3 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

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.

It's the extreme weather in Darwin. Happy with two games in Alice as long as they get good coverage and exposure back in Melbourne. (Similar to Tasmanian games)

Would be better if air fares to the Centre and the North were not so expensive !!

10 hours ago, DubDee said:

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

i think this is the way I feel about it.

Only PJ knows the full financial ramifications of the deal and what it means to the MFC coffers. He is running a very expensive business that needs funding. Also, until we become a successful club with large membership and sponsors knocking down the door, we are reliant on these type of deals. Given the marginal state of our finances, we don't have much bargaining power.

From a footy viewpoint, our view is heavily influenced by whether we win or lose these games. If we win, it suddenly becomes less of an issue. My greater concern is the impact that these games have on players recovery over several weeks. As anyone who travels around the country will know, different climate, different time zones, different match times and the the impact that these differences have on our daily routines,,sleep patterns and energy levels is a real thing. These things are not an issue when you are "at home."   

I would take a NT game anytime rather than have to play a "Home Game" against St Kilda at Etihad!

8 minutes ago, CBDees said:

I would take a NT game anytime rather than have to play a "Home Game" against St Kilda at Etihad!

Except that a 6 day break after travel to the heat is pretty unfair.

18 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Except that a 6 day break after travel to the heat is pretty unfair.

just need the right supplements, red.......legal of course

If this club expected to win over the last 50 years we wouldn't need to sell games in the desert for a membership gain of about 80 people. 

The recovery of players should be paramount, not a cash grab. 

It is up to the FD ultimately...

2 hours ago, poita said:

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.

^ ^ ^

 

2 hours ago, billy2803 said:

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.

very good billy.

 

Hopefully we have shifted all fair weather players off our list now,  &  getting closer to a list of real goers.

 

I don't know what the temperature's are like at the start of the year in Darwin but if its more favourable it would be nice to get that out of the way early in the year when it might still be "wet season".

Otherwise 2 home games in Alice over the course of year would be better.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

just need the right supplements, red.......legal of course

Bananas?

19 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Bananas?

Careful Red, you'll be told to get back to the so-called weirdo banana thread 

1 hour ago, boydie said:

I don't know what the temperature's are like at the start of the year in Darwin but if its more favourable it would be nice to get that out of the way early in the year when it might still be "wet season".

Otherwise 2 home games in Alice over the course of year would be better.

Nasty. hot, wet and humid. going to the shops is like running a marathon. I lived there for three years. the wet is something only the crazy brave would play football in.

That said, the locals that grew up with it seem to enjoy it.

No way,we have a dreadful away (home game) win/loss ratio.

Unfortunately, we obviously still do, but like the OP I hate it and can't wait until every home game is played at its rightful place.

The G.

It is costing us wins, both up there and back here after traveling. 

Get rid of them. 

We will make more winning in Melbourne.

No we shouldnt.

Any teams with lower membership should be reimbursed by the AFL with all that TV rights money they have.

How the hell will the league ever be an even playing field when teams like Melbourne play HOME GAMES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY twice per season?

30 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Unfortunately, we obviously still do, but like the OP I hate it and can't wait until every home game is played at its rightful place.

The G.

PD, as you allude theres a sentiment that as we are, we must still do (need them )

I seriously wonder that its more of an iimpost on us now.

I really had the impression Jackson has his hands tied in some manor and its not his genuine wish to continue with NT.

Something nqr about all this now imho

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

PD, as you allude theres a sentiment that as we are, we must still do (need them )

I seriously wonder that its more of an iimpost on us now.

I really had the impression Jackson has his hands tied in some manor and its not his genuine wish to continue with NT.

Something nqr about all this now imho

think it's called paying the piper, bub

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

think it's called paying the piper, bub

Surely Peter has picked our pack of pickled peppers by now. 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Surely Peter has picked our pack of pickled peppers by now. 

afl hq can be pretty plain pernickety when it comes to peter's pickled peppers, not to mention parsimonious, petty, precious  and pernicious

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

afl hq can be pretty plain pernickety when it comes to peter's pickled peppers, not to mention parsimonious, petty, precious  and pernicious

precisely

22 hours ago, beelzebub said:

No

This.

Edited October 28, 20169 yr by Wadda We Sing

22 hours ago, Ouch! said:

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.

Totally agree, it always gets us extra members as well, to help get a higher membership figure........you never know then we can look at never playing at Etihad again either

I hope the Darwin game isn't dropped, been to three up to now, great place to watch footy and chill

Does anyone remember what our profit was last year? Until it is consistently north of $1mil, we need these games

On 28 October 2016 at 7:22 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

Why would we drop them? Hawks played 4 games in Tassie this year. If the money is there take it. 

12 hours ago, daisycutter said:

afl hq can be pretty plain pernickety when it comes to peter's pickled peppers, not to mention parsimonious, petty, precious  and pernicious

Poultry poo panhandling peanuts.