North Melbourne

[GVGjr]

Apparently the deal:

3 years
North sell two games a year (6 games in total)
Get approximately $2M per year
Will stay in WA and ?host? back to back games
One in Perth, another in a regional centre
WCE & Freo set to stop complaining about travel with the extra home game each, each year


Seems pretty desperate and short sighted from North.

The AFL is breaking their own rules if the above is accurate and by the sounds of things it is.
The regional centre should be the only one that North should be allowed to play at.
The AFL should not regard Perth as an emerging market.

North are clearly concerned with their financial position. I heard earlier in the year that they were offering significant discounts to try and attract sponsors. I don't think they had a sponsor for their shorts.

North need that Hobart cash and must be in a dire position.

[comrade]

God what a shit show.

[The Underdog]

What a bush league.

Yeah, shut it down.

[Grantysghost]

If it's become so lop sided for teams like North to survive I'm wondering what's the point.
Selling wins for cash.

[GVGjr]

The North decision a few years back to rip into the playing list to then secure some early picks and bank on a decent bounce back has really backfired on them in a big way and they've never really recovered. Unless they can get their Melbourne based supporters on board with this they are going to continue to struggle. They need to show some progress and bank some wins to help attract supporters and sponsors.

[The Underdog]

The AFL should not let them. There's an integrity issue here.

I understand that clubs should be able to play 'THEIR' home games wherever they like. At the same time, if that location is the home venue (or home venue adjacent) to another club, it should not be allowed.

I should probably shut-up as I said not a single word when we played some games up in Cairns - clearly NOT part of the Bulldogs heartland - but North playing in Perth is just plain silly. If there was a suitable venue available, I could ALMOST understand them trying to play a game in regional WA (Bunbury) - but there just isn't (great country venues are not even the standard of state league grounds in most cases and in the case of Bunbury that is definitely the case) but to play in Perth in front of a crowd filled with opposition supporters? Should not be allowed to happen.

Ironically, the Fox Sports article mentions Bunbury specifically as a possible location for one of the games.

[comrade]

For those who shit on our arrangement with Ballarat and complain about playing games here, it?s a million times better than what North are being coerced into doing.

[Grantysghost]

For those who shit on our arrangement with Ballarat and complain about playing games here, it?s a million times better than what North are being coerced into doing.

Yes true comrade. It's the lot of the smaller clubs I really think there should be more collective bargaining with us, North, Saints, etc to put more pressure on the AFL.
It's terrible what North are being asked to do, a line has been crossed for mine.

[azabob]

Is Norths home ground docklands or MCG?

Either way the AFL hasn't fixed the cash takings disparity between the two venues.

[Grantysghost]

Is Norths home ground docklands or MCG?

Either way the AFL hasn't fixed the cash takings disparity between the two venues.

Yep and Essendon's godfather deal where they get a cut of everything from everyone isn't helping.

No wonder they don't want to leave.

If the game had any integrity the AFL would ensure that North gets enough from their home games to not have to sell actual wins for dollars.

Imagine if they have a decent season and miss the 8 by a game or two.

Unlikely but maybe in that three year bloke it's possible.

[Rocco Jones]

Yes true comrade. It's the lot of the smaller clubs I really think there should be more collective bargaining with us, North, Saints, etc to put more pressure on the AFL.
It's terrible what North are being asked to do, a line has been crossed for mine.

AFL have malevolent in their benevolence with their equalisation funding. Set up a system where fixturing is unequal but sell it via helping out the smaller clubs so their survival is guaranteed for long enough. AFL has equalisation funding, Northern NGAs and fixturing to really compromise clubs from putting pressure on them/complaining.

Dogs, North, Dees and Saints, as well as Swans, Giants, Suns and Lions (AFL largely on their side anyway) are very compromised by the AFL.

[Sedat]

AFL have malevolent in their benevolence with their equalisation funding. Set up a system where fixturing is unequal but sell it via helping out the smaller clubs so their survival is guaranteed for long enough. AFL has equalisation funding, Northern NGAs and fixturing to really compromise clubs from putting pressure on them/complaining.

Dogs, North, Dees and Saints, as well as Swans, Giants, Suns and Lions (AFL largely on their side anyway) are very compromised by the AFL.

100%. That's why I've dirtied up so much after losing the 2021 GF - if we had 2 flags in the bank I would likely have given up on the AFEL because meaningful success will always be stacked against us.

Give the plebs just enough crumbs to survive, and they wont dare criticise their masters.

[Rocco Jones]

100%. That's why I've dirtied up so much after losing the 2021 GF - if we had 2 flags in the bank I would likely have given up on the AFEL because meaningful success will always be stacked against us.

Give the plebs just enough crumbs to survive, and they wont dare criticise their masters.

That's it. A couple of other things.

The AFL have Damian Barrett and Kane Cornes on the payroll. They have a lot of control over the media narratives if they need it. The pair are okay with really sticking it to a struggling club. Says a lot about the AFL having those two on board.

They also have a very (purposefully) loose Integrity Unit. I am sure it can gain teeth and hurt clubs that don't play ball.