I know there was financial need for it @ the time but do we still need to do it as we are in a better financial state ?

29 minutes ago, Gingerguitar said:

I know there was financial need for it @ the time but do we still need to do it as we are in a better financial state ?

We'll be in a better financial state when we get 30,000 members all in the outer.  That will be when we have a sound future.

Yes.

Yes. We make $500k playing in the top end per game, whereas if we were to play a game at the 'G against interstate teams such as Gold Coast and Adelaide, we'd make nothing near that. If it was a bad slot or weather tarnished the day, we'd be closer to losing money, let alone making $500k.

It's a good move and if clubs like Hawthorn can still do it, we can too.

Edited October 27, 20169 yr by A F

Can we seriously knock back that kind of money ATM? Whilst doing better, we are a long way off financial security

Yes.

I would however prefer them to be in Perf.

One game is fine... two games SOLD may cost us when its the difference between finishing 9th or 8th or 7th or better. Selling 2 games to a NEUTRAL venue may need revision.

The game should alternate each year between Darwin and Alice Springs. 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yes.

No

what price would some ascribe points at a time a window opens ?

It's sad that we are still struggling financially so much we need to sell home games. 

But I trust in PJ, if we didn't really need to do it we wouldn't be doing it

god knows we could use the home advantage. This deal could easily be the difference between finals or no

The off-field benefits are pretty hard to ignore.  Not just the cash, but the academy access it gains us.  It's something the club could turn into a real advantage if they play their cards right.  Two games isn't much in that context. 

are we really struggling still ? Or is it still the agenda of the afl ?

just observationally we seem to have attracted much more sponsorship over the last 5 years yet still some trot out the same old worn fears of impoverishment.

i dont like these gamea in the real season, never have nor will.

6 hours ago, beelzebub said:

are we really struggling still ? Or is it still the agenda of the afl ?

just observationally we seem to have attracted much more sponsorship over the last 5 years yet still some trot out the same old worn fears of impoverishment.

i dont like these gamea in the real season, never have nor will.

After seeing the interview with Jacko after one of this years games, it became clear to me that the AFL is forcing this onto us.

He said something along the lines of  (not verbatim) The AFL arranged the games, and we were the beneficiary of it. I sensed a sarcastic undertone, and was a little surprised when he said it.

If you look at the fixture you will notice that clubs who sell home games have been given less interstate away games than other clubs.

The AFL want games in the NT.

We get the money and less interstate away games. It's a big win. 

We don't have to play at skilled stadium this year which means we don't leave Melbourne as much. 

Still think it sucks? Have a look at all the non Victorian clubs fixture. 

7 hours ago, beelzebub said:

No

When we start geting 45-50k members consistently and can guarantee 30k minimum to games vs interstate sides then we can think about stopping the NT games.

Just now, Night Crawler said:

Still think it sucks? Have a look at all the non Victorian clubs fixture. 

Except for the Swans - Melbourne basically a second home for them! 12 games in Sydney 8 in Victoria and 2 elsewhere.

17 minutes ago, Night Crawler said:

If you look at the fixture you will notice that clubs who sell home games have been given less interstate away games than other clubs.

The AFL want games in the NT.

We get the money and less interstate away games. It's a big win. 

We don't have to play at skilled stadium this year which means we don't leave Melbourne as much. 

Still think it sucks? Have a look at all the non Victorian clubs fixture. 

Agree with that.

The only genuine away interstate games we have are West Coast and Adelaide while the GWS and North games are at their part time homes.

Two of our 6 interstate games are at neutral venues (NT)

Carlton and St Kilda don't sell games and consequently have 6 away interstate games. St Kilda have to travel to WA and SA 4 times! That right there may cost them finals.

The AFL want games in the NT. There, thats the agenda.

Unless i'm mistaken i believe it was reported variously we were abiut to step away from any extension of our committment up there, and then it changed.

why the change ? AFL agenda, not ours

Money talks....loudly!

While we continue to have low membership numbers we will be forced to look for revenue elsewhere.

 

Crowd funding.... then say goodbye to Darwin !!

Less concerned about Alice Springs provided we can turn it into an Event rather than a distraction.

Ideally we wouldn't need to, but at this point in time we still need to $$$. Sucks but it's the reality of the situation. Hopefully we will get to a point where we don't need it, but until then we need to suck it up and try to make it a second home rather than a burden.

It's a reality of the game, 

Port are heading to China, Gold Coast play in Cairns, Hawks to Launceston, North to Hobart, GWS to Manuka. Even the Swans and the Lions to a lesser degree ask to get games in Melb to acknowledge their origins.

If it means we get a couple of fixed games against teams that wouldnt draw huge numbers here, and we grow our base (and remember we have a zone in the NT) and get a good return then rather than harping on about 'selling games' accept it is a part of the landscape and embrace it.

Both of these games are winnable, and the return match after Darwin is something that the club should know how to deal with now, so its a non issue.

Hawthorn and the Bulldogs have won the past four premierships between them, and both have sold games for a number of years. Aside from the money, being able to play in different venues under different conditions is essential to being a good side. We have to learn to deal with whatever comes our way, not just sook and say its all too hard.

The supporters get compensated with two extra games, the team gets less away interstate games, and we get $$ - I really can't see the downside.

The NT deal is a great earner for the club.  The criticism of recent years is that it has really impacted the performance of the players, not only when we play in the NT, but the following round.  Realistically, since the agreement has been in place, it wouldn't matter if we played all 22 games at the MCG, we were still a poor side.

This year, our games in the NT are against the Gold Coast (an expected win), then one again Adelaide (which could go either way).  After the Gold Coast game we have a bye, which is great, and after the Adelaide game we have a 7 day break and play Port Adelaide at the MCG, which we would be expecting to win.

As we should be a better side in 2017, if we win all three of the above mentioned games, there will be minimal complaints of the NT agreement.  In the coming years, it could actually work out to be a fair advantage to us, especially if the AFL continue to offer us a bye after one of the games.

I, personally, am happy with the 2 game agreement, but would like to see it reduced to the one game (ideally the Alice game) in a couple of years when we are really starting to challenge.