Rhino Richards

We need to be careful Balls. We need them more than they need us. I cant see them tipping any more into us than they do at present

I am glad you said 2026 because it will take at least a generation for that to have any impact. And that population growth could as easily follow some of the more high profile successful clubs as they could North Melbourne if indeed at all. Any chance they may prefer the world game? Its all big ifs and a pipe dream and some of those clubs mentioned might not survive in their present form to see the fruits if any.

Membership Income is only part of the story but your information is interesting nevertheless. The membership mix is important. Membership numbers can be deceptive particularly if MFC members are MCC Members than pay a token $40 membership. You need 4 of those members to make the same financial contribution as one normal footy club member. In some ways the MCC is both a godsend and a shackle to MFC. A club needs to look at all forms of revenue, membership, sponsorship, other trading activites and AFL sourced. And my comments on North in no way insinuate that MFC isnt one. It is. However I think its opportunities to succeed are slightly rosier than NM and that when they had the chance NM should have seriously contemplate the move given they spent 5 or 6 fruitless years trying to get a leg in ACT/NSW. However the disposition of NM does not necessarily make it better for MFC. In fact if both manage the future poorly then both will not survive.

As if we will drop our VC who was serviceable and has been named in the 18 to play?

Oh Princess if you actually followed the argument, you would have noted I am not for merging and North may have been better consider other options than staying here given they have spent the previous 5 years try to unsuccessfully prostitute themselves to Canberra and the "second" side in Sydney. But being able to follow a line of argument has not been your strength and providing low content snipes is really where you revel. A victory of ignorance. Any income they receive from the AFL is at the behest and standards of the AFL. Aside from that money, North generate a lower proportion of other revenue. As the costs of running a football club are increasing and richer competitors are continually raising the bar, low profile and low membership clubs are going to struggle to meet and compete on those standards. North's membership has been overstated in recent years by the emotive can rattle and threat of moving. Its reverting to mean and trail other Clubs who know that they need to continually raise the bar on membership. North has little or no profile in the media, no real community representation. There home games are poorly attended and that has been when they were seriously challenging in the top 8 for a number of years. While the AFL want 16 to 18 teams, NM can rely on the AFL split of the TV rights. But North know that if they are going to do more than make up the numbers they have to increase membership, profile and interest in the brand. I think they will struggle to break out of the financial hole they are in.

What and who does North represent these days? Shinboners....the abattoirs are gone from this battling working class suburb that been partially consumed by the stretch of the CBD. No community backbone to it. They won flags with one of the great players of the 20th century...Wayne Carey. No business model to cash in on. Poorly run at times. The Tigers golden period...5 flags in 13 years (67 to 80). Won heaps of supporters who are the baby boomers and gen Xers with money to continue to follow them. Strong dynamic community background and connection. Since 1980 poorly run and managed. Last six year have been a golden opportunity thrown away. No its critical for us. We need to more than one for enduring success like Geelong. However we do need a successful business model that means we need more than 40,000 full paying members to think we can prosper. And we need high paying corporate sponsors. Collingwood have one flag in 50 years as one of the most financial and largest membership brands. However they have not got it right on the field and in the footy dept and Eddie and Mick will be the longest losing President and Coach. The Hawks have terrific supporter base from their heyday in 71 to 91 ( 8 flags!!!). Their deal at Waverley and Tassie have been winners. Freo were a basket case till Schwab got hold of them. Freo are only now getting their footy department together. You need money to provide you with the tools to succeed. However you need to be able to assemble the right tools. Geelong did some long term list planning under Thompson and were blessed with the best F/S deal ever. And how can you not have support from such a big community down there.

Geelong and Western Bulldogs thought the same with Peter Street at 206cms but..... We dont know how GAWN will turn out. He's tall...thats it atm.

Another skill there....

You almost got close to the answer. If we dont maximise the opportunity to win a flag within the next 5 to 7 years then the odds of us ever win a flag will blow out further particularly when there will be up to 18 teams in the competition. Its already going to be a challenge given the relatively small budget we have to run our football department with. And we are only now getting access to reasonable facilities to train. Why? Because the gulf between the rich clubs and poor clubs gets bigger regardless of the draft, salary cap. The rich clubs can spend the money on facilities, medical, rehabilitation, fitness and support staff, coaches and administrators that poor Clubs only dream about. And the cost of these extras is getting greater. If we are as reliant as we are on AFL funding that we are and struggle to break a profit (not subsidised by tin rattles) we can invest effectively in the development of our players. If you dont believe have a look at the money made by Freo, WCE and Hawthorn and look at the size of the support teams, facilities etc. The gulf is getting wider for the bottom teams. Unless the rules change in its favour I cant see NM ever having another serious tilt at a flag let alone surviving in their current format and structure. This group are potentially our last real tilt at a flag in the current structure that is an AFL member based "Melbourne Football Club". Our inabiliity to operate a profit is a challenge to how we get the best out of this group. If we dont win a flag with this group then how far behind is MFC going to be on the trend setters then. On field success is an important part of building successful brand that has enduring interest and support from people that buy membership and merchandise in such quantities that corporate sponsor want to align with and are prepare to but big dollars to do so. However if we dont have a sustainable profitable business model the ability to achieve that on field success will be restricted.

MFC must be prepared to withstand the Tigers early. They will come out hard and throw everything they have at us. I dont think the Tigers can sustain it and MFC need to take advantage of them when they falter.

Great two basket cases come together as one. Why couldn't they keep their hearts in the game through the Lions? About the same level of connectivity for Fitzroy supporters. At least NM home games would not look so empty. Who ever said that is wrong and misguided. North's dire position is its own. MFC' financial position is its own. Whether North stays or go does not take away from the fundamental requirement for MFC to be a financially viable organisation. I dont think anyone has put Rogue's point up as an argument for sometime. And rightly so. The issue for clubs like MFC and NMFC is that AFL income makes up a higher proportion of their overall revenue take. All Clubs do not AFL funding. However successful clubs need to develop sustainable source of revenue outside the AFL stream to continue to be successful.

Your tagline about digging holes is uncannily apt. BTW, its we're history.

Who would be dropped for Cheney?? Agree with that. People forget that.....

Merging is not an option for any Club. The Dees-Hawks fiasco proved that. I would have thought the adventures of North would have proved that there are too many clubs in Melbourne and that a Club like North is not sustainable longer term. MFC have this one chance to get things right otherwise its history.

Why does who GC should recruit so heavily and unreasonably biased to players with some form of origin from Queensland? Is Vlad running GC as a covert family repatriation scheme for Qld expats? Any chance GC might actually be chasing the players they actually want and need?

They should have taken the money when they had the chance and settled in the GC. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dropoff-stuns-north-boss-20100414-se2h.html "North Melbourne's membership is currently 25,534, well under the 26,549 the club had signed up this time last season. The Kangaroos lag behind their local rivals, with even long-time membership strugglers Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs having easily surpassed North's tally, the Demons currently with 29,218 members, and the much-hyped Dogs at 32,777." This is the final membership ladder for 2009: Hawthorn 52,496 Adelaide 46,472 Collingwood 45,972 West Coast 43,927 Carlton 42,408 Essendon 40,412 Fremantle 39,206 Geelong 37,160 Richmond 36,981 St Kilda 31,906 Melbourne 31,508 Port Adelaide 30,605 North Melbourne 28,340 Bulldogs 28,215 Sydney 26,269 Brisbane 24,873

The Club had re priced his next contract on the basis of plateauing performance and lack of game time. Carlton need to cash in while they had Judd and needed a bullocking midfielder to allow Judd, Gibbs and Murphy the scope to roam. They also needed an experienced replacement for Stevens whose career was cut short with a neck injury. By giving pick 11 they did pay over the odds particularly when Ball later became available.

Agree. All the hard work of the past 2 weeks and pre season will all be fairy floss. And the posts saying "Why did we extend Bailey's contract?" will re emerge. Its an important game in the context of things. Richmond will come out yelping in the 1st quarter. Its whether they can sustain it over 4 quarters.

Great one financially stricken municipality sponsor another financial stricken organisation. If I was a ratepayer in the City of Melb I would be seriously questioning sporting sponsorship of entity like MFC which has no profile on TV, attendances etc and no success. If they wanted to push Melbourne the city why wouldn't they sponsor one of the flagship clubs in this city thats well known outside Victoria.

Agree with the history and it will take a toll on his body eventually. And never use rumours to fuel any fire. But at the moment the injuries dont appear to be chronic hamstring/back or other soft tissue matters.

Until Watts plays AFL he is not in my top six but I understand his importance. He should be there after he establishes himself as an AFL regular. Agree on GAWN too! I would not have Junior in there either. Important but that importance fades as he approaches retirement at the end of this year. My top six: Grimes- Mature, solid, dependable with great skills and awareness. Hopefully generate a number of meaningful counterattacks for 10 years + for MFC Frawley- Watching him this year reminds me of a young Gary Hardeman. Probably the most exciting key defensive player I have seen at MFC for years. Will hurt teams both defensively with strength and judgement and offensively with his pace and attack. Jamar-It all starts in the centre. And our good performances against the Woods and Adelaide have been triggered by the ruck and bullocking work of Jamar. Hope he keeps his fitness because he is light years ahead of his nearest contender Spencer for the ruck role. Davey- Greater maturity and exquisite ball use can really hurt the opposition. Question mark about ability when giong gets tough or in September. Trengove- Already at AFL pace after 3 games. Scary how good this guy could become. Scully- Finding his way in his 1st year of AFL footy. Another star in the making with a big engine Next top six Jurrah- Could be anything as an AFL footballer with his inate skills. Hard to match off and unpredictable in the use of his skills. Come back soon. Sylvia- Body is rigt. Minds getting there. Its now time for a strong impact player to influence games. Ability to slot 60m goals should not be overlooked Morton- Silky skills with great aerobic capacity and football nous. Hard match up whether midfield and forward. Been sadly missed Garland- Beautiful skills and judgement with good pace. Can play tall and small effectively. A read find. Warnock- Plays the unseen stopper role. Important underrated cog in the line up. McKenzie- When Jmac retires, McKenzies ability to contest tackle and use the ball well will be vital. This will vary over time but I think the importance of our younger players and development is starting to show through.

He broke his ankle in 2007 through a tackle and missed alot of the season. His hip injury could have been the result of another collision injury. Unfortunate for him. Hardly injury prone but when you are playing close in packs seeking the first touch out of the centre such collision outcomes are possible.

Found this old thread on Newton from 12 months ago. Interesting.... http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15395&st=40

How times change Dfart!! By all reports players like Athol Webb were very capable, very smart and clever footballers. From reading Red Fox apparently Norm Smith was similar if not better. If we had Jurrah fit and Watts has developed as a KPF do you think we would use them as decoys?? How much of a decoy to the opposition is a forward that does not kick goals, does not hold marks or his balance consistently??

Garland is very adaptable and can play tall and small. He has played a number of roles on shorter opponents and done well.In 2008, he absolutely blanketed Jeff Farmer who could not get a sniff of leather as Garland had him for pace and judgement That's one aspect to the class of this kid that we have missed for sooo long. Cheney is not fast enough. And Bartram has a huge tank to run with Tambling.