A little off topic but I wonder why North Melbourne wasn't financial wound up at the turn of the century?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/north-melbourne-should-have-been-afl-powerhouse-brent-harvey-20160720-gq9qer.html

The article goes on how harvey a times wasn't paid for 9 months and other financial problems with the club.  if you can't pay your employee's for that long as a company are you insolvent? Or odes it only become insolvent if someone complains or takes legal action?  Also I wonder how did the club keep its unity if Carey was being paid and other's weren't for long periods? 

 

 

 

North have always been an enigma with how they are still towards the bottom of the food chain with crowds/members/fans. They had some seriously dominant and successful periods in the 90s and early 00s when AFL coverage was increasing more and more but never built on it. The most successful thing they did, marketing wise, was pushing for and building the success of the Friday night slot. The AFL eventually took that over spread it out and then of course gifted it to the big clubs (even when they aren't successful). 

I really dislike Harvey as a player but respect his abilities and his longevity. He is still a cut above at times (ask the MfC squad from Hobart earlier this year), North are still very reliant on him which is a credit to him and a discredit the club because he can't hang around forever! 

But for how long he's been playing he has seen so many changes to the competition and game styles. Would probably be a very good read his book. 

5 hours ago, Pates said:

North have always been an enigma with how they are still towards the bottom of the food chain with crowds/members/fans. They had some seriously dominant and successful periods in the 90s and early 00s when AFL coverage was increasing more and more but never built on it. The most successful thing they did, marketing wise, was pushing for and building the success of the Friday night slot. The AFL eventually took that over spread it out and then of course gifted it to the big clubs (even when they aren't successful). 

I really dislike Harvey as a player but respect his abilities and his longevity. He is still a cut above at times (ask the MfC squad from Hobart earlier this year), North are still very reliant on him which is a credit to him and a discredit the club because he can't hang around forever! 

But for how long he's been playing he has seen so many changes to the competition and game styles. Would probably be a very good read his book. 

Brent Harvey's book:

'Me by Brent Harvey

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.

The End.'

1 hour ago, Undeeterred said:

Brent Harvey's book:

'Me by Brent Harvey

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.

The End.'

lol...so true.

There would've been many clubs which technically should've folded over the last 40 years. Call it trading whilst insolvent or simply going bust. Sth Melb and Fitzroy 'relocated' as a result, but Footscray, Norf, the Dees and St Kilda all have struggled to keep the doors open at various times. The VFL/AFL is not like any other business, it relies upon emotion and finances that aren't generated in the same way elsewhere (with the possible exception of religion). Before the massive TV rights came into play, many clubs had books that consistently didn't balance and could easily have died. Now the AFL keeps clubs afloat because it is contracted to. Don't the Brisbane Lions owe something like $15mill?

Gordon Lewis was Commisioner for Corporate Affairs in the early/mid 80's

He tells the story of how he called the VFL (as it was) into its office and said they had 14 days (I think) or perhaps a few months to fix up their finances or he would close football.

The licence fee paid by the Brisbane Bears (Christopher Skase) saved the VFL.

Those days many of the clubs were basket cases. Collingwood went almost bust a few times. Clubs mortgaged grand stands to banks. ( God knows how the bank would ever take possession.) Delayed player payments were not unusual. And of course it was payment by matches so no payment in the off season for training etc.

The modern AFL under the AFL Commission is an altogether different corporate structure than the old VFL.

Edited July 25, 20169 yr by Diamond_Jim

It's fascinating that North weren't able to build a powerhouse from their 90s successes. Hawthorn's "success" was a little delayed because you had a lot of young kids in the 80s who grew up supporting them now latching onto an incredibly successful decade, and they have kids, who have kids, etc etc. North simply weren't good enough for long enough to build that generational support that a minnow club needs. Hawthorn have never been a heavily-supported club but now have the benefit of the "bandwagon" factor, the rise of social media, Tasmania, and its 80s success to rise up. That's ultimately what they've built their club out of. They've come good at the perfect time, in the same way Melbourne went bad at the worst time. 

They had a boring brand and simply didn't utilise their immense successes of the 90s like they should have. They played home games in Sydney, dropped "North" and lost a bit of their identity when they should have been looking to expand it. They've made inroads in that regard the last few years.

If Melbourne had actually been half-decent between 2007 and 2016, we'd have easily crossed 40k members and would probably be a far more "stable" club. We had a solid 8-9 seasons were we made finals enough to build a fanbase, but as soon as people started to jump on, we hit the ground with a thunderous CLUNK. 

Had North or the Bulldogs gone through want we've as a club have gone through the past 10 season, I can assure you they simply wouldn't exist today. We've been on the brink a few times but the club's capacity to find a way out is pretty amazing. 

7 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

Brent Harvey's book:

'Me by Brent Harvey

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.

The End.'

That's often how an autobiography goes...

14 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

A little off topic but I wonder why North Melbourne wasn't financial wound up at the turn of the century?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/north-melbourne-should-have-been-afl-powerhouse-brent-harvey-20160720-gq9qer.html

The article goes on how harvey a times wasn't paid for 9 months and other financial problems with the club.  if you can't pay your employee's for that long as a company are you insolvent? Or odes it only become insolvent if someone complains or takes legal action?  Also I wonder how did the club keep its unity if Carey was being paid and other's weren't for long periods? 

 

It was a club though, wasn't it?

2 minutes ago, Django said:

That's often how an autobiography goes...

Except often there is a part about how 'it wasn't me, it wasn't me'.

See Harvey has retracted his pot shot at Carey - what a pair of knobs

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Gordon Lewis was Commisioner for Corporate Affairs in the early/mid 80's

He tells the story of how he called the VFL (as it was) into its office and said they had 14 days (I think) or perhaps a few months to fix up their finances or he would close football.

The licence fee paid by the Brisbane Bears (Christopher Skase) saved the VFL.

Those days many of the clubs were basket cases. Collingwood went almost bust a few times. Clubs mortgaged grand stands to banks. ( God knows how the bank would ever take possession.) Delayed player payments were not unusual. And of course it was payment by matches so no payment in the off season for training etc.

The modern AFL under the AFL Commission is an altogether different corporate structure than the old VFL.

Richmond also nearly went under a few times. When KB was coach he had to go and buy boxing equipment with his own money. Geelong were in some pretty serious trouble too at one stage. 

Basically everyone except Carlton and Essendon!

As well as the TV money, clubs rely on wealthy benefactors more than they would like to admit.

8 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

Brent Harvey's book:

'Me by Brent Harvey

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.

The End.'

My biography was knocked back by the publishers. That's the story of my life.

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

It was a club though, wasn't it?

Actually some were clubs (unincorporated associations)... some were companies albeit limited by guarantee

As clubs the committee members faced liability much the same as company directors. Legally it was a mess

And of course North Melbourne floated its shares on, if I remember correctly the Hobart Stock Exchange

Edited July 25, 20169 yr by Diamond_Jim

52 minutes ago, Ricky P said:

 

As well as the TV money, clubs rely on wealthy benefactors more than they would like to admit.

For under the table payments or over the salary cap payments? 

9 minutes ago, america de cali said:

For under the table payments or over the salary cap payments? 

Just to keep them afloat, provide facilities etc. I'm not suggesting anything nefarious. Im just saying that fundraising off wealthy supporters is a big part of the business model of most clubs.

20 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

A little off topic but I wonder why North Melbourne wasn't financial wound up at the turn of the century?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/north-melbourne-should-have-been-afl-powerhouse-brent-harvey-20160720-gq9qer.html

The article goes on how harvey a times wasn't paid for 9 months and other financial problems with the club.  if you can't pay your employee's for that long as a company are you insolvent? Or odes it only become insolvent if someone complains or takes legal action?  Also I wonder how did the club keep its unity if Carey was being paid and other's weren't for long periods? 

 

 

 

I guess unlike Fitzroy for example North 1) were successful and 2) had the loyalty of their players. If North saw an exodus like the Lions did in the early 90's they'd be up on the Gold Coast 10 years ago.

6 hours ago, Mach5 said:

It was a club though, wasn't it?

They were floated and Carlton bought a number of shares as a means of trying to take them over so I don't know?

Members only regained voting rights when Brayshaw took over? 

Edited July 25, 20169 yr by Dr. Gonzo