Tasmania: We want Bulldogs to semi relocate

[bulldogtragic]

From The Age:

... Tasmania is pushing for one Melbourne-based AFL club to commit to a ''semi-relocation'' by playing eight games annually in the state, which also hopes to one day have its own team....


.... AFL Tasmania director James Henderson has raised the cash-strapped Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and St Kilda as the best fits for the state. Tasmanian Sports Minister Michelle O'Byrne has welcomed the one-team proposal....

[azabob]

Is this in replacement to Hawthorn or in addition?

Can't see St.Kilda going back there, they couldn't stand it.

[bulldogtragic]

Is this in replacement to Hawthorn or in addition?

Can't see St.Kilda going back there, they couldn't stand it.
Yep. Dumping Norf and Hawks for one team playing 8 games.

[bornadog]

tell them to stick it.

[Go_Dogs]

Given I've just moved over to Melbourne and finally have an opportunity to see the team play every other week I'd be disappointed, for my own selfish reasons, if we did elect to play 8 games a year in Tasmania. My understanding is any move would only occur following the Hawks current deal coming to a close, which I believe is in 2015.

At the end of the day, if it results in a significant financial boost for the club I think it's something we need to strongly consider, but I can see there being plenty of resistance from supporters.

[GVGjr]

tell them to stick it.

If we can't get our membership numbers up do we have many other options to keep saying no? My guess is if we had 35,000 members then we wouldn't be a consideration.

We have tried a number of other options over the years and this might very well be considered. I'm not saying it will accepted but is it a better deal than playing games in NZ, Darwin, Canberra, and home games up in Sydney.

[bornadog]

If we can't get our membership numbers up do we have many other options to keep saying no? My guess is if we had 35,000 members then we wouldn't be a consideration.

We have tried a number of other options over the years and this might very well be considered. I'm not saying it will accepted but is it a better deal than playing games in NZ, Darwin, Canberra, and home games up in Sydney.

Tassie are looking at a semi relocation. They want a team to commit to 8 games per year. We currently only sell one game per year, but has been up to two. This is more than a semi relocation and I for one would be dead against it. The whole of the Western Suburbs has more people than the whole of Tassie, and that's what we have to continue to develop and represent.

[Twodogs]

tell them to stick it.


I'd want to see the numbers and how it will be organised before I said yes or no. If it means a wholesale relocation from Whitten Oval to a training base in Tassie then no, but if it means we play 8 games a year there and 8 or 9 here, retain Whitten Oval and get a bucket of money as well then I'm all for it.

[bornadog]

I'd want to see the numbers and how it will be organised before I said yes or no. If it means a wholesale relocation from Whitten Oval to a training base in Tassie then no, but if it means we play 8 games a year there and 8 or 9 here, retain Whitten Oval and get a bucket of money as well then I'm all for it.

Do you think the AFL would allow 8 or 9 home games here and 8 in Tassie with us travelling to Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast only once?

[F'scary]

Dear Tassie, we don't want to become part of your latest unsustainable hands-in-the-rest-of-Australia's- pocket government initiative. You don't have 2 cents to rub together that isn't debt looking for a bailout.

[bulldogtragic]

I'd want to see the numbers and how it will be organised before I said yes or no. If it means a wholesale relocation from Whitten Oval to a training base in Tassie then no, but if it means we play 8 games a year there and 8 or 9 here, retain Whitten Oval and get a bucket of money as well then I'm all for it.
I'm coming around to this too. Breaking down like this:

We remain Western Bulldogs
Based at WO, maintaining all functions and community involvements etc
Play 8 games in Tassie, the majority being interstate teams which would draw low crowds at Ethihad
Play 5 or 6 games in other states
Play 8 or 9 games in Vic, with the AFL giving WBFC members access to all games
No more selling games to Darwin or Canberra
Get a squllion from Tassie Govt
Financial support from AFL, and giving us the Good Friday Fixture
Increase membership base by having a second home
Ensure we are never merged, taken over or forcibly relocated against our will
Increase the likelihood of success by having more money to invest if the club and footy dept


I could imagine a million worse scenarios.

[bornadog]

I'm coming around to this too. Breaking down like this:

We remain Western Bulldogs
Based at WO, maintaining all functions and community involvements etc
Play 8 games in Tassie, the majority being interstate teams which would draw low crowds at Ethihad
Play 5 or 6 games in other states
Play 8 or 9 games in Vic, with the AFL giving WBFC members access to all games
No more selling games to Darwin or Canberra
Get a squllion from Tassie Govt
Financial support from AFL, and giving us the Good Friday Fixture
Increase membership base by having a second home
Ensure we are never merged, taken over or forcibly relocated against our will
Increase the likelihood of success by having more money to invest if the club and footy dept


I could imagine a million worse scenarios.

I can think of a better one. We stay put, the AFL implement a decent equalisation policy and we continue to grow our brand in the West of Melbourne.

[Cyberdoggie]

Forget it, as soon as you start selling off your club like this, then you automatically become first in the firing line. It's different if your Hawthorn or a large club but a club like us? Pretty soon public opinion will be to just relocate us permanently to Tassie.
So I am dead against it.

It's ok selling games to Darwin and remote places because you aren't going to be linked to moving there.

This offer is clearly a move to get a permanent AFL side in Tasmania.

Best to stay well away from this carrot.

[Bulldog Joe]

As a Tasmanian, I am not in favour.

Any club that accepts this will be effectively relocated in some form.

The population of Tasmania cannot support an AFL team.

The Victorian members would still be required and would get much less in terms of home game attendance and any current interstate member (apart from Tas) would have fewer choices around seeing the team play.

The Bulldogs need to develop the base around the existing and developing populations where they currently are.

[AndrewP6]

No way. Just a step closer to a full fledged relocation. Dead against it.

[bulldogtragic]

Not even entertaining offers.... Everyone bangs on about growth in the Western Suburbs. Well lets drill down a bit... In 2011 and 2012 population increased by nearly 4% each year. Yet our membership has gone backwards!!! BACKWARDS!!!!!! Yes, let's ignore everything and keep quoting that the western suburbs is growing.... All this means is that as the region grows, we are becoming less relevant. As a poor club with little onfield success, becoming less relevant is dangerous.

Edit: Forecats have WS population growth up again this year, but membership is nearly 20% down... I'm sure the easy argument is to say it reflects our onfield position. But it is only a few thousand less than 2009...

[The Bulldogs Bite]

No way. Just a step closer to a full fledged relocation. Dead against it.

Agreed.

Eight games a year? I can't believe that any fan would be happy with that. If we replaced Darwin/Canberra with Tasmania then fair enough, but 8 home games in Tasmania? We'd hardly get to see a home game live.

[Topdog]

What a terrible idea for us. They may gain a few Tasmanian supporters but how many supporters would they lose? I'd certainly be gone.

[bulldogtragic]

What a terrible idea for us. They may gain a few Tasmanian supporters but how many supporters would they lose? I'd certainly be gone.
Hawthorn have significantly in excess of 11,000 paid up Tassie Members (more than GCS and GWS). We have 24,000 in total.

[Eastdog]

Not even entertaining offers.... Everyone bangs on about growth in the Western Suburbs. Well lets drill down a bit... In 2011 and 2012 population increased by nearly 4% each year. Yet our membership has gone backwards!!! BACKWARDS!!!!!! Yes, let's ignore everything and keep quoting that the western suburbs is growing.... All this means is that as the region grows, we are becoming less relevant. As a poor club with little onfield success, becoming less relevant is dangerous.

Edit: Forecats have WS population growth up again this year, but membership is nearly 20% down... I'm sure the easy argument is to say it reflects our onfield position. But it is only a few thousand less than 2009...

We can do all the promoting for our club that we like in the western region but at the end of the day support will come if we have on field success which then means support from everywhere. I wondering what the supporter demographics of AFL teams is like in the western region.

[Axe Man]

The only way I would support this is if the only other option was extinction. I don't things are that dire. We have 15 games in Melbourne this season, to drop to 8 would be horrible. With only 3 of those 8 home games (I assume), it would kill social club, reserved seat, coterie and corporate memberships.


how many supporters would they lose? I'd certainly be gone.

Probably quite a few, however I would still support us even if we played all our games on Neptune.

[1eyedog]

I can think of a better one. We stay put, the AFL implement a decent equalisation policy and we continue to grow our brand in the West of Melbourne.

Not going to happen. The scary part of this is that WE will become that long-term Tassie club, the Tasmanian Bulldogs. The western suburbs have a higher population density than Tassie but if we played 8 games there over a 5 year deal watch our membership climb to 50,000 inside of three years as well as a host of large corporate sponsors.

[bornadog]

Not going to happen. The scary part of this is that WE will become that long-term Tassie club, the Tasmanian Bulldogs. The western suburbs have a higher population density than Tassie but if we played 8 games there over a 5 year deal watch our membership climb to 50,000 inside of three years as well as a host of large corporate sponsors.

BS, sorry I am very passionate about this one.

[Remi Moses]

Personally couldn't see us doing it.
The amount of members we'd lose wouldn't be made up in Tas.

[1eyedog]

BS, sorry I am very passionate about this one.

Agreed, I don't want to go either.

[Eastdog]

Agreed, I don't want to go either.

Ditto.

[bulldogtragic]

So rusted on loyalists will desert the club because we sell 8 not 2 games per year. Spare me. If they quit the club fine, aside from a merge, I'd follow the club no matter what. Fair weather mercinaries can go elsewhere, maybe Tigerland, who have 100% more members than us, and they've been an uncompetitive basket case for 30 years.

[1eyedog]

Personally couldn't see us doing it.
The amount of members we'd lose wouldn't be made up in Tas.


Personally, I'd rather play 4 or 5 games down at Geelong. The return from a deal there would be considerable.

tassie isn't the preferred option, but if we went there for 8 games a year I'd keep buying my membership.

[Eastdog]

If we played some home games at the MCG would that help us financially. St. Kilda played a home game there last week.

[LostDoggy]

I hope we can work out a deal with Geelong and Simonds so we don't have to do this.

[bulldogtragic]

I hope we can work out a deal with Geelong and Simonds so we don't have to do this.
Why? Similar or lesser crowds than Tassie. Lesser gate receipts. Less money. Less avenues for marketing. No avenue of generating new members. What do you see in selling games to Geelong over selling games to Tassie?

[1eyedog]

Why? Similar or lesser crowds than Tassie. Lesser gate receipts. Less money. Less avenues for marketing. No avenue of generating new members. What do you see in selling games to Geelong over selling games to Tassie?

A heap more money and a drive down the Princes Highway vs a heap more money and a flight to Launceston and the sense of a loss of place. You would think we would lose a training session a week at WO as well playing down there.

Psychologically, the fact that we are effectively playing 90% of our home games in Tasmania has huge implications for members in Victoria.

[LostDoggy]

So rusted on loyalists will desert the club because we sell 8 not 2 games per year. Spare me. If they quit the club fine, aside from a merge, I'd follow the club no matter what. Fair weather mercinaries can go elsewhere, maybe Tigerland, who have 100% more members than us, and they've been an uncompetitive basket case for 30 years.

Someone who doesn't want to follow the Tasmanian Bulldogs is not a fair weather mercenary.

Sorry, but this is a stupid post.

[bulldogtragic]

Someone who doesn't want to follow the Tasmanian Bulldogs is not a fair weather mercenary.

Sorry, but this is a stupid post.
What is the threshold for selling games? Two games to Darwin, and we are not the Darwin Bulldogs, but more to Tassie yet we are the Tassie Bulldogs... It's not a merge or relocation, it's a commercial arrangement to secure our future.

[Eastdog]

What is the threshold for selling games? Two games to Darwin, and we are not the Darwin Bulldogs, but more to Tassie yet we are the Tassie Bulldogs... It's not a merge or relocation, it's a commercial arrangement to secure our future.

Why can't we just get a better deal at Etihad if we continue to play our homes there.

[chef]

Why can't we just get a better deal at Etihad if we continue to play our homes there.

Because we don't get big enough crowds and ratings on TV.

[GVGjr]

Why can't we just get a better deal at Etihad if we continue to play our homes there.

Poor crowd attendence is the main issue. Our fan base struggles to get the motivation to join up and attend games. We continue to cry about equalization but at 35,000 members we would control our own destiny.

[The Underdog]

Hawthorn have significantly in excess of 11,000 paid up Tassie Members (more than GCS and GWS). We have 24,000 in total.

How much revenue do they bring in to the club? It's an impressive number but I'd suggest they pay well below a standard club membership (I could be wrong). Not that we can sniff at any extra income or members but everyone gets so caught up in numbers of members when what it is often less important than the breakdown of full / concession / social club / pets etc. I mean Collingwood have nearly 80,000 members and hardly any of them are humans.

[bulldogtragic]

How much revenue do they bring in to the club? It's an impressive number but I'd suggest they pay well below a standard club membership (I could be wrong). Not that we can sniff at any extra income or members but everyone gets so caught up in numbers of members when what it is often less important than the breakdown of full / concession / social club / pets etc. I mean Collingwood have nearly 80,000 members and hardly any of them are humans.
Tassie Membership is for 4 games only. $81 and $48 for adult/concession, extra for reserved seting. Assuming a 50/50 split, that's about $700,000 to $750,000 in membership alone!!

We would have double the games (8). If we can work the market like the Hawks, that's up to $1,500,000 in extra memberships, not including extra sponsors and tax payer dollars.

Surely with no money in the bank, membership significantly down, low sponsorship, low crowds and low TV ratings, we need to listen and seriously consider our options.

[Scraggers]

This is my worst fear ... I don't want a relocation, not even a temporary 8-game-a-season one. Let Melbourne go there ... The Tassie Demons has a certain ring to it.

[SlimPickens]

I mean Collingwood have nearly 80,000 members and hardly any of them are humans.

Think I just destroyed my computer, sprayed coffee everywhere. That's bloody funny:D

[The Underdog]

This is my worst fear ... I don't want a relocation, not even a temporary 8-game-a-season one. Let Melbourne go there ... The Tassie Demons has a certain ring to it.

We all need to relax and just wait for GWS to fail and they can move. Shouldn't take long.

[Maddog37]

This thread reminds me of the Kennet on our board one. Lots of jumping at shadows.

[bornadog]

This thread reminds me of the Kennet on our board one. Lots of jumping at shadows.

Well it would be nice if Peter made a statement and stated our position.

[G-Mo77]

What is the threshold for selling games? Two games to Darwin, and we are not the Darwin Bulldogs, but more to Tassie yet we are the Tassie Bulldogs... It's not a merge or relocation, it's a commercial arrangement to secure our future.

That's 8 home games gone so it is virtually turning into a Tasmania team. Why as a Victorian would I support selling 8 games that I happily go and watch to another state and settle for a couple of real home games a year and concession nose bleed seat at away games. No way I'd support that and they can kiss my money goodbye.

[Topdog]

We have 11 home games a year. If we sell 8 games a year to Tasmania we have 3 home games in Victoria. We will be the Tasmania Bulldogs who occasionally have a home game in Victoria.

[lemmon]

Firmly in the 'over my dead body' camp as well. 8 games a year isn't like a game or two in Darwin, it is virtual relocation. Not worth any amount of money or supporters

[Hotdog60]

I no longer live in Victoria and I'm against it. We rattled tin awhile back to keep our soul so why sell it now to the Tassie devil.
Move and the AFL will make it permanent in 10 years time.

[SlimPickens]

This thread reminds me of the Kennet on our board one. Lots of jumping at shadows.

Yep, not one quote from a bulldogs official in the article. Good to see some strong emotion but its a little over the top. We are not going to Tassie and I'm not sure our president or CEO needs to comment on every article written in the paper.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Poor crowd attendence is the main issue. Our fan base struggles to get the motivation to join up and attend games. We continue to cry about equalization but at 35,000 members we would control our own destiny.

It would be a sad day for Bulldogs supporters if this was to occur. The AFL would love it having tried to move North to the Gold Coast. We can only hope that Peter Gordon continues to push for equalization.

[SonofScray]

It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens if I have any say in it.

We've given up enough. We fought bloody hard to keep the Footscray Football Club alive and home in 1989, too hard to just let the club be taken away from us bit by bit. Name change, ground rationalisation, selling home games, add a "semi" relocation to the scenario and its all been for nothing.

[Remi Moses]

Nobody from the club has said actually said anything, so at this stage it's the poorer Melb teams who are thrown up.

[LostDoggy]

Hypothetically..............and give me a chance to put on my bullet proof vest before I ask this.
Would people support a Tassie / Western Bulldogs over going broke and folding all together from the League?
There is a little bit of evolution here. 35 years ago I wonder what or members would have said if you told them we are taking the "Footscray" name off you and all your home games would be played in the city?

I think people would stand by them even if it means 8 games are in Tasmania. Look on the bright side, if it is a Launceston ground then you can pretty much lock in Boags as a sponsor, and that is a good day for everyone!

[Topdog]

May as well fold for me. Would be a different team.

Plus we are no where near folding at the moment so easy to dismiss.

[Ghost Dog]

Not into it. Our home is the Western Suburbs.

[LostDoggy]

I'm not really sure Geelong is a solution. Yes, it helps costs in the short term but it offers us nothing from a growth perspective. With Tasmania, maybe 8 games is just an ambit claim. Tasmania would be open to the highest bidder, the first club to blink will Go. I suspect the game commitment will drop until one club puts their hand up.

We know Hawthorn is currently doing 4 and Tasmania want 8 so the final deal will be somewhere in the middle depending on how desperate the clubs get. If no one else is interested, we might be able to strike a deal with 5 or 6 games

[LostDoggy]

Tassie Membership is for 4 games only. $81 and $48 for adult/concession, extra for reserved seting. Assuming a 50/50 split, that's about $700,000 to $750,000 in membership alone!!

We would have double the games (8). If we can work the market like the Hawks, that's up to $1,500,000 in extra memberships, not including extra sponsors and tax payer dollars.

Surely with no money in the bank, membership significantly down, low sponsorship, low crowds and low TV ratings, we need to listen and seriously consider our options.

Not to forget the money the state throws in? How much does the Tasmanian Gov give the Hawks?

[F'scary]

This thread reminds me of the Kennet on our board one. Lots of jumping at shadows.

And I'm not sure that there is overwhelming support in Tasmania for an expensive, 100% government funded AFL side. Isn't the Hawthorn deal around $300k per match?

I seem to recall reading at least one article somewhere reasonably reputable in the last 12 months that contained words to the effect that the tourism industry in Tassy is dismayed at the way the government is putting so many eggs in the AFL drawcard basket at the expense of promoting other Tasmanian attractions (e.g. wilderness, foodie attractions) further. To say nothing of the health & welfare industry there as well.

[F'scary]

I'm not really sure Geelong is a solution. Yes, it helps costs in the short term but it offers us nothing from a growth perspective.

Not sure about this. Geelong is just down the freeway from the Western Suburbs and the suburban sprawl is developing in the west such that there may be an almost continuous band of suburbs, home to 1-2 million people, from Footscray to Geelong within 20 years.

[LostDoggy]

Tassie Membership is for 4 games only. $81 and $48 for adult/concession, extra for reserved seting. Assuming a 50/50 split, that's about $700,000 to $750,000 in membership alone!!

We would have double the games (8). If we can work the market like the Hawks, that's up to $1,500,000 in extra memberships, not including extra sponsors and tax payer dollars.

Surely with no money in the bank, membership significantly down, low sponsorship, low crowds and low TV ratings, we need to listen and seriously consider our options.

With our history, you would see the following consequences:

Traditional fans would flee in numbers, having finally had enough.
More recent fans would flee in numbers, as they only get 3 home games and some away games a year, not worth the membership.
New fans derived from the deal would be located in Tasmania. So if we want to keep them, we have to stay, sounds like a relocation to me.
Players would be doing an enormous amount of travel, worse than the interstate teams as they still get home games.


It's a stupid, short-sighted proposition, typical of Tasmania really.

[LostDoggy]

I can think of a better one. We stay put, the AFL implement a decent equalisation policy and we continue to grow our brand in the West of Melbourne.

This.

[GVGjr]

It would be a sad day for Bulldogs supporters if this was to occur. The AFL would love it having tried to move North to the Gold Coast. We can only hope that Peter Gordon continues to push for equalization.

To me equalization is just part of the answer. Until our fan base start taking memberships consistently we just won't have the same pull as the more powerful teams.

Our fans want just one thing and that is to be successful. If we are a top 4 side then they will join up as members and if not they will find reasons not to join.

Can we get there just with a better level of equalization funds or do we have to find other avenues?

I don't want us to play games in any other place but Melbourne and I've never believed the rhetoric we have been given about expanding our 'brand' in Sydney, Darwin, the Sunshine Coast and Canberra. It never amounted to much more than a short term cash grab despite what we were told.

To me it's pretty simple, if we don't get vastly better membership numbers then we will struggle to compete. How we get there is the million dollar question.

[comrade]

To me it's pretty simple, if we don't get vastly better membership numbers then we will struggle to compete. How we get there is the million dollar question.

Performances like tonight certainly don't help the cause.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Before I get shot down in flames by fellow Woofers, let me explain the reason for this post. I flew to Launceston for our game against Hawthorn and was blown away by the atmosphere and just how much the Hawks have captured the support of the fanatical Tasmanian AFL supporters. Two articles appeared in the Launceston Examiner newspaper over the weekend, one by Jeff Kennett and the other by Andrew Newbold, the Hawthorn President, who both condemned the Tasmanian Football League's General Manager, for his stance on wanting an AFL Club, to play 8 home games in Tasmania, as an ongoing arrangement. The move by Hawthorn to play 4 games has proved a gold mine with a sponsorship by the Tasmanian Government netting three million dollars to the Hawks, plus an additional 10,000 members. Is it any wonder that Hawthorn would want to protect this jewel in the crown? Tasmania now has two excellent venues namely Bellerive in Hobart, where Test Cricket is played and Aurora Stadium in Launceston. Aurora's General Manager is ex-Bulldogs player, Robert Groenewegan, who has done an excellent job.
The idea would be to play 4 games in Hobart and four in Launceston.
With the AFL almost certain to have a 24 round fixture in 2014 with two byes, is it time for the WB to consider such an opportunity to shore up its future?
$3 million dollars plus and 10,000 plus additional members, must be tempting.
I would welcome your thoughts.

[LostDoggy]

Does it have to be at both venues NBP? Could it be Hobart (4 games). Launceston would be pretty mined of members from North and Hawthorn wouldn't it?

[Ghost Dog]

Before I get shot down in flames by fellow Woofers, let me explain the reason for this post. I flew to Launceston for our game against Hawthorn and was blown away by the atmosphere and just how much the Hawks have captured the support of the fanatical Tasmanian AFL supporters. Two articles appeared in the Launceston Examiner newspaper over the weekend, one by Jeff Kennett and the other by Andrew Newbold, the Hawthorn President, who both condemned the Tasmanian Football League's General Manager, for his stance on wanting an AFL Club, to play 8 home games in Tasmania, as an ongoing arrangement. The move by Hawthorn to play 4 games has proved a gold mine with a sponsorship by the Tasmanian Government netting three million dollars to the Hawks, plus an additional 10,000 members. Is it any wonder that Hawthorn would want to protect this jewel in the crown? Tasmania now has two excellent venues namely Bellerive in Hobart, where Test Cricket is played and Aurora Stadium in Launceston. Aurora's General Manager is ex-Bulldogs player, Robert Groenewegan, who has done an excellent job.
The idea would be to play 4 games in Hobart and four in Launceston.
With the AFL almost certain to have a 24 round fixture in 2014 with two byes, is it time for the WB to consider such an opportunity to shore up its future?
$3 million dollars plus and 10,000 plus additional members, must be tempting.
I would welcome your thoughts.


Well, your post actually made me think about it. Who dares wins eh? Nugget, I like the way you think. Be bold.

[Cyberdoggie]

Unlike Hawthorn we are not an immovable force.

If we dip our toes in the Tasmanian water, we are likely to get completely submerged.

[LostDoggy]

Before I get shot down in flames by fellow Woofers, let me explain the reason for this post. I flew to Launceston for our game against Hawthorn and was blown away by the atmosphere and just how much the Hawks have captured the support of the fanatical Tasmanian AFL supporters. Two articles appeared in the Launceston Examiner newspaper over the weekend, one by Jeff Kennett and the other by Andrew Newbold, the Hawthorn President, who both condemned the Tasmanian Football League's General Manager, for his stance on wanting an AFL Club, to play 8 home games in Tasmania, as an ongoing arrangement. The move by Hawthorn to play 4 games has proved a gold mine with a sponsorship by the Tasmanian Government netting three million dollars to the Hawks, plus an additional 10,000 members. Is it any wonder that Hawthorn would want to protect this jewel in the crown? Tasmania now has two excellent venues namely Bellerive in Hobart, where Test Cricket is played and Aurora Stadium in Launceston. Aurora's General Manager is ex-Bulldogs player, Robert Groenewegan, who has done an excellent job.
The idea would be to play 4 games in Hobart and four in Launceston.
With the AFL almost certain to have a 24 round fixture in 2014 with two byes, is it time for the WB to consider such an opportunity to shore up its future?
$3 million dollars plus and 10,000 plus additional members, must be tempting.
I would welcome your thoughts.

We have 11 Home games a year, 8 games in Tasmania leaves 3 home games for Victorian members + a few away/replacement games against other Melbourne teams.
It would still be a kick in the guts for long time members.

[bulldogtragic]

From earlier in the thread:

We remain Western Bulldogs
VFL team Footscray Bulldogs
Based at WO, maintaining all functions and community involvements etc
Play 8 games in Tassie, the majority being interstate teams which would draw low crowds at Ethihad
Play 5 or 6 games in other states
Play 8 or 9 games in Vic, with the AFL giving WBFC members access to ALL VIC GAMES
No more selling games to Darwin or Canberra
Get a squllion from Tassie Govt ($3mil +)
Financial support from AFL, and giving us the Good Friday Fixture ($1mil +)
Increase membership base by having a second home (10,000+, $1.5mil +)
Ensure we are never merged, taken over or forcibly relocated against our will
Increase the likelihood of success by having more money to invest if the club and footy dept


Worth consideration. But the key is not being merged on a drip feed.

[Eastdog]

We have 11 Home games a year, 8 games in Tasmania leaves 3 home games for Victorian members + a few away/replacement games against other Melbourne teams.
It would still be a kick in the guts for long time members.

It would be for sure. Im a first year member of the Dogs and it would be really bad if we played homes games down in Tassie. As SoS has said somewhere it would really hurt the people that saved our great club from folding in 1989 if we played interstate home games more regularly.

[F'scary]

$3 million dollars plus and 10,000 plus additional members, must be tempting.
I would welcome your thoughts.

Could be more if we charge by the number of fingers on the hand.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Does it have to be at both venues NBP? Could it be Hobart (4 games). Launceston would be pretty mined of members from North and Hawthorn wouldn't it?

The current arrangement is that North play two games only in Hobart and Hawthorn 4 games in Launceston. From what I was told any change to the current deal, would see 4 games in each city. I personally wouldn't like to see us left with only 3-4 home games in Melbourne. As a long suffering member myself, you would need to ensure that our members are not going to be disadvantaged. Richmond Essendon Carlton Collingwood Hawthorn and Geelong have all grown their membership base to 50-60,000.
Inspite of playing in three recent pre-lim finals, the WB still hover around 30,000 members, with little prospect of it increasing. Do we stay put and do nothing and be happy to continue to accept the AFL drip feed or break the mould by carefully looking at all options that will give us the ultimate success that we desperately seek?

[Eastdog]

The current arrangement is that North play two games only in Hobart and Hawthorn 4 games in Launceston. From what I was told any change to the current deal, would see 4 games in each city. I personally wouldn't like to see us left with only 3-4 home games in Melbourne. As a long suffering member myself, you would need to ensure that our members are not going to be disadvantaged. Richmond Essendon Carlton Collingwood Hawthorn and Geelong have all grown their membership base to 50-60,000.
Inspite of playing in three recent pre-lim finals, the WB still hover around 30,000 members, with little prospect of it increasing. Do we stay put and do nothing and be happy to continue to accept the AFL drip feed or break the mould by carefully looking at all options that will give us the ultimate success that we desperately seek?

It really comes down to sustained success but do you think NBP that the best way to increase support is to market us more not just in the West but outside. I reckon from time to time our players should do a few things community wise outside the traditional heartland as Im sure there are keen Dogs fans in a lot of other areas. Example: The special Inside The Kennel show was great for Dogs fans on the Mornington Peninsula.

[Ghost Dog]

Unlike Hawthorn we are not an immovable force.

If we dip our toes in the Tasmanian water, we are likely to get completely submerged.

Wonderfully put Cyberdoggie.

[bulldogtragic]

If we recruit their two biggest and most recent players, Riewoldt and Thorpe, who knows!

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

From earlier in the thread:

We remain Western Bulldogs
VFL team Footscray Bulldogs
Based at WO, maintaining all functions and community involvements etc
Play 8 games in Tassie, the majority being interstate teams which would draw low crowds at Ethihad
Play 5 or 6 games in other states
Play 8 or 9 games in Vic, with the AFL giving WBFC members access to ALL VIC GAMES
No more selling games to Darwin or Canberra
Get a squllion from Tassie Govt ($3mil +)
Financial support from AFL, and giving us the Good Friday Fixture ($1mil +)
Increase membership base by having a second home (10,000+, $1.5mil +)
Ensure we are never merged, taken over or forcibly relocated against our will
Increase the likelihood of success by having more money to invest if the club and footy dept


Worth consideration. But the key is not being merged on a drip feed.
I would very much favor the breakdown of the mix you have suggested as these options means we do not lose face with our loyal Melbourne based members.It would help move us out of the poverty cycle that we are currently sharing with Melbourne St Kilda and North Melbourne. The biggest opposition is likely to come from the richer Melbourne based clubs in particular Hawthorn, who will not want to see any of their power base eroded at our expense. The introduction of Gold Coast Suns and GWS, has further restricted our chances to move more quickly up the ladder because of their enormous draft concessions. The AFL has a responsibility that Victorian based clubs like ours are not being victimized in favor of Interstate and the wealthier Melbourne clubs.

[bulldogtragic]

I would very much favor the breakdown of the mix you have suggested as these options means we do not lose face with our loyal Melbourne based members.It would help move us out of the poverty cycle that we are currently sharing with Melbourne St Kilda and North Melbourne. The biggest opposition is likely to come from the richer Melbourne based clubs in particular Hawthorn, who will not want to see any of their power base eroded at our expense. The introduction of Gold Coast Suns and GWS, has further restricted our chances to move more quickly up the ladder because of their enormous draft concessions. The AFL has a responsibility that Victorian based clubs like ours are not being victimized in favor of Interstate and the wealthier Melbourne clubs.
I know many wont agree, which is fine, we are a broad church.

But I want to hear any other strategies for getting:

- New marketing opportunities
- How we make decent money by selling games to Darwin, Canberra and Geelong whilst still getting screwed by Ethihad
- 50,000 members
- Operating profits
- $5mil per annum, inc.
4 additional top line assistant coaches
2 additional top line recruiters
Money to poach footy managers and other positions of importance

Etc, etc.

[w3design]

Perhaps this is a little left field, but what if ? : As part of the Equalization philosophy the 8 interstate teams were to move their home games against the Doggies each year to Tas., with shared gate receipts. Dogs to retain any Tasi. Govt. and AFL funding contributions.

The poorer interstate teams be compensated for the partial loss of up to 1 home game per season [against he Dogs] by the wealthy clubs as their contribution to equalization.

Tas. then gets up to 8 games a season by one team [us]. The Dogs Vic. fan base still get 11 home games in Melb. each season.

I am sure there must be holes in this proposition [including we do not play every interstate team at their home annually], but surely fewer than in us selling our souls to the Devil.

Personally I don't want us playing interstate any more than we absolutely have to.

As to the playing at Geelong proposal. Hey guys, not all Doggies supporters and members still live in the Western suburbs. It is already a 270km round trip for me to attend home games at Docklands. Add on Geelong x 2, and it becomes out of the question sadly.

[Guido]

maybe 8 games is just an ambit claim. Tasmania would be open to the highest bidder, the first club to blink will Go. I suspect the game commitment will drop until one club puts their hand up.

We know Hawthorn is currently doing 4 and Tasmania want 8 so the final deal will be somewhere in the middle depending on how desperate the clubs get. If no one else is interested, we might be able to strike a deal with 5 or 6 games
Exactly right. 8 is their dreamland proposition as a starting point to negotiations.

I think 6 games would be the magic number - 3 in Hobart, 3 in Launceston, 5 in Melbourne. and here's the kicker - I'd put it to Tassie negotiators that $1mil outside of the Bulldogs/Tassie deal must go towards retaining one Hawthorn and one North home match at each venue against us as the away team.

They each get their half a million for simply moving one game, we truly become Tasmania's team with 9 matches there (6 home, 2 away, 1 guaranteed pre-season), and it probably translates into 10,000 (more probably 15,000) Tassie based memberships. (Hawthorn get 10,000 for 4 matches, North 4,000 for 2 matches in Hobart ... I don't think 15,000 is a stretch)

Negotiate a MINIMUM of 6 away games in Melbourne with the AFL - so all Melbourne based members are guaranteed entry into 11 Melbourne based games with their membership.

And screw this $3mil a year horseshit - the club has to be paid at least $5million per year for such a massive commitment of our players, officials and supporters to their state. If he was on our board, you'd want someone like Jeff Kennett to be overlooking these kinds of negotiations, but that's for another thread. :)

On top of this you have additional Tassie based sponsorship opportunities, and if the deal was negotiated well, maybe a cut of pourage/catering rights on top of the government deal. And of course, the 15,000 membership at whatever an 8 game membership will be worth in 2016 ($150?).

If this deal above had have happened in 2002, where would we be now? Debt free, $10 million in the bank, and in a position to relocate all home games back in Melbourne. Stronger financially than Melbourne and North, in full control of our own club's future. But instead of our board looking into the type of opportunity that could have changed our future forever for the better, our president at the time was too busy criticising Hawthorn for "selling their soul" - selling their soul towards a permanent future in their Melbourne heartland.

Here the opportunity presents its self again. It's a game changer that, if managed correctly, we - and I include the board and the supporters - can have full control over and ensure that relocation is a non-negotiable, non-possibility.

Sounds crazy, but this is a 100, 300, 500 year end game. What will half a dozen games a season across 10 years in Tassie represent in 2115? Exactly what games that were played in 1915 mean to us - FA. Did the club survive it to still be here and based in Footscray is all that matters from decisions a hundred years ago.

I want the club to have full control of our destiny beyond 10 years. Who knows what may be in 10 years - the AFL might say that Tassie and Canberra are the last markets that deserve their own license, we get told to walk away back to Melbourne, and we've picked up $50mil (probably closer to $75mil when you factor in inflation and include 15,000 members across 10 years) in the process, and move those games straight to an AFL owned Docklands with reasonable match returns and a Melbourne membership base that's grown up to 40,000 because of the football and non-football related investment that the deal has allowed the club to make. Or even if it does turn the way we all fear and they push for a relocation - if it's run well by the club (no guarantees), we will be much more cashed up, much more in control of our own destiny and in a position to tell them to go *!*!*!*! themselves with this kind of deal having sorted out the club's finances than without.

Caveats:

* Must be run by and endorsed by the players. It's a massive commitment which will add hours of travel time every other weekend for the majority of their careers, but at least it's much more attractive to players than the failed Darwin investment.

* Run by and endorsed by the fans. Iron clad guarantee that it won't turn into a relocation, explain it's ironically our best chance of securing Melbourne as our home base. Just as Hawthorn have done with the $30mil they've gained out of their investment in Tassie.

* On the board and management's end, they can't piss the windfall against the wall. Must be THE game changer that has us at the very least debt free, and more preferably, with big money in the bank in 10 years time. No more poorly managed false dawns.

[bulldogtragic]

Guido, you're only attributed with 48 posts, but geez your effective rate is close to 100%!!!

Exactly!!!

[bornadog]

Well thought out Guido but as Long time supporter I don't Want my club going down the Tassie path, ie any more than maybe one game.

[bulldogtragic]

Exactly right. 8 is their dreamland proposition as a starting point to negotiations.

I think 6 games would be the magic number - 3 in Hobart, 3 in Launceston, 5 in Melbourne. and here's the kicker - I'd put it to Tassie negotiators that $1mil outside of the Bulldogs/Tassie deal must go towards retaining one Hawthorn and one North home match at each venue against us as the away team.

They each get their half a million for simply moving one game, we truly become Tasmania's team with 9 matches there (6 home, 2 away, 1 guaranteed pre-season), and it probably translates into 10,000 (more probably 15,000) Tassie based memberships. (Hawthorn get 10,000 for 4 matches, North 4,000 for 2 matches in Hobart ... I don't think 15,000 is a stretch)

Negotiate a MINIMUM of 6 away games in Melbourne with the AFL - so all Melbourne based members are guaranteed entry into 11 Melbourne based games with their membership.

And screw this $3mil a year horseshit - the club has to be paid at least $5million per year for such a massive commitment of our players, officials and supporters to their state. If he was on our board, you'd want someone like Jeff Kennett to be overlooking these kinds of negotiations, but that's for another thread. :)

On top of this you have additional Tassie based sponsorship opportunities, and if the deal was negotiated well, maybe a cut of pourage/catering rights on top of the government deal. And of course, the 15,000 membership at whatever an 8 game membership will be worth in 2016 ($150?).

If this deal above had have happened in 2002, where would we be now? Debt free, $10 million in the bank, and in a position to relocate all home games back in Melbourne. Stronger financially than Melbourne and North, in full control of our own club's future. But instead of our board looking into the type of opportunity that could have changed our future forever for the better, our president at the time was too busy criticising Hawthorn for "selling their soul" - selling their soul towards a permanent future in their Melbourne heartland.

Here the opportunity presents its self again. It's a game changer that, if managed correctly, we - and I include the board and the supporters - can have full control over and ensure that relocation is a non-negotiable, non-possibility.

Sounds crazy, but this is a 100, 300, 500 year end game. What will half a dozen games a season across 10 years in Tassie represent in 2115? Exactly what games that were played in 1915 mean to us - FA. Did the club survive it to still be here and based in Footscray is all that matters from decisions a hundred years ago.

I want the club to have full control of our destiny beyond 10 years. Who knows what may be in 10 years - the AFL might say that Tassie and Canberra are the last markets that deserve their own license, we get told to walk away back to Melbourne, and we've picked up $50mil (probably closer to $75mil when you factor in inflation and include 15,000 members across 10 years) in the process, and move those games straight to an AFL owned Docklands with reasonable match returns and a Melbourne membership base that's grown up to 40,000 because of the football and non-football related investment that the deal has allowed the club to make. Or even if it does turn the way we all fear and they push for a relocation - if it's run well by the club (no guarantees), we will be much more cashed up, much more in control of our own destiny and in a position to tell them to go *!*!*!*! themselves with this kind of deal having sorted out the club's finances than without.

Caveats:

* Must be run by and endorsed by the players. It's a massive commitment which will add hours of travel time every other weekend for the majority of their careers, but at least it's much more attractive to players than the failed Darwin investment.

* Run by and endorsed by the fans. Iron clad guarantee that it won't turn into a relocation, explain it's ironically our best chance of securing Melbourne as our home base. Just as Hawthorn have done with the $30mil they've gained out of their investment in Tassie.

* On the board and management's end, they can't piss the windfall against the wall. Must be THE game changer that has us at the very least debt free, and more preferably, with big money in the bank in 10 years time. No more poorly managed false dawns.
Guido, you're only attributed with 48 posts, but geez your effective rate is close to 100%!!!

Exactly!!!

[Remi Moses]

Lot of our older fans would be sceptical of playing more than a couple of home games in Tassie.
First of all membership drop off in Melbourne.
Certainly would help the club financially though

[BornInDroopSt'54]

The prospect has its attractions but it begs the question of identity. Are we Footscray Football Club? We most certainly were but not any more. Are we Western Bulldogs? Currently yes but see previous question as proof our identity swings on the breeze. AFL teams need to gain loyalty from a region or demographic. Tasmania can do that and we could become the Tasmanian Realists and be supported by Big Brother.
*!*!*!*! that, as PG is our leader, we will never be the AFL's lackey.
The AFL must buy Etihad so that we can have a chance at revenue from attendances and let our boys win the loyalty of the west of Melbourne by our professionalism and warrior power.

[Remi Moses]

The prospect has its attractions but it begs the question of identity. Are we Footscray Football Club? We most certainly were but not any more. Are we Western Bulldogs? Currently yes but see previous question as proof our identity swings on the breeze. AFL teams need to gain loyalty from a region or demographic. Tasmania can do that and we could become the Tasmanian Realists and be supported by Big Brother.
F***k that, as PG is our leader, we will never be the AFL's lackey.
The AFL must buy Etihad so that we can have a chance at revenue from attendances and let our boys win the loyalty of the west of Melbourne by our professionalism and warrior power.

The thing that frightens me is when the initial deal expires city hall's going to want someone down there permanently. Guess what Western Bulldogs trading as Footscray( you're it)

[BornInDroopSt'54]

The thing that frightens me is when the initial deal expires city hall's going to want someone down there permanently. Guess what Western Bulldogs trading as Footscray( you're it)

Yes that's the fear but fear is just anxiety and a poor facsimile of truth. As a club obviously we need to read what's going on. Our vulnerability is that our present lack of on field success and our long term lack of premierships hurts the brand. However our strength is that we have capital investment in the Western Oval as part of the community and a stated purpose of engaging with the western suburbs of Melbourne and a commitment from the league to our future.
Tasmania may have to find other ways of investing in their identity as part of Australia. David Letterman made the news for asking Cate Blanchett if Tasmania was part of Australia. Such is life, Pride and Prejudice, ignorance and the mighty Bulldogs.

[LongWait]

Well thought out Guido but as Long time supporter I don't Want my club going down the Tassie path, ie any more than maybe one game.

I agree wholeheartedly BAD.

A semi-relocation to Tassie would be the beginning of the end for our Melbourne based support. We will quickly become dependant upon the Tassie deal and pretty soon keeping Tassie happy becomes more important to our finances than anything else.

I'm pretty sure Gordon can spot a Trojan Horse when he sees one.

[LostDoggy]

Playing half your games in Launceston and half in Hobart would never work, as you'd be simultaneously alienating both. Hobart (Slowbart) people can't stand Launceston (Inceston) and vice versa, and it's a very real antipathy.

[LostDoggy]

Playing half your games in Launceston and half in Hobart would never work, as you'd be simultaneously alienating both. Hobart (Slowbart) people can't stand Launceston (Inceston) and vice versa, and it's a very real antipathy.

100% correct.
The North vs South thing in Tassie is off the scale. There is a pub in Ross (which is halfway point of the state) which is the only pub to have both Cascade and Boags on tap.
I'm a former northerner so I'm biased to Launnie. Plus the NW towns of Devonport, Burnie, Wynyard all the way to Smithton, are rediculously football mad. It is their life. They all flood across to Launceston but not sure if Hobart is a stretch for them?

[bulldogtragic]

We remain Western Bulldogs
Home ground Etihad

VFL team Footscray Bulldogs
Home ground, Based at WO, maintaining all functions and community involvements etc

Play 7 games in Tassie, the majority being interstate teams which would draw low crowds at Etihad
Play 4 games in other states
Play 11 games in Vic, with the AFL giving WBFC members access to ALL VIC GAMES
No more selling games to Darwin or Canberra or Cairns

Get a squllion from Tassie Govt ($3mil + per annum)
Financial support from AFL, and giving us the Good Friday Fixture plus a fairer fixture inc. TV slots we want ($1mil +)
Increase membership base by having a second home (10,000+, $1.5mil+ per annum)
Ensure we are never merged, taken over or forcibly relocated against our will
Increase the likelihood of success by having more money to invest if the club and footy dept

Having the right off field team to turn money into premierships

Rights to Tassie zoning (rookie listing guns for peanuts) and funding for a Tassie academy, like Sydney

[lemmon]

Why are we so sure the AFL would give us concessions like replacement games in Melbourne and less interstate travel? The stink from Eddie and other clubs would be enormous in the face of what is already a compromised fixture, and fair enough too. If we are the ones who decide on a move to Tasmania we cant then demand a few less trips to Perth and Queensland to satisfy Melbourne members stiffed by our own board. And I would be staying right away from a Tassie Academy set up, if we are drafting grass roots Tassie kids we are falling further into the trap of a significant identity switch

[bulldogtragic]

Why are we so sure the AFL would give us concessions like replacement games in Melbourne and less interstate travel? The stink from Eddie and other clubs would be enormous in the face of what is already a compromised fixture, and fair enough too. If we are the ones who decide on a move to Tasmania we cant then demand a few less trips to Perth and Queensland to satisfy Melbourne members stiffed by our own board. And I would be staying right away from a Tassie Academy set up, if we are drafting grass roots Tassie kids we are falling further into the trap of a significant identity switch
The AFL would get the best of both worlds. They keep all Victorian clubs, keep 18 in total for TV rights and get a quasi Tasmania team. If that's what they want, then it comes at a premium. Whoever decides to take the offer should demand concessions. When Fitzroy was shafted to Queensland, albeit a merger, the AFL gave the entity a plethora of concessions, despite the likes of Eddie crying about it. They played in 4 grand finals in a row, winning 3 premierships in a row.

As for the specific concessions:

- I think Collingwood only played 4 games interstate this year. So 4 games shouldn't be too much of a bitter pill for the other presidents to swallow.

- By giving WBFC reciprocal rights to 7 away games just means bigger crowds, and in turn more revenue for the grounds and the businesses that operate within it. Again, not too bad. Our folk still get 11 games.

- The fixture could be an issue for the other presidents, but at the end of the day they can sook. We should get Good Friday and our requests aren't crazy over the top.

- I'd imagine the Tasmania Academy would be the sticking point. Imagine KKolo coming for cheap this year!!! But we should have some advantage. So I'd demand it. If that means Tassie people sign up because they're parochial about their kids, good, let them join in masses!

This is radical thinking, and I'd never consider it for anything less than the money and position to win multiple premierships. I know most will strongly, strongly disagree with me. But I come back to Einstein, "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when making them".

[Reigning Maddogs]

With all due respect Bulldog Tragic, you have got to be kidding.

Our CEO has clearly stated that we are looking to reduce the amount of home games played interstate so I can hardly see us taking on any so called Tassie deal.

Absolute No for me. Equalisation is now starting to be seriously discussed with the fixture and Beverage contracts just some small steps in the right direction. There is more to come in this space in coming years, this is high on many clubs agenda especially ours. We need to continue to reduce our debt, increase spending on building our Western Bulldogs Brand in the Melbourne's western suburbs as well as our football department.

[Ghost Dog]

Is our popularity really growing in the West? Most kids are dreaming of the round ball game these days.
Crameri is a good start. Hope the next big signing is another level above.

[Eastdog]

Is our popularity really growing in the West? Most kids are dreaming of the round ball game these days.
Crameri is a good start. Hope the next big signing is another level above.

Would be interesting to see in more the local councils which club has the most support. For me I accept us being known as the Western Bulldogs FC but if the club gave us a vote to bring the Footscray name back I would vote for that. We could easily brand ourselves as Footscray FC but I don't want to get into that debate so ill leave it there.

[ReLoad]

Would be interesting to see in more the local councils which club has the most support. For me I accept us being known as the Western Bulldogs FC but if the club gave us a vote to bring the Footscray name back I would vote for that. We could easily brand ourselves as Footscray FC but I don't want to get into that debate so ill leave it there.

I cant wait to go to the VFL next year and crank out some old Footscray chants.
I'm seriously thinking of devoting more time to the VFL team than the seniors.....

I wonder will the VFL teams song be our original '54 version?

[LostDoggy]

I cant wait to go to the VFL next year and crank out some old Footscray chants.
I'm seriously thinking of devoting more time to the VFL team than the seniors.....

I wonder will the VFL teams song be our original '54 version?

It's a brand new song, just like the formation, and will be sung to the tune of a One Direction song, to tap into the younger generation.

[bulldogtragic]

With all due respect Bulldog Tragic, you have got to be kidding.

Our CEO has clearly stated that we are looking to reduce the amount of home games played interstate so I can hardly see us taking on any so called Tassie deal.

Absolute No for me. Equalisation is now starting to be seriously discussed with the fixture and Beverage contracts just some small steps in the right direction. There is more to come in this space in coming years, this is high on many clubs agenda especially ours. We need to continue to reduce our debt, increase spending on building our Western Bulldogs Brand in the Melbourne's western suburbs as well as our football department.
Not kidding, unfortunately. I'm only in favour of this as I believe it "may" be the best option. If you consider everything ATM, as I have posted specifically about the fixture/TV rights, there is a logical train of thought that could conclude this club ending in one form or another. If we are merged, ended, relocated or anything else my passion dies instantly. If we choose to take an option which preserves our heritage, still gives our members 11 games on their membership and gives us a serious chance to compete with the big clubs and the resources to win premierships whilst increasing the saturation of our brand in a new football friendly market, then I think it's worth discussing. It's not a pleasurable topic, but I'm not convinced the current model and "support" from the AFL is going to work. And if this so called equalisation only involves cash handouts how long until we get screwed on TV deals and fixturing, we will be lucky to have 25,000 members, with a decent number who won't/can't get to twilight games. How long do we last when our crowds are poor, our membership is poor, our tv numbers are poor and clubs like Essendon have Paul Little come out in 5 years and say WBFC is not financially viable and they shouldn't be made to invest in a club that can't come close to even sustaining itself, while at the same time a state government or business consortium offers massive money for a licence. I can live with this as a compromise, and the essence of a compromise is both parties don't get what they want but they agree it's the best option.

All that said, I'm happy to listen to other strategies for increasing membership, sponsorship, good tv spots, sales of merchandise etc without handouts. As the handouts will stop one day, and when they do the consequences would be much worse than selling a few games to Tassie.

[ReLoad]

Not kidding, unfortunately. I'm only in favour of this as I believe it "may" be the best option. If you consider everything ATM, as I have posted specifically about the fixture/TV rights, there is a logical train of thought that could conclude this club ending in one form or another. If we are merged, ended, relocated or anything else my passion dies instantly. If we choose to take an option which preserves our heritage, still gives our members 11 games on their membership and gives us a serious chance to compete with the big clubs and the resources to win premierships whilst increasing the saturation of our brand in a new football friendly market, then I think it's worth discussing. It's not a pleasurable topic, but I'm not convinced the current model and "support" from the AFL is going to work. And if this so called equalisation only involves cash handouts how long until we get screwed on TV deals and fixturing, we will be lucky to have 25,000 members, with a decent number who won't/can't get to twilight games. How long do we last when our crowds are poor, our membership is poor, our tv numbers are poor and clubs like Essendon have Paul Little come out in 5 years and say WBFC is not financially viable and they shouldn't be made to invest in a club that can't come close to even sustaining itself, while at the same time a state government or business consortium offers massive money for a licence. I can live with this as a compromise, and the essence of a compromise is both parties don't get what they want but they agree it's the best option.

All that said, I'm happy to listen to other strategies for increasing membership, sponsorship, good tv spots, sales of merchandise etc without handouts. As the handouts will stop one day, and when they do the consequences would be much worse than selling a few games to Tassie.

Or we just become the biggest non AFL team in the country, just because the "IF" that we become no longer financially viable doesn't mean we don't have options.

[bulldogtragic]

Or we just become the biggest non AFL team in the country, just because the "IF" that we become no longer financially viable doesn't mean we don't have options.
That's fine. Man goes to a doctor. Doctor says you have a tumour. Doctor says "if" it's malignant you get sicker and then die. Doctor says we can remove the chance of death "if" it's malignant by removing it, should we do it? Man says no, you said "if".

Sometimes you have to weigh up the probability of the "if". It's not fanciful or beyond the realms of logic to hypothesis a scenario where we end up the target to free up the 18th licence.

All I'm saying is let's have the discussion. If we as a club say no to the idea fine, "if" anything happens we know whatever the consequences are then we can live with it. But not talking about something because it's not pleasurable is silly. I might have a different perspective because I've had a heap of major surgeries over the past 7 years and another major one in two weeks time. But sometimes you have to play out the thinking of "ifs" because it lets you be informed to make key decisions at certain times.

But as I've previously stated to everyone, tell me how else we find another 15,000 members and $5,000,000 per annum giving us more coaches, more recruits, more off field support, more media presence, better fixturing, more sponsorship - while Melbourne members still get 11 games. And don't say equalisation, as it may never be coming and it seems like the version the AFL have is cash handouts just go keep us with a pulse for the TV rights deal, it's not about us thriving and winning premierships.

This is just a discussion.

[Mofra]

Is our popularity really growing in the West? Most kids are dreaming of the round ball game these days.
Which is why we can count on AFL support - soccer is a bigger threat than any other code

[boydogs]

Would be interesting to see in more the local councils which club has the most support. For me I accept us being known as the Western Bulldogs FC but if the club gave us a vote to bring the Footscray name back I would vote for that. We could easily brand ourselves as Footscray FC but I don't want to get into that debate so ill leave it there.

I think the Western Bulldogs name has more appeal to the general public who may be considering joining, whilst the Footscray name is more popular amongst existing supporters.

You can debate the name we give ourselves but I don't think changing to Footscray would improve new member counts.

[bulldogtragic]

I think the Western Bulldogs name has more appeal to the general public who may be considering joining, whilst the Footscray name is more popular amongst existing supporters.

You can debate the name we give ourselves but I don't think changing to Footscray would improve new member counts.
I agree. This debate should be forgotten. Full stop.

This thread is about doing something that could change our future, this topic is moo and does nothing to advance our club as you rightfully point out.

[Bulldog Joe]

I agree. This debate should be forgotten. Full stop.

This thread is about doing something that could change our future, this topic is moo and does nothing to advance our club as you rightfully point out.

Despite being Tasmanian, I do not support the Tasmanian partial relocation.

The Bulldogs are battling against the odds, but that makes success so much sweeter.

We need to continue the fight and the main fight for now is Equalisation.

The revenues from all sources shared in some way. That includes gates, membership and sponsorship. The NFL model is 70% of all revenue shared and this is in a competition with private ownership.

The so called big clubs need to understand that the health of the competition is dependent on all clubs being healthy.

[always right]

I agree. This debate should be forgotten. Full stop.

This thread is about doing something that could change our future, this topic is moo and does nothing to advance our club as you rightfully point out.

This topic is a cow?

[bulldogtragic]

This topic is a cow?
Yes. Sorry, it's an in joke with my wife. It's from an episode of "friends". Matt LeBlancs character says it's a moo point, when asked why he says (something like): it's like a cows opinion. It doesnt matter. It's moo.

Silly stupid dad like joke which amused us way back when.

[Guido]

The revenues from all sources shared in some way. That includes gates, membership and sponsorship. The NFL model is 70% of all revenue shared and this is in a competition with private ownership.
I can totally understand people being opposed to a deal like this, but waiting on equalisation to solve our financial situation is akin to sitting on our hands and hoping for the best. Other than having the occasional public whinge to the media and the AFL, IMO there's nothing really pro-active about it.

This kind of Tassie deal outlined earlier would be 5/6 less Melbourne based games for 10 years, but would deliver the club $50mil in revenues over and above what it would otherwise get with the status quo.

After that, hoping and assuming the club/money would be well administered over that timeframe, the club would be debt free and have $20mil sitting in the bank. It's taking a kick in the teeth in the short/medium turn to secure your long term. The club would be close to $2mil stronger a year than it is now based on the interest differential alone. It would also be infinitely stronger than at least half a dozen other AFL clubs, given that, with those kinds of assets and no debt, it would be 100% in control of its own destiny and in a position that it could guarantee Footscray as its home for the next 100 years, a situation it is not in now or in the foreseeable future.

And the alternative seems to be a hope that the AFL/other clubs give us an extra couple of mil a season, on top of the the millions the AFL is already providing to us in discretionary funding every year, making us even more reliant on the commission's/other AFL club's decision making going forward. Remember, equalisation measures can be removed just as easily as they can be introduced - get poor economic times, a mix of powerful clubs pushing for it and a few poor decision makers in the commission, and it would spell disaster - if over that time we've become completely and utterly dependent on equalisation, we would be at the mercy of the AFL.

Luckily, if there's anyone in the world our club can trust to have our ongoing viability in their hands, it's AFL commission/other clubs.


The so called big clubs need to understand that the health of the competition is dependent on all clubs being healthy.
This is like expecting Man United to say, nah, screw this system where our wealth and power delivers us an advantage, lets equalise everything and bring us back to the pack, let's give away some of our resources, and help those smaller, poorer clubs also have a share of the spoils.

Any fundamental shift in equalisation funding will not driven by the powerful clubs.

[chef]

The so called big clubs need to understand that the health of the competition is dependent on all clubs being healthy.

The big clubs really couldn't give a stuff about a club like ours. Which really is fair enough as it's up to the AFL to do something about equalisation.

[Eastdog]

I agree. This debate should be forgotten. Full stop.

This thread is about doing something that could change our future, this topic is moo and does nothing to advance our club as you rightfully point out.

Sorry for bringing the naming up again will leave it there. Could playing a few home games in Canberra be another possibility to make revenue if Tassie wasn't an option. If only we could get a better deal at Etihad or even try and get 1 or 2 homes at the MCG but I don't think it will happen.

[azabob]

Sorry for bringing the naming up again will leave it there.

Just out of interest, why do you keep bringing it up?

From my understanding you were not supporting the bulldogs when they were known as Footscray, and your family are not bulldog supporters?

[Eastdog]

Just out of interest, why do you keep bringing it up?

From my understanding you were not supporting the bulldogs when they were known as Footscray, and your family are not bulldog supporters?

Yeah your right azabob I started going for us in 2001 as the Western Bulldogs I guess I'm interested in going back to tradition but I've said many times I don't mind what we are called as long as we are still based at the Whitten Oval.

[LostDoggy]

Sorry for bringing the naming up again will leave it there. Could playing a few home games in Canberra be another possibility to make revenue if Tassie wasn't an option. If only we could get a better deal at Etihad or even try and get 1 or 2 homes at the MCG but I don't think it will happen.

Most funding from playing in Canberra is now being devoted to GWS. Most of the local teams are aligned with GWS.

[KT31]

NSW has been zoned off into two areas, West and South NSW and Canberra are all allocated to GWS,
anything to do do with Afl in any off these areas would have to involve GWS.

[Bulldog Joe]

This is like expecting Man United to say, nah, screw this system where our wealth and power delivers us an advantage, lets equalise everything and bring us back to the pack, let's give away some of our resources, and help those smaller, poorer clubs also have a share of the spoils.

Any fundamental shift in equalisation funding will not driven by the powerful clubs.

The difference with Man United and Premier League is that they are
1. Privately Owned
2. In a market that involves much more than just their own league
3. Under no threat from a competing sport.



The big clubs really couldn't give a stuff about a club like ours. Which really is fair enough as it's up to the AFL to do something about equalisation.

Well the big clubs need a healthy competition. That TV deal is currently dependent on the 9 games per week.
The game will not grow if there are significant numbers of uncompetitive games on a continuing basis.
The AFL has a strong presence in the southern states but to make inroads into the areas where it is weaker, it needs a competition that gives more opportunity fro every team to be competitive. They also need this to stave off the threat from the other football codes, particuarly soccer.