are looking at the benefit in a cash handout in isolation and not the big picture Im afraid. Again, and i dont really expect you to understand the hand out isnt THAT big in terms of the total business of the club. We have squandered many times that amount in poor decisions . Maybe we change that, oh hang on..We are.

Theres a saying..its not how you make it , its how you spend it. Its not I out of depth.

In case you are unawares, the league is addressing the imbalance of returns and the effects of gate v deals etc.

So you would rather prostitute yourself to Vlad and hope that your empty bucket is filled by other clubs, than actually doing something proactive so that we hopefully can reduce to reliance of said handouts?

The NT contribution isn't THAT big? I'll give you a tip, it's a bloody sight bigger than playing that same match at the MCG in our current state.

Also, I'm pretty sure that when you buy a membership that the NT game is "reimbursed" with an away game at the MCG. So, you're not really losing any value in your actual membership. Reserved seating price, yes, I acknowledge that it's one less game. But, I'm sure the Club appreciates all memberships.

I know you love your sayings, etc, I'lll give you an old one..."you don't go broke making a profit". Playing all our home games at the MCG and performing poorly WILL NOT make us a profit. I'm happy for you to ignore my views on this, but the fact that you're ignoring Peter Jackson's view on it is laughable.

[beelzebub 22,434]

Billy im not ignoring anything. PJ is being purely expedient , for the now. If he continues this I will think less of his actual vision regarding the MFC. Hes done well to date but i dont think you can suggest a;ll his decision may be perfect. He's acting as a receiver. They often do things differently to a longer visioned servant. time will tell

I doubt anyone would disagree that a lot revolves around bums on seats.. A lot of this goes to the relevant memberships that clubs have. Melbourne's isnt brilliant. indeed it dropped by 10% this year. Continue to play out of town and it wont improve. It becomes a catch 22.

Again we've wasted more money in the past than we gained from any 'away' deals. This is so easily overlooked.

The supposed reimbursement for lost games doesnt always play out the way you think. There are still less games In Melbourne for Melbourne based supporters to go to, doesnt matter how you paint that you dilute the value . thats not your view...it is of a lot of people

[The Chazz 4,077]

Billy im not ignoring anything. PJ is being purely expedient , for the now. If he continues this I will think less of his actual vision regarding the MFC. Hes done well to date but i dont think you can suggest a;ll his decision may be perfect. He's acting as a receiver. They often do things differently to a longer visioned servant. time will tell

I doubt anyone would disagree that a lot revolves around bums on seats.. A lot of this goes to the relevant memberships that clubs have. Melbourne's isnt brilliant. indeed it dropped by 10% this year. Continue to play out of town and it wont improve. It becomes a catch 22.

Again we've wasted more money in the past than we gained from any 'away' deals. This is so easily overlooked.

The supposed reimbursement for lost games doesnt always play out the way you think. There are still less games In Melbourne for Melbourne based supporters to go to, doesnt matter how you paint that you dilute the value . thats not your view...it is of a lot of people

It's a process B59, and one tha tyou want to fast forward to the last step without reaching milestone periods in the journey.

Members ultimately want a premiership. In 2014, we are highly unlikely to achieve that. History shows the premiers will come from the Top 4 at seasons end, again in 2014, we are unlikely to achieve that. For us to be successful, we have had to get the right people in the right roles. We have achieved this, but we have had to pay for it, with money that we don't have. Playing 1 extra home game "away" is going to contribute to the ability to pay our bills. Playing this home game at home is not. We can use relationships like this to help continue fund this new Football Department. In 2014 we will see improvement onfield. It'll be enough to encourage more members the following year, which in turn will see crowds grow in 2015. Ideally, in 2017+ when we may start challenging for that Top 4 spot, then we can look at the impact of a NT home game, especially in the week after the game. Until then, we use this as a source of funding the development of our team. It's a form of sponsorship from the NT.

And again, you continually use this Melbourne-based supporters as your argument for not playing games in the NT. I'm sure a majority of our members would prefer a competitive team (which will come from our new Football Department, again, partially funded by the NT games), over going to watch 11 home games at the MCG getting smashed and showing no sign of improvement (because we can't afford to keep our new Football Department because most games at the MCG cost us money).

Again, your argument is weak when you say less MFC games played in Melbourne for people to go to. FACT - even when we played in Melbourne this year hardly anyone turned up, enough to break even at least. Fickle Melbourne-based Melbourne supporters, most probably like yourself, have themselves to blame for an extra game crossing the border/s. It's locked in for 2014, but you and any of your mates can make a statement for 2015 by attending the 9 home games you have the opportunity to attend.

An excuse is a powerful thing as it is one of not many things that if you look for one, you'll always find one.

[beelzebub 22,434]

oh its my fault Billy... there you go

You push a barrow which suggest its either a competitive team playing elsewhere or a poor performances at the G . You offer it as a gimme, as defacto substance and go on from there.

Performance comes from the quality of staff and the players. We have squandered time and money on many of the wrong ones. They , together with those squandering the money are responsible for our lack of success. Going interstate in itself offers nothing in terms of bettering our playing position or results, just does a bandaid job on cashflow.

My attending or not affects the gate none. Ive already paid. Im a member. Less games in Melbourne factually presents less ability to attend. its a reality you seem happy to overlook.

By your rationale we should therefor play no games in Melbourne , especially at the G as we'd lose less. This is typical of outlook that cant see that the future is to grow the club, better its bottom line, make its brand more profitable and in order to do that then yes, improving your performance is key, and major steps are obviously in gear to do so , but you also need to make a comittment to your customers, your audience your potential members and that is to be relevant to them. you talk of excuses Billy and all you're proffering is another one for people not to attend, not to be interested, not to bother. Yes people are fickle

[The Chazz 4,077]

oh its my fault Billy... there you go

You push a barrow which suggest its either a competitive team playing elsewhere or a poor performances at the G . You offer it as a gimme, as defacto substance and go on from there.

Performance comes from the quality of staff and the players. We have squandered time and money on many of the wrong ones. They , together with those squandering the money are responsible for our lack of success. Going interstate in itself offers nothing in terms of bettering our playing position or results, just does a bandaid job on cashflow.

My attending or not affects the gate none. Ive already paid. Im a member. Less games in Melbourne factually presents less ability to attend. its a reality you seem happy to overlook.

By your rationale we should therefor play no games in Melbourne , especially at the G as we'd lose less. This is typical of outlook that cant see that the future is to grow the club, better its bottom line, make its brand more profitable and in order to do that then yes, improving your performance is key, and major steps are obviously in gear to do so , but you also need to make a comittment to your customers, your audience your potential members and that is to be relevant to them. you talk of excuses Billy and all you're proffering is another one for people not to attend, not to be interested, not to bother. Yes people are fickle

Not many posters, if any, waffle on as much as you.

Your argument for playing games in the NT is that it limits the value of being a member. I've proven this to be [censored] by the fact that you get it reimbursed. It's simple logic yet you claim it isn't all it appears to be. What else is there? The MFC are acknowledging the fact that we are playing 2 home games interstate, so they will recompensate by giving you entry to 2 away games.

You claim playing more games in Melbourne is better for the Melbourne-based fans. Of course it is. However, given that we will end up playing atleast 15 games in Melbourne anyway, whether home or away, I'm sure we are still providing these fans plenty of opportunity to see the team play, which will help continue to maintain/build our brand in our home town. The reason why I'm overlooking this is because the evidence clearly disputes your argument. Want the evidence? Look at our home and away crowd figures from 2013. Even when Melbourne-based memebers and supporters have had the opportunity to attend a game (ie any game that Melbourne plays in Melboune), only few have. So you think the solution is to offer more games for people to potentially not show up at? Smart business move.

You claim that playing more games in Melbourne will grow the club more and improve its bottom line. Hello, what part of Peter Jackson's comments regarding us losing money when we have poor crowds don't you understand? That means that we don't get as much as we budgeted for, which means our debt increases. How can we pay for the development of these players when we have no money? How can we pay for the likes of Paul Roos' Football Department, who will be capable of taking our playing list a lot higher than they currently are, if we are in debt? We need income to fund this development, playing in front of 15,000 at the MCG doesn't provide that.

You claim that the NT "cash grab" is a bandaid. Clearly you are out of your depth again. It's an income stream, something that we need more of. Is it sustainable? I believe it is when you have an agreement in place with the NT government. I'm quite sure PJ will be more than happy over the next 3 years to know that there is $600k coming in from "selling" 2 home games. He'll be a lot happier with the bottom line when that's in the profit column, rather than a $200k loss by playing a game at the MCG. And before you get the chance to put words in to my mouth, something you do where possible, I'm not saying every home game at the MCG costs us money so no, I'm not suggesting we sell all our home games. The NT partnership is more sustainable than the Foundations Heroes fundraisers.

You claim you want commitment from the club for its customers. I think that's a two-way street. But given what the customers have put up with, especially over the past 7 years, I think the Club's end of the agreement needs to start happening first, that is the onfield performance. This is what will sell more memberships and bring more people through the gates.

B59, do us all a favour and go to sleep for the next 3 years. When you wake up, you will notice that we will be playing most, if not all of our hopme games at the MCG, we will have home crowds in the 30,000+ range every game, and our membership will be well over 40,000. If you're not willing to do us that favour, sit back and understand what the club is doing, and how what it IS currently doing IS for the long-term benefit of the club.

[beelzebub 22,434]

Not many posters, if any, waffle on as much as you.

mirror

It's your opinion... and you're not really as clever at this as you think mate.

All games back at G ...because.. well you just argued yourself ina circle. well done

Only for 3 years but not a bandaid..hmm.. I see.. tomato, tomahto !!

go on have the last word. I know others understand it. You plainly dont.

[The Chazz 4,077]

mirror

It's your opinion... and you're not really as clever at this as you think mate.

All games back at G ...because.. well you just argued yourself ina circle. well done

Only for 3 years but not a bandaid..hmm.. I see.. tomato, tomahto !!

go on have the last word. I know others understand it. You plainly dont.

Mirror? Oh dear.

3 years of sustainable income (my opinion) vs a bandaid attempt (your opinion)? And you think I'm the one that's not clever!!!

I'm quite proud how I didn't even bother pulling you up on you questioning Peter Jackson's decision making.

Others understand your view? Yep, they are shouting from the roof in support.

Good day Beelzebub Barrett.

[titan_uranus 22,898]

Billy im not ignoring anything. PJ is being purely expedient , for the now. If he continues this I will think less of his actual vision regarding the MFC. Hes done well to date but i dont think you can suggest a;ll his decision may be perfect. He's acting as a receiver. They often do things differently to a longer visioned servant. time will tell

I doubt anyone would disagree that a lot revolves around bums on seats.. A lot of this goes to the relevant memberships that clubs have. Melbourne's isnt brilliant. indeed it dropped by 10% this year. Continue to play out of town and it wont improve. It becomes a catch 22.

Again we've wasted more money in the past than we gained from any 'away' deals. This is so easily overlooked.

The supposed reimbursement for lost games doesnt always play out the way you think. There are still less games In Melbourne for Melbourne based supporters to go to, doesnt matter how you paint that you dilute the value . thats not your view...it is of a lot of people

Do you have any data to back that up?

I'll hazard a guess and say our 2014 membership will be greater than our 2013 figure, despite selling the extra home game interstate.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Unfortunately our financial position is rather precarious and we are forced, at times, to play for money and not for the fans.

I don't like it, but I have no other option other than to accept it. Once we can stand on our own two feet, I would expect this play for pay to cease.