Big few months ahead as AFL work on GWS project
By Roger Vaughan, 18 Mar 2010 Roger Vaughan is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Greater Western Sydney AFL, Kevin Sheedy
AFL administrators face a crucial few months as they work to a tight deadline on their ambitious Greater Western Sydney expansion project.
The league want the Kevin Sheedy-coached “GWS” team to join the competition in 2012, a year after Gold Coast make their AFL debut, but first the 18th team needs a home stadium.
The AFL Commission will not vote on issuing the GWS licence until the stadium issue is revolved.
AFL administrators would undoubtedly prefer to put a licence proposal to the commission by mid-year.
There is plenty of speculation about where GWS will call home, with Blacktown Olympic Park and the Sydney Showgrounds two frequently-mentioned possibilities, but AFL chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan would not go into specifics
“We can’t talk too much about the stadium, but we’re talking to a number of stakeholders,” he said.
“We’re optimistic, but it’s a difficult one and stadium redevelopment, they’re big projects.
“It’s important, but we’re going okay.
“There are a few different options – there’s a preferred venue, which I can’t talk about.”
McLachlan called the stadium the “next big” issue in the league’s ambitious project to create GWS.
The league is determined to have the 18th team in the competition for 2012, but McLachlan admits there are variables yet to be overcome.
“I’m not trying to create a headline – we’re pretty definitive about that – but if you can’t get everything done (that) you need to able to award the licence you want … if it was an absolute ‘set in stone’, then you would just award the licence,” he said.
“We’re very keen and as much as we can set it in concrete, it’s 2012, but we have to get these things done.
“It’s as certain as we can be without having the certainty over the things we need to get done to award the licence.”
Despite the obvious challenges, the AFL has been making progress with GWS.
Sheedy’s appointment has been a public relations coup.
“He’s a star, isn’t he?,” McLachlan said.
Other well-known AFL figures such as Tom Harley, Paul Kelly and Graeme Allan have also joined the club.
“People’s mindsets have changed in the last three or four months, everyone instinctively understood and embraced the Gold Coast, but they found Greater Western Sydney more of a challenge,” McLachlan said.
“They’ve seen the announcements we’ve had, the momentum it’s delivered and the people of Greater Western Sydney have started embracing the concept.
“What we’re really pleased to see is people (in the GWS area) are looking for sport, they’re looking for something to identify with and they can see the benefits, whether they are social, community, economic or health.”
© AAP 2012Key AFL figures for 2009 announced on Wednesday:
* Record revenue of $303.5 million, up from $302.1 million in 2008.
* Record operating surplus, before grants and distributions, of $213.5 million, up from $207 million.
* Record of $135.8 million distributed to the AFL clubs, up from $131.8 million.
* Record membership of AFL clubs of 586,748, up from 574,091.
* Total season attendance of 7,341,310.
* Record participation of 732,803, up from 693,052.
* Record Auskick participation of 169,000.
* Grand final watched by an average national audience of 3.848 million, the most watched TV program of any kind in Australia.
* Stadium funding deals for Adelaide Oval and Gold Coast Stadium.
* Improved deals for MCG and Etihad Stadium tenant clubs.
* Salary package of $1.8 million for chief executive Andrew Demetriou.
* Other 10 members of AFL executive paid total of $5.02 million.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (158)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Slowly but surely, here come the GWS Giants (129)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (87)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (71)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Will GWS Giants win a game in 2012? (50)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (29)
- AFL Tigers need to step up, says Cotchin
- Riewoldt wants new Saints captain in 2013
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (84)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life?
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (75)
- North Melbourne suspend Majak Daw (2)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (84)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (1)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (35)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Who will rise in AFL’s season 2012? (19)
- Explore:
- AFL, Greater Western Sydney AFL, Kevin Sheedy
Firebrand Sally said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:03am | Report comment
“What we’re really pleased to see is people (in the GWS area) are looking for sport, they’re looking for something to identify with and they can see the benefits, whether they are social, community, economic or health.”
What the heck is that statement supposed to mean?
Big tip AFL – we already have sport in the west of Sydney.
Oh, that’s right, but YOUR sports can’t solve the areas “social, community, economic or health” issues, but the AFL and YOUR new team, the GWS Bunyips, will.
I know that when I’m deciding on which team to support via tickets, membership or merchandise, or deciding one day which code my future kids will play, I’ll be looking very carefully to weigh up which one is best performing in the “social, community, economic or health” stakes.
Does AFL trot out this sort of mother-hood rubbish in Melbourne, or are they just saving it up for us? Or are they actually not talking to potential fans of GWS at all, but the area’s politicians and social and church leaders?
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:22am | Report comment
And so the fear campaign begins again in earnest. Take a deep breath and repeat after me Sally…”The AFL are not coming to steal my children…the AFL are not coming to steal my children…”
JK said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:42am | Report comment
Comments like that are not going to win them new fans, arrogant and ignorant!
Firebrand Sally said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:51am | Report comment
The AFL is so off the ball on this one that they haven’t realised the only one calling Sydney’s western suburbs “Greater Western Sydney” is the AFL and the government reports it’s been using to profile the region.
Redb said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:21am | Report comment
So GWS really is Gee Which Stadium?
Firebrand Sally said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:57am | Report comment
They’ve struck a problem as no one is buying their idea that an oval shaped ground means every code and cricket wins.
The rugby codes and soccer got burned on the Olympic Stadium and even the state government now realises being kind to the AFL isn’t in the interests of the other codes and their fans (who vote).
Yes we can play the rugby codes and soccer on an oval field, but it is rubbish for the fans and creating an atmosphere for the players.
Having the AFL sprout off how well it is doing money wise doesn’t help their calls for government help in building a new stadium or upgrading an existing one. NSW is broke.
VooDoo said | March 19th 2010 @ 6:18am | Report comment
The Olympic Stadium had to be that shape to fit in the athletics track.
mds1970 said | March 18th 2010 @ 7:04am | Report comment
As a training a pre-season venue, Blacktown is first class. But it’s not a serious contender for regular season games – the grandstand only holds 2,000 with room for about 10,000 on the hill. It would be hard to sell memberships when you can’t offer them a reserved seat. And sitting on a picnic blanket in the February sun is fine, but it wouldn’t be much fun on a cold, wet and windy July night while ankle deep in mud. The grandstand would need to be considerably extended, and plenty more seating put in, before it could be considered for regular season games.
Public transport accessibility would also be an issue at Blacktown. The ground is close enough to the railway line for a train horn to be a phantom siren, but it’s a long way between stations. If platforms could be built there for trains to stop on game day, that could be workable. Also would need to work with CityRail to ensure no trackwork on Blacktown game days.
The Showgrounds has potential, but would need some work done on it. It’d be easy enough to plant grass over the dirt track, but even then the playing area is a bit on the small side. It already has some under-cover seating and good corporate areas plus the open grandstand; but they’d need to extend the main grandstand to cover the grass terracing.
The NRL used to play games at the Showgrounds – and although it wasn’t a great league venue because the ground was the wrong shape, that won’t be an issue for the AFL. Not sure what crowds they used to get there, but I’d estimate the capacity there to be about 16,000.
The blockbuster games will always be at the Olympic stadium. I’m undecided whether the remaining games should go to the Showgrounds; or whether we should play all the games at ANZ.
Redb said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Thanks for the info.
My read of likely crowds at early games is that Blacktown would be adequate (with seating) but provide little room to grow the game, hence the AFL’s interest in the Showgrounds as a mid size 20-25K venue (if redeveloped) which would be ideal in time.
ANZ stadium should be avoided for all but derby games against the Swans. Even then I think it might work better for the Swans to play GWS at the SCG for home games and GWS play the Swans at Showgrounds/Blacktown for its home games to build some tribal ‘this is my patch’.
Given that GWS’s early fan base is going to come from existing AFL footy fans in Sydney and perhaps some Swans fans as a second team I wouldn’t be playing at ANZ at all for the early years, at least until there is momentum to do so.
The stadium is clearly an issue for the AFL and until its resolved no licence will be issued to Western Sydney. Perhaps the door to Tassie is still open? Nah dont think so?
Firebrand Sally said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
“The NRL used to play games at the Showgrounds – and although it wasn’t a great league venue because the ground was the wrong shape, that won’t be an issue for the AFL”
It is an issue for the AFL, because the AFL is trying to convince the NSW government to fund the upgrading of the ground, and is using the argument that the finished ground will be of benefit to all the codes and cricket.
The reality is only the AFL wants it, the AFL boasts of its massive war chest, the government has no money and the AFL should pay for it itself.
Sydney already has two significant AFL venues in ANZ and the SCG. Go play at one of them.
Melbourne never had a decent rectangle stadium for soccer and the rugby codes so it is only right that its government funded one.
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:58am | Report comment
And whilst we’re on the subject of sporting bodies that should pay for their own facilities rather than relying on taxpayer handouts I wonder how our WC bid is going?
MV Dave said | March 19th 2010 @ 5:23am | Report comment
Ahhh so when a valid argument is put forward what does Kurt do….change the subject! Arguing AFL style…good work!
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 19th 2010 @ 5:26am | Report comment
Huh? Are you for real? How is this changing the subject? I’d be perfectly happy if all sporting bodies funded their own facilities – I assume you’re in agreement?
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Melbourne never had a decent rectangle stadium for soccer and the rugby codes so it is only right that its government funded one.
The irony here is that it’s 100% Govt funded and the NRL is 50% owned by News Ltd (and they put no money in), the Storm has been 100% owned by News Ltd (who are trying to get out of it – and it’s cost them heaps), MVFC and the Rebels and the new Hearts are all 100% privately owned.
AFL clubs are member owned. Not privately owned.
And yet – the current set up of the MCG and Docklands that involves over a billion dollars of investment has seen only $77 mill of any level of Govt cash injected.
Seems like a bit of inequity to me there.
btw from the AFL annual report AFL facility development funding totalling $184 million to assist more than 530 community clubs throughout Australia.
Firebrand Sally said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Big whoop.
Whether football clubs are owned by member shareholders or one owner, it makes no difference.
The AFL clubs and the AFL itself are all incorporated businesses operating and running a professional sport. They contract the services of professional footballers and pay ridiculous amounts for their services and the support staff, medical services and equipment that goes with it.
Trying to pass off that the AFL and its clubs are something akin to a social outreach program is cute, but hardly real.
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
so – you just don’t like the AFL because???
Are you just going to attempt to abuse the AFL on anything you can think of??
Are you now picking on the fact that the AFL industry generates revenue and pays people??
in Australian dollars,
who pay taxes,…..
in Australia.
Is that a bad thing???
Firebrand Sally said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
No mate – I just was critical of your reasoning as to why the other football codes weren’t worthy of enjoying the (hired and paid) use of Victorian government facility in the shape of a rectanglualr stadium.
As others have shown in this thread, the AFL enjoys calling upon its remarkable largesse when the mood and self-interest serves it, and on that basis can well afford to stop putting its hand out for government $ and then fund whatever stadiums, programs or expansion it wants. Including solving Sydney’s “social, community, economic or health” problems via Team GWS.
The fact the AFL clubs are member based changes nothing given they and the AFL are incorporated businesses.
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
You’re the one that couldn’t resist the crazed comment about it being only right that the other codes be afforded 100% State Govt charity in Victoria whilst arguing tooth and nail that the AFL shouldn’t get anything elsewhere.
I simply pointed out the inequity of the current stadia arrangements in Victoria,
whilst also illustrating the lack of Govt investment in the major facilities used by the AFL…….guess what, your super is quite possibly part invested in Docklands and benefitting from the fact that the AFL makes Docklands (Etihad) a financially viable stadium (that and the MCG are about the only ones!!!!).
In the vast majority of instances the AFL HAS contributed to venues around the country. Large and small. IN the millions. IN the vast majority of local jobs the AFL plus individual clubs have pumped in millions.
So, for you to sit there and claim it’s only right that there be a 100% state govt funded venue in Melbourne doesn’t really sit.
(….that and I can’t understand why the state govt had to rush in – - had they held off, they could’ve accessed fed funding with respect to a WC bid…..but as per usual for a state govt they stuffed it up, put a fancy roof on it only to stuff it up even more!?!?!!?)
btw – being a member based club – as a member, I am able to vote at the AGM or even generate and run an opposing ticket at an AGM or to call for an EGM. The club is directly answerable to us the members. Our membership makes us a voting rights part owner.
Unlike the Rabbitohs for example which is 100% privately owned (even if Rusty Crowe has seemingly admirable intentions) and the ‘club members’ are no more than subscribers/customers.
At the end of the day – most of us buy our membership to attend games.
JP said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
“They’ve seen the announcements we’ve had, the momentum it’s delivered and the people of Greater Western Sydney have started embracing the concept ” ……
Hahahahahahahahahaha ……… oh wait there is more
“What we’re really pleased to see is people (in the GWS area) are looking for sport, they’re looking for something to identify with and they can see the benefits, whether they are social, community, economic or health.” ……
Hahahahahahahahahaha !!!
I can make bias unfounded claims like this also.
Can someone please explain to me why the AFL conduct themselves like they are the only sport in *Australia ?
(* I was going to use “the world” instead, but as we all know nobody outside this sunburnt land gives a crap about the game)
Cugel said | March 18th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Comedic value? It makes me snigger behind my hands at any rate.
VooDoo said | March 19th 2010 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Probably because they’re the only sport worth watching in Australia…
Republican said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
The AFL CEO is earning 1.8mill / year while a handful of his business administrators between them, earn 5mill / year in salaries alone.
Meanwhile clubs i.e the Doggies cry foul because they are sooo poor, playing commercial hard ball by holding loyal demographics i.e Darwin and Canberra to ransom, then take their business off shore to MARS, well it might as well be in footy terms. They do this with the AFL’s blessing.
There exists a huge disparity in equity here and a lack of priortising on the part of the governing bodies governance. Add to that the obscene amount of dosh so many of the Leagues players are earning, you really cannot help but question the integrity of these AFL bankers.
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Don’t blame the AFL for rewarding their executive team -
if they don’t, then, the FFA with their Fed Govt bankrolling move in and nab people like John O’Neill, Ben Buckley and Archie Fraser.
It’s actually an absolute necessity that the AFL Commission rewards and retains a successful and presently a huge important (from a strategic and knowledge basis) executive.
I’d be concerned if they were getting any less than what they are.
Now – if the Fed Govt weren’t artificially inflating executive salaries in that domain by bank rolling the FFA, then it might not be so big an issue……although, still, if a Buckley had opted to move back to a more ‘real world’ corporate position because the AFL weren’t paying well enough – then it’s still the same issue.
In this case though – - it’s not just a theory – - it’s been proven absolutely real. (Govt sponsored poaching).
The Doggies and North are only ‘poor’ by AFL comparisons …… but are bigger than just about any other club in the nation outside of the AFL. And both have brand new ‘digs’ that are the envy of most. My Rooboys just need to fix up their debt and then it’ll be a tad smoother. I comfortable that the AFL shouldn’t be required to dig us out everytime – and that the best thing is for the club to be forced to be creative, inventive and pro-active in finding solutions and ‘re-connecting’ with the community.
MV Dave said | March 19th 2010 @ 5:57am | Report comment
“And both have brand new ‘digs’ that are the envy of most” Paid for largely by the taxpayer!
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
North Melbourne does not own it’s venue – and yet have invested heavily in it – and hopefully as major tennant have permission to hammer the odd ‘tack’ into the plasterboard,
in seriousness though – detailed in the premiers release recently is the financial breakdown :
The Victorian Government invested $5.7 million in the redevelopment, while the AFL provided $1.5 million and the City of Melbourne $2 million. Fencing Victoria contributed $250,000, North Melbourne Football Club $2.88 million and the Federal Government contributed $2 million.
which ironically was about 2 months after it had actually opened that the premier ‘officially’ opened it…..ah well.
Note though that Fencing Victoria DID contribute more money to this venue than the combined RugbyU, RugbyL and Soccer interests put into the new Swan St venue……
that and the AFL and NMFC combined put in $4.38 million which is about 1/3 of the total cost and they only get to lease it. NOt a bad arrangement for the City of Melbourne – - $2 mill in for a $15 mill asset……and no doubt the FFA would be eyeing it off as a training base too!!!…..I assume the minor partner $2 mill by the Fed Govt qualifies them to pull rank over the $4.88 mill of AFL interests and to claim the venue on behalf of the FFA?????
jimbo said | March 18th 2010 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
The AFL get more government “bankrolling” than the FFA or any other sport, so given the amount of money the AFL commissioners get from the various governments and councils and the huge media TV deal, this should be a source of embarrassment for you rather than use it to attack soccer again.
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Jimbo -
such as??
BigAl said | March 18th 2010 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Yeah ! . . . such as ????
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
apparently ‘such as……nothing’,
the last time Jimbo went on about this he included links to co-funded projects the provided water recycling at PUnt Road and knocking down the walls at Moorabbin to open up the field again as a public reserve (with St Kilda vacating the place)……as examples of Govt bankrolling the AFL,…….
jimbo said | March 19th 2010 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Like talking to a brick wall . . .
we’ve all given you the many links to the numerous examples of the AFL milking money from governments, just have the courtesy to actually read them.
Republican said | March 18th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
MichaelC
Spoken like a true economic rationalist.
What of obligations in looking after the code, wholistically speaking. it always comes down to the almighty dollar mate.
You may regret your philosophical position on this in the future. It could well be the good old Shinboners who have the squeeeze put on them to relocate to NZ and not just thos Westerners who head east.
You can’y convince me that the AFL do not have a duty of care to their loyal demographics in this respect, above and beyond that of any commercial innovation a club like the WB come up with, in being allowed to act in such a destructive and mercenary fashion.
Sorry Michael, you will have to humour me somewhat as I am a’ Baby Boomer’ and as far as I’m concerned, that generation is sadly lacking in organisations i.e these today.
Cheers
Republican said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Michael C
Exactly, the AFL produce ‘revenue’ and heaps of it. It is a moot point as to whether or not they distribute this in the games best interest.
I find it somewhat hypocritical of them to be encouraging the Doggies to go ahead and sell games to NZ, a footy black hole of which there is no denying, while we are left to wither on the vine, more or less.
That is not in the games best interest mate and the AFL as the codes custodians and governing body have the means to strike balance in this process. They should be coughing up in this case, to help the Dogs continue to play their home and away fixtures in somewhere Oz, whether that be Canberra, Darwin or Townsville, if indeed the Doggies are in such dire straits.
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Republican -
in a specific self interested perspective – I’d want the AFL to bail out all club debt and we start affresh as of season 2012 or something like that.
I’d like MelbourneFC to be given an iron clad guarrantee to never be permitted to dissolve,
I’d like NMFC to still ‘own’ Friday night footy at the ‘G
And I know the AFL over the years have done the nasty a tad – - – I know enough of what they did to screw the potential North-Fitzroy merger that whether I supported the merger or not is beside the point compared to the principle of how the AFL walked all over the clubs involved.
And I know enough of how the AFL effectively isolated clubs in dealings with Docklands and most the financial issues of North and the DOggies now are of the AFL’s own doing – - effectively, and so the AFL ruddy SHOULD give us a life line.
And I just hope that we can all limp through to 2025 when the AFL assumes lock stock and barrel ownership of Docklands and I can only assume then that tennant clubs will be getting rather greater returns!!!!
The AFL ain’t perfect. BUt, whenever we simplistically pick on them – - we forget the other factors. Like when we complain about why they can’t just switch game from Docklands to the ‘G ‘cos it’ll be a better fit – - – and the reality is it’s effectively out of their hands nowadays because of the realities of real world contracts and arrangements and the AFL not being masters of their own venues. Or like when we complain about the AFL GF tickets carve up and forget that the only reason there’s 1000s and 1000s of cricket club members there is because successive state govt’s screwed the then VFL with Govt self interest re the MCG vs VFL Park.
So – I tend to forgive the AFL a bit more and just hope that the current administration which seems to have accepted 10 Vic clubs as viable (for the time being at least if not long term…..i.e. post 2025) might be doing a reasonable job.
But – - certainly, it’d be nice if niether the Doggies nor Roos had ever been in positions where selling games was deemed not just something of interest but of economic necessity…….after all, I’ve often mentioned the example of North hosting Sydney at Docklands, draw 28,000 attendees and lose $1000 on the gate….compared to Geelong hosting about 24,000 at Skilled and clearing $600,000 on the gate……that’s still the greatest inequity within the competition and is a challenge facing the AFL. But, the current admin DID Manage to renegotiate in 2009 improved deals at BOTH the MCG and Docklands…….so, let’s see how that plays out this season.
Republican said | March 18th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Michael C
If the Doggies and the AFL were sincere about ‘re connecting with their’community’ as you like to put it, they would not even be entertaining the idea of playing in NZ, surely.
Republican said | March 18th 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Michael
Do you believe ‘the realities of the real world’ are in anyway reversable, i.e to say do you believe that by executives and players etc taking salary cuts, as idealistic as this sounds, some equity and indeed old fashioned virtue could be restored?
This is my simplistic veiw of things as I still aspire, not to going back to the good old days, becuase they are never as good as your memories suggest, but by aspiring to more balance in trying to create a culture that would allow you as a Kangaroo supporter, and me as an Aust Footy apostle in Cannberra, more certainty about the future.
Perhaps I am better off just sticking to supporting the local ACTAFL, rather than placing this expectation on our elite National League.
Thanks for your response mate and I trust the mighty Shinboners have a good year on and off the paddock. As a Canberran, I continue to covet North to a certain degree but am more philosophically affirming of their return to Arden St.
Cheers
Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
My greatest delight was seeing NOrth Melbourne confuse the experts by having a club with stuff all facilities, stuff all money and it’s huge stars taking salary caps during the ’90s and still being the most successful (at least Victorian) club of the era.
As is presently – - whilst players at Brisbane in the ‘Three-peat’ era and Geelong presently may not be seen to be taking ‘pay cuts’ – - they certainly have been accepting less than market value to stay where they are.
I guess the major question now about reversability or irreversability is based around the free agency debate. But, then, elements of that are just history repeating itself…..and again, ……I’m not about to volunteer handing back the 1975 trophy just because North exploited the 10 year rule better than anyone.
btw – re Doggies and connecting with their community – - they have a balance to achieve. I’ve said before how my North Melbourne disappointed me during their ‘Kangaroos’ era of flitting from CAnberra to Sydney to Gold Coast etc. Finally North have sunk deeper roots at Arden St and now have a firm connection with the community………for now. But, the connection is based on ‘current’ concerns, re multi-cultural etc – - just as the community continues to evolve so too does the club community connection to retain relevance. I think clubs are learning new ways to achieving this – - – and that’s nice to see……but, back to the Doggies and the thoughts around NZ……perhaps if they arrange free tickets for attendees from Fiji talent spotting camps to fly into NZ to see a game??