Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Talk on the national game

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Dutchy » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:26 pm

Psyber wrote:
1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I'm still dubious about the long term viability of the NMFC remaining in Melb

An increase of 8 000 members to over 30 000 will give them an extra $1.4 Mill (Dennis Pagan in todays Age - ATM they have 7500 members for next year)
They are about to sign a new major sponsor (Vodafone which will give them an extra $250 K per year compared to what Primus backed them for - yesterdays Age. This was all hush hush as Vodafone didn't want to sign if they went to the GC as they already sponsor Bris)
The $10 Million investment fund (5 backers putting in $2 Mill each) will return between $500 K (at worst 5%) and $2 Mill (at best 20%) so we'll say $1.25 M.

A bit optomistic 12.5% - I can't see them getting more than $800K in income out of $10M invested in the next few years, indeed I would expect less, unless we do get the same sort of inflationary spiral as occurred in the mid-1980s.


bullshit

considering some managed funds are earning up to 35% p.a. (my super fund earned 20% last 2 years) with agressive investing they could easily reach 20+%

You seem to know everything Psyber therefore Im amazed by the comment above :roll:
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46221
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2639 times
Been liked: 4303 times

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Rik E Boy » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:23 pm

Dutchy wrote:Attendence low :roll: there were 4 other Melbourne teams, with worse average attendences last season, including the Melbourne/Bullies game drawing 17k in Melb under the DOOM roof, same weekend Roos played WCE and got 26k...facts right please.


You're right. Melbourne's fanbase is notoriously fickle. The Bullies meanwhile, are selling home games too and you can't blame the fans for turning away once your club starts doing this IMO. Who was the other team that couldn't match the Roos' figures? Was it Hawthorn???

If you want loyalty, look at the Richmond fans. Useless for years but they still can draw a crowd.

regards,

REB
User avatar
Rik E Boy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28579
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: The Switch
Has liked: 1772 times
Been liked: 1886 times

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Psyber » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:50 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Psyber wrote:
1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I'm still dubious about the long term viability of the NMFC remaining in Melb
An increase of 8 000 members to over 30 000 will give them an extra $1.4 Mill (Dennis Pagan in todays Age - ATM they have 7500 members for next year)
They are about to sign a new major sponsor (Vodafone which will give them an extra $250 K per year compared to what Primus backed them for - yesterdays Age. This was all hush hush as Vodafone didn't want to sign if they went to the GC as they already sponsor Bris)
The $10 Million investment fund (5 backers putting in $2 Mill each) will return between $500 K (at worst 5%) and $2 Mill (at best 20%) so we'll say $1.25 M.

A bit optomistic 12.5% - I can't see them getting more than $800K in income out of $10M invested in the next few years, indeed I would expect less, unless we do get the same sort of inflationary spiral as occurred in the mid-1980s.

bullshit
considering some managed funds are earning up to 35% p.a. (my super fund earned 20% last 2 years) with agressive investing they could easily reach 20+%
You seem to know everything Psyber therefore Im amazed by the comment above :roll:

There's nothing out there at that rate than I'd trust with money I couldn't afford to lose if it went belly up!

I made over 20% capital gain on shares managing them myself in the last 12 months, but if we are talking about income without risking the capital....... remember shares dropped 40% in late 1987.

PS: Thank you for the compliment - it had never occurred to me I might know even "almost everything"! :lol:
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 405 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby brent » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:03 pm

carey18 wrote:
brent wrote:the life-support is about to be switched off and unplugged.... the rest is just a matter of time.

no amount of rallies or marches will help unless somebody can come up with the cold hard cash to pay the bills


And thank you Albert einstein for your throughly thought out thoughts


I bow down to the intellegence of a wayne carey fan :roll:
brent
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:19 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Psyber » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:14 pm

Methinks the Kangas fans are beginning to turn abusive in the face of irrefutable logic that they don't want to hear.

Nobody wants their team to merge, relocate or fold - we all understand that - but something's got to give.
If you're very lucky someone else may do it first....
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 405 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Sojourner » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:50 pm

Psyber wrote:Nobody wants their team to merge, relocate or fold - we all understand that - but something's got to give.
If you're very lucky someone else may do it first....


Melbourne and St Kilda could make an interesting scenario, Melbourne voted for the merger last time with Hawthorn, so they might well be interested, as for the Saints, their members are longsuffering for some success and may well see some interest in the idea....

Alternitivley both groups of members might well rally around their club and play the waiting game, if clubs can hang on, another club might well choke first saving them in the process!

Would be interesting to see the AFL justify not giving North Melbourne funding, yet then giving it to a club such as Carlton.... :?
Steamranger, South Australia's best ever Tourist Attraction, Treat Yourself, Let your Money Buy you Happiness!!!
User avatar
Sojourner
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:25 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: Ovingham

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby carey18 » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:56 pm

brent wrote:
carey18 wrote:
brent wrote:the life-support is about to be switched off and unplugged.... the rest is just a matter of time.

no amount of rallies or marches will help unless somebody can come up with the cold hard cash to pay the bills


And thank you Albert einstein for your throughly thought out thoughts


I bow down to the intellegence of a wayne carey fan :roll:


Oh yeah thats right he never did anything good on the football field.
I am guessing you are someone who never makes a mistake of the field.
I admire what he did on the field not off it.
carey18
 

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Psyber » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:58 pm

carey18 wrote:
brent wrote:
carey18 wrote:
brent wrote:the life-support is about to be switched off and unplugged.... the rest is just a matter of time.

no amount of rallies or marches will help unless somebody can come up with the cold hard cash to pay the bills

And thank you Albert Einstein for your thoroughly thought out thoughts

I bow down to the intellegence of a wayne carey fan :roll:

Oh yeah thats right he never did anything good on the football field.
I am guessing you are someone who never makes a mistake of the field.
I admire what he did on the field not off it.

It makes him a net negative as far as I am concerned, but that won't matter to you. :lol:
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 405 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby brent » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:14 pm

carey18 wrote:
brent wrote:
carey18 wrote:
brent wrote:the life-support is about to be switched off and unplugged.... the rest is just a matter of time.

no amount of rallies or marches will help unless somebody can come up with the cold hard cash to pay the bills


And thank you Albert einstein for your throughly thought out thoughts


I bow down to the intellegence of a wayne carey fan :roll:


Oh yeah thats right he never did anything good on the football field.
I am guessing you are someone who never makes a mistake of the field.
I admire what he did on the field not off it.


Mr Carey I believe we got off on the wrong foot. I'll make like Glenn Archer and we can begrudgingly shake hands and make up on live tv. Here's to the kanga's success and long term survival.
brent
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:19 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby am Bays » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:03 pm

Well obviously the senior administrator at North melbourne or should I say ex- senior adminsitrator is in no doubt where North Melbourne should be based, Gold Coast. Rick Aylett resigned today for personal reasons. JAmes Brayshaw said: "I respect the fact he had the courage to instantly recognise that his direction wasn't the same as the rest of our's and we wish him well, we thank him for all his help"
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
User avatar
am Bays
Coach
 
 
Posts: 19729
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: The back bar at Lennies
Has liked: 182 times
Been liked: 2123 times

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby stan » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:19 am

Sojourner wrote:
Psyber wrote:Nobody wants their team to merge, relocate or fold - we all understand that - but something's got to give.
If you're very lucky someone else may do it first....


Melbourne and St Kilda could make an interesting scenario, Melbourne voted for the merger last time with Hawthorn, so they might well be interested, as for the Saints, their members are longsuffering for some success and may well see some interest in the idea....

Alternitivley both groups of members might well rally around their club and play the waiting game, if clubs can hang on, another club might well choke first saving them in the process!

Would be interesting to see the AFL justify not giving North Melbourne funding, yet then giving it to a club such as Carlton.... :?


And so continues the long list of melbourne based clubs recieving handouts from the AFL...
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15514
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1318 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:04 am

EVERY team gets distributions from the AFL.


TV rights anyone?

Proceeds from the sale of Waverly anyone?
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby JK » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:14 am

Wouldn't they be funds that are applicable to ALL clubs though?
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37460
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4485 times
Been liked: 3024 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:33 am

Yes.


Even the Crows
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby JK » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:45 am

Yes, but don't some other clubs receive equalisation or additional assistance funds over and above those?
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37460
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4485 times
Been liked: 3024 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:00 am

Yes


Equalisation rights being the word.


Because the draw isn't equal.

Because the lower rated teams don't get the "Showdowns", the "Anzac day clashes" etc etc every year.


(Or any year)

Previous management of the Doggies negotiated a poor contract with Telstra Dome. (get paid $50k per game, regardless of crowd)

The dogs complained to the AFL last season, saying that they want a better deal esp. as our crowds have gone up a lot.


The answer from the AFL was don't bother, if you negotiated a better deal we would pay you less in equalisation rights. (Source: David Smorgon WBU AGM 2006)
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby smac » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:21 am

I appreciate your point Rushby.

However, I would ask is the equalisation fund a 'right' of those clubs who receive it? Some would argue that a club that can't negotiate good deals and has less supporters than other clubs should not be entitled to a top up.
smac
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Golden Grove
Has liked: 165 times
Been liked: 233 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby Rushby Hinds » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:28 am

If we all played every other team in a full home and away season, yes.

Buy we don't.
He's still my hero even if he is a little bit crap.
User avatar
Rushby Hinds
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:40 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby smac » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:30 am

I understand that, but why should my team pay your team, just because you have less supporters?

I'm not picking on WB by the way, just curious about your thoughts on the matter.
smac
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13089
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Golden Grove
Has liked: 165 times
Been liked: 233 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

Postby JK » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:41 am

smac wrote:I appreciate your point Rushby.

However, I would ask is the equalisation fund a 'right' of those clubs who receive it? Some would argue that a club that can't negotiate good deals and has less supporters than other clubs should not be entitled to a top up.


Thats where I was heading, and in the same vein as you, not trying to have a crack at the Dogs or Roos or anything, just trying to better understand the system.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37460
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4485 times
Been liked: 3024 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  AFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |