8 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ugh.... I'm not even sure anymore if you're missing the point on purpose. If the most successful team of the last 10 years is playing games interstate do you honestly think we can survive without doing it right now? Forget where it is, that's irrelevant to the point.

How much would it cost to get the club up there? Is this a serious question? You do realize Tourism NT is our sponsor right?

Yes, it's for a cash grab. Derrrrrrrr.

It may very well end soon, but THE POINT is we will still end up playing home games interstate somewhere. You thinking we can fill the G every week is completely ridiculous.

You don't care what my thoughts are? Is that why you continually butt in on my replies to others and keep this thread between us going?

 

Where did i say we would fill the 'G EVERY WEEK?

winning games will generate bigger crowds. Recovering from Red Dirt conditions makes that more difficult

i have said more deals need to be done in MELBOURNE CBD and surrounds so that Members of the club don't have to subscribe to Foxtel to see a Home Game in the desert. 

I don't care what other clubs are doing. We have to think outside the square

We have the name MELBOURNE they don't

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Where did i say we would fill the 'G EVERY WEEK?

winning games will generate bigger crowds. Recovering from Red Dirt conditions makes that more difficult

i have said more deals need to be done in MELBOURNE CBD and surrounds so that Members of the club don't have to subscribe to Foxtel to see a Home Game in the desert. 

I don't care what other clubs are doing. We have to think outside the square

We have the name MELBOURNE they don't

SWYL: " Winning will make the extra Cash you want at our 100,000 seat home Stadium. With the right list and attitude we can fill it."

Changing your story a bit with every post.

Hawthorn have the name Hawthorn don't they? Yet amazingly they still play in Tassie and very rarely play in the actual suburb of Hawthorn...

 

1 hour ago, DemonAndrew said:

I completely agree that we need to continue to look to sell games unfortunately.

What about Bendigo?

Dogs have Ballarat as a shorts sponsor akin to Hawks with Tasmania and us with NT, so we've missed that country market.

But Bendigo is bigger anyway?

Ballarat - 96k

Bendigo - 146k

I like the lateral thinking, but where are you getting your figures from Andrew? Bendigo population is just under 80k from the info I found.

 

Just Google. "Bendigo population" and it gives that figure.

Perhaps that's 'greater region' or some such malarkey as per Wikipedia:

"Bendigo has an urban population of 82,794 making it the fourth largest inland city in Australia and fourth most populous city in the state. It is the administrative centre for the City of Greater Bendigo which encompasses both the urban area and outlying towns spanning an area of approximately 3,000 square kilometres (1,158 sq mi) and over 111,000 people."

1 hour ago, DemonAndrew said:

Just Google. "Bendigo population" and it gives that figure.

Perhaps that's 'greater region' or some such malarkey as per Wikipedia:

"Bendigo has an urban population of 82,794 making it the fourth largest inland city in Australia and fourth most populous city in the state. It is the administrative centre for the City of Greater Bendigo which encompasses both the urban area and outlying towns spanning an area of approximately 3,000 square kilometres (1,158 sq mi) and over 111,000 people."

Doesn't feel like a big enough market does it? Not sure what else there is though, or even if they could afford to pay us to play there.

Plus, didn't we get Darwin (or Alice?) as one of our recruiting zones when the AFL announced that recently? Wonder how that would be effected.

26 minutes ago, stuie said:

SWYL: " Winning will make the extra Cash you want at our 100,000 seat home Stadium. With the right list and attitude we can fill it."

Changing your story a bit with every post.

Hawthorn have the name Hawthorn don't they? Yet amazingly they still play in Tassie and very rarely play in the actual suburb of Hawthorn...

 

My story hasn't changed at all. Yes our home is a 100,000 seat Stadium

not the Dead Heart of Australia. 

Last year was the First Time we have used the CBD constructively to lift our profile

first time in nearly 160 years

i want to see it used far more. 9000 watching in the NT is not the answer. 

WE are the ONLY "Melbourne" . The leverage that name offers was only touched upon last year but it got a few intrigued. This must be perpatuated andbuilt upon.

Melb hasnear 4.5 million

Darwin..sfa !!

The maths ain't hard here but it's taken til now to get ourselves in a position to utilise it.

Bye-bye NT. Grab yaselves a stubby and go count  your Crocs. 

We'll never never know if we don't let go !!

Let's face it, the Darwin games are hideous slopfests.  They are so bad if Melbourne were not playing I'd turn over to the other Saturday night game.  Not to mention the fact we seem to struggle to recover for the week or two post game.

Sooner we can get the hell out of there the better.  Port or Essendon can have it.

Edited March 13, 20169 yr by 71 Molloy

Port only want t as an away game.

 

In theory whoever plays against us in the NT should not get a home game against us - pretty sure that's the theory of how it worked, same as when we sold game to Brisbane it meant we only ever played them once a year.

 

Like that little adventure, I can only think of one highlight up north - Neitz going on a rampage vs Brisbane at the peak of their powers, and Trengove punching through a point for a late winner against Port.

 

We also had one game in NT where Jurrah turned it on I think.

On 3/13/2016 at 0:26 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

My story hasn't changed at all. Yes our home is a 100,000 seat Stadium

not the Dead Heart of Australia. 

Last year was the First Time we have used the CBD constructively to lift our profile

first time in nearly 160 years

i want to see it used far more. 9000 watching in the NT is not the answer. 

Hate to toot my own horn (not really) but back in the 08-09 years when we had that god awful corporate "Melbournefc" logo, I mentioned on here that it was the right direction, the club had *almost* the right idea at the time, but the branding was downright awful. I was hounded for it. I believe they were trying to distance themselves from "Demons" because of the potential to damage relations with China partners and fans, maybe it's the same logic now, I wouldn't be surprised, but that vision then was to better associate the club with "Melbourne". The only problem was that you had a bunch of old corporates with no previous experience in the sport field, who absolutely fluffed it. Looking at the Schwab era, I won't disagree he wasn't great, he clearly hurt the club in many ways, but you can't criticise his ambition, his vision to reestablish the club and its brand as a league powerhouse. 

The vision now you can see is all about establishing a brand that doubles as a fashion icon, is accessible, can pass as something other than a sport brand (think NY Yankees). I think I saw someone on here mentioned that in the past. I've always thought that Jackson and co. approach the NT deal with contempt, with a kind of, "well we *have* to, but hopefully in the future we don't have to." Playing a home game there is definitely at odds with Jackson's vision. Hawthorn sell games now, not because they have to. But because it adds a cheeky extra million to their bottom line. And they aren't massive crowd drawers against interstate teams. As "big" as they seem, they are not a Richmond or a Collingwood from a support perspective. I am and always will be highly cynical of the value of their "membership" figures but you can't understate how important that figure alone is. The figure that's important is ratio of support-to-attendance. I think Melbourne is among the league leaders in that regard. Selling games to NT is detrimental to that. It's necessary atm, but once we get up and going, with the way the game is amplified with broadcast and social media, it'll be a thing of the past. It's all about getting it right. The ship has sailed I'm afraid for establishing a "second" home. Hawthorn jumped on a state primed to be taken advantage of. North's exercise is futile in Hobart, but it might work out.

What I love about Jackson, even Roos to a degree, they can see the potential. If Melbourne went through an era similar to what Hawthorn is going through now, I have no doubt we'd be bigger than them. Our crowds, our memberships aren't great, but they're on-par with finals-bound teams of the Bulldogs and North variety. I remember one game at the MCG back in 2004 or 2005 against West Coast. 45,000 people at the game. We weren't even that great. We were good. But not great.

Melbourne is a juggernaut waiting to be woken. But instead of waking it with a thunderous kick to the belly, we've only poked it with a stick for going on 60 years.

Two finals series in a row, a bit of hype and some consistency over a number of years, and we'll be up and about. A flag will seal it and we'll be the league's powerhouse again. People put us with the Saints, North, Bulldogs. We're in a different league. We're in that middle-ground between the upper-tier and lower-tier, but we linger around the lower-tier because we've been so god damn awful. 

Melbourne is Melbourne

21 minutes ago, praha said:

Hate to toot my own horn (not really) but back in the 08-09 years when we had that god awful corporate "Melbournefc" logo, I mentioned on here that it was the right direction, the club had *almost* the right idea at the time, but the branding was downright awful. I was hounded for it. I believe they were trying to distance themselves from "Demons" because of the potential to damage relations with China partners and fans, maybe it's the same logic now, I wouldn't be surprised, but that vision then was to better associate the club with "Melbourne". The only problem was that you had a bunch of old corporates with no previous experience in the sport field, who absolutely fluffed it. Looking at the Schwab era, I won't disagree he wasn't great, he clearly hurt the club in many ways, but you can't criticise his ambition, his vision to reestablish the club and its brand as a league powerhouse. 

The vision now you can see is all about establishing a brand that doubles as a fashion icon, is accessible, can pass as something other than a sport brand (think NY Yankees). I think I saw someone on here mentioned that in the past. I've always thought that Jackson and co. approach the NT deal with contempt, with a kind of, "well we *have* to, but hopefully in the future we don't have to." Playing a home game there is definitely at odds with Jackson's vision. Hawthorn sell games now, not because they have to. But because it adds a cheeky extra million to their bottom line. And they aren't massive crowd drawers against interstate teams. As "big" as they seem, they are not a Richmond or a Collingwood from a support perspective. I am and always will be highly cynical of the value of their "membership" figures but you can't understate how important that figure alone is. The figure that's important is ratio of support-to-attendance. I think Melbourne is among the league leaders in that regard. Selling games to NT is detrimental to that. It's necessary atm, but once we get up and going, with the way the game is amplified with broadcast and social media, it'll be a thing of the past. It's all about getting it right. The ship has sailed I'm afraid for establishing a "second" home. Hawthorn jumped on a state primed to be taken advantage of. North's exercise is futile in Hobart, but it might work out.

What I love about Jackson, even Roos to a degree, they can see the potential. If Melbourne went through an era similar to what Hawthorn is going through now, I have no doubt we'd be bigger than them. Our crowds, our memberships aren't great, but they're on-par with finals-bound teams of the Bulldogs and North variety. I remember one game at the MCG back in 2004 or 2005 against West Coast. 45,000 people at the game. We weren't even that great. We were good. But not great.

Melbourne is a juggernaut waiting to be woken. But instead of waking it with a thunderous kick to the belly, we've only poked it with a stick for going on 60 years.

Two finals series in a row, a bit of hype and some consistency over a number of years, and we'll be up and about. A flag will seal it and we'll be the league's powerhouse again. People put us with the Saints, North, Bulldogs. We're in a different league. We're in that middle-ground between the upper-tier and lower-tier, but we linger around the lower-tier because we've been so god damn awful. 

Agree. We can be the true "sleeping Giant" if the club get it right. 

Schwab did understand that but he went about it all wrong. 

I think PJ will get it right. 

20 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Melbourne is Melbourne

Profound bb

Just now, old dee said:

Profound bb

and correct!

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

and correct!

i'm still trying to come to grips with the concept, but i think it's sinking in. maybe another drink will help

So, on 10 March the NT News says the NT Government's not happy and on 11 March the relevant Minister issues a media release with a "clarification". I'd venture to suggest that in between, there was a very strongly worded conversation between Peter Jackson and the NT Government representatives. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the MFC drafted a fair swathe of the Minister's clarifying statement, too. 

I don't know whether the NT deal is necessarily that rewarding for us overall, but I suspect the period between 10 and 11 March strengthened our negotiating position...which is probably the reverse of what the NT Government was trying to achieve with its ill-conceived drop to the NT News. 

Just booked to go with my wife. The 3rd time we've gone with the club and always had a great time. We probably would never have gone to Darwin, Kakadu, Uluru and Alice if we didn't include it with the footy package through the Club. One year we continued on to Bali from Darwin. Very convenient and will do it again.

 

 

20 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

So, on 10 March the NT News says the NT Government's not happy and on 11 March the relevant Minister issues a media release with a "clarification". I'd venture to suggest that in between, there was a very strongly worded conversation between Peter Jackson and the NT Government representatives. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the MFC drafted a fair swathe of the Minister's clarifying statement, too. 

I don't know whether the NT deal is necessarily that rewarding for us overall, but I suspect the period between 10 and 11 March strengthened our negotiating position...which is probably the reverse of what the NT Government was trying to achieve with its ill-conceived drop to the NT News. 

I suspect AFL HQ might have been on the line at some stage as well.

47 minutes ago, Theo said:

Just booked to go with my wife. The 3rd time we've gone with the club and always had a great time. We probably would never have gone to Darwin, Kakadu, Uluru and Alice if we didn't include it with the footy package through the Club. One year we continued on to Bali from Darwin. Very convenient and will do it again.

 

We are doing Alice trip independently Club wants about 1450 pp we will do for about $825 pp staying at Lassiters but currently there are no tickets to the ground available. maybe next week according to the club

 

7 minutes ago, jackaub said:

 

No tickets available to the ground...

How useful is that. 

This whole deal is a joke, purely accepted because all the good options were snapped up elsewhere. 

I love the Dead Heart of Australia but the sooner we can move on from this obligation the better...

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No tickets available to the ground...

How useful is that. 

This whole deal is a joke, purely accepted because all the good options were snapped up elsewhere. 

I love the Dead Heart of Australia but the sooner we can move on from this obligation the better...

500k is pretty useful, got any "jokes" that can make us that money back? Or even any other viable suggestions where to get that money other than "filling the G"....?

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

500k is pretty useful, got any "jokes" that can make us that money back? Or even any other viable suggestions where to get that money other than "filling the G"....?

 

It's back. How marvellous...

GO AWAY

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It's back. How marvellous...

GO AWAY

No? No suggestions? Just complaints and ranting about the past as usual...

 

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

500k is pretty useful, got any "jokes" that can make us that money back? Or even any other viable suggestions where to get that money other than "filling the G"....?

 

This seems to be a subject that a lot seem to ignore stuie.

So I cannot only assume the same lot want the MFC to be half a million poorer every year.

Just now, stuie said:

No? No suggestions? Just complaints and ranting about the past as usual...

 

$20 increase on membership Prices to keep Games at The 'G

now go and bother someone else Stuie

here's an idea: Hit yourself really hard in the head. 

Repeat action....