2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

$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....

That would probably stop a couple of thousand members from signing up.

They are not all rusted on like you and me Sir.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

$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....

You do realize:

1/ Not everyone could afford that and a fair few would opt out

2/ Not all memberships are full year or home game memberships. Things like 3 game memberships, kid memberships etc are all included in the number. $20 is a massive price rise for those type of memberships.

3/ Have you not noticed how much focus there has been on the cost of going to the footy the last couple of years? An increase of that size would not be accepted well.

Here's an idea: Grow up.

 

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

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.

None of us want to play home games in the NT, but if the most successful team of the last decade, who have twice as many members as us, are playing home games interstate for financial gain then I don't see how we think we can go without it. Especially if the genius backup plan is "charge people more". It's a bit like listening to Donald Trump this thread, all sorts of rhetoric and fist shaking, very few actual practical answers.

 

Just now, stuie said:

You do realize:

1/ Not everyone could afford that and a fair few would opt out

2/ Not all memberships are full year or home game memberships. Things like 3 game memberships, kid memberships etc are all included in the number. $20 is a massive price rise for those type of memberships.

3/ Have you not noticed how much focus there has been on the cost of going to the footy the last couple of years? An increase of that size would not be accepted well.

Here's an idea: Grow up.

 

$20 increase. I don't think it would be a problem. 

A packet of cigs can cost $40 now

Gin & Tonic $10

so i don't buy that. 

Members would happily pay to keep us on The 'G. 

Grow up you say?..Because i disagree with you...

don't even consider telling me what to do Stuie

if you want to go to The NT and support this shabby deal by all means go...

stay there. 

We'll make up 400g of the lost revenue per year with Hogan's kicking action.

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

 

Gin & Tonic $10

so i don't buy that. 

Members would happily pay to keep us on The 'G. 

Grow up you say?..Because i disagree with you...

don't even consider telling me what to do Stuie

if you want to go to The NT and support this shabby deal by all means go...

stay there. 

Feel free to tell a family of 6 that they should "happily pay" an extra $120 a year. Especially when you consider kids memberships start at $60.

And yes grow up. Not because we disagree, but because of comments like: "here's an idea: Hit yourself really hard in the head."

All your ridiculous insults show is that your argument has no merit.

 

We'll make up 400g of the lost revenue per year with Hogan's kicking action.

We'll make up 400g of the lost revenue per year with Hogan's kicking action.

We'll make up 400g of the lost revenue per year with Hogan's kicking action.

Article on FB and AFL page about the want for a team eventually in Tassie. Can't have 19, one Victorian team must go.

Just now, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Article on FB and AFL page about the want for a team eventually in Tassie. Can't have 19, one Victorian team must go.

If only there was a club who had so skirted the laws of the game that their position in it was questionable. Then the decision would be easy!

But alas, I cannot think of one.

1 minute ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Article on FB and AFL page about the want for a team eventually in Tassie. Can't have 19, one Victorian team must go.

While the article is somewhat unclearly written, I believe that it's actually saying that they want to have only one team playing home games in Tasmania, as opposed to the two that currently play home games there (North and Hawthorn)

7 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Article on FB and AFL page about the want for a team eventually in Tassie. Can't have 19, one Victorian team must go.

Maybe, but could we have 20? Personally, I think 20 would be too many.

In my mind, the most likely scenario if there is going to be a team in Tassie is that North Melbourne loses its battle to remain in Melbourne (not for want of trying) and becomes Hobart-based but still plays 6 or so games in Melbourne each year.

Six or so home games? Or just regular away games?

23 minutes ago, stuie said:

Feel free to tell a family of 6 that they should "happily pay" an extra $120 a year. Especially when you consider kids memberships start at $60.

And yes grow up. Not because we disagree, but because of comments like: "here's an idea: Hit yourself really hard in the head."

All your ridiculous insults show is that your argument has no merit.

 

 

My arguement has lots of Merit considering we are the Melbourne Football Club and The NT is in the Dead Heart of this vast Continent. 

This deal was done during a time when the place was almost dead, we all know how far in debt the club was when PJ walked and revealled some truths

i told you how we could easily raise the descrepency of $500 mill but you don't want to hear it

fine. I don't care

I DON'T WANT MY CLUB THE MFC TO PLAY FOR POINTS UP IN THE NT

OK

$20 Levy -+ depending on Package will cover this whilst i am certain new Corporate deals will be brokered

if Nought & Hawthorn want to sell themselves to the highest Bidder that's fine. 

We can use the Melbourne name at Global Level which i think PJ fully understands

Whispering put you in your place last week

don't forget it...

20 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

While the article is somewhat unclearly written, I believe that it's actually saying that they want to have only one team playing home games in Tasmania, as opposed to the two that currently play home games there (North and Hawthorn)

Fair call but is that the next step before a relocation? 

Obviously won't be Hawthorn any idea on how Norths books are looking?

10 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Six or so home games? Or just regular away games?

Away games which will be classed as "substitute" games. So the home club will get the dough but the North members will get free entry.

19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Maybe, but could we have 20? Personally, I think 20 would be too many.

In my mind, the most likely scenario if there is going to be a team in Tassie is that North Melbourne loses its battle to remain in Melbourne (not for want of trying) and becomes Hobart-based but still plays 6 or so games in Melbourne each year.

I think 20 is to many, the league as a whole or some lower placed teams are  still getting over the compromised drafts. Plus Suns and Giants still need years of heavy funding on top of 4-5 Victorian clubs still treading water. I was initially against the two franchise clubs and in some ways still am but understand the thinking behind them. If there is to be a team based out of Tassie one Melbourne based club should/must go, it makes sense.

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

My arguement has lots of Merit considering we are the Melbourne Football Club and The NT is in the Dead Heart of this vast Continent. 

This deal was done during a time when the place was almost dead, we all know how far in debt the club was when PJ walked and revealled some truths

i told you how we could easily raise the descrepency of $500 mill but you don't want to hear it

fine. I don't care

I DON'T WANT MY CLUB THE MFC TO PLAY FOR POINTS UP IN THE NT

OK

$20 Levy -+ depending on Package will cover this whilst i am certain new Corporate deals will be brokered

if Nought & Hawthorn want to sell themselves to the highest Bidder that's fine. 

We can use the Melbourne name at Global Level which i think PJ fully understands

Whispering put you in your place last week

don't forget it...

Right, so your plan is:

- Magically make money on a "global level" despite the fact far more successful and popular teams can't.

- Charge members more at a time we're desperately trying to attract more.

- Rant and rave and continue with personal insults.

Get PJ on the line mate, you've solved all our problems....

 

All this back and forth about $20 increase over the course of a year. Depending on type of membership, the increase would vary from just under $7 per game for a three game membership

to $1.25 a game for a home and away membership.  I can understand some people may simply not want to pay more for a membership, but to me, saying that an extra $20 a year is an unfair financial burden is a little over the top.

57 minutes ago, Maple Demon said:

All this back and forth about $20 increase over the course of a year. Depending on type of membership, the increase would vary from just under $7 per game for a three game membership

to $1.25 a game for a home and away membership.  I can understand some people may simply not want to pay more for a membership, but to me, saying that an extra $20 a year is an unfair financial burden is a little over the top.

It's this or playing in the Desert....But some people do not want to get it

4 hours ago, stuie said:

Right, so your plan is:

- Magically make money on a "global level" despite the fact far more successful and popular teams can't.

- Charge members more at a time we're desperately trying to attract more.

- Rant and rave and continue with personal insults.

Get PJ on the line mate, you've solved all our problems....

 

I would love to have a beer or 2 with PJ Stuie

It's you who is having a Hernia about paying an extra $1 a game not me.....

2 hours ago, Maple Demon said:

All this back and forth about $20 increase over the course of a year. Depending on type of membership, the increase would vary from just under $7 per game for a three game membership

to $1.25 a game for a home and away membership.  I can understand some people may simply not want to pay more for a membership, but to me, saying that an extra $20 a year is an unfair financial burden is a little over the top.

Good for you mate, but for families it's a bigger deal. An extra $100+ a year for the same thing you were already getting can make a difference.

Don't you think there's a reason successful clubs haven't gone down this path already?

 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I would love to have a beer or 2 with PJ Stuie

It's you who is having a Hernia about paying an extra $1 a game not me.....

Somehow I don't think he needs your help...