North Melbourne’s Brad Scott talks to his players at 1/4 time during the AFL Round 17 match between the North Melbourne Kangaroos and the Essendon Bombers at Etihad Stadium, Melbourne. Slattery Images
Given North Melbourne’s recent history, it’s not surprising to see the club cop some criticism as the prospect of playing four home games a year in Hobart becomes more likely. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t go ahead with it.
Assuming there’s a financial component on top of the usual membership and revenue boost associated with such forays, playing games in Hobart makes too much sense. The place is footy-mad, has a population bigger than Launceston – or Darwin for that matter – and is yet to really feel the presence of an AFL club.
That combination provides the perfect opportunity for a club like North to come in and try to emulate the success of Hawthorn’s Tassie push playing out of Launceston.
So long as it’s done right, with no mention of the move being a “short-term fix” and with a genuine commitment to Hobart, the potential is too big to ignore.
Naturally, though, North Melbourne’s involvement has irked a few people. A day after Jeff Kennett suggested any move into Tasmania would be a precursor to permanent relocation, Caroline Wilson yesterday wrote a particularly scathing piece in The Age.
“The truth is North Melbourne is pushing to move part-time to Tasmania because it cannot afford to sustain itself at Arden Street and Etihad Stadium – when it assured its members and fans that it could and would. It has taken less than three seasons of the new board to break that promise,” Wilson wrote.
To be fair, you can at least understand where she’s coming from.
Chief executive Eugene Arocca did say in February 2008 that the days of the “travelling Kangaroos” were over. President James Brayshaw did make a big song and dance about the club’s future being in Melbourne after rejecting the AFL’s Gold Coast relocation offer in 2007.
And yes, the Kangas have gone through three “second homes” in just over a decade, much to the disappointment of fans in Canberra and on the Gold Coast.
But this is more about the future than it is the past. And even then, it’s not like Brayshaw and Arocca have only just started to look beyond Melbourne for new opportunities – throughout 2008 and 2009 the club were pushing for an annual Subiaco home game, and the club are also building strong ties with Ballarat.
Their commitment to their fans was to have 11 “home games” in Melbourne. As the Hawthorn example shows, that’s still going to be possible.
The system of clubs being able to sell away games as part of membership packages has ensured the Hawks still sell 11 Melbourne games to their Victorian-based members, and the same will be true for North.
In fact, the Hawthorn example is able to dispel quite a few of the myths being put out there by those opposed to any games at Bellerive Oval. You don’t hear people question whether the Hawks are really “a Melbourne club” or if they are living up to the expectations of their Melbourne fans.
And why would they? Before playing out of Launceston you would hardly call Hawthorn a powerhouse club, or even a “big” club. Now, thanks to their Tasmanian partnership – and a premiership as well, it must be said – they are definitely one of the powerhouse clubs of the comp. They have over 50,000 members for the second year running, something no one thought possible not too long ago.
If anyone doubts whether Hobart can have a positive impact at North Melbourne, one look at what Hawthorn have done provides a handy reminder of what’s possible.
For some, though, that simply isn’t enough. Wilson’s piece contains several attacks on Brayshaw’s reign as president and the club as a whole since the Gold Coast offer was turned down.
She even goes as far as criticising the club for entering negotiations with the Melbourne Tigers over sharing their Arden Street facilities with the NBL club, despite shared facilities being quite common among AFL teams. (See the relationship between Carlton and the Melbourne Storm, and now Melbourne and the AAMI Park tenants.)
Meanwhile, Arden Street aside, she makes no mention of the promises that have been met by Brayshaw and his team. These have included increased football department spending (to the tune of $3 million), increased sponsorship (up nearly 200%), increased membership (from around 23,000 up to almost 30,000) and the dissolving of the shareholder structure.
There’s no mention of being on track for a third-straight profit, either. And when she presents the club’s average home game crowd figure for this year, there’s no mention of the horrible fixture handed down by the AFL, with six home games against interstate teams.
While several media outlets have hinted that an arrangement for North to play in Hobart is imminent, we can only wait and see.
The Tasmanian government have ruled out sponsorship as an option (they are the major sponsor of the Hawks) however that’s not to say they won’t be involved in any deal. Both Cricket Tasmania and the AFL are also pretty keen to get a deal done, which reportedly could see North pocket as much as $3 million per year.
Unfortunately, though, that money, if it does eventuate, will come with a hefty serve of innuendo.
“We are the North Melbourne Football Club, we are based out of Arden Street and that isn’t going to change,” Brayshaw said the other week.
“We are not relocating anywhere, and I don’t know how many times I have to say that,” Brayshaw said yesterday.
Judging by some of the reactions so far, he’ll be trotting out these lines for a while yet.
EvertonAndAustralia
Roar Pro
North Melbourne should relocate to Ballarat. Hobart should be given a brand new team and have Hawthorn still playing home games in Launceston.
sheek
Guest
I meant to add, we're talking 10 national AFL clubs in Melbourne is a lot of clubs competing for sponsorship, merchandising, membership, exposure, etc, etc, etc, etc, all in the one marketplace. Add to that Melbourne Victory & Melbourne Heart in the A-League, Melbourne Storm in the NRL, Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby, & national clubs in netball, basketball & hockey. And not forgetting Victoria Bushrangers in cricket. That's a lot of national clubs looking for revenue streams in order to thrive & survive, in just one city.....
sheek
Guest
I must confess to amazement that Melbourne can continue to sustain 10 AFL clubs. Okay, it's basically all Australian football has, it doesn't have an international footprint of any consequence. So club football is all it has, & Melbourne is the birthplace & beating heart of AFL. But still, we're talking about 10 national clubs, not 10 state or metropolitan clubs. This means traveling at least once to Perth, Adelaide & either Sydney or Brisbane (soon to be both) in a year, every year. In 10 years from now, there might still be 18 AFL clubs, but two Melbourne clubs might have relocated, one each to Tasmania & Canberra (or other location)..... Personally, I think 8 Melbourne clubs is the ceiling (for AFL comp), & I remain to be convinced otherwise.
gazz
Roar Pro
Interesting comments Michael C. inciteful much?!
JB
Guest
They should have just gone to the Gold Coast. But they knocked that back, so bad luck. They were offered a chance to survive and have a fan base all to their own on the Gold Coast. It could have worked just like Brisbane/Fitzroy with fans in Queensland and at original home in Melbourne. I don't think they should now have the right to go to Tassie. Personally i think Tassie deserves its own team before Gold Coast or Western Sydney, so unless they want to permanently relocate to Tassie i say bad luck North, you had your opportunity you blew it.
Michael Filosi
Roar Guru
Great article Michael. Having lived recently in Hobart, I feel that the preference of the Tasmanian people and government is.... 1. Tasmanian based AFL side. 2. Hawthorn Hawks continue their current arrangement 3. Any other AFL side playing matches in Tasmania. Personally, I can't see how North Melbourne playing matches in Hobart helps anyone in the long term. I don't feel it helps Tasmania's push to have a side of their own when the AFL can argue Tasmania (potentially) would be getting up to 8 games a year anyway (4 from Hawks in Launceston, 4 from North Melbourne in Hobart.) It certainly doesn't help North Melbourne secure a future in Melbourne either. It provides footy-mad Hobart with a bit more of a fix in the short term, but I can't see how in the long term it will suit anyone's needs. Great discussion point nonetheless. To summarise and continue Michael C's analogy, North Melbourne needs to either truly commit long term to their current partner at Arden Street, or run off with the pretty girl walking past and stick with her for good. Enough with playing the (footy) field.
Michael C
Roar Guru
MavMan - upgrading stadiums either happens or it doesn't because it's long term worth while - - - 5 or 6 games in a single 5 week time frame 12 years in the future,......or, even less so, a few weeks as a training venue - - - is a poor stand alone justification. either it's worth doing without the FIFA WC or it's a poor business case. That a lot of projects as delayed and put in doubt and claimed to be contingent upon a successful WC bid is just creating doubt and holding up what would otherwise be well and truly commenced by now - - - such as the Subiaco 'soluation' in Perth. The FFA and soccer journo's claimed soccer to be important in upgrading (AFL) stadiums for the 2000 Olympics, alas, that was a false claim. The MCG definitely not (Major works circa 1990-92, and then 2003-2006), and the Gabba was not (multi phased 15 year plan that saw one phase accelerated to finish in time for 2000 Olympics). I'm not having a dig at the bid - - I'm having a gripe that the uncertainty around it is not helpful - - - that said, I understand fully that state govts prefer to hold out in the hope that they'll be able to access federal funds in amounts that they'd never access otherwise.
MavMan
Guest
Michael C, what part of the world game dint you get Upgrading stadiums across Australia is a great thing. Maybe if more teams left Vic then the robin hood tax would not be needed.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Hopefully all this rot about the WC bid can soon be put behind and the real sports that live here can get on with doing real ongoing business instead of all the illusionary stuff that the FFA are trying to create. Because - - if anything like this were to rely on being a training venue for some international soccer team for a few weeks 12 years into the future,......well, that's a pretty flimsy pretext.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Really good comment, MC. The Ballarat thing is interesting as Ballarat have been talking up their chances of a game, or games, in the home and away season after their ground gets done up. Although that may rest on Australia winning the 2022 World Cup bid, as it could be used as a training venue, so nothing on that front seems likely in the short-term. I'd say stick with what's already being done in Ballarat regardless as for all we know Tasmania might have its own team by 2022! But that is a good comment about the next pretty girl walking past and committing to a long-term relationship. The Kangas do have to be careful with how they approach this and need to truly be committed to Hobart if they go down there.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Joel and JamesP, good comments, much appreciated. I wrote a guest post the other week at ContestedFooty about this. It said that it's generally accepted now that Tasmania has a much, much bigger population than Geelong and sustaining its own team won't be much of an issue, but the bickering between the north and south is what's really holding them back. Some of the comments coming out of Launceston about this latest idea are crazy. They can't stand Hobart getting any games, let alone four. And the comments have continued since that piece: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/28/2966252.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/26/2963925.htm What it comes down to is Launceston and Hobart need to work together if Tassie is going to get its own license. If they are at war, their chances of getting that license are reduced. Anyway, for those interested, here's the ContestedFooty post: http://www.contestedfooty.com/2010/07/tasmania-must-show-unity-in-its-quest-for-an-afl-license/
Wayno
Guest
Wasn’t there a bit of acrimony when the Tassie Devils ended their VFL alignment with North Melbourne. I was doing some work in Hobart at the time and seem to recall lots of folks there thinking North had screwed them one way or another, don’t exactly remember what the problem was though.
JamesP
Guest
"Tasmania is too small to support a full time AFL club " Rubbish. As Jeff Kennet said yesterday, it the state can support 4 + 4 games, from clubs that are not even its own, then all it needs is an extra 3 and its got 11 home games. "further hampered by a parochial split" Now you're on the money - surely the biggest obsticle to Tasmania having their own team...
Mathew
Guest
They made their choice. They chose to be a Melbourne club, now they have to stick with it. So they miss out on $3 million - deal with it. The worst part is this is Gold Coast all over again. Going to a place that wants its own team. The best way for that to happen is by relocation. Ah, the similarities...
Mark Young
Guest
Replace the name North Melbourne with Cronulla and Hobart with Central Coast and exactly the same issue is striking Rugby League. Is the League ruthless enough to apply 'survival of the fittest' principles to force a club to modernise or die? I think they should. My team the Balmain Tigers did nothing for ten years and were slowly dieing, so they teamed up with another struggling team to produce a very good team which has heaps of support, stable management and finances and of course A PREMIERSHIP!!! MARSHALL MARSHALL FLICK PASS TO RICHARDS!!! TRY!!!!! So it can work. But it can also stuff up though as North Sydney Bears fans will attest to. I think the best option for both the AFL and teh people of Tasmania is to give them the GWS franchise. That way the game can play in front of a decent sized crowd who have paid to come and are interested in the game. (For gawds sake AFL fans please take that with a grain of salt!!! I'm stiring, having a joke!!!)
Michael C
Roar Guru
The annoying thing as a North supporter - A. our history re Canberra, Sydney, Gold Coast is not endearing B. our VFL 'feeder' team history includes Tassie and Murray Kangaroos, surely if we were still or planning an alignment to Tassie in the VFL then it'd be a logical move, otherwise........I dunno. C. there's been a fair push to improve facilities in Ballarat to hopefully allow matches to be played there for 4 points - - - does this Hobart move mean that Ballarat is not an option for North Melbourne?? D. given the North Ballarat feeder arrangment and North's supposed close relationship with the city of Ballarat, if North opts for Hobart for 4 games a year, what's then the best Ballarat can hope for?? A nab cup game??? I'd rather North be seen to stand for something long term - - - so far, the 'attentions' of North Melbourne FC seem to be too easily cast upon the next pretty girl walking past. At some point, North needs to commit to a long term relationship. And if that is based around the new Arden St development, then let's be very careful about something as much as 4,.....not 3, but FOUR games a year in Hobart.
Joel
Guest
I think it would be a good solution both for Tasmania and North Melbourne for them to play out of Hobart. Tasmania is too small to support a full time AFL club and the state is further hampered by a parochial split. If North Melbourne establish permanent roots in Hobart, they could build a rivalry with Hawthorn which would turn that parochial sentiment into an asset instead of a liability and give Tasmania eight games and two teams.
mds1970
Roar Guru
It'll be a hard sell for North Melbourne to convince Tasmanians that this move will be different from their pushes into Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast - especially now that they've gone back to using the North Melbourne name. The club was in trouble a couple of years ago, and must have been sorely tempted to accept the Gold Coast offer. But having turned it down and decided to keep their future in Melbourne, the current administration have done a good job - the club is now profitable with memberships and sponsorship levels on the rise. Selling games to Tasmania is a risk - but they've already taken the biggest gamble of all by rejecting the Gold Coast deal, and it seems to be working for them.