I think North are doing a deal here where a game in Melb against Westcoast would draw a small crowd so by selling it to WA for a couple of million is just putting some money in the kitty for later on. I know it’s not so good for north members here in Melb but let’s think long term just like the players we now have, once we start to click and the results start l don’t think the club will be selling any games.
I can't believe Rawlings wants to do a deal with Richmond, pick 2 for 6 and future first for pick 11 which will become 13. Somebody needs to stop this self destruction. We will not get out of the bottom 5 next year and could use that pick for the key forward or back we need. Why should we help Richmond get better than us quicker?
Plenty of supporters will be calling for Brady's head if he does something stupid. I'm very hot for us to hold on to our F1. It could for instance help us land Willem Duursma. In that case take the Saints #7 + F1 for #2 offer and on trade that F1 for something late in the first round, although that won't make me happy either.
@@gustaaf1892 I'm happy to use pick 2 on the player we need the most (list wise) ....Tauru who is could be ranked as high as 5. Keep next years pick which will be worth heaps if it's a so called shallow draft, which I don't really buy into....
@@kingdavid448 There are at least half a dozen mids that will be picked before Viking, so I wouldn't be worried about not getting either him or Armstrong with a traded down first pick. There is a rumour that Melbourne could come hard for our #2, so I'll be interested to see what they have to offer.
@@gustaaf1892 I guess my point is if we trade down it has to be a fair trade. Pick 2 for pick 6 is stupidity. Rawlings will have to do better than that with Melbourne.
@@kingdavid448 I agree a straight out downward swap without a sweetener is stupidity, but that won't happen. It'll be a multiple pick and possibly a multiple club trade/swap, but that doesn't mean it will be good for us. Richmond should be desperate to get hold of #2 and have a lot of collateral, but apparently want to give us peanuts. I'd rather do business with anyone else.
After being shopped around to multiple locations, by the AFL, I feel NMFC have lost their integrity (not spirit). Who (apart from us fanatics) would want to support a club that gives away home games, has no continuity plan from its parent, AFL, and now goes out on the street to shop itself around some more. I'm a die hard, genetically imprinted supporter, but it's only another sock in the guts, when we have to further lower our integrity by selling off our soul. I'm feeling we are being tarred with an "AFL Trash" label - no wonder new supporters are hard to come by, our future always seems uncertain and our integrity, based on selling ourselves for a buck, is at an all time low. I understand the financial aspects here, but to grow our supporter base, for long term stability, this is surely not the way.
Dogs, Hawks, Dees, Giants also play home games not at their home ground.. North needs an exit strategy from Tas and $2m per year for playing in WA, they say the club is debt free but saying no to $6m over 3 years would be ridiculous
... missing the point. Not about immediate balance sheet necessities, as stated, this is understood and I agree with the immediate $ need. My point is the long-term and compound impact on intangibles such as integrity, supporter confidence and club's membership appeal, which inhibits supporter-base maintenance & growth, and in turn gets North off or puts North on the streets. Game hocking with poor club reputation doesn't grow our supporter base (Hobart), as it can for other clubs, it's just a survival grab for cash. I feel that new supporters in the AFL heartland - Melbourne, won't "Join in the Chorus" and convert to paying members, if they are not left feeling good about the club's game-sell direction, reputation & treatment of Melbourne based members. Our Melbourne membership is nowhere near our supporter base. Continuous game selling ain't helping long term, it's been done before... guess what ... it ain't helping. An alternative, additional & complimentary strategy needs implementing, to break the cycle, to grow/nurture Melbourne membership, club image and desire to join & support NMFC; to get us out of impulsive, survival-based, decisions that only just will re-manifest year in, year out. Continuity of the last 20-30 year's direction will only strain member relations and temper local support. AFL is booming, with Melbourne being the fastest growing city in Australia, soon to again be the largest, it's a big pie we are not adequately engaging, for long term logical growth prospects and financial security. We just watch other clubs eat our pie, flatlining ourselves. How about we get out of Docklands, co-tenant games with Hawthorn at their new stadium, to tap into the growing core Eastern & South-Eastern population of Melbourne. North "had" a great following at Waverley. The growing SE and East really don't want City games, Dingley may at least offer a clear growth likelihood. ... a possible way to break the cycle, in time, and get NMFC off the streets.
Personally, I think winning games is a better member/supporter recruitment strategy than where you play, sure being local is important but people new to the game or kids straying from their family teams aren't joining in the losing chorus, regardless of where they play
... Roos will simply make more supporters & the revenue being amplified by focusing on and nurturing the Melbourne demographic, even more so with more victories (which await our future). Playing in back-o-bush WA and possibly losing more away 🎉games cannot compete vs developing the Melbourne supporter base, that means playing maximum games in Melbourne as part of marketing targeting Melbourne and winning more home games. Miss that target and consequences would be financially devastating. Cash grab for games is a short-sighted strategy, unfortunately necessary, but not the solution for quantum, or even, steady Melbourne based supporter growth.
Joke for members and shows how we don't want to be competitive next year. If we seriously don't show up next year, getting new members will be a huge struggle.
@@jasonre8830 don’t disagree although our recent record in WA is better than Hobart. Regardless, it would be nice to bring all home games back to melbourne if possible
I think North are doing a deal here where a game in Melb against Westcoast would draw a small crowd so by selling it to WA for a couple of million is just putting some money in the kitty for later on. I know it’s not so good for north members here in Melb but let’s think long term just like the players we now have, once we start to click and the results start l don’t think the club will be selling any games.
I can't believe Rawlings wants to do a deal with Richmond, pick 2 for 6 and future first for pick 11 which will become 13. Somebody needs to stop this self destruction. We will not get out of the bottom 5 next year and could use that pick for the key forward or back we need. Why should we help Richmond get better than us quicker?
Plenty of supporters will be calling for Brady's head if he does something stupid. I'm very hot for us to hold on to our F1. It could for instance help us land Willem Duursma. In that case take the Saints #7 + F1 for #2 offer and on trade that F1 for something late in the first round, although that won't make me happy either.
@@gustaaf1892 I'm happy to use pick 2 on the player we need the most (list wise) ....Tauru who is could be ranked as high as 5.
Keep next years pick which will be worth heaps if it's a so called shallow draft, which I don't really buy into....
@@kingdavid448 There are at least half a dozen mids that will be picked before Viking, so I wouldn't be worried about not getting either him or Armstrong with a traded down first pick. There is a rumour that Melbourne could come hard for our #2, so I'll be interested to see what they have to offer.
@@gustaaf1892 I guess my point is if we trade down it has to be a fair trade. Pick 2 for pick 6 is stupidity. Rawlings will have to do better than that with Melbourne.
@@kingdavid448 I agree a straight out downward swap without a sweetener is stupidity, but that won't happen. It'll be a multiple pick and possibly a multiple club trade/swap, but that doesn't mean it will be good for us. Richmond should be desperate to get hold of #2 and have a lot of collateral, but apparently want to give us peanuts. I'd rather do business with anyone else.
After being shopped around to multiple locations, by the AFL, I feel NMFC have lost their integrity (not spirit). Who (apart from us fanatics) would want to support a club that gives away home games, has no continuity plan from its parent, AFL, and now goes out on the street to shop itself around some more. I'm a die hard, genetically imprinted supporter, but it's only another sock in the guts, when we have to further lower our integrity by selling off our soul. I'm feeling we are being tarred with an "AFL Trash" label - no wonder new supporters are hard to come by, our future always seems uncertain and our integrity, based on selling ourselves for a buck, is at an all time low. I understand the financial aspects here, but to grow our supporter base, for long term stability, this is surely not the way.
Dogs, Hawks, Dees, Giants also play home games not at their home ground.. North needs an exit strategy from Tas and $2m per year for playing in WA, they say the club is debt free but saying no to $6m over 3 years would be ridiculous
... missing the point.
Not about immediate balance sheet necessities, as stated, this is understood and I agree with the immediate $ need.
My point is the long-term and compound impact on intangibles such as integrity, supporter confidence and club's membership appeal, which inhibits supporter-base maintenance & growth, and in turn gets North off or puts North on the streets.
Game hocking with poor club reputation doesn't grow our supporter base (Hobart), as it can for other clubs, it's just a survival grab for cash.
I feel that new supporters in the AFL heartland - Melbourne, won't "Join in the Chorus" and convert to paying members, if they are not left feeling good about the club's game-sell direction, reputation & treatment of Melbourne based members. Our Melbourne membership is nowhere near our supporter base. Continuous game selling ain't helping long term, it's been done before... guess what ... it ain't helping.
An alternative, additional & complimentary strategy needs implementing, to break the cycle, to grow/nurture Melbourne membership, club image and desire to join & support NMFC; to get us out of impulsive, survival-based, decisions that only just will re-manifest year in, year out.
Continuity of the last 20-30 year's direction will only strain member relations and temper local support. AFL is booming, with Melbourne being the fastest growing city in Australia, soon to again be the largest, it's a big pie we are not adequately engaging, for long term logical growth prospects and financial security. We just watch other clubs eat our pie, flatlining ourselves.
How about we get out of Docklands, co-tenant games with Hawthorn at their new stadium, to tap into the growing core Eastern & South-Eastern population of Melbourne. North "had" a great following at Waverley. The growing SE and East really don't want City games, Dingley may at least offer a clear growth likelihood. ... a possible way to break the cycle, in time, and get NMFC off the streets.
Personally, I think winning games is a better member/supporter recruitment strategy than where you play, sure being local is important but people new to the game or kids straying from their family teams aren't joining in the losing chorus, regardless of where they play
... Roos will simply make more supporters & the revenue being amplified by focusing on and nurturing the Melbourne demographic, even more so with more victories (which await our future). Playing in back-o-bush WA and possibly losing more away 🎉games cannot compete vs developing the Melbourne supporter base, that means playing maximum games in Melbourne as part of marketing targeting Melbourne and winning more home games. Miss that target and consequences would be financially devastating.
Cash grab for games is a short-sighted strategy, unfortunately necessary, but not the solution for quantum, or even, steady Melbourne based supporter growth.
150+ years in Melbourne and still struggling to get to 50k members, how much longer you wanna flog that dead horse?
Joke for members and shows how we don't want to be competitive next year. If we seriously don't show up next year, getting new members will be a huge struggle.
@@jasonre8830 don’t disagree although our recent record in WA is better than Hobart. Regardless, it would be nice to bring all home games back to melbourne if possible