"I cant see how we can achieve either of those things without getting the better deal in the first place "

Spot on, Deanox. We must fight against these inequities.

On-field success is no guarantee of fairer treatment. As stated above, look at the Kangaroos, being forced up North to Qld., despite the AFL denying that was their intention.

Doesn't this get back to the very point I was making. If all clubs were treated equally we would have more sponsorship opportunities with more games in Melbourne and on friday night on peak rating TV etc. More melboune games to boost attendances, display sponsors product, sell club products etc. etc. The handout we get from the AFL is because we are being shafted financially and in the competition. It is nothing more than ' shut up and take this" (money). No matter which way you look at this we are getting a poor deal and I don't see why so many of us just say " oh well, nothing we can do, bend over and take it". I will tell you one thing, Eddie wouldn't take it.

Not really.

In business which is multi branded like the AFL there are brands (clubs) that not only provide strong revenue/attendance flows but also have the capacity to further grow at a rate that is greater than the those clubs who have poor revenue/ poor attendance flows and little capacity to grow attendances, you focus and favour the brand lines that maximise your objectives.

The AFL objectives are to make as much money by providing 16 teams in football competition that maximises bums on seats, TV viewing audiences and corporate sponsor.

Financially MFC is not a viable standalone club. Like other Vic based clubs, I suspect that MFC has been a financial basket case (as well as on the field) for at least 35 years. It like other Vic based clubs exists because the AFL is committed to providing 16 clubs to cable TV.

The legacy of history and experience with other clubs suggests that longer term, the AFL cannot field 10 Vic based Clubs. Longer term clubs like Kangas, Saints, Richmond, Bulldogs, Hawks and ourselves are in the gun re survival in this State unless we can turn it around organically rather charity from the AFL in the draw where we currently just dont draw the numbers. The Kangas are going to the Gold Coast. That is there only hope. Hawthorn may eventually make Tassie its own. The Bulldogs up North in the Top End. The Saints, Richmond, ourselves are in doubt. We may stay because of our name. But what form we will be in 20 years....who knows?

i've been saying the same think all week, but everyone just keeps telling me that either 'success will get us a better deal' or 'bums on seats will get us a better deal' but in all honesty i cant see how we can achieve either of those things without getting the better deal in the first place (and fwiw i proved that the success will get a better deal is a falsity).

Well firstly Dean, we have had neither sustained success nor have we had bums on seats. Secondly FWIW your proved nothing but just misled yourself because you cant see AFL football beyond it being game.

The AFL will not sacrifice a big draw game like Carlton - Collingwood for piddling crowd from two low drawing clubs (one of them Melbourne).

MFC need to make systemic changes to the way it operates if it is to survive in the future. It has low membership, low number of supporters and based on market research that was carried out a relatively low number of people in Australia identify themselves as MFC supports relatively to other clubs.

Given the AFL is tied to its commercial objectives I dont see the commercial logic in weight the draw back towards MFC hoping to grab 10 to 20 members at the sacrifice of a Collingwood that would probably lose out on 200 members. Thats a significant lose to the AFL.

Spot on, Deanox. We must fight against these inequities.

On-field success is no guarantee of fairer treatment. As stated above, look at the Kangaroos, being forced up North to Qld., despite the AFL denying that was their intention.

Besides heated posts on this site, what practical strategies would you suggest to the Board that they are not looking at now?

Sustained on field success is the only way of attracting greater supporters and greater sponsorship. We have to start that initiative from within MFC to get the AFL to change.

The Kangaroos are financially stuffed staying in Melb. They either move or withered hopelessly on the vine for a long death like Fitzroy. They have a chance to at least control their own destiny in a demographic that has a strong growing affluent population and a huge demand for AFL to build a brand. They wont do it from rusted meatworks and abattoirs around Arden St.

Given the AFL is tied to its commercial objectives I dont see the commercial logic in weight the draw back towards MFC hoping to grab 10 to 20 members at the sacrifice of a Collingwood that would probably lose out on 200 members. Thats a significant lose to the AFL.

interesting point. and i think this statement is where we differ. i would rather see a 16 team competition with 16 healthy teams with even supporters bases, income and draw, making the competition a good game of footy. good recruiting, good coaching, and the best players will then bring you success, not any of the other business nonsense we've been talking about. the afl, and you presumably agree with them, would rather see the overall health of the afl increase making money (for someone), even if its at the expense of certain teams. i am of the opinion that the afl is there to manage the league responsibly and look after the clubs. the clubs should just be there to play football.

i dont care about the health of the league. i couldnt care if overall membership is down slightly, or if players have to maintain the same payrates for 4-5 years (god knows they dont need an increase, and their demand for an increase can only come about if revenue increases anyway). as long as the competition is an even and fair competition, because i want to watch elite sport, not business.

i agree with most things said on this board but i blame the fact that we only pull crowds when we are winning...i reckon we have a lot of supporters but most of them are not loyal enough and do not go to enough matches or buy the membership. the afl is already helping us out...if we pulled the crowds (which i reckon we can) this wouldnt happen. the blame goes back on the supporters IMO.

i would rather see a 16 team competition with 16 healthy teams with even supporters bases, income and draw, making the competition a good game of footy. good recruiting, good coaching, and the best players will then bring you success, not any of the other business nonsense we've been talking about. the afl, and you presumably agree with them, would rather see the overall health of the afl increase making money (for someone), even if its at the expense of certain teams. i am of the opinion that the afl is there to manage the league responsibly and look after the clubs. the clubs should just be there to play football.

i dont care about the health of the league. i couldnt care if overall membership is down slightly, or if players have to maintain the same payrates for 4-5 years (god knows they dont need an increase, and their demand for an increase can only come about if revenue increases anyway). as long as the competition is an even and fair competition, because i want to watch elite sport, not business.

When you have 10 clubs in Victoria. Forget it. It cant feasibly happen.

Its not a matter of agreeing with the AFL objectives but understanding what they are and the decisions they take. The AFL was created to look after the game (not the clubs) away from the old rivalries that plagued the VFL when 16 club directors fought things out inequitable around an old wooden table. There was not a chance in hell of getting the salary cap and the draft arrangements through under the old system.

Elite sports are businesses and the competitions are rarely even and fair. The AFL is a business first and foremost and to expect any other concept is to lead to disappointment.

The Kangaroos are financially stuffed staying in Melb. They either move or withered hopelessly on the vine for a long death like Fitzroy. They have a chance to at least control their own destiny in a demographic that has a strong growing affluent population and a huge demand for AFL to build a brand. They wont do it from rusted meatworks and abattoirs around Arden St.

I read somewhere that the Kangaroos averaged attendances of 37000 this year. I also read that Carrara currently holds 11000. Understanding that they may be adopted by Gold Coasters who are an ageing population of retirees from down south, who probably wouldn't attend football matches anyway, won't the AFL have to spend 30-40 million dollars at least to bring the stadium up to required standard. Then that will only be a 30-35000 stadium. Doubtful if they will fill it. Yet they leave a 37000 average attendance behind. What would 30-40 million dollars do for them and other teams down here. I am obviously missing something. Is it the oldies at the pokies or is it TV? Or does the AFL see every kid from Tweed Heads to Dreamworld in a kangaroos jumper?

Unfortunately we are as much to blame as anyone. Given that the current format is a compromise then the AFL can wash it's hands of trying to create the perspective of an even draw. Would we rather play West Coast at the MCG in a home game or Essendon? We just can't get enough people through the gates at the MCG against the interstate sides to make a profit. Those games lose us money. Scheduling them for the Dome is no good as we don't want to play there.

I agree there should be a more even distribution of Friday, Saturday and Sunday games, but as far as scheduling matrix's go the whole thing is very complicated because there are so many requests that need to be factored in. We got our wishes for all our home games (Manuka excepted) to be at the G, and for more equity in the reduction of six day breaks (and no five day breaks this year) It's the first time for a while, what we need now is people to start turning up to games, because bums on seats is the only thing the AFL and it's broadcast partners listen to.

Agree entirely..selling "home games" interstate handicaps us before we start..look at the results of the "Gabba" disaster - one win in the whole time and completely disrupted momentum EVERY YEAR !

From a selfish point of view I liked the guaranteed game here but as it turns out we play here anyway next year and also at Carrara.

I do wish to correct you though on the Gabba win ratio... we won in 2002 and also in 2006 and the 2002 one was a ripper!!!!

I read somewhere that the Kangaroos averaged attendances of 37000 this year. I also read that Carrara currently holds 11000. Understanding that they may be adopted by Gold Coasters who are an ageing population of retirees from down south, who probably wouldn't attend football matches anyway, won't the AFL have to spend 30-40 million dollars at least to bring the stadium up to required standard. Then that will only be a 30-35000 stadium. Doubtful if they will fill it. Yet they leave a 37000 average attendance behind. What would 30-40 million dollars do for them and other teams down here. I am obviously missing something. Is it the oldies at the pokies or is it TV? Or does the AFL see every kid from Tweed Heads to Dreamworld in a kangaroos jumper?

How many of these average attendances were actually Kangas supporters?

If you look at there Melb based home games they averaged approx. 35,000.

Amongst that number they had home games against Collingwood, Blues, Essendon and Geelong. The numbers would have surely swelled. They had a great year further buoyed by Archers 300 and record breaking efforts. They had the wind in their sails. Short of a flag this year was a maximum year for it.

What is more telling is when they played Melb at home (D'lands) sitting 3rd with 10wins and 5 losses the crowd was only 20,187. No big opposition to swell the numbers. As most MFC supporters had disappered skiiing, there was at best for the Kangas 20,000 as it looked like there was only 187 MFC patrons there. In reality there were more MFC people present and the likely Kangas contingent was 10-15,000. A home game, team performing well with a high probability of victory and they cant muster the crowds.

It is also a pretty damning indictment about MFC supporters and how difficult it is for the MFC Board to win AFL favour when the club's supporter do not attend games. FWIW, when we played Port Adelaide and Freo at home (at the MCG) in Rounds 6 and 4 we got approx. 16,000 to each match. Hardly good cause to push the bigger clubs off the G!

I disagree with your assessment of the Gold Coast. The oldies are but one component of one of the fastest growing demographics in Australia. The Gold Coast for the last 10 years have suffered significant infrastructure shortages on schools, roads, hospitals, shopping centres and water resources to cope with the expanding population up there. Its an important foothold. One in which the rugby league fraternity have already sunk a side.

For AFL, the capital commitment of 30-40 million represents a long term investment in developing the game in a State where they have not conquered. For North they get facilities, TV coverage back into Victoria, home ground advantage and access to the support and sponsorship potential of this area.

I heard similar comments levied at South Melb when they went to Sydney. It was rough in the short term but the AFL made an important beach head in difficult terrain with a Club that was disappearing fast.

Besides heated posts on this site, what practical strategies would you suggest to the Board that they are not looking at now?

Sustained on field success is the only way of attracting greater supporters and greater sponsorship. We have to start that initiative from within MFC to get the AFL to change.

The Kangaroos are financially stuffed staying in Melb. They either move or withered hopelessly on the vine for a long death like Fitzroy. They have a chance to at least control their own destiny in a demographic that has a strong growing affluent population and a huge demand for AFL to build a brand. They wont do it from rusted meatworks and abattoirs around Arden St.

Heres a suggestion for u rhino, why dont the demons make a deal with the storm or victory or both. Were u can get a combined membership, for an extra cost of course, this way we build the MFC brand and attract victory and storm supporters to become demon supporters. Not sure if anything like this is being done or how successful it would be, its just an idea.

Heres a suggestion for u rhino, why dont the demons make a deal with the storm or victory or both. Were u can get a combined membership, for an extra cost of course, this way we build the MFC brand and attract victory and storm supporters to become demon supporters. Not sure if anything like this is being done or how successful it would be, its just an idea.

Iso,

Good on you for putting some suggestions up.

However I think that idea is being explored and implemented.

Checky Brocky's thread:

http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8264

Cheers Rhino, i am both suprised and impressed that the club is exploring an idea like this.

Living in WA i don't know wat type of advertising u guys get over there, i was just wondering wat effort the club puts into advertising the club, and trying to attract more supporters.

Hopefully the will have an ad campaign about our 150th year, oldest football club a new era and try to get all our supporters to join up for this season.

Iso,

Good on you for putting some suggestions up.

However I think that idea is being explored and implemented.

Checky Brocky's thread:

http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8264

I took out a Team Melbourne membership last week. I am sure it is the forerunner of some modified combined membership.

I took out a Team Melbourne membership last week. I am sure it is the forerunner of some modified combined membership.

I completely agree Redleg. Well done for doing so.

I think if MFC is to survive in 20 years time as its "own" entity it will be a different structure to what we see today. I see it either being some form of associate to a more prominent Melbourne sporting club or an amalgam of different sporting interests with a common focus on Melbourne.

I completely agree Redleg. Well done for doing so.

I think if MFC is to survive in 20 years time as its "own" entity it will be a different structure to what we see today. I see it either being some form of associate to a more prominent Melbourne sporting club or an amalgam of different sporting interests with a common focus on Melbourne.

You may be right. If this concept is refined with the Football club taking a "senior" role perhaps in conjunction with the Melbourne Racing Club, one could see a special type of membership giving regular access to the various sports. In my opinion this type of membership would be highly sought as a result of the value it would provide. The spin offs are obvious for marketing/sponsorship etc. Together with the new facility and "success" in China, this could be the start of the financial turnaround for the MFC.

The writing is on the wall for the Kangas move North to the Gold Coast or ultimately perish.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/kangaroos...3618965952.html

The writing is on the wall for the Kangas move North to the Gold Coast or ultimately perish.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/kangaroos...3618965952.html

Vlad is sounding more and more like the feuhrer every day. Is that how the AFL does its business these days?

Vlad is sounding more and more like the feuhrer every day. Is that how the AFL does its business these days?

I heard the same said about Wayne Jackson, Ross Oakley etc......... The AFL is not going to carry a long term financial basket case in the competition. South Melb and Fitzroy were examples of clubs that were not going to survive in the national competition. There's nothing different on thatr front

The Kangaroos are a financial basket case in their current state and the current Kangas Board solution does not address the problem.

However, I think Demitriou has erred in other areas like drug policy and matters bringing the game into disrepute.