“To think that a club – because it has only 35,000 or 40,000 members should be relocated – is just not sniffing reality.”
So said North Melbourne’s CEO Eugene Arocca this week in the latest attempt to reassure supporters the Kangaroos aren’t going anywhere (many have resigned themselves to this for some time now).
I’m not sure what Arocca and his administration are sniffing, because it’s becoming harder and harder to fathom just what North Melbourne represents, or where it’s headed.
When the club spurned the opportunity to guarantee their long term future by taking the AFL’s $100m carrot to relocate to the Gold Coast, I for one respected the ‘we’re North Melbourne or we’re nothing’ stance (which duly separated the club from some long time benefactors).
And it was somewhat surprising given the club, regarded for its innovation, had previously foregone the North Melbourne name for the ubiquitous freedom of the Kangaroos moniker, playing ‘home’ games everywhere in Australia it seemed but Kangaroo Island.
Of course, as we’ve seen recently with the captain of the submerged Costa Concordia, no one wants to be at the helm when a ship carrying thousands of passengers actually sinks.
So we probably shouldn’t be too surprised at renewed attempts to make ends meet via controversial deals in far off places.
But just to be clear, once again North Melbourne have ruled out relocation, despite a $5.4m three year deal to play a couple games a season at Hobart’s Bellerive Oval (now Blundstone Arena – the $22m redevelopment must elevate it to the curious ‘arena’ status).
And then there’s the $228,000 grant from the Ballarat City Council to facilitate practice matches at Eureka Stadium. I suppose at least given a little latitude Ballarat is technically ‘north’ of Melbourne.
The most contentious financial assistance comes via the AFL, especially when the Gold Coast edict from former North Melbourne player-cum-AFL boss Andrew Demetriou was ‘this is your final lifeline’.
Personally I don’t like to see football clubs with such rich histories fade away. And the morality of letting that happen whilst pumping millions upon millions into new franchises which may take decades to stand alone (if not fall over) is tough to defend.
But NESW Melbourne had their chance. By not going to the Gold Coast they engendered a bloated 18 club competition.
Now burdened by a $5m debt, they’re still leaning on others, including the AFL, to keep them above water. And by again spreading themselves around they risk further diluting their tenuous link to their North Melbourne brand which still holds some cache.
The simple fact of the matter, and it’s been the case for decades now, is that there’s just too many clubs in Melbourne. There must come a time soon when the AFL and the financially viable clubs’ patience will run out.
North must wish the Hawthorn road block in Tasmania went away, for it must surely be the next and final destination.
Republican
Guest
AW You could well be on the $. It wouldn't make my support wane, in fact it may well make for a far better league and calibre of footy. Quality V quantity? Bring on the GFC mark 2 I say.
AW
Guest
The AFL expansion will soon come to a grinding halt, a drought in sponsorship dollars (how long will Toyota & NAB be able to continue), increasing football costs (especially travel costs) will force the AFL to reduce teams, relocations will be out of the equation, it will be about mergers. After the farce that an 18 team competition will bring, the AFL will be forced to reduce team numbers (to ensure player quality remains in the game). After the new media agreement ends, it will bring the number of Victorian based teams to six with forced mergers of Carlton-NM, Richmond-Melbourne, Essendon-Western Bulldogs & Hawthorn-St.Kilda. With a 14 team competition it will be able to have a 26 week season plus finals, reducing the number of H&A games by only 16, whilst improving the quality of all games.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Redb as usual interesting points, but unfortunately that attitude of pro-success over pro-stimulation is exactly one of the problems facing wider Responsible Capitalism at the moment! Instead of helping out, surely the end of your logic is the trickle-down theory...is it?
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Given that North take 1.4 million annually in ASD funding and get slaughtered for it in the media, why isnt the same attention being given to the Bulldogs who have taken 1.7 million annually in ASD funding over the same time? And then theres Port who will take the crown over all of them shortly. You cant write off North without doing so to the Bulldogs.
Fitzy
Guest
Beware of who the bells rings for, for it rings for you. Should Nth fall then WB maybe the next cab off the rank
Fitzy
Guest
What I would really like to know is long term what is their future?, I remember the keep Sth at Sth campaign, the fight the Fitzroy faithful put up but in the end it amounted to nought. Will the AFL reveal their hand in 3-4 years time while they see the divide between the powerhouse clubs and the poorer clubs increase? It is like that bad 80's scary movie that is popping up on tv every 6 months. IMO the die has been cast, the AFL just wanted to get moving on GC and GWS without a big fight. When Fitzroy ended they were on their knees, when Sydney moved they were broke, isn't it just a waiting game by the AFL. I don't know what the answer is but I really feel for the Nth supporters, tough times ahead.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
No. Norths jumper sponsor is mazda - both front and back.
Lachlan
Roar Guru
Can someone please answer my question? Does North Melbourne have a guernsey sponsorship from either Ballarat or Hobart?
Jeff Dowsing
Roar Pro
Screamer, you're very keen to make generalisations yourself about my article yet if you read it properly, and various other replies, I am not barracking for the death of North Melbourne. Carlton have more debt but they would appear to have a far greater capacity to wipe that off in the next few years, do they not? Yet I am sure their debt figure is still of some concern. And the Bulldogs likewise. There's too many clubs in a precarious position imo. But Screamer, my frustration pertaining to North in not going to the Gold Coast is that it would have assured their future and ended this speculation which you and other North advocates here are so tired of. Even if there is an element of AFL spin attached to the $100m figure, the League would have ensured the club thrived up there. Yet the administration which rejected the opportunity is still reliant on $1.4m AFL special assistance per year. Comparing North to clubs in other codes is like comparing apples with oranges. You can keep using 'my employer' if you like as some kind of conspiracy angle, but it has no relevance to my opinion. If you are happy with North's current direction, that's fine. Personally, I think they are on the same path as Fitzroy, which by the end lost everyone's patience. It's one thing to exist, another to truly compete. Obviously the administration know they have to look at other options, that's what they are doing. Like other clubs they're being screwed by Etihad. I don't see the growth potential in Melbourne - but I do see potential in Ballarat and surrounding districts. So I'd rather see the club be bold and get serious about plans there. A couple practice matches and footy clinics is a waste of time.
Redb
Roar Guru
Finals attendances are collected by the AFL.
Redb
Roar Guru
Some interesting comments and insight into the $100M. I think its strange that sponsors wouldn't have stayed with the club. Mazda is a national brand if anything they would have received more exposure.
screamer
Guest
Jeff, there is no equalisation of attendance fees any more. This is typical. You're passing judgement on a football club and the AFL, but you haven't done your research. I bet you haven't even bothered looking at North Melbourne's financial statement. Your article is loaded with inaccuracies, uses prejudicial language and your ensuing arguments are full of holes. You call yourself a football supporter but you're effectively barracking for the death of a football club. As I earlier commented, there is no valid economic basis to moving North Melbourne. The best place for North Melbourne is Melbourne. Melbourne offers the best growth prospects of any of the regions mentioned. Are you aware North Melbourne carries less debt than Carlton ($7.5m), that Carlton has received special below interest rate loans from the AFL? The Bulldogs have $5.8m of debt too, are you proposing to get rid of those clubs too? You call this a "saturated" market, but North Melbourne is more popular and wealthier than other clubs that play out of the venues owned by your employer, but you're not calling for their extermination? Why is that?
woodsman
Guest
As a traditionalist, can you explain what benefit being 'Western' as opposed to 'Footscray' holds for the Doggies? Sure you can appeal to those in Seddon and Yarraville a little more that you are their club- but wasn't that obvious? Its not as though Abbotsford is somehow outside Collingwood's hertland even though it is the suburb next door. I just don't get the change our name to something more generic thing- as someone mentioned previously it seems like a very passe 90s marketing ploy to appeal to a wider, blanded brand. If thats it, how can that be a positive in comparison to the pride of tradition? Simply trying to appeal to more of the many new Australians and kids moving into the Western growth corridors?
screamer
Guest
Jeff, I didn't forget to mention any clubs. The AFL clubs don't play out of your venues, they aren't relevant to my question. I'm surprised to discover you have no interest in Collingwood though, they are a tenant of yours aren't they? You did write a book about them didn't you? I think maybe you should do a little googling yourself, try the phrase "corn pone". I can't understand why you're so insistent there is a problem and so resistant to financial common sense. You've blown off everyone's observations with nothing but vague generalities. Maybe you should do a better job of explaining in precise economic terms how the AFL and North Melbourne is better served by pushing them into an even more marginal situation? I'm sure you understand the weakness of your argument regarding talent full well, but here's your picture anyway. http://imgur.com/q16Jt The number of people playing football has grown much faster than the number of clubs in the AFL. Clubs have more talent to choose from than before, GWS and GC are a minor bump in the road of an expanding talent pool, and will themselves encourage even greater participation in future generations. Are you suggesting the AFL is in crisis?
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Ok Ive got to agree about their need to be serious. Aroccas comments about Tasmania make it clear that its about the money, and given their track record youd have to assume that they'll bail if and when the Ballarat stuff comes up. In fact, Id bank on it.
demons supporter
Guest
2 less clubs...no we wouldn't. there would be a club in western sydney (with same set up/rules i would imagine) about to start, so that would be 17. the afl would then look to introduce an 18th so they have 9 games a week so they could get better tv rights deal. so either way we would end up with 18 teams, maybe just a few years later
Jeff Dowsing
Roar Pro
Screamer, my FT role has little to do with promoting clubs of other codes - that is their gig, but thanks for taking the time to Google me. I have no more interest in those entities than the 2 AFL clubs residing at M&OP which you forgot to mention. Not sure how having to promote an extra 80 players to senior ranks doesn't equate to the standard being weaker... if it's a weak argument you might need to draw a picture for me. If you think the comp is hunky dory then good luck to you. I do try and enjoy the game as much as I can but I have grave reservations as well. But I could well be proved wrong, we'll see. Some pretty sick clubs atm and a lot of uncompetitive games.
Paul
Guest
There never was a $100 million deal for North Melbourne to relocate to the Gold Coast. The figures were audited and shown to be mostly fabricated assumptions of what MIGHT be achievable in the best of all possible situations. That's to say, if sponsors actually came on board in addition to those North Melbourne already had. Yet the major sponsors at North Melbourne indicated that they were not interested in supporting a QLD based team. The $100 million also included non existent funding for a stadium, assuming various governments would agree to invest in a stadium, which at that point in time, they were refusing to do. Furthermore, half of the alleged $100 million was standard AFL distributions to every club over a 7 year period amounting to approximately $50 million. So North Melbourne received that whether they relocated or stayed at Arden St. Part of the money amounting to several million was earmarked for junior development and promotion of the game in QLD. In other words, Brisbane Lions and in fact all other AFL clubs would benefit. Part of the money, again running into millions was put aside for literally moving 40 players and 40 football department staff and their immediate families to QLD. That's money that didn't need to spent if North Melbourne refused to relocate and it had no direct benefit for on or off field success. At the end of this auditing process, the most ambitious estimate was well under $20 million to sell the club to another state. That's why James Brayshaw and the North Melbourne Football Club was able to say no thanks.
Jeff Dowsing
Roar Pro
Screamer, my job has nothing to do with my comments - just the reality that it is a very saturated market. You neglect to mention my precinct also lists two AFL clubs as tenants. I have and will always be an AFL head! I do not share Stu's wish to see any club euthanised. I am frustrated that a scenario that would have alleviated ongoing issues for North and other Melbourne clubs, whilst fulfilling the objective of growing the game, was not enacted. It would seem the current administration's platform was always going to win favour at the ballot, but they have only seen the club's financial situation get worse as they have not been able to deliver a clear direction as to where the club is headed or what North represents. Equalisation of attendance fees and merchandise and 1.4m per year special assistance packages to clubs in need is fine to a point. But how much is too much? Sooner or later clubs have to stand on their own two feet and come to a business plan that works. I don't mind the idea of North becoming the 'rural' Melbourne club for want of a better description. Finding a niche is key to success in any business. And I don't begrudge Ballarat Council wanting to upgrade facilities (though ratepayers might have other priorities). But North need to make it the plan and be serious about it. Or alternatively, make Tassie the plan - and commit to at least 5-6 games a year down there.
Dingo
Guest
Rudeb ;)