Club claims pressured by AFL to relocate in Tasmania

[Limerick]

And, yeah, it's a very clever comedy and one that I appreciated as a young public servant in Canberra way back when.

Sir Humphrey on the WANM proposal:

"Notwithstanding the fact that this proposal could conceivably encompass certain concomitant benefits of a marginal and peripheral relevance, there is a countervailing consideration of infinitely superior magnitude involving RJ's personal complicity and corroborative malfeasance, with a consequence that the taint and stigma of his former associations and diversions could irredeemably and irretrievably invalidate WANM's position and culminate in public revelations and recriminations of a profoundly embarrassing and ultimately indefensible character."

Love it

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The same is true in 2013. Without the proposed Constitutional amendment any future Board can approve a "relocation", close the Club down, hand the AFL owned assets (licence, colours, logo) back to them so that they (AFL) can then establish a new club using our colours and logo that appears to be a relocated NMFC. All this without any reference to the members.

Are you stating that there is no existing requirement for member support in the case of a merger or relocation?

Be careful how you answer, your credibility is on the line here. Full and broad explanations please.

 

[Horace]

The same is true in 2013. Without the proposed Constitutional amendment any future Board can approve a "relocation", close the Club down, hand the AFL owned assets (licence, colours, logo) back to them so that they (AFL) can then establish a new club using our colours and logo that appears to be a relocated NMFC. All this without any reference to the members.

In 1996 in an extraordinary move the members of Fitzroy lost control of the club, when, aided and abetted by the Government of Nauru, the club was placed into administration. A liquidator (an a*******) was appointed, who immediately agreed to a "merger" with Brisbane. The members and the board of the time were left out in the cold, without any say. The end of the Fitzroy Football Club (as an AFL Club - it still proudly exists in its traditiional colours in the VAFA).

In the context of this debate i'm not sure what all this means, but Limerick's use of the words, being "can approve a "relocation", close the Club down, hand the AFL owned assets (licence, colours, logo) back to them so that they (AFL) can then establish a new club using our colours and logo that appears to be a relocated NMFC. All this without any reference to the members" just propelled me back to a very very dark place I never want to go to again.

 

[Tas]

There are some otherwise discerning people who seem to develop a blind spot on this topic.

WANM's initiative isn't just some tinfoil hat overreaction. It's a hedge against history repeating.

But no doubt there'll now be 2 weeks of slander and discrediting of PDR, Ron Joseph etc as the blind faithful and short-sighted types.

PDR, RJ and even the psychos like Aylett and co love the club and always had the best intentions for the club. But, it doesn't stop a bad decision being made which leaves us vulnerable to forced relocation.

I am just concerned why the administration would block this move. We are not saying never more than 4, we are saying if things get to be that dire then you need to get support from the plebs who are the actual stakeholders of the club before going down that path.

A 3 year or whatever it is guarantee is not enough. I want a significant majority of members to approve any plan to move a significant number of home games away from where we are based. To me that is not unreasonable.

However, the vote was never going to get passed. People are incapable of thinking for themselves and will give JB enough proxies to block the vote, it was always going to happen. But, it is important the message is loud and clear to our administration, we trust you, we don't have blind faith in you because you have offered co-location and offered to sell 7 home games since committing to staying in Melbourne, to me, these leave us very vulnerable to relocation despite the initial intent.

 

[Tas]

Hidden agendas mate. I'm sick of individuals putting themselves in front of the club. JB had proven his dedication the club so why do these former admin people keep having a crack. Take it offline and sort out your differences, not via the press.

While WANM have done some good in the past, I am skeptical now about their motives now. If they come out and condemn these clowns comments I might reconsider my stance.

Because they think the WANM request is reasonable and some reporter called them up? Nobody had a crack at JB in the article, they just said the proposal was reasonable or in Euge's case that more than four games is on the path to relocation, something a number of us fear.

Reassuring words of shutup and buy a membership don't make me sleep easier at night, especially coming from the guy that has offered co-location and to sell 7 games since committing to stay in Melbourne.

 

[Husk]

What if Tassie want 3 or 4 games in the next 5 year phase. We would be stupid to say no.

It's quite conceivable a 4 game cap could then screw with our ability to get Ballarat off the ground.

How does the club convince a government to spend millions on a redevelopment of NB, if it can't even guarantee it will be able to play games there?

 

[Shagga is all Class]

I wonder how much longer Hawthorn's deal has to go to play games

End of 2016. Given it is $18M dollars and they have significant membership you would think they would not want to let it go.

In any event, North have a 3 year deal and would possibly be reviewing the number of games and renewing before 2016.

 

[Limerick]

Are you stating that there is no existing requirement for member support in the case of a merger or relocation?
Be careful how you answer, your credibility is on the line here. Full and broad explanations please.

The NMFC Constitution is silent regarding relocation. Hence the move by WANM to add such a clause. If you feel that there is some requirement for member support, Constitutional or otherwise, why not come out and define such rather than playing games? Equally if there is a requirement to have real Member support, why hasn't the Club put this forward.

The NMFC Constitution does require a member vote if any Merger proposal is considred by the Club.
clause 9.2. states

The Club must not approve any Merger Proposal unless:
( (a) The Board has provided Members with full information about the Merger Proposal; and
( (b) The board has convened a general meeting of the Club at which the Merger Proposal is voted on by the Voting Members; and
( (c) At least 75% of the total votes cast by Voting Members at the meeting personally or by proxy or attorney acting under power of attorney are in support of the Merger Proposal

My underlining.

 

[Limerick]

What if Tassie want 3 or 4 games in the next 5 year phase. We would be stupid to say no.

It's quite conceivable a 4 game cap could then screw with our ability to get Ballarat off the ground.

How does the club convince a government to spend millions on a redevelopment of NB, if it can't even guarantee it will be able to play games there?

The motion has no impact on Ballarat. It only applies to games outside of Victoria.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

It's quite conceivable a 4 game cap could then screw with our ability to get Ballarat off the ground.

The amendment allows for all games to be relocated from Melbourne. 4 in Hobart and 7 in Ballarat or 11 in Echuca.

 

[Horace]

End of 2016. Given it is $18M dollars and they have significant membership you would think they would not want to let it go.

In any event, North have a 3 year deal and would possibly be reviewing the number of games and renewing before 2016.

Unless there were some nice incentives in place to ease the pain.

 

[Limerick]

End of 2016. Given it is $18M dollars and they have significant membership you would think they would not want to let it go. In any event, North have a 3 year deal and would possibly be reviewing the number of games and renewing before 2016.

This assumes that the Tasmanian Govt will renew for another 5 years at $18m when they can see the NMFC playing for for much less per game. Comments in the media seem to indicate a high likelihood that we will get 3 games per year in 2015 on a possible 3 or 5 year agreement. The difficulty for Tasmania politically will be to have generous deals with AFL clubs while Health and Education are crying out for funds.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The NMFC Constitution is silent regarding relocation. Hence the move by WANM to add such a clause. If you feel that there is some requirement for member support, Constitutional or otherwise, why not come out and define such rather than playing games?

You are playing politics John and we both know it.

Equally if there is a requirement to have real Member support, why hasn't the Club put this forward.

The NMFC Constitution does require a member vote if any Merger proposal is considred by the Club.
clause 9.2. states

The Club must not approve any Merger Proposal unless:
( (a) The Board has provided Members with full information about the Merger Proposal; and
( (b)The board has convened a general meeting of the Club at which the Merger Proposal is voted on by the Voting Members; and
( (c) At least 75% of the total votes cast by Voting Members at the meeting personally or by proxy or attorney acting under power of attorney are in support of the Merger Proposal

My underlining.

It seems to me that a simple amendment to include the word "relocation" in the existing clause 9.2, is all that is required, rather than inserting it inside your game capping platform.

"That the NMFC Constitution be amended to require a membership vote on any actual or proposed obligation, contract, arrangement or understanding, the purpose or outcome of which is to permit, allow or require the club (whether permanent, temporarily or otherwise) to play or relocate more than four home games during any premiership season outside of the state of Victoria."

Is this deliberate in it's construction, or just a coincidence?

 

[Limerick]

The amendment allows for all games to be relocated from Melbourne. 4 in Hobart and 7 in Ballarat or 11 in Echuca.

The current arrangement, Etihad aside, allows for all 11 home games to be played outside of Melbourne. But the financial side of this would be extremely poor and therefore it is EXTREMELY unlikely, nor is the AFL likely to support it. Ballarat won't provide any significant financial benefit to the Club but could provide a small increase in membership PLUS place the Club in a position that was less vulnerable to relocation given it had a wider based membership.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Comments in the media seem to indicate a high likelihood that we will get 3 games per year in 2015 on a possible 3 or 5 year agreement..

Funky did indicate they were very happy with the Hobart games but would not review until the end of this year or year 2.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The current arrangement, Etihad aside, allows for all 11 home games to be played outside of Melbourne. But the financial side of this would be extremely poor and therefore it is EXTREMELY unlikely, nor is the AFL likely to support it. Ballarat won't provide any significant financial benefit to the Club but could provide a small increase in membership PLUS place the Club in a position that was less vulnerable to relocation given it had a wider based membership.

You support relocated matches if they don't provide significant financial benefit?

Could you find me any document which gives the AFL the power to relocate a club?

 

[MSG77]

Are you stating that there is no existing requirement for member support in the case of a merger or relocation?

Be careful how you answer, your credibility is on the line here. Full and broad explanations please.

Haha. I'm sorry, but this just made me laugh.

Lim has posted more on this than just about anyone. He has made his points very clear and many times over. He has tried to answer all questions. He is also very clear who he is a what he is standing for.

You are hiding behind about your 10th avatar and have done nothing in this thread but make personal attacks against former club figures and other posters. Making straw-man posts or short one liners directing focus back on others.

So, Teffy, since you are clearly in the "no" camp it would seem, and you wanted to "engage in healthy and vigorous debate about this issue" - please lay out in clear detail what you see as the list of "cons" against this proposal. Try not to attack anyone personally, just stick to the proposal directly.

Be careful how you answer, your credibility is on the line here. Full and broad explanations please.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Be careful how you answer, your credibility is on the line here. Full and broad explanations please.

I'm not amending the club constitution, I am testing the argument.

 

[MSG77]

I'm not amending the club constitution, I am testing the argument.

Test away.

List your "cons". If they are so numerous and obvious then it will be easy to show why this amendment is not needed.

 

[Limerick]

You are playing politics John and we both know it.

It seems to me that a simple amendment to include the word "relocation" in the existing clause 9.2, is all that is required, rather than inserting it inside your game capping platform.

Is this deliberate in it's construction, or just a coincidence?

I'm playing politics HTB? You raised the question re was there any existing requirement for member support in the case of a merger or relocation? You then went onto say "be careful how you answer" and that my credibility is on the line here and asked for a full and broad explanations. I simply responded.

Our proposal is actually titled "Interstate Home Game Relocation" as we see this as the critical issue. How would you define relocation?



JB has stated that he will consider amending the Constitution next year, if our motion doesn't get up, defining relocation but hasn't stated how.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

"That the NMFC Constitution be amended to require a membership vote on any actual or proposed obligation, contract, arrangement or understanding, the purpose or outcome of which is to permit, allow or require the club (whether permanent, temporarily or otherwise) to play or relocate more than four home games during any premiership season outside of the state of Victoria."

Is this deliberate in it's construction, or just a coincidence?

Is this passage structured by design in order to bind relocation with a four game cap?

Please answer my question.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Unless there were some nice incentives in place to ease the pain.

Hawthorn had around 30,000 members when they were complete rubbish and about 60,000 now.

They are likely to be rubbish again by 2016, so probably no great attendance gains by having all 11 at the MCG.

Hawthorn have around 9,000 members in Tas according to such sources As Wiki.

Concede that the AFL might be desperate to get Hawthorn out but for a declining team it would have to be pretty sweet incentives indeed.

 

[Limerick]

Is this deliberate in it's construction, or just a coincidence?
Is this passage structured by design in order to bind relocation with a four game cap?

Ah now understand your question.

The motion places a requirement to have a member vote on any move to play more than 4 home games interstate. The members can approve such a proposal.

The motion is titled "Interstate Home Game Relocation" not "NMFC Relocation" as we see this as a possible longer term impact of playing more than 4 games interstate. Our aim is to have a process in place that prevents the horse bolting before we can close the barn door.

 

[Limerick]

Hawthorn had around 30,000 members when they were complete rubbish and about 60,000 now.
They are likely to be rubbish again by 2016, so probably no great attendance gains by having all 11 at the MCG.
Hawthorn have around 9,000 members in Tas according to such sources As Wiki.
Concede that the AFL might be desperate to get Hawthorn out but for a declining team it would have to be pretty sweet incentives indeed.

By your own figures if Hawthorn returned to play all home games in Melbourne it would have a membership of over 50,000 and as such would be strong.

The issue won't be whether Hawthorn wants to continue with Launceston, but rather can Launceston/Tasmania continue to pay the dollars required by Hawthorn.

 

[Horace]

Hawthorn had around 30,000 members when they were complete rubbish and about 60,000 now.

They are likely to be rubbish again by 2016, so probably no great attendance gains by having all 11 at the MCG.

Hawthorn have around 9,000 members in Tas according to such sources As Wiki.

Concede that the AFL might be desperate to get Hawthorn out but for a declining team it would have to be pretty sweet incentives indeed.[/quote]
Then again they might be "more" desperate to get another club in.

And don't be fooled by the term "ageing" list, recently levelled at Hawthorn. Geelong also was given the tag, "has an ageing" list. Strangely that ageing list looked quite young and very capable on Saturday afternoon. A long way to go, but don't write off any club, 3 draft's out from now.