3AW Talkback: Should Roos and Demons Merge?

[bulldogtragic]

Seems like a good fit.

Names don't change much, and Arden Street by the time of completion will be better than the junction oval.

As long as they dont get too much compensation while GC17 is getting their massive handouts.

Thoughts?


EDIT: Just spewing back talkback as opposed to pushing a view too hard.

[The Coon Dog]

Good luck trying to sell it to the fans of the clubs concerned!

Imagine if other clubs supporters suggested the Western Bulldogs merge with x,y or z, we'd be outraged. Like we were in 1989.

As far as I'm concerned a merger is purely the decision for the clubs involved along with the members of those clubs & nobody else.

[LostDoggy]

Seems like a good fit.

Names don't change much, and Arden Street by the time of completion will be better than the junction oval.

As long as they dont get too much compensation while GC17 is getting their massive handouts.

Thoughts?


Does it? Why dont we join in and make it a 3way merger?

Sound a bit 'NIMBY' to me 42-C-3

[soupman]

Personally, considering our financial history I wouldn't be so keen on commenting on whether other teams should merge and/or relocate without it already being a major current issue.

[LostDoggy]

It's always a good idea if it doesn't involve you.

What good can come from alienating an entire team's supporters?

In reality, there is never a merger - it becomes a takeover because one team will benefit more than the other.

[bornadog]

That is how mergers start on a roll ie through the media.

[bulldogtragic]

That is how mergers start on a roll ie through the media.
And Neill Mitchell is a Mlebourne member???

[bornadog]

And Neill Mitchell is a Mlebourne member???

yes and they would be the dominant team as the AFL won't get rid of the name Melbourne, they would just add Kangaroos

[bulldogtragic]

yes and they would be the dominant team as the AFL won't get rid of the name Melbourne, they would just add Kangaroos
Or, they only drop North? :)

They were happy to be the Kangaroos two years ago? :)

[bornadog]

Or, they only drop North? :)

They were happy to be the Kangaroos two years ago? :)

Interesting that North feel they won't get 34,000 members this year. I think there was huge sympathy for them last year from other supporters and they have not ben able to hold the total.

Unless we eventually get to 40,000 members, we will always struggle as well.

[bulldogtragic]

Interesting that North feel they won't get 34,000 members this year. I think there was huge sympathy for them last year from other supporters and they have not ben able to hold the total.

Unless we eventually get to 40,000 members, we will always struggle as well.
I agree and it shits me so many people that lie claim to being bulldogs for life are NOT members. I know everyone has diffrent income, but $20odd per month direct debit, i dont notice it. I also have medallion club tickets so i each year i give my membership away to a family member who has impressionable kids. The parent goes for free, then their kids join up as members, they buy merchandice, the next year they sign up as member and i find new people.

That said we didn't have a media manager for a while and that may have hurt us a little, but the point remains, dont support the club, be a member lof the club. Buti preach to the converted (i hope).

I'd certainly hate to go through 1989 again and what Melb and Hawks had to go through. Bulldog people have jst got to sign up.

[strebla]

I agree and it shits me so many people that lie claim to being bulldogs for life are NOT members. I know everyone has diffrent income, but $20odd per month direct debit, i dont notice it. I also have medallion club tickets so i each year i give my membership away to a family member who has impressionable kids. The parent goes for free, then their kids join up as members, they buy merchandice, the next year they sign up as member and i find new people.

That said we didn't have a media manager for a while and that may have hurt us a little, but the point remains, dont support the club, be a member lof the club. Buti preach to the converted (i hope).

I'd certainly hate to go through 1989 again and what Melb and Hawks had to go through. Bulldog people have jst got to sign up.

I flat out refuse to talk footy to people unless they are a club member and publicly shame them for being all talk no acion I have signed e few new members this way

[Sockeye Salmon]

Interesting that North feel they won't get 34,000 members this year. I think there was huge sympathy for them last year from other supporters and they have not ben able to hold the total.

Unless we eventually get to 40,000 members, we will always struggle as well.

When we had 8,000 members we said that if we didn't get to 15,000 we'd struggle.
When we had 20,000 we said we needed 30,000
Now we're nearing 30,000 we need 40,000.

Fact - someone will always be the least wealthy club. Just like someone will always be on the bottom of the ladder.

When South went to Sydney everything was going to be OK because there would be more money to go around for everyone else. When Fitzroy went to Brisbane there was ...

There is absolutely no excuse right now that all clubs aren't making big profits; except for greed and that the haves will always try and gain a competitive advantage over everyone else. Then those that can't quite afford a 3rd assistant coach puts one on anyway so as to compete.

The clubs all make money? The AFLPA would be all over it. 20% pay rises for all!

It will never end.

If Melbourne and North merge perhaps we will become the poorest club. So they ship us off somewhere else or merge us with Port Adelaide and prop us up with a billion dollars. Who becomes the poorest club then? Richmond? St. Kilda?

Someone will always be the poorest because it's always relative to everyone else.

[LostDoggy]

I think it would be frustrating if it happened in the next 2-3 years...because it would bring back the Bye round which is never fair.

(Correct me if im wrong) Right now with GC17 coming in, 2011 is going to have at least 1 team having a bye each week..and we goto 9 games per round in 2012 with "Western Sydney" coming in...if thats still the plan.

So to merge those teams, maybe 2011 will be the last year we have a non-bye season.

If ive confused you the point im trying to get across is I hate the 'Bye' system.. and we're gunna have that for at least 1 year, with the merger it could be permanent :|

[soupman]

I think it would be frustrating if it happened in the next 2-3 years...because it would bring back the Bye round which is never fair.

(Correct me if im wrong) Right now with GC17 coming in, 2011 is going to have at least 1 team having a bye each week..and we goto 9 games per round in 2012 with "Western Sydney" coming in...if thats still the plan.

So to merge those teams, maybe 2011 will be the last year we have a non-bye season.

If ive confused you the point im trying to get across is I hate the 'Bye' system.. and we're gunna have that for at least 1 year, with the merger it could be permanent :|

There won't be a merger. And if there is one it'll be down the track when they introduce a team from Tassie.

[1eyedog]

When we had 8,000 members we said that if we didn't get to 15,000 we'd struggle.
When we had 20,000 we said we needed 30,000
Now we're nearing 30,000 we need 40,000.

Fact - someone will always be the least wealthy club. Just like someone will always be on the bottom of the ladder.

When South went to Sydney everything was going to be OK because there would be more money to go around for everyone else. When Fitzroy went to Brisbane there was ...

There is absolutely no excuse right now that all clubs aren't making big profits; except for greed and that the haves will always try and gain a competitive advantage over everyone else. Then those that can't quite afford a 3rd assistant coach puts one on anyway so as to compete.

The clubs all make money? The AFLPA would be all over it. 20% pay rises for all!

It will never end.

If Melbourne and North merge perhaps we will become the poorest club. So they ship us off somewhere else or merge us with Port Adelaide and prop us up with a billion dollars. Who becomes the poorest club then? Richmond? St. Kilda?

Someone will always be the poorest because it's always relative to everyone else.

Well said.

[bornadog]

When we had 8,000 members we said that if we didn't get to 15,000 we'd struggle.
When we had 20,000 we said we needed 30,000
Now we're nearing 30,000 we need 40,000.

Fact - someone will always be the least wealthy club. Just like someone will always be on the bottom of the ladder.

When South went to Sydney everything was going to be OK because there would be more money to go around for everyone else. When Fitzroy went to Brisbane there was ...

There is absolutely no excuse right now that all clubs aren't making big profits; except for greed and that the haves will always try and gain a competitive advantage over everyone else. Then those that can't quite afford a 3rd assistant coach puts one on anyway so as to compete.

The clubs all make money? The AFLPA would be all over it. 20% pay rises for all!

It will never end.

If Melbourne and North merge perhaps we will become the poorest club. So they ship us off somewhere else or merge us with Port Adelaide and prop us up with a billion dollars. Who becomes the poorest club then? Richmond? St. Kilda?

Someone will always be the poorest because it's always relative to everyone else.

The reason the membership target goes up, is the cost of running a club has risen dramatically, from player payments to the Football department. Agree there will always be a poor club, but when the Hawthorns, Collingwoods etc start to put a big gap financially, compared to the poorer clubs, the danger is we will not keep up on the field either.

Melbourne's population is the fastest growing in Australia over the past five years and is set to hit 4 million early next yearincluding a huge corridor in the Western Suburbs, our membership base has grown, but I believe it has the potential to grow more and even double if we were to win a premiership.

[bulldogtragic]

When we had 8,000 members we said that if we didn't get to 15,000 we'd struggle.
When we had 20,000 we said we needed 30,000
Now we're nearing 30,000 we need 40,000.

Fact - someone will always be the least wealthy club. Just like someone will always be on the bottom of the ladder.

When South went to Sydney everything was going to be OK because there would be more money to go around for everyone else. When Fitzroy went to Brisbane there was ...

There is absolutely no excuse right now that all clubs aren't making big profits; except for greed and that the haves will always try and gain a competitive advantage over everyone else. Then those that can't quite afford a 3rd assistant coach puts one on anyway so as to compete.

The clubs all make money? The AFLPA would be all over it. 20% pay rises for all!

It will never end.

If Melbourne and North merge perhaps we will become the poorest club. So they ship us off somewhere else or merge us with Port Adelaide and prop us up with a billion dollars. Who becomes the poorest club then? Richmond? St. Kilda?

Someone will always be the poorest because it's always relative to everyone else.
I undertsand why you don't post as much SS and i agree. To me twhat is occuring now could be the start of the end. Those holding onto the VFL, suburban footy with real hate and passion for the other side ain't the AFL. It's a corporation. So lets use their words, down-sizing, right-sizing, streamling, increased effeciency. In al our hearts when it became the AFL all Victorian clubs became targets with the Roy Boys flllowing South, but at loeast they didn't go the way of University.

It's TV rights and money and corporatiisiation and the business reality if it all is something has got to give. I think one Victorian team will go - i dont know where - in the next 3 years. If the AFL had its way North would be GC17. Western Sydney will be a blight on the comp and yet Tassie will be screaming. They wont want a bye and finals could go top 10 if we are still looking at 18 clubs.

I've said before, and been howled down, if a Team 'Footscray' played VFL in the tri-colours and at the Whitten Oval i would go follow them and just keep an eye on the Western Bulldogs. I don't want to be stuck in the past, and i like change as a rule. But the change the AFL is making is senseless and agaianst the origins of the game because they get more dollars. They will get a new generation of kids to take over sposorships and memebrships and the way foty used to be will be gone forever.

I'd love 40,000 membership just so we could afford a Foootscray VFL team. The AFL is soulless, but my love and money still goes to the Whitten Oval. I just hope the next 5 years of change doesn't kill off my passion for the game completly.

[LostDoggy]

I flat out refuse to talk footy to people unless they are a club member and publicly shame them for being all talk no acion I have signed e few new members this way

That position is absolutely ridiculous.

The AFL is a business (as they keep telling us), not a charity or community organisation in need of your dollar to survive (despite their attempts to portray themselves as such). I'm not going to condemn someone else for choosing to spend their hard-earned on something else they deem more worthy: support for a sporting club in the past was never tied to how much you were personally willing to pour into the AFL's coffers, and with a membership these days costing on par with things such as medical insurance, some families will prioritise accordingly.

As SS points out, it is a business where growth is paid for by all the clubs. Where the AFL has been very savvy is in calling themselves a business, with all the requisite privileges of business (such as sponsorships and big salaries), without any of the contervailing balances of a normal business, such as corporate governance.

They've done this by continually selling the game (lying) to grassroots supporters like yourself by telling you your club needs your dollar for survival (despite every club being an integral part of the overall success of the AFL and despite two decades of multi-million dollar growth) -- it's a mug's game, and they will keep scaring members to sign up to drive that growth further. The fact is: there is more than enough money in the game to prop up every Melbourne club indefinitely if the AFL wants to (the fact that they can spend gazillions on doomed experiments in Western Sydney prove as much).

The reality is that a business should have to compete for your dollar, and if they fail, by giving you a bum deal, or overcharging, or being unethical, then you have no obligation to stick to them out of some misplaced sense of loyalty.

I am a member, but that's my choice. There's no moral or ethical obligation on me to prop up a business that, in reality, I barely support -- as I've said many a time, if the Dogs didn't exist, the AFL has lost my dollar anyway, so it's in their best interest to keep the Dogs alive (and they know as much).

The AFL has depended on our gullibility for too long to continue to rip our beloved clubs off. Andrew D. loves the likes of you who equate sporting fandom to how much money you are willing to give him, and who will only converse with others who do the same. Ludicrous.

[LostDoggy]

The reason the membership target goes up, is the cost of running a club has risen dramatically, from player payments to the Football department. Agree there will always be a poor club, but when the Hawthorns, Collingwoods etc start to put a big gap financially, compared to the poorer clubs, the danger is we will not keep up on the field either.

Melbourne's population is the fastest growing in Australia over the past five years and is set to hit 4 million early next yearincluding a huge corridor in the Western Suburbs, our membership base has grown, but I believe it has the potential to grow more and even double if we were to win a premiership.

What is the point of a salary cap then? They AFL are philosophically confused -- if a salary cap is introduced to create equalisation across all teams, it only follows that other areas in which a team can leverage their financial muscle to advantage should also be capped ie. in the football department.

If they do not follow through on the equalisation policy to all areas, then the salary cap might as well not even exist, as teams will just divert their money to other equally effective areas.

Having said that, the fact that blatant salary cap rorting exists and is public knowledge, but vehemently defended by the AFL, is even more farcical. The AFL's current state of complete ideological confusion makes fools of us all.

[LostDoggy]

The AFL pays lip service to equalisation, to wit:

the range of stadium deals,
the range of perimeter advertising deals,
the fixture itself (perhaps the greatest joke of all)

[Happy Days]

From the AFL website;

Top 10: AFL commits to existing Victorian teams

AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou says the game needs 10 Victorian teams
By Ben Broad
12:57 PM Wed 06 May, 2009

AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou says the league is committed to 10 teams in Victoria, and has rejected his predecessor's call for a merger of two Melbourne-based clubs.

Former league boss Wayne Jackson suggested on Wednesday that financial battlers North Melbourne and Melbourne should combine forces to create one of the strongest brands in the competition.

But Demetriou, who said he hadn't heard Jackson's comments, said the AFL was taking a bigger-picture view.

"We actually want 10 teams in Melbourne," Demetriou said.

"It's important that we have 10 teams in Melbourne and it's important for a number of reasons.

"One is it generates a lot of economy in this state and it generates a significant amount of economy at the MCG and at Docklands.

"You take teams out of that, they will be affected – those venues will be affected, their capacity to pay their loan will be affected."

Demetriou said it wasn't just about a club's right to keep its own identity. He noted the role AFL clubs and football played in the community, and said in the current economic climate the decision to merge two clubs would have drastic consequences.

Having 10 clubs in Melbourne also generated substantial broadcast income, Demetriou said.

"You take two clubs out, then what you'll see is we'll get a reduction in our broadcast rights," he said.

The League is believed to be close to entering talks with networks regarding the next TV broadcast deal.

Demetriou said the AFL offered "a premium product for any television network".

While the League boss wouldn't speculate on the magical $1 billion figure that has been bandied about, he said he had read that Channel 9 had entered the bidding market.

"I can tell you this much; we will not get a drop in our broadcasting revenue."

Demetriou also praised the work being done by several clubs in light of the tough financial environment, and said the AFL was generating many jobs.

"When you split up the club-related jobs at an average of 100 [per club], that's 1600 jobs at AFL clubs. Add all the other jobs that are involved in football, we employ directly or indirectly about 13,500 people.

"So we take that responsibility very seriously. [We're] creating jobs, we've got $140 million worth of infrastructure being built at the moment … there's more jobs with building going on.

"All the clubs are out there doing their bit."

[strebla]

That position is absolutely ridiculous.

The AFL is a business (as they keep telling us), not a charity or community organisation in need of your dollar to survive (despite their attempts to portray themselves as such). I'm not going to condemn someone else for choosing to spend their hard-earned on something else they deem more worthy: support for a sporting club in the past was never tied to how much you were personally willing to pour into the AFL's coffers, and with a membership these days costing on par with things such as medical insurance, some families will prioritise accordingly.

As SS points out, it is a business where growth is paid for by all the clubs. Where the AFL has been very savvy is in calling themselves a business, with all the requisite privileges of business (such as sponsorships and big salaries), without any of the contervailing balances of a normal business, such as corporate governance.

They've done this by continually selling the game (lying) to grassroots supporters like yourself by telling you your club needs your dollar for survival (despite every club being an integral part of the overall success of the AFL and despite two decades of multi-million dollar growth) -- it's a mug's game, and they will keep scaring members to sign up to drive that growth further. The fact is: there is more than enough money in the game to prop up every Melbourne club indefinitely if the AFL wants to (the fact that they can spend gazillions on doomed experiments in Western Sydney prove as much).

The reality is that a business should have to compete for your dollar, and if they fail, by giving you a bum deal, or overcharging, or being unethical, then you have no obligation to stick to them out of some misplaced sense of loyalty.

I am a member, but that's my choice. There's no moral or ethical obligation on me to prop up a business that, in reality, I barely support -- as I've said many a time, if the Dogs didn't exist, the AFL has lost my dollar anyway, so it's in their best interest to keep the Dogs alive (and they know as much).

The AFL has depended on our gullibility for too long to continue to rip our beloved clubs off. Andrew D. loves the likes of you who equate sporting fandom to how much money you are willing to give him, and who will only converse with others who do the same. Ludicrous.

What I am on about is so called passionate supporters who rant and rave at my place of work lantern who barrack instead of support ! you may say it is ludicrous but I think it is ludicrous for people with the means and so called passion not to suppport their club by means of a membership if you wwant to have a crack at the bulldogs or whinge about what is happenning at my club I wanmt you to be fair dinkum or I won't waste my time listening to their dribble!!!!!

[bornadog]

What I am on about is so called passionate supporters who rant and rave at my place of work lantern who barrack instead of support ! you may say it is ludicrous but I think it is ludicrous for people with the means and so called passion not to suppport their club by means of a membership if you wwant to have a crack at the bulldogs or whinge about what is happenning at my club I wanmt you to be fair dinkum or I won't waste my time listening to their dribble!!!!!

Here here, I agree, I am exactly the same.

[LostDoggy]

Would rather see the reverse of all this and for all Melbourne clubs to return to their suburban heartlands. This was a time when the game's tribalism meant something, and now it's eroding as the years go by. Pipedream, I know.

[Mofra]

Has anyone even considered that by merging two Victorian teams, tens of thousands of fans will be lost to the game forever?

I'd maintain maybe a passing interest in a merged Bulldogs side, but I'd never be passionate about it. I imagine there'd be quite a number of people who would have thought the same.

[BulldogBelle]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest that we move to Blacktown in 2012 and stay as the Western Bulldogs, but be the West Sydney Bulldogs effectively

Melbourne and North to merge, and the Gold Coast to be its own club

The competition stays at 16 clubs

Then in 10 years the pressure will build on St Kilda/Richmond to merge or relocate if another market is identified ie 3rd Perth or Adelaide club, Tasmanian club

Once we start talking about 'brands' and 'franchises' then the paradigm shifts towards a more American style competition, when any joker can offer a stadium deal and move a team interstate.

Look at the A-League, people enjoy watching soccer, and frankly no one cared that the Victory, Roar, United etc had no history etc....they automatically had thousands of 'supporters' who like the sport and volunteered to purchase a jersey every year. Thats what the AFL wants, and couldnt give a damn about offending each of the 100k-200k of Bulldogs or Roos or Dees supporters....their attitude is that 50% will end up barracking for the 'new' club, 40% will move to another club and 10% wont go to the footy at all.

[Mofra]

Look at the A-League, people enjoy watching soccer, and frankly no one cared that the Victory, Roar, United etc had no history etc....they automatically had thousands of 'supporters' who like the sport and volunteered to purchase a jersey every year. Thats what the AFL wants, and couldnt give a damn about offending 100k Bulldogs or Roos or Dees supporters....their attitude is that 50% will end up barracking for the 'new' club, 40% will move to another club and 10% wont go to the footy at all.
Soccer is a world game that resonates with the 25% of Australian residents who were born overseas, so they always had some form of advantage. They also had a bit of Frank Lowy money to kick off a proper rebirth of the game.

Given the multicultural mix of the Western Suburbs of Melbourne, one of (if not the) fastest growing areas of Australia, it makes sense to keep a strong AFL presence there anyway, in my (more than slightly biased) opinion. :)

[The Adelaide Connection]

As a kid I was a Fitzroy supporter and remember watching the last game and crying my eyes out. I have no love and feel no allegience with the Brisbane Lions whatsoever. When Fitzroy were 'absorbed' I slowly gravitated towards the Bulldogs and I guess they were a similar sort of club: The battling perrennial underdogs. It may sound like sacrilege to all of you but when the whole thing was going down I desperately hoped it would be a Footscray/Fitzroy merger.

It may make sense to an outsider to merge two clubs but the reality for the supporters is very different. There is a loss of identity of sorts. If it did happen I am sure it would be more of a 'merge' than Fitzroys 'takeover' but I think both sets of supporters would be less than happy.

Without a boutique stadium as an alternate to Etihad/MCG someone will fall eventually. If a shitty stadium deal for Port Adelaide can put them in strife then a shitty stadium deal for the Melbourne clubs is a death sentence.

[BulldogBelle]

Has anyone even considered that by merging two Victorian teams, tens of thousands of fans will be lost to the game forever?

I'd maintain maybe a passing interest in a merged Bulldogs side, but I'd never be passionate about it. I imagine there'd be quite a number of people who would have thought the same.


Seems that doesn't come into the equation. As Doghouse said, it's all about the mon-ey.......

[AndrewP6]

Seems like a good fit.

Names don't change much, and Arden Street by the time of completion will be better than the junction oval.

As long as they dont get too much compensation while GC17 is getting their massive handouts.

Thoughts?


EDIT: Just spewing back talkback as opposed to pushing a view too hard.

Why the change of username ?

[The Pie Man]

As a kid I was a Fitzroy supporter and remember watching the last game and crying my eyes out. I have no love and feel no allegience with the Brisbane Lions whatsoever. When Fitzroy were 'absorbed' I slowly gravitated towards the Bulldogs and I guess they were a similar sort of club: The battling perrennial underdogs. It may sound like sacrilege to all of you but when the whole thing was going down I desperately hoped it would be a Footscray/Fitzroy merger.
It may make sense to an outsider to merge two clubs but the reality for the supporters is very different. There is a loss of identity of sorts. If it did happen I am sure it would be more of a 'merge' than Fitzroys 'takeover' but I think both sets of supporters would be less than happy.

Without a boutique stadium as an alternate to Etihad/MCG someone will fall eventually. If a shitty stadium deal for Port Adelaide can put them in strife then a shitty stadium deal for the Melbourne clubs is a death sentence.

I was 11 when this was all going down and was shattered...Irene Chatfiled you legend....but the funny thing is that once I became an adult, Fitzroy became my favourite suburb to spend a weekend - I even rented in North Fitzroy for a time - now I'm of the opinion it never would've worked and I have a heap of great memories out at the Western Oval with my old man and beers at The Plough before games, but it's kinda funny for me to think what it would've actually been like. At least it would have the name of an actual suburb/place.

Don't get me wrong, I don't honestly think it would've worked and I was - and remain - rapt it didn't come to pass. Just an interesting what if

[LostDoggy]

I flat out refuse to talk footy to people unless they are a club member and publicly shame them for being all talk no acion I have signed e few new members this way

Love an extremist.

I approach this merger from an aesthetic point of view. Melbourne bore me, oldest club or no. They bore their own members these days. I respect and admire the North story, but God, you win flag after flag and still can't flourish.

The Melbourne Kangaroos has a ring to it and the logo -- a Kangaroo with a demon in her pouch brandishing a trident -- would also be pleasing. Having said that, I dont think I would ever actively advocate a merger. Not really my business.

[strebla]

Love an extremist.

I approach this merger from an aesthetic point of view. Melbourne bore me, oldest club or no. They bore their own members these days. I respect and admire the North story, but God, you win flag after flag and still can't flourish.

The Melbourne Kangaroos has a ring to it and the logo -- a Kangaroo with a demon in her pouch brandishing a trident -- would also be pleasing. Having said that, I dont think I would ever actively advocate a merger. Not really my business.

Four flags hardly constitutes flag after flag (although i would be happy if they in our hands )I could not ever supprt a merger after 89 what we wen't through I could not even do that to a Carlton supporter!!!