-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
#lolNorf
- Thread starter Nico
- Start date
Glen Archer, I would be surprised if he could count to 10 let alone run a football club.
That's scrapping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to people working at your footy club.
Fold merge
Get rid of them.
Now we have 3 footballer clubs no cares about.
Get rid of all 3 bring in Tassie
And share out there players. Fitzroy style
Get rid of them.
Now we have 3 footballer clubs no cares about.
Get rid of all 3 bring in Tassie
And share out there players. Fitzroy style
Heard him on 3aw lastnight and when he came on today I thought surely he's rehearsed his lines for this one.... nah, gotta agree.... seems out of his depth.
I know he's been in the system elsewhere, but is this a case of another good bloke in footy getting gigs because he is a good bloke? (Btw, wouldn't have a clue if he is or not.)
I sympathise with Craig's view, but I think their days should be numbered. While I don't agree with GC and GWS, I understand the new market argument. They are making a mockery of the equalisation policies. Perpetually propping up a side that not many people care about for the sake of what? Broadcast content to watch them get beaten every week? If its for heritage and culture how far do you take that? I respect and value cultural heritage but I don't believe everything should be preserved forever. Culture isn't set in concrete, things change.
Where do you set the bar? If they are propped up, how much should they be propped up? Should they be assisted until they make the finals? Or just kept alive and occasionally competitive?
The bottom line is they don't have enough supporters.
Where do you set the bar? If they are propped up, how much should they be propped up? Should they be assisted until they make the finals? Or just kept alive and occasionally competitive?
The bottom line is they don't have enough supporters.
We (the broader AFL community, including fans) can be a lot more mature about the fate of North Melbourne than we have been to date.
In practical terms, North is in big strife. Throughout the 90s, the club was sustained by its on-field success. That should be bearing fruit about now in terms of a new generation of supporters emerging. But when you're getting flogged every week and you appear to be a basket case off-field, who'd want to go to games, much less become a member?
The obvious answer is for the club to find a new way to exist.
The Tassie thing is a red herring of the highest degree. The most unimaginative solution possible. Tassie doesn't want the club and the club isn't interested in going down that path. Drop the argument; it's a dud.
In my view, there are two logical options.
One: a new Tassie team and a new NT team take us up to a neat 20 sides. At that point it's up to the AFL as to whether that involves two conferences or a 19-round season, where every side plays the others once. North gets propped up and, perhaps, becomes an AFL club, akin to GWS and GC.
Two: the AFL, post-haste, works on a way to relegate North in a respectful and dignified way. They go back to playing at Arden Street, join the VFL and retain their heritage. An all-new, from-the-ground-up Tassie team takes North's spot in an 18-team competition.
I'm old enough to remember fans of VFA teams supporting those clubs first and VFL teams second. There is no shame in a standalone club participating in the new VFL. It's a strong competition. Who knows? Down the track, there could be room for movement in a promotion / relegation style arrangement.
If I could see a path back to strength for North, I'd say let things continue to run their course. But, their ability to keep touch with the levels of professionalism at the other AFL clubs seems impossible.
Action needs to be taken, but not at the expense of losing the club altogether.
In practical terms, North is in big strife. Throughout the 90s, the club was sustained by its on-field success. That should be bearing fruit about now in terms of a new generation of supporters emerging. But when you're getting flogged every week and you appear to be a basket case off-field, who'd want to go to games, much less become a member?
The obvious answer is for the club to find a new way to exist.
The Tassie thing is a red herring of the highest degree. The most unimaginative solution possible. Tassie doesn't want the club and the club isn't interested in going down that path. Drop the argument; it's a dud.
In my view, there are two logical options.
One: a new Tassie team and a new NT team take us up to a neat 20 sides. At that point it's up to the AFL as to whether that involves two conferences or a 19-round season, where every side plays the others once. North gets propped up and, perhaps, becomes an AFL club, akin to GWS and GC.
Two: the AFL, post-haste, works on a way to relegate North in a respectful and dignified way. They go back to playing at Arden Street, join the VFL and retain their heritage. An all-new, from-the-ground-up Tassie team takes North's spot in an 18-team competition.
I'm old enough to remember fans of VFA teams supporting those clubs first and VFL teams second. There is no shame in a standalone club participating in the new VFL. It's a strong competition. Who knows? Down the track, there could be room for movement in a promotion / relegation style arrangement.
If I could see a path back to strength for North, I'd say let things continue to run their course. But, their ability to keep touch with the levels of professionalism at the other AFL clubs seems impossible.
Action needs to be taken, but not at the expense of losing the club altogether.
It's an easy thing to post but in all reality there are people who live and breath North. Same with RFC. Having read and seen first hand the impacts following the "relocation" of Fitzroy I'd hate to see North get shafted by the AFL. Yes its a business etc but if you're going to look at it through that lens then dont complain when the AFL destroy the game we love for bigger broadcasting $$$.
good post and I agree with the logic. no. 1 doesn't stack up. If they get propped up like GWS and GC, we have to ask what for? We know the answer to that question for GWS and GC whether we agree or not, its about building new markets. So why prop up North in perpetuity? Is it because they are an old club? There 13 other old clubs in the comp. Is it to avoid a bye? already have them. Keep their fans from being alienated? Thats the only legit reason IMO, and for me it isn't compelling enough and would be mitigated by taking option 2.
They and St Kilda are being propped up because the value add of an extra game to revenues from TV rights apparently outweighs the AFL's entrenched culture of social welfare.
With Roos waiting in the back room when called on for a $1.5million PA .... fully funded
All of that and the fundamental point that there are too many teams in Melbourne - thus making the AFL a totally lop-sided national competition.
North must go ASAP
Problem is though Ansett *smile* off to where ever he *smile* off to, leaving the club and it true fans to carry on.
While they might not have many, North still have fans the way Richmond have fans who would be devastated to lose their club.
Problem is though they probably arent ever going to be strong to survive without a lot of support.
Solution, merge them with the Suns- The Northern Gold Coast Sunny Roos, or the Giants, to become the Greater North Western Sydney Giant Kangaroos. and bring in a Tassie team
