If it were to happen it would be a bit quirky that both “North” Melbourne and “South” Melbourne would have relocated out of Vic.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Rumour The North Ultimatum
- Thread starter The Phantoms Ghost
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Moderator
- #477
Yes. But clubs also raise money through various means. And irrespective of that, in most cases, the AFL does not own clubs. They simply have no legal power to mandate mergers or relocations.
An AFL licence is permission for an entity to field a team in the AFL, effectively making them franchises. The AFL could not even merge or relocate Fitzroy. All they could do is transfer AFL owned intellectual property (as it pertained to Fitzroy), manage Fitzroy's players (8 pre-draft selections by the Bears and the rest into the draft) who had signed AFL contracts. Indeed the AFL avoided a costly legal fight by getting the administrator to voluntarily surrender Fitzroy's licence and preventing Fitzroy's directors from taking future legal action when they took back control of the club in December 1997.
Yes? Of course they would need funding. However irrespective of that, the AFL still cannot merge or relocate any club it does not own, against that club's will.
Last edited:
They were well and truly shafted. Eg in the lead up to their demise, fitzroy secured a sponsorship from Galaxy Tv (Foxtel before Foxtel) but league put a stop to it because it clashed with the league’s “official broadcaster”.
Didn’t matter that other clubs were sponsored by car companies, boots, clothing, financial companies etc that “clashed” with league sponsors.
League were on a mission to get rid of the roys and made sure it happened.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Moderator
- #479
And that's not the only example.
In 1993 Fitzroy entered into a deal with Schweppes where for every can of ‘Solo’ sold Fitzroy was to get 10c. Fitzroy raised $110,000 from this initative. The AFL opposed this because Coca Cola was their major sponsor and Schweppes was a competitor. The AFL even objected to the Schweppes logo being present on Paul Roos' jumper in the promotional material for Schweppes.
I drank a lot of 'Solo' that year.
Engimal v3
**** m**nl*nd*rs
But then you have to consider that AFL's revenue is tied to broadcast deals which it needs 18 teams to fill out, of which North is one. While it might seem as simple as the AFL pulling the plug, I imagine the legal execution would be a nightmare.
Yeah, 18, not 19.
Tassie’s coming in.
Dillon has already said he doesn’t see the issue with 19, though.
Engimal v3
**** m**nl*nd*rs
Right, but my point was that the AFL doesn't make money out of thin air. It sells games to broadcasters, of which North help add 22 a year. Not the biggest (and certainly not the best lately), but a lot.
Without relocating the club (which it can't), the AFL is left with 2 options:
- Remove North's licence
- Continue with North in the competition
#1 involves many legal issues, #2 is what's happening currently. The AFL have no real incentive to withdraw North's licence, other than us playing s**t footy. And if that's what gets you kicked out, then there's a few other clubs that should have been shown the door over the years lol
Agree. The fixture and broadcast deal is paramount.
Yep, hard to disagree with any of that. I do think 2-3 more Vic relocations would help with rationalisation of the league and make it more national, but it's up to North and they have no incentive to move.
I just hope 10 clubs in Victoria doesn't shut the door on future expansion, although if the AFL doesn't think WA is big enough for 3 teams (yet Victoria is for 10 apparently) then they probably don't think the ACT is big enough unless they reach 1 million people, which is a pity.
A damn shame, 20 is better than 19, and ACT need it more than us in WA IMO.
Tend tlo agree..
AFL is happy with the broadcast deal and number of games per week. North fill a fixture every week
No strong incentive to change that .
Option 3 is deprive them of AFL revenue..the slow death option.
But that doesn't seem worth the trouble..
better off helping them be stronger
Engimal v3
**** m**nl*nd*rs
Yeah, the existence of 9 clubs in a single city I think is always going to hamper the competition. If you were being brutal, you'd probably keep 4-5 of them and scrap the rest - but we're here now, so you have to put up with us.
Haha, fair enough, you've got some passionate supporters, that's undoubtedly helped keep your mob off the chopping block.
Yeah, 6 VIC (5 Melb 1 Geel), 2 each WA, SA, NSW, QLD, 1 TAS, 1 ACT, 16 teams. Would've been perfect until Darwin hits like 450k people which is 1000 years away haha.
If we hit 20 it'd probably have to be a long time after that before more teams, not sure we have enough talent/population despite my enthusiasm for growing the game, which I know there are other ways to do than just more expansion.
- May 3, 2007
- 37,036
- 21,466
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
A non violent solution. So a Full on Tough man tony abbott way of doing things? lol
Or is it Ross Lyon Ultra defensive tactics? lol
Colonial , Xtreme Kram and The 747 , Art Vandelay_ and JackFlash , Schulzenfest , bird_man , StCicatriz , Plugger35 , aussierulesrules , kreuze_missile , Kreuuuzeurns , Bobmonkey , Juddernaut08 , Bender_ , Keys ferball , Outtatym , Chadwiko , TheKanga , st_trav_ofWA , Trouto , Nuke Fremantle , projectv , joop ...
I will tell you lot. I like what this North poster is gonna do . lol
I never alluded that clubs are safe from financial collapse, North seemingly aren't in financial trouble anyway.
Haven't read it, but this might be it.
The_Wookie might have more info on the laws of the charter and how it is relevant to the seems to be wish of culling North.
Right but how much of their financial success has been from AFL handouts and Tassie money?
Not sure long-term the Roos are out of the woods yet, financially speaking.
- Moderator
- #492
Laws of the Game
Laws of the game is really only relevant to playing regulations, not off field governance.
Laws of the game is really only relevant to playing regulations, not off field governance.
Every club contributes to the product and in turn get 'handouts' from the coffers, some more than others. I say so what?
Even if North were to collapse financially, the decision to 'fold' can't be foisted upon them from outside their organization.
As much as some on here want that.
- Moderator
- #494
even now the league has protected sponsors, but therea a lot more leeway with clubs able to secure sponsors that conflict with the league.
Thanks Wookie, is there any info on off field governance? i:e in this context to make clear to posters who have a wish or belief that clubs can just be shown the door.
I've heard or read there are laws in a 'charter' in regards to this.
- Moderator
- #496
So what you are looking for is contained in the 2018 edition of the AFL Constitution (which in itself is just an updated version of the 1993 Articles of Association). Ive attached the relative passages below
A couple of things -
- we dont know the details of the License Agreements.
- the key terms here are "with the consent of the clubs involved".
Further any decision like this can be overturned by a two thirds majority of the leagues clubs - its one of the few powers retained by the clubs after the 1993 vote to remove the AFL Board of Directors and replace it with the committee.
Roylion is pretty much spot on.
Thanks Wookie!
I guess this could be an end thread post!
Puts to bed any thoughts or wishes to cull North because they're seen as irrelevant to the competition.
- Moderator
- #498
Dont underestimate the AFLs love of public perception - Fitzroy was something of an eye opener in this regard. Thousands of supporters were lost to the game or to the professional league over it.
The league has a duty to its incumbent clubs to look after their interests to a great extent, much revenue and club infrastructure is handled centrally by the league to this end. No club is going to the wall while the league rakes in money.
If the league cuts North off, that gets legally challenged - especially if the same rules arent then applied to clubs like the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and GWS - three of those clubs arent controlled by the league and Id expet them to vote against North being removed...after all theyd be next on the chopping block.
Morever clubs challenging explusion due to financial rules in the courts has historical precedent - South Sydney were removed from the NRL and eventually won the right to re-enter the competition, The League wont want that can of worms opened.
What I don't get is the wish of some on here to see the death of another club, it's abhorrent imv.
- Moderator
- #500
GWS, Gold Coast and Sydney are all in the position that the AFL is the only member that matters in a voting sense, and they control the board. In theory the AFL could fold these clubs by having the "members" vote in favour of dissolving the club. It would be a PR disaster and will never happen.
Technically something similar is true at Port Adelaide and Adelaide, but theres no way the league would take that sort of action there.
Last edited:
