In light of the recent news of us playing 2 games a year in NT until the end of 2016.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-07-03/dees-in-the-nt-for-two-more-years

And at the same time producing our annual flat as a tack performance following our Darwin game, surely something needs to be done going forward from 2017.

I see four options:

1) We campaign the AFL to fixture our 2 NT games the week before our byes as 2 byes is now to become a permanent thing during the season. This will allow extra time for recovery and hopefully would become a non issue.

2) We put our hand up to become a team playing 6 games a year out of Tassie instead and try and broker some sort of deal that would still give us 10 games at the G minimum so Victorian members don't miss out to much.

3) We play all games in Victoria and try and ride the whole thing out and hope our on field performances turn around allowing our off field financials to improve.

4) Nothing at all and just chalk the following week from NT down as a loss at the start of each year?

Thoughts?

Edited July 13, 201411 yr by Tall Defence

I am quite content to play up there, unfortunately my schedule rarely permits interstate travel for such games.

Its undesirable to be able to attend less games yearly, but that's just more motivation to get my butt up there and support our Dees.

I say keep the relationship going.

Lets just bite the bullet and sign a watertight contract for monday night footy 10 games at etihad.{afl is trying to get a team to take this deal]

Then this will make us and the AFL happy and we can push for the G" for all other vic games.

It's the least of our problems right now. Good teams win anywhere.

Doesn't help when we play two top 4 teams up there.

In light of the recent news of us playing 2 games a year in NT until the end of 2016.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-07-03/dees-in-the-nt-for-two-more-years

And at the same time producing our annual flat as a tack performance following our Darwin game, surely something needs to be done going forward from 2017.

I see four options:

1) We campaign the AFL to fixture our 2 NT games the week before our byes as 2 byes is now to become a permanent thing during the season. This will allow extra time for recovery and hopefully would become a non issue.

2) We put our hand up to become a team playing 6 games a year out of Tassie instead and try and broker some sort of deal that would still give us 10 games at the G minimum so Victorian members don't miss out to much.

3) We play all games in Victoria and try and ride the whole thing out and hope our on field performances turn around allowing our off field financials to improve.

4) Nothing at all and just chalk the following week from NT down as a loss at the start of each year?

Thoughts?

Point 1 is the best and most realistic option IMO.

This is how it should have been setup in the first place by the AFL.

I dont understand why we dont get the bye after our Darwin game especially when theres a split round coming up shortly. We should be lodging this as a fixture request if we're not already and it ahould be a priority.

The Alice game isn't as much of an issue.

IF the AFL are serious about the NT experiment (and Cairns for the Dogs or whoever) then yes they must rig the draw (an area in which they have shown exquisite expertise over the years) such that the participants have a bye the following week especially for Darwin games - maybe not for Alice.

Nothing exites me about playing in Darwin/NT. Apart from that exciting 1 win point over Port in 2010, every other game I'm Darwin has been as boring as bat crap. And we've never lost by less than 50 points in the week after playing in Darwin - that fact alone should warrant immediate withdrawal from the arrangement. But I understand it's all about money.

As a compromise I wouldn't be upset with 1 annual game in Alice Springs from 17 onwards.

It's the least of our problems right now. Good teams win anywhere.

+1

In light of the recent news of us playing 2 games a year in NT until the end of 2016.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-07-03/dees-in-the-nt-for-two-more-years

And at the same time producing our annual flat as a tack performance following our Darwin game, surely something needs to be done going forward from 2017.

I see four options:

1) We campaign the AFL to fixture our 2 NT games the week before our byes as 2 byes is now to become a permanent thing during the season. This will allow extra time for recovery and hopefully would become a non issue.

2) We put our hand up to become a team playing 6 games a year out of Tassie instead and try and broker some sort of deal that would still give us 10 games at the G minimum so Victorian members don't miss out to much.

3) We play all games in Victoria and try and ride the whole thing out and hope our on field performances turn around allowing our off field financials to improve.

4) Nothing at all and just chalk the following week from NT down as a loss at the start of each year?

Thoughts?

Point 1) is my preferred but we should also try to milk as much as possible out of the NT, especially in the way of sponsorship and a strong indigenous supporter base.

As regards point 3) we don't necessarily need more home games in Victoria, merely to ensure that they all are decent scheduled home games on the MCG (as we used to be the MCCFC). No more Etihad games and no more 4.40pm on a Sunday afternoon!

Ideally we'd play both games in Alice, where humidity isn't the same problem it is in Darwin.

But I'm of the 'anyone, anywhere, anytime' ethos.

Didn't hurt Freo this week.

Guaranteed 2 losses before the sesson even starts

A loss in Darwin where we always play a top 4 team

And a loss the following week when our team is knackered from the Darwin game

We will go nowhere as long as we are playing games up there

Didn't hurt Freo this week.

Correct.....gee I love the week after a loss....will be the Heritage Jumpers fault next.......

No didn't' hurt freo....surely it wouldn't have been the fact that they were grand final runners up & playing GWS wouldn't have had anything to do with it or the fact that the majority of their players would have had three times or more pre-seasons than our players....no wouldn't have thought so.