- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
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
Only last week North Melbourne president James Brayshaw was bemoaning his club missing out on a lucrative deal to play in Tasmania. Now, he’s happy to stand alongside John Brumby as the Victorian premier pledges $30 million to upgrade Ballarat’s Eureka Stadium if re-elected – with the announcement unashamedly linked to the possibility of four AFL games per year being played at the ground from 2012.
“We’re very, very pleased that the state government here in Victoria have decided to invest in an area we are already a big part of,” Brayshaw said yesterday. “If AFL footy home and away comes up here it would be our pleasure to be involved.”
Now, it’s at this point where the usual sniggers begin.
It was also their pleasure to be in Hobart and Tasmania. And the Gold Coast before that. And Canberra before that. And Sydney before that.
However, the sniggers should probably stop. That’s because a deal to allow North to play in Hobart makes sense, on so many fronts.
Firstly, even though North’s past when it comes to this kind of thing is unfortunate, finding a suitable second home should be regarded as highly important for the club’s future. After all, their current position is no laughing matter.
North Melbourne had the lowest membership tally in the league this year. Crowd numbers were underwhelming, albeit partly due to the AFL’s scheduling. Despite the progress that has been made since rejecting the Gold Coast offer – and yes, there has been progress – the club’s future is still far from locked in.
The club is too small to rely on Melbourne alone to stay in business and as many new revenue streams as possible need to be opened up. Moving into another market, à la what Hawthorn have been able to do in Tassie, seems almost necessary for the Kangas.
It also makes sense when you consider the type of games that will be played at Eureka Stadium, which will become a boutique 15,000-seat ground.
The likely opponents will be low-drawing interstate sides like Port Adelaide, Fremantle, Gold Coast and GWS – fixtures that will find it hard to crack 15,000 at Etihad Stadium anyway.
Financially speaking, the following assessment in The Age speaks volumes: “North Melbourne, which netted about $640,000 from its 11 home games at Etihad Stadium, could make that amount in one game in Ballarat.”
You can’t deny, that sounds like an incredibly good deal.
In addition, Kangaroo fans will be pleased Ballarat is a more accessible location than other interstate options. Ballarat residents, and indeed many other regional Victorians, will be pleased AFL football will be played a lot closer to home. It’s a win on many fronts.
Yes, the club’s search for a second home has resulted in some embarrassment and much innuendo about relocation (something I covered when a Hobart deal was looking likely). And to be fair, North so easily jumping from one preferred “second home” to the next isn’t the best look.
Whether Ballarat offers the same upside as the potential Tasmanian deals that were being talked about is also up for debate.
However, in spite of all that, Ballarat definitely has its advantages and could easily end up being the perfect fit for North.
So long as (this time) North are in it for the long haul, it’s a more than sensible move.