Resource 2014 NMFC Annual Report and 2015 AGM

[Dan]

Did anyone go?

 

[GoNorth]

So did Arch nominate?

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

Apparently JB slammed the Etihad stadium deal, called it the worst deal in world sport.

 

[Flawed Genius]

Here is that article:

NORTH Melbourne chairman James Brayshaw has slammed the club's home-game deal at Etihad Stadium, describing it as the "worst stadium deal in the history of world sport".

Brayshaw told North's annual general meeting on Wednesday night he was sick of hearing how the club was being propped up by the AFL, saying the equalisation funding the Roos received from the League was essentially compensation for their inequitable deal at Etihad.

"We have the worst stadium deal in the history of world sport nearly," Brayshaw at the Sofitel.

"So therefore the AFL recognise that and they give us basically a compensation amount of money for the fact that we are forced to play games there and don't make any money.

"It annoys me when I hear commentary around these clubs that are propped up by the AFL and wouldn't be profitable or wouldn't exist if they weren't propped up by the AFL. "It's actually nothing to do with that. I think it was 2011 when we last played all our home games at Etihad and we had a pretty good attendance here I think in 2011 and we made $611,000 net.

"So (Port Adelaide chairman) David Koch is complaining about their new deal at Adelaide Oval where they're getting $4.5 million (a year), but we played 11 games and made $600,000. "So that's why the AFL give us money. It's really as simple as that and hopefully the AFL soon will buy Etihad and then we'll get a proper stadium deal and we won't need to be propped up with a compensation cheque.”

North received $2.8 million from the AFL in future fund payments in 2014, with the League having committed to compensate smaller clubs for structural inequities as part of the beefed-up equalisation measures it announced in June last year. The Western Bulldogs also received $2.8 million in future fund distributions last year and Melbourne received $2.27 million, while St Kilda received an additional $3.8 million in AFL funding.

The Roos' equalisation funding helped the club record a profit of $423,074 last year. But North chief executive Carl Dilena told members he hoped the AFL would bolster its equalisation program even further when the existing system is reviewed after 2016. The measures introduced by the AFL in June last year include a luxury tax set at a maximum of $1 million a club for monies spent over a soft football department cap and a revenue tax that could require strong clubs such as Collingwood and Hawthorn to pay a maximum of $500,000 into a collective pool.

Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold said earlier this month the revenue-sharing tax would reduce all AFL clubs to "break-even" organisations. And Collingwood president Eddie McGuire told the club's annual general meeting earlier this month that the AFL was trying to pick the club's pockets with its equalisation measures.

Dilena noted Hawthorn and Collingwood had been "grumbing" ahead of the AFL's meeting with club CEOs next week, saying he expected clubs would continue to push their own self-interest in the lead-up to the equalisation review. "(Hawthorn and Collingwood) were among the clubs who set up the program to start with so they're complaining about the program that they actually put in place," Dilena said. "It's politics, it's brinkmanship through the media so I wouldn't get caught up in that too much.

"We've got a good relationship with the AFL, they know where we sit. "A lot of the principles of the whole regime we were very active in putting forward to the AFL and very supportive of, so I think it's moving in the right direction.

"(But) there will be some politics that will muddy the waters over the next couple of years."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-18/brayshaw-slams-etihad-deal

 

[Tas]

Apparently JB slammed the Etihad stadium deal, called it the worst deal in world sport.

Yet does nothing.

Tell the AFL our contract is done, we are playing at Arden Street until you sort it out. We are making nothing there, we might as well have a home ground advantage.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Geez. Tough critic.

 

[Harris 10]

Yet does nothing.

Tell the AFL our contract is done, we are playing at Arden Street until you sort it out. We are making nothing there, we might as well have a home ground advantage.

A contract is a contract, not much he can do.

 

[Tas]

Here is that article:



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-18/brayshaw-slams-etihad-deal

I don't like him bitching about Port, they fill that place out every week, there is literally no room to grow there, when we are pulling 15-20k from a 55k stadium we would make more money if we had more supporters, or even got the vast majority of our members to show up.

 

[Tas]

A contract is a contract, not much he can do.

We haven't had a contract with them for 5+ years now.

 

[vntrinh]

A contract is a contract, not much he can do.

LOL maybe we should call Daniel Andrews

 

[numchuks]

Should've gone tbh.

Hope someone put JB and the board to the task about whether they'll be taking up the Hawthorn contract and taking more than half our games to Tassie.

 

[GarnerSmash]

We haven't had a contract with them for 5+ years now.

We can't play VFL games at Arden St because of a lack of suitable facilities, so how are we supposed to play AFL games there? This emotive response to playing at Etihad is all well and good in theory but has no foundation in reality. The AFL have us over a barrel in terms of fixturing as it is they who determine what grounds can be used to host AFL matches and it is they who determine who plays where and when. All we can do is kick up a stink about the terms under which we play not being suitable but we have very little hand in the argument.

The best we can hope for is for us, the Saints and the Dogs to present a united front in the media and behind the scenes to attempt to force the AFL to provide a more suitable deal for all of us at Etihad, but with the AFL having to pump funds into the clubs in the Northern states our complaints are unlikely to be a priority.

 

[Tas]

We can't play VFL games at Arden St because of a lack of suitable facilities, so how are we supposed to play AFL games there? This emotive response to playing at Etihad is all well and good in theory but has no foundation in reality. The AFL have us over a barrel in terms of fixturing as it is they who determine what grounds can be used to host AFL matches and it is they who determine who plays where and when. All we can do is kick up a stink about the terms under which we play not being suitable but we have very little hand in the argument.

The best we can hope for is for us, the Saints and the Dogs to present a united front in the media and behind the scenes to attempt to force the AFL to provide a more suitable deal for all of us at Etihad, but with the AFL having to pump funds into the clubs in the Northern states our complaints are unlikely to be a priority.

I joke about Hardon Street because Euge made the joke that we are better off shutting the gates at Docklands and not letting anyone in, my point was playing at an empty stadium means we would be better off.

We requested the AFL to move our games to MCG, AFL said no. Legally, they can't say no but we didn't call their bluff. They say no and we say lets see if a court agrees with you. MCG couldn't have refused us moving our games back there either, their constitution and purpose is to provide a stadium for AFL and Cricket teams, the stadium belongs to the state.

We have no contract with Docklands to play there and it is a restraint of trade to force us to play there. They have us over a barrel because we went to AFL house in the bent over forwards position, they just slid the barrel under us.

Docklands is the AFL's **** up, nobody elses. We shouldn't be left holding the baby. They let Carlton walk away and they were contracted to play there. They chose to piss the broadcasting revenue on GC and GWS instead of fixing the problems they created first.

 

[King Corey]

Went along. Was a pretty positive vibe generally.

Nothing too dramatic but maybe that's the thing.

 

[Zondor]

Yet does nothing.

Tell the AFL our contract is done, we are playing at Arden Street until you sort it out. We are making nothing there, we might as well have a home ground advantage.

Yep. How many years has he been president and "accepted" this rot of a stadium deal? :stern look

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Yep, we should just walk away from Etihad.

Blatantly refuse to play until we can actually make a profit from playing there.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Are the AFL obligated to buy out Etihad before the lease ends? Are they obligated to enter into a new arrangement? I don't think they are. But, for the sake of argument lets say we take the AFL to court and win, which means we get to play our home games at the G.

Great. Better deal, a bit more coin etc.

Knowing the AFL as we do I wonder from that point what the odds are of:

AFL either pushing more of our home games in Hobart or moving St. Kilda into the Hobart market whilst removing us from the equation.

Home games at the G against GWS, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Fremantle, Bulldogs, Saints, West Coast, Sydney and, Adelaide and Port Adelaide, year after year.

No home games against Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond, Essendon, year after year.

A raft of early Sunday afternoon and Sunday twilight games, year after year.

I wonder just how great a court action would look when our generated income from game day reduces as a consequence of removal from the Hobart market and a swathe of home games against interstate clubs at shit times. I wonder just how strong our ability to reach our Melbourne supporters will be in this environment, considering our ability to fund the football department would also likely take a hit and on field performance suffers as a consequence.

Odds are that our club leadership, along with the Saints and Dogs, have agreed to continue at Etihad as a consequence of greater equalisation funding, and support of our Hobart venture from the AFL is somewhat linked to that agreement. At the same time I hope that us, the Saints and Dogs continue to make the right noises about how shit that deal is to collectively attempt to convince the AFL to buy out the lease once it reaches an appropriate cost, which may be a while yet due to the shitloads of money they have poured into the Northern States' clubs.

We have to be careful for what we wish for in dealing with the AFL. They have the power and the control over the fixturing and purse strings that could see us as weak as we were in 2007 in a few years time and I don't trust them at all to act honourably if we piss them off and win a court case against them. Reality is it is better to work with an organisation like that then it is to work against them.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Brayshaw at AGM:

 

[Saintly31]

Yet does nothing.

Tell the AFL our contract is done, we are playing at Arden Street until you sort it out. We are making nothing there, we might as well have a home ground advantage.

Can't believe I've just read that.

Yeah, that would be an excellent move for JB and co to take on the AFL over an issue in which their rightly acknowledging and compensating the club for our disadvantage.

We wouldn't last another 3 years with that type of nomad thinking.

 

[Kimbo]

I'd like NMFC to have a share of the equity once the AFL owns it. Or some profit-sharing arrangement that compensates us (and Saints, Dogs) for the years we took it up the arse and weren't adequately compensated.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I'd like NMFC to have a share of the equity once the AFL owns it. Or some profit-sharing arrangement that compensates us (and Saints, Dogs) for the years we took it up the arse and weren't adequately compensated.

Yep.

What will likely happen is that equalisation will be removed, we will get a cleaner stadium and no thank you for copping the shit associated with the crap deal we have had to carry for 20 years.

 

[Only Forwards]

Yep.

What will likely happen is that equalisation will be removed, we will get a cleaner stadium and no thank you for copping the shit associated with the crap deal we have had to carry for 20 years.

They'll give a moderate increase in our return but it'll largely be the same, as they drive revenue from the stadium to refurbish it and to fill the AFL coffers.

What real incentive do they have to change things from the way that they currently are?

We are turning a slight profit from what we do currently and the AFL have significant influence over the way the club is run because of the compensation we recieve.

They will change the way our income is recieved and that is about it.

I really don't expect things to become fairer once the AFL take ownership.

We play infront of 18k and its a poor outcome, GWS play infront of 8k and its lorded.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I am still yet to figure out what is remotely relevant about the crowd figures at football games.

Does it matter if there are only 20k people at a game?

Does it make the actual game off football worse because there aren't 60k people there?

 

[GarnerSmash]

I am still yet to figure out what is remotely relevant about the crowd figures at football games.

Does it matter if there are only 20k people at a game?

Does it make the actual game off football worse because there aren't 60k people there?

Clearly if you don't average more than 40,000 to your games then you are clearly not a viable operation and are worthy of derision. I mean, its not as if we have made profits in 7 of the last 8 years despite increasing expenditure in all key areas and wiping more that $6 million off our debt. Not that this should matter anyway. It's only bums on seats that matters, yeah? Oh, and pet memberships.

 

[Kimbo]

They'll give a moderate increase in our return but it'll largely be the same, as they drive revenue from the stadium to refurbish it and to fill the AFL coffers.

Depends on when it transfers. If at end of the deal Etihad are responsible for its upgrade.