I guess the club never wants to play Finals

We should be pushing for more MCG games , not games up in some sweltering hell hole that we have zero connection to

  On 17/03/2016 at 04:05, nutbean said:

How do you see the deal as different from what Hawthorn does down in Tassy ?

I want to preempt your answer in saying - if you are going to say  - massive membership the Hawks get from Tassy - I will rebut and ask  - would Hawks get the massive injection of members if they weren't a successful club ?

Mate Hawthorn play their games in Winter conditions. AFL is a winter game. 

If we played 2 games a year in The Map of Tassie i could handle it (just!)

but we are playing in the The Dead Heart of Australia

A huge handicap that makes me angry 16 points at high risk every year. 

"we are Melbourne" apparently

try to re-connect with our city

wtf

expecting every type of membership to cop a $20 (or whatever) rise to raise $1M is never going to happen (at 40,000 members it only = $800,000)

if it did happen, for fairness, the amount would have to differ by type of membership rather than a flat fee across the board

the 2014 annual report states that membership/reserved seating raised about $7M

so to raise an extra $1M would entail an across the board increase of about 14.3%

i.e. an extra $14.30 per $100 spent

If we're going to debate this properly, we need to recognise that only one game a year is played in a hot, distant location. The other game is played in Alice Springs which is cool in winter and not as far away as Perth.

  On 17/03/2016 at 06:46, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If we're going to debate this properly, we need to recognise that only one game a year is played in a hot, distant location. The other game is played in Alice Springs which is cool in winter and not as far away as Perth.

Have tried making this point, but facts are irrelevant to many people here

 

  On 17/03/2016 at 06:46, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If we're going to debate this properly, we need to recognise that only one game a year is played in a hot, distant location. The other game is played in Alice Springs which is cool in winter and not as far away as Perth.

When SWYL is involved you can never debate properly.

Same old rhetoric, name calling and STILL somehow blaming Schwab for a deal PJ has now TWICE extended both in duration and level of involvement.

But hey, why do we need PJ when we have genius ideas like "just fill the G and charge 'em more!".... FMD.

 

I don't like selling home games and I want us to build this club up to the point where we don't need to sell home games.

Unfortunately, we're not there yet. Until then, I will deal with the Darwin game (the Alice Springs game is nothing terrible IMO). I don't like it, I'd rather us find somewhere else to sell the game instead of Darwin, but if the NT government keeps paying and the AFL encourages it, let's just suck it up and focus on winning football anywhere, any time.

  On 17/03/2016 at 10:23, titan_uranus said:

I don't like selling home games and I want us to build this club up to the point where we don't need to sell home games.

Unfortunately, we're not there yet. Until then, I will deal with the Darwin game (the Alice Springs game is nothing terrible IMO). I don't like it, I'd rather us find somewhere else to sell the game instead of Darwin, but if the NT government keeps paying and the AFL encourages it, let's just suck it up and focus on winning football anywhere, any time.

Spot on tu

"Melbourne, who began hosting games in Darwin in 2011, is understood to have made about $500,000 a game in the Northern Territory with the past two seasons including a home game in Alice Springs as well as Darwin."

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-17/melbourne-hoping-to-extend-nt-deal-until-2018.mobileapp

Is it $500K/year or $500K/game?

Here's a novel approach - now than our on and off-field chips are in place, why not cop a bit of debt while we rebuild our brand in the heartland with better results and marketing management? We find a replacement sponsor, achieve greater home-game attendances and sell more memberships and merch. If it fails, the AFL will just send us to Darwin anyway. In short, playing in Darwin achieves nothing for us in the long-term and is a detriment in this regard.

Another way to look at our on-field NT sacrifice . . .

SWYL talks of four games a year compromised - the two away and their respective following weeks. A reasonable rebuttal is that we've been so crap that it's impossible to quantify the effect of playing in the humidity etc. But forget where it is exactly other than interstate and take into account that we've been playing non-Victorian teams there (as they would be expected to draw weak crowds at home anyway).

If you look at a +/- breakdown of home-city advantage across the 2016 season compared to other teams around us on the ladder you can see the potential impact.

Port +1

GWS +1

Coll =

St. K. +1

Melb. - 3

Why do people assume that without NT, mfc would play two more (total) games at the G?  Yes, two more 'Home' games but lose two 'Away' games at the G.  Net gain: zip!

I heard Peter Jackson discussing NT yesterday.  I'm paraphrasing but the equation is like this:  Sell 2 games to NT and members get two offset games at the G OR probably play more games at Etihad (especially once the AFL buys it and will be looking for more games to play there.  Low crowd Vic games would be the targets).  For him right now it was important to get the club into good commercial shape and said he was pretty sure which members would prefer (NT vs Etihad) as we sure don't like going to Etihad!

PJ didn't say this but the AFL could also fixture our 'Away' MCG games to Etihad.  Notice how interstate finalists want more games at the G.  Notice how Carlton and Essendon are asking (and getting) more games at the G.  The only way we will get more games at the G and better fixtures (venues, teams, time slots etc) is if more people come to our games.  The only way we have some bargaining power with the AFL on these is if we are stronger financially, with memberships and crowds.

So, if I read the tea leaves correctly PJ is laying the financial foundation for MFC to get back some bargaining power with the AFL.  At the moment we are still a bit like 'Oliver Twist' - not quite beggar status but certainly with cap-in-hand mode.

So careful what we wish for...

Not arguing, Lucifer, but if you have a home and away membership, you don't get 2 free games. Unless those members want to fork out the extra cash for flights, hotels, etc. they are essentially already 'donating' money to the club. I think what those saying they'd rather pay the extra $20 or $30 or $50 a year rather than have the two NT games are saying is that they actually want to be able to see the games they have already paid for without having to pay an extra $300+ a game for travel and, in some cases, to take time off of work (which isn't always easy).

  On 17/03/2016 at 13:08, Skuit said:

Here's a novel approach - now than our on and off-field chips are in place, why not cop a bit of debt while we rebuild our brand in the heartland with better results and marketing management? We find a replacement sponsor, achieve greater home-game attendances and sell more memberships and merch. If it fails, the AFL will just send us to Darwin anyway. In short, playing in Darwin achieves nothing for us in the long-term and is a detriment in this regard.

Easy to say but I expect harder to do. If we could find a $500k a year sponsor which didn't need us to travel to NT I expect we would already have dumped (ie, not renewed) the NT deal.

  On 17/03/2016 at 10:21, stuie said:

When SWYL is involved you can never debate properly.

Same old rhetoric, name calling and STILL somehow blaming Schwab for a deal PJ has now TWICE extended both in duration and level of involvement.

But hey, why do we need PJ when we have genius ideas like "just fill the G and charge 'em more!".... FMD.

 

FMD says Stuie

Simple tems 

2 more games at The MCG increases chances of winning and also increases chances of winning the following week which = More MFC supporters going to games = Higher attendances. = More Revenue

now who always broadcasts these NT games?

Foxtel last time i looked. Does everybody have Foxtel access? No the don't. 

Would i rather pay more to the MFC than give money to Rupert Murdoch?

tell me how many NT members have we signed up?

 

  On 17/03/2016 at 22:41, Sir Why You Little said:

FMD says Stuie

Simple tems 

2 more games at The MCG increases chances of winning and also increases chances of winning the following week which = More MFC supporters going to games = Higher attendances. = More Revenue

now who always broadcasts these NT games?

Foxtel last time i looked. Does everybody have Foxtel access? No the don't. 

Would i rather pay more to the MFC than give money to Rupert Murdoch?

tell me how many NT members have we signed up?

 

 

  On 17/03/2016 at 20:16, Lucifer's Hero said:

Why do people assume that without NT, mfc would play two more (total) games at the G?  Yes, two more 'Home' games but lose two 'Away' games at the G.  Net gain: zip!

I heard Peter Jackson discussing NT yesterday.  I'm paraphrasing but the equation is like this:  Sell 2 games to NT and members get two offset games at the G OR probably play more games at Etihad (especially once the AFL buys it and will be looking for more games to play there.  Low crowd Vic games would be the targets).  For him right now it was important to get the club into good commercial shape and said he was pretty sure which members would prefer (NT vs Etihad) as we sure don't like going to Etihad!

PJ didn't say this but the AFL could also fixture our 'Away' MCG games to Etihad.  Notice how interstate finalists want more games at the G.  Notice how Carlton and Essendon are asking (and getting) more games at the G.  The only way we will get more games at the G and better fixtures (venues, teams, time slots etc) is if more people come to our games.  The only way we have some bargaining power with the AFL on these is if we are stronger financially, with memberships and crowds.

So, if I read the tea leaves correctly PJ is laying the financial foundation for MFC to get back some bargaining power with the AFL.  At the moment we are still a bit like 'Oliver Twist' - not quite beggar status but certainly with cap-in-hand mode.

So careful what we wish for...

Please read the above SWYL (just realized how appropriate that abbreviation of your name is btw).

Your argument now centers on us filling the G and getting broadcast on free to air TV. You don't live in reality mate, we have low attendances and very few free to air games.

How many members? Seriously? You're missing the point totally, the point is money. Do you think we'd make 500k playing Freo at the Etihad? Foolish.

But again, feel free to email the club, namely PJ, and tell him how much of a better job you would do with your visionary strategies of "just get more people and charge them more".

 

  On 17/03/2016 at 21:18, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Easy to say but I expect harder to do. If we could find a $500k a year sponsor which didn't need us to travel to NT I expect we would already have dumped (ie, not renewed) the NT deal.

Absolutely true. It was more a suggestion that the $500k figure we're discussing isn't the sum net loss. We can also make up some additional ground in other areas. There will be a shortfall but that's why I suggested copping some debt for a period. A sensitive proposition.

It's a difficult topic to argue when none of us are privy to the exact financial figures and impact on membership (some of it intangible) etc.  But there's a serious catch-22 in people's positions. We need the money vs. we need to improve performance (by playing not playing up there) . . . to make money.

  On 18/03/2016 at 00:23, stuie said:

 

Please read the above SWYL (just realized how appropriate that abbreviation of your name is btw).

Your argument now centers on us filling the G and getting broadcast on free to air TV. You don't live in reality mate, we have low attendances and very few free to air games.

How many members? Seriously? You're missing the point totally, the point is money. Do you think we'd make 500k playing Freo at the Etihad? Foolish.

But again, feel free to email the club, namely PJ, and tell him how much of a better job you would do with your visionary strategies of "just get more people and charge them more".

 

So what does SWYL really mean Stuie? Do tell...

Yes The deal we have in place pays us $1 Mill as it stands now i get that. 

IT IS A CASH GRAB. THAT IS ALL IT IS... ok

now the negatives of that deal are thus

2 Games played in the NT during the winter months of the AFL Comp

now this compromises the chance of Victory (8 points)

it also compromises recovery time for the following 2 games (8 Points)

this is going to compromise the club and Members in 2 main areas, apart from attending the NT Games themselves

1. Making the 8 during a very important phase in the clubs rebuild number 2

2. Later if the team does improve it may well be a large differerence between making the 8 and being Top 4. Top 4 we would be a big chance to play at the home ground The MCG

This deal was struck when we were unable to get sponsorship or if we did get Sponsors (Through a Member..) they refused to work with Schwab (Hancook Tyres)

then we had the complete Farce of ENERGY WATCH that didn't even really exist!!

remember Eddie threw us WebJet on the Footy Show ...It got that bad

This was after the Foundation Heroes and Members had already DONATED $5 Million +

We all remember those Black Days

This NT deal was done because nobody else wanted it

It was done to help keep the club alive

WE will never grow as a club if we keep compromising our position in games against opponents & that is what we will continue to do every year this deal in the desert exists. 

Making Finals will grow a memberships. Making Finals in consecutive seasons will grow the whole club. 

This deal is being extended, i will never be happy with that

but for God Sake if it is being signed off may it be done on our terms..Not that it can be improved greatly. 

The Dead Heart of Australia will always be Hot as Hell whilst the rest of Australia is in moderate winter, which will always compromise the playing group during the game and the subsequent recovery. 

 

 

  On 18/03/2016 at 01:22, Sir Why You Little said:

So what does SWYL really mean Stuie? Do tell...

Yes The deal we have in place pays us $1 Mill as it stands now i get that. 

IT IS A CASH GRAB. THAT IS ALL IT IS... ok

now the negatives of that deal are thus

2 Games played in the NT during the winter months of the AFL Comp

now this compromises the chance of Victory (8 points)

it also compromises recovery time for the following 2 games (8 Points)

this is going to compromise the club and Members in 2 main areas, apart from attending the NT Games themselves

1. Making the 8 during a very important phase in the clubs rebuild number 2

2. Later if the team does improve it may well be a large differerence between making the 8 and being Top 4. Top 4 we would be a big chance to play at the home ground The MCG

This deal was struck when we were unable to get sponsorship or if we did get Sponsors (Through a Member..) they refused to work with Schwab (Hancook Tyres)

then we had the complete Farce of ENERGY WATCH that didn't even really exist!!

remember Eddie threw us WebJet on the Footy Show ...It got that bad

This was after the Foundation Heroes and Members had already DONATED $5 Million +

We all remember those Black Days

This NT deal was done because nobody else wanted it

It was done to help keep the club alive

WE will never grow as a club if we keep compromising our position in games against opponents & that is what we will continue to do every year this deal in the desert exists. 

Making Finals will grow a memberships. Making Finals in consecutive seasons will grow the whole club. 

This deal is being extended, i will never be happy with that

but for God Sake if it is being signed off may it be done on our terms..Not that it can be improved greatly. 

The Dead Heart of Australia will always be Hot as Hell whilst the rest of Australia is in moderate winter, which will always compromise the playing group during the game and the subsequent recovery. 

 

 

Ok, so my initial response got deleted despite containing absolutely no abuse or personal comments, yet all the ones aimed at me get left... Great stuff mods.

I'm STILL not going to bother reading this rant which looks like it just states yet again the same points you've made over and over and have been shot down by myself and other posters.

Shake your fist and your head all you want, but PJ has better qualifications than any of us and he's now extended the deal twice. End of story.

 

  On 18/03/2016 at 01:48, stuie said:

Ok, so my initial response got deleted despite containing absolutely no abuse or personal comments, yet all the ones aimed at me get left... Great stuff mods.

I'm STILL not going to bother reading this rant which looks like it just states yet again the same points you've made over and over and have been shot down by myself and other posters.

 

 

Your initial response got deleted because all it said was "I'm not going to bother reading this rant." 

You're wasting precious internet space, and the time of people who are following this thread.

If you don't have anything further to add, don't post!

Stuie

As the time honoured saying goes, please take a Bex and have good lie down.

Seriously, life's too short for this palaver 

 

 

  On 18/03/2016 at 01:56, Grapeviney said:

Your initial response got deleted because all it said was "I'm not going to bother reading this rant." 

You're wasting precious internet space, and the time of people who are following this thread.

If you don't have anything further to add, don't post!

Yet SWYL says the same thing over and over in every post....

Fair enough, I'll leave it.

 

The NT may fork over 1m , but after all is said and done, expenses paid, by the time you factor in the compromise toour seasons chances , extra wear and tear (sts) on the players what do we realise as a benefit ?

I'm thinking a hell of a lot less than those supporting this arrangement would have us believe..

Since the initial eal was struck our sponsor income has changed dramatically. All this rhetoric about positioning ourselves for finals is bullshlt if you keep handicapping yourselves needlessly. Fmd we have  a legion of people in the f'd. Might it not have been better to time all this to work with budgets and incomes ( which by the way magically grow with success.

To maintain thisNT deal is folly, pure and simple.

  On 18/03/2016 at 02:07, beelzebub said:

The NT may fork over 1m , but after all is said and done, expenses paid, by the time you factor in the compromise toour seasons chances , extra wear and tear (sts) on the players what do we realise as a benefit ?

I'm thinking a hell of a lot less than those supporting this arrangement would have us believe..

Since the initial eal was struck our sponsor income has changed dramatically. All this rhetoric about positioning ourselves for finals is bullshlt if you keep handicapping yourselves needlessly. Fmd we have  a legion of people in the f'd. Might it not have been better to time all this to work with budgets and incomes ( which by the way magically grow with success.

To maintain thisNT deal is folly, pure and simple.

Melbourne want more NT games