The Drums are starting to beat for North

[DeeMee 843]

On 30/04/2024 at 16:51, Hardley Benial said:

Alright I'll bite.

It's time we made an offer to Norf... not a merger but a takeover.

I'm from the corporate world and Norf is ripe for the taking.

Add a white strip down the side of the jumper & we'll call ourselves the kanga demons for two years 

Sheezel & Durrsma in the midfield & Larkey at FF

A. Clarkson - new coach

Three more Grannies.

I'll see myself out...

 

 

I 100% agree but the combined team would be the called the Melbourne Demons, the jumper would have a light blue dot under one armpit and we use Norths Homebase if they have one.

[Sir Why You Little 36,669]

3 hours ago, deanox said:

I'll try again.

Of course other clubs wanted to play Collingwood as their home game. But when Collingwood put their wishlist in, a home game against Melbourne wasn't on it.

If Collingwood had a wishlist for themselves, it was 10 other things, not this one. Because they got more value out of getting a guaranteed away game at the MCG (our wish for them) plus their own wish, than they would've gotten out of having QB as one of their home games.

We shouldn't be thankful. That's genuinely boot licking.

In return, Collingwood basically got no interstate travel, max games at the G, plus the best prime time exposure to grow their brand, for over a decade.

This is why they are so big now.

Collingwood also took over The Ponsford Stand. They made money on Queens Birthday wearing white shorts. 

[mauriesy 7,160]

So far the only drum that's beating is Eddie's.

[old55 22,843]

I'm not sure that an odd number of teams is a huge problem now that bye rounds are committed to with the players association. Sure it's a pain in the early rounds for those teams involved but it may actually help smooth out things if the AFL persists with Round 0. 

They could schedule byes for the 8 teams that play Round 0 in the first 8 rounds and as a result just have one team a week off and not need to schedule the 4 specific mid year byes. They'd need to make sure that teams are not waiting too long for their bye.  With 23 rounds after Round 0 they'd need to schedule byes for 4 of the Round 0 teams mid year, it would make sense for them to be the 4 teams that got byes in Rounds 1-4. They could schedule the other 4 from Rounds 5-8 in the last 4 rounds of the season.

Edited May 2 by old55

[PaulRB 6,297]

[Bystander 899]

Let's be sensible. One club has to go.

In fairness, there should be a vote.

I vote Collingwood.

[Ted Lasso 18,786]

Just send them down to Tassie, they've already had 500 first round picks so no need to compromise the draft and they've got Clarko in charge. 

[Dee*ceiving 1,630]

On 01/05/2024 at 20:17, Little Goffy said:

Eddie has helped other clubs in much the same way a neighbour helps clean up some of the filth they threw over your fence when they realise the rats are crawling back into their yard.

Collingwood has been absolutely core to pushing the rationale that a club which generates revenue should get not only additional revenue generating opportunities (which actually diminishes rival's ability to bridge the gap... creating a vicious cycle of ever-increasing advantage that Marx would look at smugly) but also leverage that interest for favourable fixturing in a purely competitive sense. Nevermind that their ability and willingness to pay was a key driver of expansion/inflation pressures on club staffing.

If there's one thing we can commend the AFL for it's how the draft, soft cap and other factors have led us to the even competition we have now. 

Sydney, the Bulldogs and Melbourne have broken big premiership droughts in the last 20 years and whilst Hawthorn, Geelong and the Tigers have won multiple premierships they've all also had some tough years.

Not only that but I think nearly team has played in a GF since 2000 except GC? - could be wrong on that.  

[Dee*ceiving 1,630]

MLB has a looser model around spending caps. i understand teams you can spend over a nominated cap but every $ over is taxed at a rate that scales up the more you spend. A luxury tax as such.

Not sure how effective it is or where the money goes.

 

[Demonstone 21,827]

10 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Not only that but I think nearly team has played in a GF since 2000 except GC?

Very close!  Carlton and North Melbourne played each other in 1999 with no GF appearances since.

[In Harmes Way 7,712]

11 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Very close!  Carlton and North Melbourne played each other in 1999 with no GF appearances since.

And long may it continue

[Little Goffy 14,029]

On 01/05/2024 at 21:02, Moonshadow said:

I thought that was Jake Lever for a split sec

Intercept Marx?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,652]

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

And long may it continue

For Carlton. I wouldn't be upset if North made a Grand Final soon.

[Dee Dee 1,102]

On 30/04/2024 at 16:51, Hardley Benial said:

Alright I'll bite.

It's time we made an offer to Norf... not a merger but a takeover.

I'm from the corporate world and Norf is ripe for the taking.

Add a white strip down the side of the jumper & we'll call ourselves the kanga demons for two years 

Sheezel & Durrsma in the midfield & Larkey at FF

A. Clarkson - new coach

Three more Grannies.

I'll see myself out...

 

 

Ha, ha, ha, but really not that funny! John Elliott as Carlton president in (I think) 1999 tried to purchase the North Melbourne Football Club. Didn’t happen of course, but he did try!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,652]

24 minutes ago, Dee Dee said:

Ha, ha, ha, but really not that funny! John Elliott as Carlton president in (I think) 1999 tried to purchase the North Melbourne Football Club. Didn’t happen of course, but he did try!

Didn't Carlton own 20% of North Melbourne at that time?

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

On 02/05/2024 at 15:27, Bystander said:

Let's be sensible. One club has to go.

In fairness, there should be a vote.

I vote Collingwood.

I vote the Bombers. May they cease to exist 

[Dee Dee 1,102]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Didn't Carlton own 20% of North Melbourne at that time?

I’m not sure if they owned 20% of north, but North did offer shares in the club -under what circumstances I can’t remember- but I do remember Elliot trying to buy them up. what became of the exercise? I can’t remember either. Maybe somebody with a better memory can fill in the details.

[Diamond_Jim 12,360]

4 hours ago, Dee Dee said:

I’m not sure if they owned 20% of north, but North did offer shares in the club -under what circumstances I can’t remember- but I do remember Elliot trying to buy them up. what became of the exercise? I can’t remember either. Maybe somebody with a better memory can fill in the details.

 

North Melbourne is unique in its structure, because from 1986 to 2006 the club was privately owned and limited by shares. The club was floated in 1986 through a membership vote led by then chairman Bob Ansett. At the meeting, members were encouraged to buy into the club by purchasing shares. The float ended up raising over $3 million and helped to keep the club solvent through the next decade.

In 1991, the John Elliott-led Carlton Football Club attempted a hostile take over North Melbourne by purchasing a large parcel of shares formerly owned by Bob Ansett. The Blues acquired 20 per cent of the capital but that stake was eventually bought back in 2001 by John Magowan, the former head of Merrill Lynch Australia. The resulting melodrama saw the formation of B-Class shareholders who had the effective power of veto over any attempt to merge or relocate the club.

Further takeover attempts were made in the first decade of the 21st century by the Southport Sharks. Then chairman Allan Aylett knocked back a proposal from the Sharks that would have seen them gain a majority stake in the club in exchange for an injection of capital. In early 2006, another proposal from Sharks to underwrite the Kangaroos' games on the Gold Coast, in exchange for a slice of the shareholder structure at the club was knocked back after AFL intervention.

[deanox 9,666]

On 02/05/2024 at 14:48, old55 said:

I'm not sure that an odd number of teams is a huge problem now that bye rounds are committed to with the players association. Sure it's a pain in the early rounds for those teams involved but it may actually help smooth out things if the AFL persists with Round 0. 

They could schedule byes for the 8 teams that play Round 0 in the first 8 rounds and as a result just have one team a week off and not need to schedule the 4 specific mid year byes. They'd need to make sure that teams are not waiting too long for their bye.  With 23 rounds after Round 0 they'd need to schedule byes for 4 of the Round 0 teams mid year, it would make sense for them to be the 4 teams that got byes in Rounds 1-4. They could schedule the other 4 from Rounds 5-8 in the last 4 rounds of the season.

I think the AFL will use this to play a lot of rolling rounds. Games all week so it never feels like we have distinct rounds but instead football all week around.

So yes there will be byes, but it won't be 14 days, it'll be 9 or 10 days.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,652]

On 03/05/2024 at 23:50, deanox said:

I think the AFL will use this to play a lot of rolling rounds. Games all week so it never feels like we have distinct rounds but instead football all week around.

So yes there will be byes, but it won't be 14 days, it'll be 9 or 10 days.

I hope you are wrong. Too much football (meaning spread over too many days) will destroy the product. Someone needs to explain to the AFL the economic value of scarcity.

[deanox 9,666]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I hope you are wrong. Too much football (meaning spread over too many days) will destroy the product. Someone needs to explain to the AFL the economic value of scarcity.

Me too but the AFL have been very focused on the short term, with the exception of investment into GWS and GCS (although even that is short term with respect to tv rights and games in the local market in each state).

Lots of decisions are focused on less than 12 months, and they regularly abandon or flip flop on things quickly if they don't have immediate return.

[greenwaves 445]

What a load of rubbish.  North will spend years on the bottom, they'll get a lot of high draft picks then they'll move up the ladder and then they'll play finals.  We've seen this story many times before.  

Edited May 6 by greenwaves

[Sir Why You Little 36,669]

3 minutes ago, greenwaves said:

What a load of rubbish.  North will spend years on the bottom, they'll get a lot of top draft picks then they'll move up the ladder and then they'll play finals.  We've seen this story many times before.  

They’ve already spent years on the bottom, this year will be number 5. The won’t get a lot of Top End Draft Picks, because other Clubs will demand their share. 
That includes Tasmania, who will get priority for at least 2 years 

 

We haven’t seen this story before, that’s the point