10 hours ago, Demon_spurs said:

The next few years are crucial for our long term success, just shows how much pressure is on the recruiting staff, thank goodness for JT

The development aspect is perhaps even more important than the recruitment. That is where we have improved. 

I find it vulgar when people who support/are connected to unsinkable clubs start talking about other people losing theirs, but am also happy that we've escaped the 'next club to cark it' conversation. Eddie loves a badly thought out radical plan (remember when he wanted to give the winner of the pre-season comp a bye to the finals), so I assume he doesn't say anything about the process of dropping a team.

If they're not relocating to Tasmania, then it's only going to happen via merger or them just flat-out catching fire and disappearing. A few years ago I thought the AFL would artificially boost Gold Coast by bolting a dying Victorian team to them, but surely other clubs wouldn't go for that after they've had a bunch of top draft picks and highly rated academy players. So to return to 18 you've got to either start World War III by trying to merge them with another Victorian side, or find a way to drive a club that was debt-free a couple of years ago and still made a profit last year completely broke.

Losing the Tasmanian money will hurt them but it's not like they're Fitzroy 1996 and one strong breeze away from dying. One potential (but unlikely) scenario is that if AFL decides on 20 teams, with a third in both SA and WA, and North get shafted into becoming one of them. Even then, that's years away so I don't see how anything's going to change in the short term. I think this is just Eddie talking out of his ringpiece again.

On 29/04/2024 at 18:03, Oxdee said:

‘The afl is a non profit sport’? You do realise clubs fold if they can’t make a profit? 

You mean like other non-profit organisations? Also, it's the league which is non-profit. Commie alert: the bigger clubs help pay the way for the smaller ones. And I don't think the AFL is at any immediate risk of going broke. The commission are caretakers of the sport in Australia. It should be on them to manage the balance between the commercial aspects while growing the competition, with a focus on the latter including greater grassroots investment. 

Sustainability as to the competitive strength of the individual teams is another matter, but largely subjective. I'd wager most on here lament some supposed 90s glory days. Spectacle in one thing, but objectively the sport is played at a way higher level than in the 80s and 90s with far more professionalism. Many have already commented on the 'there but for the grace of God' nature of sending North to the bin, considering what we dished up for a long period.  

 

 

For those questioning my ongoing support of and the viability of an NT team, here are my solid contentions;

An Indigenous-led team will be underwitten by the fed and state governments, as a social mechanism. 

It will still attract massive sponsorship $$$, in a CSR respect (sorry Santos and INPEX).

The locals will be more likely to switch allegiances or support the NT as a second team compared to Tas. 

Most of Australia will take up the dynamic (cliche) NT as a second team, inc. dinky memberships.

Anyone who has ever watched footy up north will know it's not just a cliche. [censored] is exciting. 

A local team will unearth local hidden talent, adding to the AFL pool. See Jurrah x 10. 

The conditions are challenging, but it's not a big deal in winter. Just a bit slippery. Seriously. 

A new 25,000 seat stadium in the city will fill out every second week the team play at home. 

The same stadium can host other stuff and bring in people from SEAsia. Benefit NT. 

..................................

I'm a Norwood supporter, but would back an NT team before a third SA or WA team. An NT team would outperform GWS and GC on almost every metric in their first season, on and off field. Canberra? pfft. Darwin leans AFL but is fairly split with NRL. Start a team up there and watch the fans and kids gravitate. I have first-hand anecdotal evidence: my kid brother is 6ft.7 and build like the proverbial. He should be an AFL ruck already but is still [censored] around playing rugby. 

 

 

 

 

Maybe Hawthorn and Norf could merge to become the North Dingley Kangapoos?

5 hours ago, Supermercado said:

I think this is just Eddie talking out of his ringpiece again.

Bingo

Current ladder positions after 7 rounds

14th Saints 2 wins

15th Eagles 2 wins

16th Tigers 1 win

17th Hawks 1 win (against North)

18th North 0 wins 

Let’s revisit this after 10 rounds then again at the half way point of the season. 

Some of the games currently being played are sub standard. We can’t continue to dilute our product and just throw up the next tv rights deal as being the saviour of everything. 
An earlier post said North are just a couple of key defenders and a small fwd away from being competitive, for every 5-6 Ben McKay’s there’s 1 Steven May. It’s not that easy. If we had Hawkins and  Cameron playing for us we’d be potentially looking at 4 flags in a row. 
18 teams is working, just, the top 8 finals system works. Yes Tasmania deserves a team but it must come at the expense of an existing Victorian club. Whether or not you like the Giants or Suns, two teams in NSW, QLD, WA and SA makes sense. It might be popular to say every team deserves to stay and a 19th & 20th team is being inclusive. But let’s be honest, look at the game right now, it’s not going to work. 

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

For those questioning my ongoing support of and the viability of an NT team, here are my solid contentions;

An Indigenous-led team will be underwitten by the fed and state governments, as a social mechanism. 

It will still attract massive sponsorship $$$, in a CSR respect (sorry Santos and INPEX).

The locals will be more likely to switch allegiances or support the NT as a second team compared to Tas. 

Most of Australia will take up the dynamic (cliche) NT as a second team, inc. dinky memberships.

Anyone who has ever watched footy up north will know it's not just a cliche. [censored] is exciting. 

A local team will unearth local hidden talent, adding to the AFL pool. See Jurrah x 10. 

The conditions are challenging, but it's not a big deal in winter. Just a bit slippery. Seriously. 

A new 25,000 seat stadium in the city will fill out every second week the team play at home. 

The same stadium can host other stuff and bring in people from SEAsia. Benefit NT. 

..................................

I'm a Norwood supporter, but would back an NT team before a third SA or WA team. An NT team would outperform GWS and GC on almost every metric in their first season, on and off field. Canberra? pfft. Darwin leans AFL but is fairly split with NRL. Start a team up there and watch the fans and kids gravitate. I have first-hand anecdotal evidence: my kid brother is 6ft.7 and build like the proverbial. He should be an AFL ruck already but is still [censored] around playing rugby. 

 

 

 

 

Also A Redlegs supporter, and don't want them in the AFL because i don't know how i would choose between them and  the Dees!

It's also just a media story and nothing else!

I love North a tiny smidgeon less that I love the D's and sometimes more. Went to Arden St and stood in the outer to see the Krakouer boyz play. Unfortunately, Jim was out for some reason but Phil turned it on. So, such are my credentials – apart for the fact that I saw them play Hawks at marvel a few weeks back (bloody awful) and that Clarko went to school with my bro who played U19's and 2's for the D's in the late 80's. They were the junior stars...

Any case, teams have come and gone from the VFL/AFL. Anybody miss University? Swans ain't South. Lions ain't Fitzroy. It's a gut-wrenching thought, but for the good of the comp, I wouldn't mind if Nth and the Saints were relegated to the VFL. Not put out of business, just in a different business, one that maybe they could do well in. This is a National Comp and the dollars are big, but they can't compete in it. Nth have been vastly more successful that D's over the past 60 years, but what do they have to show for their 4 premierships? Still no fans.... One thing in favor of th D's survival is that the fans are actually there.... and if so many weren't also MCC members who get virtually no benefit from joining the club, we'd have more members than we do now.

Yeah, it isn't about onfield success. It's about the ability to sustain a club in a national competition. And it's about the quality of that competition. Too many teams dilutes the product. Teams that can't sustain themselves are a drag on the whole.

Eh... I'm off to cry into my breaky....

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by Grr-owl

Time for the quarterly reminder that the AFL is running down their asset while being loose with the income it is generating.

I'd be interested in the exact financial comparisons for the layers of Australian football, put alongside a general look at what they generate for the game as a whole.

Cost to operate vs...

Participation. As kids, adults, parents, grandparents.

Attendance, ticket sales and 'stadium services' revenue.

Tangible sponsorship. From the local fish&chips and plumber through to the oil&slave empires of the Emirates.

Reputation. The subtle factor in everything else. From trust in a fair fixture and umpiring to the prevalence of drugs and assaults to the assumption that going to the football will be a good time without spitting.

 

I suspect the entire AFLW costs not much more to operate than one AFL club. On that same benchmark you could profoundly boost a bundle of VFL/State level clubs or truckloads of local clubs.

No idea why anyone listens to Eddie anymore

3 hours ago, Skuit said:

For those questioning my ongoing support of and the viability of an NT team, here are my solid contentions;

An Indigenous-led team will be underwitten by the fed and state governments, as a social mechanism. 

It will still attract massive sponsorship $$$, in a CSR respect (sorry Santos and INPEX).

The locals will be more likely to switch allegiances or support the NT as a second team compared to Tas. 

Most of Australia will take up the dynamic (cliche) NT as a second team, inc. dinky memberships.

Anyone who has ever watched footy up north will know it's not just a cliche. [censored] is exciting. 

A local team will unearth local hidden talent, adding to the AFL pool. See Jurrah x 10. 

The conditions are challenging, but it's not a big deal in winter. Just a bit slippery. Seriously. 

A new 25,000 seat stadium in the city will fill out every second week the team play at home. 

The same stadium can host other stuff and bring in people from SEAsia. Benefit NT. 

..................................

I'm a Norwood supporter, but would back an NT team before a third SA or WA team. An NT team would outperform GWS and GC on almost every metric in their first season, on and off field. Canberra? pfft. Darwin leans AFL but is fairly split with NRL. Start a team up there and watch the fans and kids gravitate. I have first-hand anecdotal evidence: my kid brother is 6ft.7 and build like the proverbial. He should be an AFL ruck already but is still [censored] around playing rugby. 

 

 

 

 

If you want that then you offer North the deal they should have got for Tasmania. All home games played in Darwin and all away games in Melbourne with Melbourne based NMFC members given normal members entrance rights.

Training facility in Melbourne for five years before team and admin relocated to Darwin.

Long term location to be reviewed at say 7 year point to consider cancelling Melbourne away game advantage based upon  finances, crowds in Melbourne and on field performance.

This is how the Tasmania team should have been introduced. Given North played 5 or 6 home games in Tasmania anyway the introduction of a hybrid approach was a great intermediate step.

Not sure Darwin would work given airfares and limited connections but longer term who knows.

If you want to think outside the box a soccer team based in Darwin competing in the Indonesian League might also be viable. The other SEA leagues are relative minnows

Bunch of deadbeats and it's seven supporters.

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by leave it to deever

49 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If you want that then you offer North the deal they should have got for Tasmania. All home games played in Darwin and all away games in Melbourne with Melbourne based NMFC members given normal members entrance rights.

Training facility in Melbourne for five years before team and admin relocated to Darwin.

Long term location to be reviewed at say 7 year point to consider cancelling Melbourne away game advantage based upon  finances, crowds in Melbourne and on field performance.

This is how the Tasmania team should have been introduced. Given North played 5 or 6 home games in Tasmania anyway the introduction of a hybrid approach was a great intermediate step.

Not sure Darwin would work given airfares and limited connections but longer term who knows.

If you want to think outside the box a soccer team based in Darwin competing in the Indonesian League might also be viable. The other SEA leagues are relative minnows

Love to see a Darwin team.

It would probably have to rotate between Alice and Darwin to work but even then the numbers aren't that good. Also AS has a bit of an image problem at the moment.

One things for sure is that Tassie and the Nt residents love their footy. 

Will Hobart struggle with it's small population? Maybe it's a growing city. Will need to be to fully support an Afl team.

Again.....Let's just get rid of Gws and Gcs. 

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Time for the quarterly reminder that the AFL is running down their asset while being loose with the income it is generating.

I'd be interested in the exact financial comparisons for the layers of Australian football, put alongside a general look at what they generate for the game as a whole.

Cost to operate vs...

Participation. As kids, adults, parents, grandparents.

Attendance, ticket sales and 'stadium services' revenue.

Tangible sponsorship. From the local fish&chips and plumber through to the oil&slave empires of the Emirates.

Reputation. The subtle factor in everything else. From trust in a fair fixture and umpiring to the prevalence of drugs and assaults to the assumption that going to the football will be a good time without spitting.

 

I suspect the entire AFLW costs not much more to operate than one AFL club. On that same benchmark you could profoundly boost a bundle of VFL/State level clubs or truckloads of local clubs.

I'd say you're dead on. Aflw costs 57 mln to operate.  Last year, MFC made 56 mln in revenue (3 mln profit). 

 

Generally speaking the AFL is drowning in $$$$. 

1 bln of revenue.

650mln operating surplus

Then they pay the clubs 400 mln

The AFLPA gets 50 mln

Grassroots they made a commitment to give 10 percent of revenue (100mln!!)

Net profit is 120mln. (And they don't pay tax)

They have 160 mln in cash on hand. 

TLDR:  there's easily enough runway to expand one or two teams, not eliminate them. 

And for what it's worth the salary cap needs to be increased in line with global sports. Revenue has essentially doubled in 10 years, and salary cap has only gone up 60 percent. 

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by Jjrogan

6 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

I'd say you're dead on. Aflw costs 57 mln to operate.  Last year, MFC made 56 mln in revenue (3 mln profit). 

 

Generally speaking the AFL is drowning in $$$$. 

1 bln of revenue.

650mln operating surplus

Then they pay the clubs 400 mln

The AFLPA gets 50 mln

Grassroots they made a commitment to give 10 percent of revenue (100mln!!)

Net profit is 120mln. (And they don't pay tax)

They have 160 mln in cash on hand. 

TLDR:  there's easily enough runway to expand one or teams, not eliminate them. 

And for what it's worth the salary cap needs to be increased in line with global sports. Revenue has essentially doubled in 10 years, and salary cap has only gone up 60 percent. 

Amazing that all the assistant coaches are still being underpaid since Covid….

15 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

On precisely what pretext is there "not enough money"? The AFL is drowning in dough.

100%

5 hours ago, Skuit said:

For those questioning my ongoing support of and the viability of an NT team, here are my solid contentions;

An Indigenous-led team will be underwitten by the fed and state governments, as a social mechanism. 

It will still attract massive sponsorship $$$, in a CSR respect (sorry Santos and INPEX).

The locals will be more likely to switch allegiances or support the NT as a second team compared to Tas. 

Most of Australia will take up the dynamic (cliche) NT as a second team, inc. dinky memberships.

Anyone who has ever watched footy up north will know it's not just a cliche. [censored] is exciting. 

A local team will unearth local hidden talent, adding to the AFL pool. See Jurrah x 10. 

The conditions are challenging, but it's not a big deal in winter. Just a bit slippery. Seriously. 

A new 25,000 seat stadium in the city will fill out every second week the team play at home. 

The same stadium can host other stuff and bring in people from SEAsia. Benefit NT. 

..................................

I'm a Norwood supporter, but would back an NT team before a third SA or WA team. An NT team would outperform GWS and GC on almost every metric in their first season, on and off field. Canberra? pfft. Darwin leans AFL but is fairly split with NRL. Start a team up there and watch the fans and kids gravitate. I have first-hand anecdotal evidence: my kid brother is 6ft.7 and build like the proverbial. He should be an AFL ruck already but is still [censored] around playing rugby. 

 

 

 

 

Great argument. It will definitely drum up 'feels'. I just wonder about the capital investment required to get the infrastructure up to standard and the ability for the team to attract regular, local support. Based purely on population, I have been to Darwin and love it as a place and have zero view on social demographics of the locals 

17 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

I'd say you're dead on. Aflw costs 57 mln to operate.  Last year, MFC made 56 mln in revenue (3 mln profit). 

 

Generally speaking the AFL is drowning in $$$$. 

1 bln of revenue.

650mln operating surplus

Then they pay the clubs 400 mln

The AFLPA gets 50 mln

Grassroots they made a commitment to give 10 percent of revenue (100mln!!)

Net profit is 120mln. (And they don't pay tax)

They have 160 mln in cash on hand. 

TLDR:  there's easily enough runway to expand one or teams, not eliminate them. 

And for what it's worth the salary cap needs to be increased in line with global sports. Revenue has essentially doubled in 10 years, and salary cap has only gone up 60 percent. 

Correct. Plenty of cash. One of the reasons the executive and the AFLPA get so much money is because there is just so much money! No private equity firm wanting to use profits to capitalise other opportunities and no shareholder dividends. Its a license to print money and not pay tax. 

& the people getting rich are the execs!

20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Amazing that all the assistant coaches are still being underpaid since Covid….

Excellent point.

Security of tenure for assistant coaches is very low. On this basis alone they should be paid extra to allow for the time to transition to another job

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Amazing that all the assistant coaches are still being underpaid since Covid….

The league is rich. The clubs operate under a soft cap & are somewhat handcuffed (league and self inflicted). 

Gaming revenue a simple example. Foregoing that is morally the right thing to do (as our club has done, not all though). But theres a stack of money in it. 

The Dees turning a profit of $3m from $56m revenue is pretty good (>5%). Pokies is another license to print money though

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Time for the quarterly reminder that the AFL is running down their asset while being loose with the income it is generating.

I'd be interested in the exact financial comparisons for the layers of Australian football, put alongside a general look at what they generate for the game as a whole.

Cost to operate vs...

Participation. As kids, adults, parents, grandparents.

Attendance, ticket sales and 'stadium services' revenue.

Tangible sponsorship. From the local fish&chips and plumber through to the oil&slave empires of the Emirates.

Reputation. The subtle factor in everything else. From trust in a fair fixture and umpiring to the prevalence of drugs and assaults to the assumption that going to the football will be a good time without spitting.

 

I suspect the entire AFLW costs not much more to operate than one AFL club. On that same benchmark you could profoundly boost a bundle of VFL/State level clubs or truckloads of local clubs.

"layers" (as in AFL, VFL and equivalent, AFLW, suburban, Auskick, etc) or "players"?

2 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Bunch of deadbeats and it's seven supporters.

The media and supporters of other clubs were about us like that only a decade ago.

7 hours ago, Skuit said:

 

"The locals will be more likely to switch allegiances or support the NT as a second team compared to Tas. 

Most of Australia will take up the dynamic (cliche) NT as a second team, inc. dinky memberships."

Not sure about that - you underestimate the Tassie football public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

The media and supporters of other clubs were about us like that only a decade ago.

Which we fully deserved. We were being run by Clowns 

2 hours ago, Dee*ceiving said:

The league is rich. The clubs operate under a soft cap & are somewhat handcuffed (league and self inflicted). 

Gaming revenue a simple example. Foregoing that is morally the right thing to do (as our club has done, not all though). But theres a stack of money in it. 

The Dees turning a profit of $3m from $56m revenue is pretty good (>5%). Pokies is another license to print money though

Played the pokies for the first time a couple of months ago aka the slots ...one armed bandits 

No such exercise. No heavy lifting required. Just press a button.

Whir. Click. Buzz. Spin. Fifty cents down the dunny.

Whir ...spin A JACKPOT.

Two dollars.

Whir spin.....you get the point, if like me you were dumb enough to play them....ten mins later ten bucks removed from my person.

Game over.

Everything tried in life ( almost).. once right?

But how people play these on a regular basis is sad. I'm all for everyone getting their buzz on but how this could be it and the cost involved... I'll never understand.

I'll play black jack on the cruise ship. I mean at least there's a sporting chance and some fun. And maybe betting in the past on ponies and Afl ...at least there's.  skill/ knowledge involved . Well for some.

But those machines suck. 

Funny, I recall people driving to Echuca to play them. Shame it's not still the way. 

Might be good for the clubs but not the patrons. A fool and their money I suppose.

2 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Played the pokies for the first time a couple of months ago aka the slots ...one armed bandits 

No such exercise. No heavy lifting required. Just press a button.

Whir. Click. Buzz. Spin. Fifty cents down the dunny.

Whir ...spin A JACKPOT.

Two dollars.

Whir spin.....you get the point, if like me you were dumb enough to play them....ten mins later ten bucks removed from my person.

Game over.

Everything tried in life ( almost).. once right?

But how people play these on a regular basis is sad. I'm all for everyone getting their buzz on but how this could be it and the cost involved... I'll never understand.

I'll play black jack on the cruise ship. I mean at least there's a sporting chance and some fun. And maybe betting in the past on ponies and Afl ...at least there's.  skill/ knowledge involved . Well for some.

But those machines suck. 

Funny, I recall people driving to Echuca to play them. Shame it's not still the way. 

Might be good for the clubs but not the patrons. A fool and their money I suppose.

Agree, not for me. The returns are regulated though. I think 85-90% of what goes in must come out (assuming they run to regulation and audits etc. are effective). So if you play long enough you will win!

But if you are a long time player you will forever run 10-15% down on what you bet. That structure actually encourages the problem gamblers because they know eventually they'll get something back. 

The casuals though will mostly lose interest. Play a time or 2, lose and think that sucks.