AFL Funding To Clubs

[rpfc 28,779]

With our poor crowd pulling ability (and North's too), I would imagine the food & bev stalls wouldn't be out of pocket much, if at all. As far as the venue goes, I'm of the understanding (and happy to be corrected) that they get their money regardless of crowd size. With a MFC home game bringing a crowd of 15k, by the time the venue takes their cut, I wouldn't think there'd be much left for the AFL to take their cut, which is why we lose money on certain games because there aint a thing left for our cut.

The AFL could see it as taking a step backwards to be able to take two steps forward. If they are too proud to do that (or as you say, this being seen as a massive failure), then they would look at options like Tassie to become the "18th" team. Trying to create a 5th "Power Club" by merging and help funding a Melbourne/North venture would potentially see the North push in to Tasmania become redundant, opening the door for a standalone Tassie club.

While your marketing company mate is a handy source of information for all things AFL Tasmania, it'd only take a phone call from Vlad tomorrow for that whole scenario to change. It could happen, it might not. As you say, at the moment nothing's happening, but I'd never say never while TBO is in charge, and even when his mini-me takes over he won't want to maintain what TBO has created, he'll want to stamp his own footprint on the game.

The MCC makes quite a bit of money when the MFC plays at the G, if we suddenly didn't bring our 20k MCC members through the gates every second week, the MCC would feel it.

And the money required to make this change should not be sniffed at either - we haven't mentioned that yet.

For example, to do this hypothetical merger of two clubs and a standalone Tasmanian team while removing Hawthorn would need members/boards of two clubs to agree to a framework for merger AND with the blessing of another club who is happy in Tasmania and, let's not forget, has a deal with the government there. You have to spend money on PR/consultants to convince people/members/boards to do this, the Tassie Govt to pump in the money and extricate themselves from the Hawthorn situation, and to convince people to go for this Tassie team in lieu fo the AFL team they support now.

And that is before we get to the, very pertinent, question of whether Tasmania can actually house an AFL team and not be the kind of money-drain that this hypothetical removes MFC and NMFC for being.

There are too many moving parts in this fantasy scenario.

And, marketing firm? It's a consultancy firm that lobbies governments, business, and institutions like the AFL on behalf of clients.

The fact that Tasmania hired such a firm should tell you they were once serious about this. However, this was pre-GWS, pre-renegotiation with Hawthorn, and with different leaders in the Tassie govt.

[jackaub 1,402]

The MCC makes quite a bit of money when the MFC plays at the G, if we suddenly didn't bring our 20k MCC members through the gates every second week, the MCC would feel it.

And the money required to make this change should not be sniffed at either - we haven't mentioned that yet.

For example, to do this hypothetical merger of two clubs and a standalone Tasmanian team while removing Hawthorn would need members/boards of two clubs to agree to a framework for merger AND with the blessing of another club who is happy in Tasmania and, let's not forget, has a deal with the government there. You have to spend money on PR/consultants to convince people/members/boards to do this, the Tassie Govt to pump in the money and extricate themselves from the Hawthorn situation, and to convince people to go for this Tassie team in lieu fo the AFL team they support now.

And that is before we get to the, very pertinent, question of whether Tasmania can actually house an AFL team and not be the kind of money-drain that this hypothetical removes MFC and NMFC for being.

There are too many moving parts in this fantasy scenario.

And, marketing firm? It's a consultancy firm that lobbies governments, business, and institutions like the AFL on behalf of clients.

The fact that Tasmania hired such a firm should tell you they were once serious about this. However, this was pre-GWS, pre-renegotiation with Hawthorn, and with different leaders in the Tassie govt.

The breakeven so I am told for our home games is 22000 Any fewer and we write a cheque to the venue

[rpfc 28,779]

The breakeven so I am told for our home games is 22000 Any fewer and we write a cheque to the venue

I don't think that is true, or old information.

In 2009, the MCG/Etihad agreed with the AFL that teams will be given $100k extra for home games at both venues. Perhaps that means that instead of a cheque of $100k being written out the club saves that money but I am confident that the arrangement at the G is far better than 22k.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/afl-clubs-set-to-prosper-from-afls-new-deal-with-etihad-stadium/story-e6frf3e3-1225778600083

[daisycutter 29,738]

I don't think that is true, or old information.

In 2009, the MCG/Etihad agreed with the AFL that teams will be given $100k extra for home games at both venues. Perhaps that means that instead of a cheque of $100k being written out the club saves that money but I am confident that the arrangement at the G is far better than 22k.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/afl-clubs-set-to-prosper-from-afls-new-deal-with-etihad-stadium/story-e6frf3e3-1225778600083

now that we are wearing the MCC logo on our jumpers it might have got even better?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

I suspect the biggest risk is if the next media rights deal breaks up the current global deal (ie, all 9 games per week) into club rights (ie, selling off Collingwood games separately from, say, GWS games) with an inadequate equalisation scheme. I can imagine networks paying bigger money for games involving popular and successful teams than less popular and less successful teams. On current standings that would have us earning the least (along with GWS and maybe the Bulldogs). Equalisation helps, but we'd end up with progressively smaller audiences which would eventually stunt our growth as lower exposure results in fewer new supporters.

Having said that, the ball is very much in our court. Get it right on field in a sustainable form and the rest will follow.

[The Chazz 4,077]

The MCC makes quite a bit of money when the MFC plays at the G, if we suddenly didn't bring our 20k MCC members through the gates every second week, the MCC would feel it.

And the money required to make this change should not be sniffed at either - we haven't mentioned that yet.

For example, to do this hypothetical merger of two clubs and a standalone Tasmanian team while removing Hawthorn would need members/boards of two clubs to agree to a framework for merger AND with the blessing of another club who is happy in Tasmania and, let's not forget, has a deal with the government there. You have to spend money on PR/consultants to convince people/members/boards to do this, the Tassie Govt to pump in the money and extricate themselves from the Hawthorn situation, and to convince people to go for this Tassie team in lieu fo the AFL team they support now.

And that is before we get to the, very pertinent, question of whether Tasmania can actually house an AFL team and not be the kind of money-drain that this hypothetical removes MFC and NMFC for being.

There are too many moving parts in this fantasy scenario.

And, marketing firm? It's a consultancy firm that lobbies governments, business, and institutions like the AFL on behalf of clients.

The fact that Tasmania hired such a firm should tell you they were once serious about this. However, this was pre-GWS, pre-renegotiation with Hawthorn, and with different leaders in the Tassie govt.

You're making it sound a lot more difficult than what it is, and at the same time, forgetting the power that is the AFL. If they want it to work, it will happen, and I can see it'd be a lot easier than what you're making out. For this reason alone, the cost you think it will involve to make such changes is irrelvant if this is what the AFL want.

Also, getting two seperate boards and members to agree is as simple as scaling back the amount of funding the AFL provide both clubs. If we don't change our operations, the next stage we go to is palliative. North are probably worse off than us.

The AFL won't care too much about the Hawthorn relationship. They didn't care about the clubs "selling" home games to the Gold Coast when the introduced the Suns. I'm equally sure that the Tasmanian government will be very interested in having a "home" team that will play a regular 11 games there a season, as well as the potential of picking up another 2 or 3 from Hawthorn. A live game in Tasmania for 14 weeks a season? Many of the "locals" on the Gold Coast jumped on board their "home" team, even though a large amount are ex-pats that would've grown up supporting a different club. I know a number of people located on the Gold Coast that are Suns members even though their number 1 team is someone different.

As LDVC stated, the ball is in our court. I strongly believe the next 3 years will be the most important period of time for the Melbourne Demons Football Club.

[rpfc 28,779]

You're making it sound a lot more difficult than what it is, and at the same time, forgetting the power that is the AFL. If they want it to work, it will happen, and I can see it'd be a lot easier than what you're making out. For this reason alone, the cost you think it will involve to make such changes is irrelvant if this is what the AFL want.

Also, getting two seperate boards and members to agree is as simple as scaling back the amount of funding the AFL provide both clubs. If we don't change our operations, the next stage we go to is palliative. North are probably worse off than us.

The AFL won't care too much about the Hawthorn relationship. They didn't care about the clubs "selling" home games to the Gold Coast when the introduced the Suns. I'm equally sure that the Tasmanian government will be very interested in having a "home" team that will play a regular 11 games there a season, as well as the potential of picking up another 2 or 3 from Hawthorn. A live game in Tasmania for 14 weeks a season? Many of the "locals" on the Gold Coast jumped on board their "home" team, even though a large amount are ex-pats that would've grown up supporting a different club. I know a number of people located on the Gold Coast that are Suns members even though their number 1 team is someone different.

As LDVC stated, the ball is in our court. I strongly believe the next 3 years will be the most important period of time for the Melbourne Demons Football Club.

I thought I was being conservative about how difficult it would be - and how long it would take - to dissolve two clubs into one, create a new team, and reneg on a contract with a team who recieves $3m+ from the Tas govt.

You make it sound as simple as the idea itself.

And lol at the bolded - cost isn't important now? Cost is why, in the hyperthetical (intended mispelling), you have dissolved MFC and NMFC.

The rest:

- scaling back money to MFC and NMFC - how does the AFL do that? Give a lower base payment than other clubs? That's headed for the courts...

- Hawthorn is irrelevant, and the GC have turned football people - Well, this touches on something you are glossing over: the ROI. Tasmania is not the Gold Coast, they already watch footy in Tassie, converts increase revenues. AFL supporters who change allegiances do not. and the govt will have to pour the money into a Tassie team, and will get a far better return than on the the current Hawthorn deal. They will want out.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I thought I was being conservative about how difficult it would be - and how long it would take - to dissolve two clubs into one, create a new team, and reneg on a contract with a team who recieves $3m+ from the Tas govt.

You make it sound as simple as the idea itself.

And lol at the bolded - cost isn't important now? Cost is why, in the hyperthetical (intended mispelling), you have dissolved MFC and NMFC.

The rest:

- scaling back money to MFC and NMFC - how does the AFL do that? Give a lower base payment than other clubs? That's headed for the courts...

- Hawthorn is irrelevant, and the GC have turned football people - Well, this touches on something you are glossing over: the ROI. Tasmania is not the Gold Coast, they already watch footy in Tassie, converts increase revenues. AFL supporters who change allegiances do not. and the govt will have to pour the money into a Tassie team, and will get a far better return than on the the current Hawthorn deal. They will want out.

RPFC, we don't know what is going on as we currently speak. When the AFL offered North a relocation package, do you think that was something that happened overnight? They would've worked on that for quite a while. What's to say that this (a Melbourne/North merger) isn't something that they have thrown around behind closed doors? I am still in no doubt that Peter Jackson's appointment is a make or break for the club. His potential to fix our problems has been supported by the AFL, but it's not something they will fund/support forever. We have a history of getting things right to then make mistakes and put us behind the 8 ball again. I don't know how many lives we wil lhave left after PJ departs.

The one thing Tasmania has over an area like the Gold Coast is that it's a solid income stream. I can tell you (as I live in SEQ), that while the Gold Coast improove, and no doubt become quite a powerful side in the not to distant future, they will have supporters everywhere. All it takes is a couple of poor years, and the crowds will drop, members will drop, the club will start losing money. The exact thing has happened to their big brother up the road. The peaks and troughs of support levels for AFL in SEQ is all based on success. At it's peaks, AFL will challenge any code in mainstream media. In its trough, it is 3rd or 4th on the pecking order. This is an issue that somewhere like Tasmania doesn't have. So, in a long-winded answer to your point about converts increasing revenue, yes, they can, but they can drop off just as quick.

You talk of potential funding cutbacks opening the AFL for court action? Good luck winning it (no-one has to date have they?). They will have things in place that will ensure nothing of the like can happen. Perhaps a standard $5m of funding per year per club. I don't know, but I'm sure if the AFL want something, their legal team will ensure it happens.

Also, where have I said about renegging on a government deal? The Hawthorn/Tasmania contract ends in 2016, which, coincidentally, is when the TV rights are up, which as a further coincidence, is in 3 years time which is the timeframe I have made clear that we need to get a [censored] sorted.

And finally, I'm not sure what is funny about my comments regarding the costs not being important now. If Melbourne and North don't change for the next decade, how much is it going to cost the AFL? The 10's of millions of dollars already for the funding (as per your opening post), plus any cap-in-hand requests similar to what we experienced in 2013, as well as continued poor crowd numbers, etc. PJ said we were an impediment on the league, would the AFL want this for another 10 years? How much would it cost to start up a merged team, who between them have a home ground (MCG), three quality training facilities, coaches already in place, a playing list that would need to be trimmed back (as opposed to a new team being brought in), etc, etc. Not to mention the smaller costs (as opposed to the Gold Coast or GWS) of starting up a "new" team in Tasmania, where they have 2 sufficient home grounds, would have a full team of players left over from the MFC/NMFC merge, a captured audience who will by full season memberships as opposed to the current 3 or 4 game ones they can get with Hawthorn or North.

I could be totally wrong, and I hope I am. I hope we can get our stuff sorted off and onfield, and that there will be forever a Melbourne Demons Football Club. I do have concerns with where the AFL is heading, how it's getting harder and harder for the "poor" clubs to compete against the power clubs, and how the AFL have shown that they can and will be ruthless in anything they desire, and have no respect for the toes they step on along the way. They have shown in the last 12 months that some clubs get far better treatment than others - just look at our sanctions from the tanking saga compared to the supplement issues with Essendon.

[Machsy 2,858]

Good thread, good discussion.

Thanks to all involved.

[Machsy 2,858]

I suspect the biggest risk is if the next media rights deal breaks up the current global deal (ie, all 9 games per week) into club rights (ie, selling off Collingwood games separately from, say, GWS games) with an inadequate equalisation scheme. I can imagine networks paying bigger money for games involving popular and successful teams than less popular and less successful teams. On current standings that would have us earning the least (along with GWS and maybe the Bulldogs). Equalisation helps, but we'd end up with progressively smaller audiences which would eventually stunt our growth as lower exposure results in fewer new supporters.

Having said that, the ball is very much in our court. Get it right on field in a sustainable form and the rest will follow.

But I imagine those packages would still be sold by the AFL, who would receive the profits, and equally distribute them between the clubs.

The package wouldn't be given to Collingwood to sell and keep the profit.

Would it?

God, I hope not.

[Machsy 2,858]

I think if this were the case, the real drawback would be the number of games we participate in that are televised.

I think whilst the matches are a whole package like they are now, networks look for the best matchups to show a good game between 2 competitive sides.

[rpfc 28,779]

RPFC, we don't know what is going on as we currently speak. When the AFL offered North a relocation package, do you think that was something that happened overnight? They would've worked on that for quite a while. What's to say that this (a Melbourne/North merger) isn't something that they have thrown around behind closed doors? I am still in no doubt that Peter Jackson's appointment is a make or break for the club. His potential to fix our problems has been supported by the AFL, but it's not something they will fund/support forever. We have a history of getting things right to then make mistakes and put us behind the 8 ball again. I don't know how many lives we wil lhave left after PJ departs.

lol

Secret, behind-the-scenes machinations?

Then why would they go and get us Jackson? The AFL wants us to suceed. I even think YOU think that - and yet, you throw out this possibility of nefariousness plans in the works?

The one thing Tasmania has over an area like the Gold Coast is that it's a solid income stream. I can tell you (as I live in SEQ), that while the Gold Coast improove, and no doubt become quite a powerful side in the not to distant future, they will have supporters everywhere. All it takes is a couple of poor years, and the crowds will drop, members will drop, the club will start losing money. The exact thing has happened to their big brother up the road. The peaks and troughs of support levels for AFL in SEQ is all based on success. At it's peaks, AFL will challenge any code in mainstream media. In its trough, it is 3rd or 4th on the pecking order. This is an issue that somewhere like Tasmania doesn't have. So, in a long-winded answer to your point about converts increasing revenue, yes, they can, but they can drop off just as quick.

Yes, it is a solid income stream.

So why tap it if it is already tapped?

Of course, GC and GWS are going to have it tough but the converts that the Lions have won and lost ten times over have led to the SE Qld market to be tapped - bringing in new revenues. The same applies for the tough times ahead for GC and GWS.

If a Tasmania team brings in negligible new revenues - why are the AFL going to go ahead with it?

You talk of potential funding cutbacks opening the AFL for court action? Good luck winning it (no-one has to date have they?). They will have things in place that will ensure nothing of the like can happen. Perhaps a standard $5m of funding per year per club. I don't know, but I'm sure if the AFL want something, their legal team will ensure it happens.

Paul Little and James Hird beg to differ...

And precedent is tough to find for this in the AFL but when the NRL kicked out South Sydney at the end of 1999 after the Super League dramas; they were forced by the Federal Court to reinstate the club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnKw_iLfngY&noredirect=1

And finally, I'm not sure what is funny about my comments regarding the costs not being important now. If Melbourne and North don't change for the next decade, how much is it going to cost the AFL? The 10's of millions of dollars already for the funding (as per your opening post), plus any cap-in-hand requests similar to what we experienced in 2013, as well as continued poor crowd numbers, etc. PJ said we were an impediment on the league, would the AFL want this for another 10 years? How much would it cost to start up a merged team, who between them have a home ground (MCG), three quality training facilities, coaches already in place, a playing list that would need to be trimmed back (as opposed to a new team being brought in), etc, etc. Not to mention the smaller costs (as opposed to the Gold Coast or GWS) of starting up a "new" team in Tasmania, where they have 2 sufficient home grounds, would have a full team of players left over from the MFC/NMFC merge, a captured audience who will by full season memberships as opposed to the current 3 or 4 game ones they can get with Hawthorn or North.

I am more convinced after finding that video above that it would be a long drawn out and expensive matter to merge. It cost a few million just to fail to merge in 1996.

There was a reason NM were offered the Gold Coast and not forced up there.

If you had a merged NM/MFC and a Tassie team in lieu of the MFC and the NMFC you are just swapping struggling clubs for struggling clubs. People will stop supporting the merged teams in droves and, again, the numbers on Tassie being able to house a team are spotty at best. They would need to bleed every corporate and hope the state govt support them in perpetuity. Remember, Tassie is not growing:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/tasmanian-population-exodus-continues/4984372

I could be totally wrong, and I hope I am. I hope we can get our stuff sorted off and onfield, and that there will be forever a Melbourne Demons Football Club. I do have concerns with where the AFL is heading, how it's getting harder and harder for the "poor" clubs to compete against the power clubs, and how the AFL have shown that they can and will be ruthless in anything they desire, and have no respect for the toes they step on along the way. They have shown in the last 12 months that some clubs get far better treatment than others - just look at our sanctions from the tanking saga compared to the supplement issues with Essendon.

The next few years are important, as all 'next three years' are important, but you are wrong when it comes to the possibility and benefits of Tasmania getting a team and of the chances of the AFL wanting to merge clubs and lower their number of games in order to do so.

The clubs will continue to push back against equalisation because they are consumed by self-interest, but the AFL knows that getting all clubs in a position to compete for a flag on a stable footing is the mark of a good and profitable league.

[sue 9,143]

I suspect the AFL's long-term goals will be driven by 'presence', drowning out other sports. Presumably to do that the AFL would want to dominate the airways/fibre-ways over each weekend. Thus a game on Fri and Sat night, Sat pm, Sunday pm, and Monday night. Maybe Thurs night too. That's only 6 games and 12 teams. Maybe a couple of games on Sat and Sunday using twilight games and early starts in the pm. That's another 4 teams. Still a bit short of 18.

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

As far as the TV stations are concerned it is all about selling advertising space. That is it.

They will sell more at higher prices from competitive games.

[Whispering_Jack 30,664]

Bottom line surely is we improve our off and on field performance so we're less reliant in %age terms on what we get from the AFL and we're more attractive to the consumers of media rights and not just died in the wool Demon fans but I'm being Captain Obvious in this respect.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

But I imagine those packages would still be sold by the AFL, who would receive the profits, and equally distribute them between the clubs.

The package wouldn't be given to Collingwood to sell and keep the profit.

Would it?

God, I hope not.

I'd like to believe the AFL would equally distribute the profits, but as time marches on I'm not sure the "football socialism model" which people like Colin Carter, David Crawford and Graeme Samuel developed in the 1980s when the Commission model was invented continues to be understood. Back then, they appreciated that the constituent clubs might see each other as enemies, but the true competition was non-AFL sports and entertainment. It still is (with soccer much more of a threat now than it was 30 years ago), but I'm not sure those running the current constituent clubs understand that as much as they should. Consequently, I fear some clubs will continue to put themselves ahead of the good of the competition as a whole and pursue non-equalisation policies which suit them but not the poorer clubs.

[The Chazz 4,077]

lol

Secret, behind-the-scenes machinations?

Then why would they go and get us Jackson? The AFL wants us to suceed. I even think YOU think that - and yet, you throw out this possibility of nefariousness plans in the works?

Yes, it is a solid income stream.

So why tap it if it is already tapped?

Of course, GC and GWS are going to have it tough but the converts that the Lions have won and lost ten times over have led to the SE Qld market to be tapped - bringing in new revenues. The same applies for the tough times ahead for GC and GWS.

If a Tasmania team brings in negligible new revenues - why are the AFL going to go ahead with it?

Paul Little and James Hird beg to differ...

And precedent is tough to find for this in the AFL but when the NRL kicked out South Sydney at the end of 1999 after the Super League dramas; they were forced by the Federal Court to reinstate the club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnKw_iLfngY&noredirect=1

I am more convinced after finding that video above that it would be a long drawn out and expensive matter to merge. It cost a few million just to fail to merge in 1996.

There was a reason NM were offered the Gold Coast and not forced up there.

If you had a merged NM/MFC and a Tassie team in lieu of the MFC and the NMFC you are just swapping struggling clubs for struggling clubs. People will stop supporting the merged teams in droves and, again, the numbers on Tassie being able to house a team are spotty at best. They would need to bleed every corporate and hope the state govt support them in perpetuity. Remember, Tassie is not growing:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/tasmanian-population-exodus-continues/4984372

The next few years are important, as all 'next three years' are important, but you are wrong when it comes to the possibility and benefits of Tasmania getting a team and of the chances of the AFL wanting to merge clubs and lower their number of games in order to do so.

The clubs will continue to push back against equalisation because they are consumed by self-interest, but the AFL knows that getting all clubs in a position to compete for a flag on a stable footing is the mark of a good and profitable league.

God you can be painful RP.

You mention "secret, behind-the-scenes machinations". I call it the AFL going about their business and not making every single thing they are working on public. I doubt your employer publishes everything they are discussing, and I'm bloody sure the AFL are the same. Is it secret stuff? Not really, it's them doing their job. Reply to what's there and not something you change to suit your point.

Of course I believe that's why they put Jackson there - to get us back on track. Ever heard of a contingency plan? If the job is too big for a non-MFC person, where do we go to next? Jackson has made it clear that it's a fairly easy job but will take time. The concern (given we have been burnt many times in the past 2 decades minimum), is that PJ could come in, set us on our way, for us to then need to replace him ourselves. Our decision making for key personnel has been terrible, hopefully we have learnt our lesson and don't need to rely on the AFL to shortlist and arrange interviews on our behalf. Who knows what will happen if we f**k up another appointment after PJ departs.

The Tassie market has more to give, simple as that. It's an income stream already, but it is waiting to explode. As I have previously stated, a large number of those 3 or 4 game club memberships they buy down there would turn in to 11+ game memberships. That's a considerable rise in income, as well as the locals being able to see more live games, and so on. Our work down at Casey should prove that while there can be income from a region, there is always potential to get more.

You provided a link trying to show that Tassie is "not growing". Technically, and because you're the type that would do it to someone else, they are growing, the article states clearly that they had a population growth, albeit minimal. I'm not like that though so I'll let it slide. I will acknowledge your efforts for trying to use this as part of your "evidence" but it doesn't stand up. For a national "empire" such as the AFL to start up a team in a state like Tasmania will have massive benefits for the state, and the state government would know this too. Those reported 20 year olds that are leaving, now some of them will have more incentive to stay, given the introduction of an AFL team will provide so many more opportunities. It's a ripple effect - there'll be 40+ players living down there, new coaches, football departments, administration, etc. Then there will be the increase in employment opportunities from not only game day operations but in general day to day business. Tourism/hospitality markets will increase during the year as more visitors will go to games, again increasing the labour market opportunities. All of a sudden the future isn't looking as dull as you think for them. Given that their government are pouring in good money to Hawthron and North shows that they are willing to spend if they can see the benefits.

And the potential merger of 2 teams (ie MFC/NMFC), and the creation of a "new" team in Tassie is not swapping struggling clubs at all. To be honest, I'm not surprised you would try and add that to prove your point. Onfield it (merger) would be a success within 3 years (disclaimer: I'm not talking about a premiership). Offield you are combining 2 income streams to support 1 club, rather than supporting 2 clubs. A number of supporters/members will drop off from both teams, but I'd imagine they'd still have well over 40k members, potentially 50k+. A new team in Tassie is obviously going to struggle initially, just like GC/GWS. The AFL will give them draft concessions, extra salary cap room, all the bells and whistles required to make it a success. It wouldn't take long to see results.

Your second last paragraph is a joke. You say "I'm wrong"? It's not a case of being right or wrong. You have show nothing in your posts to prove you're "right". The only thing you try and claim as significant is that you have inside knowledge from the marketing trainee that you know. The above may happen, it may not. I've given reasons for why I have this "idea" in my head, and to date, nothing that you've said has changed that. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Then to top it off, your last paragraph is a beauty, and really supports my view. "...the AFL knows that getting all clubs in a position to compete for a flag on a stable footing is the mark of a good and profitable league". We haven't won a flag for 50 years, we've played in 2 grand finals since our last one, and been spanked both times, we haven't played finals in the past 7 years, and you yourself aren't expecting miracles for the next season at least. North have won 4 flags in their history, and haven't played in a Grand Final since 1999. Something has to change with these two clubs for them to be considered equal contributors to a "good and profitable league".

The only thing that is "right" at the moment is that there is currently no merger between the MFC/NMFC, and no new team on the horizon for Tasmania. I will review my thoughts around 2016, when the TV rights are up, when the Hawthorn/Tasmania contract is up, when Roos has the option of taking up his third year with us. If things are looking better than they are today, then I'll be more than happy to put it down as a "simple" idea. I hope that day comes.

[rpfc 28,779]

2016 will come and go without any significant change to the current situation, even if we continue to struggle.

I guess the future will reveal whether that statement is right.

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

FFS stop talking about a merger between the MFC & Nought in Tasmania billy.

It's not going to happen. If there is ever a merger it will be between Nought & Footscray.

And i doubt they will be sent to the map of Tassie anyway.

The $$ market is not large enough. 2 Part Time Teams is about there limit.

[The Chazz 4,077]

FFS stop talking about a merger between the MFC & Nought in Tasmania billy.

It's not going to happen. If there is ever a merger it will be between Nought & Footscray.

And i doubt they will be sent to the map of Tassie anyway.

The $$ market is not large enough. 2 Part Time Teams is about there limit.

Ease up WYL. For a start, it's not about merging a team and sending them to Tasmania.

Secondly, I had concerns, I rasied them, some (like yourself) are very confident that everything will be fine. It's a forum. If I'm challenged, or if someone twists what I post, I will respond.

Bex. Lie. Down.

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

^^^^ But you have raised the same points for days billy...

Businesses are closing down at an alarming rate down there i am informed by 2 seperate sources.

The deals they have in Tassie now are all they can afford.

[The Chazz 4,077]

^^^^ But you have raised the same points for days billy...

Businesses are closing down at an alarming rate down there i am informed by 2 seperate sources.

The deals they have in Tassie now are all they can afford.

No offence WYL, but you are "informed by 2 seperate sources"? Mate, we don't need sources to tell us this sort of information. Businesses are shutting down all over the place in EVERY state, blind Freddy can see that. It didn't stop them investing in to the Gold Coast region, which is doing it very, very tough at the present.

If the AFL had that mentality the game would never grow.

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

No offence WYL, but you are "informed by 2 seperate sources"? Mate, we don't need sources to tell us this sort of information. Businesses are shutting down all over the place in EVERY state, blind Freddy can see that. It didn't stop them investing in to the Gold Coast region, which is doing it very, very tough at the present.

If the AFL had that mentality the game would never grow.

It doesn't need to grow in Tassie.....IT IS ALREADY THERE.

What Gain is it for the AFL to merge BOTH Melbourne clubs & then send them send them to the Map of Tassie??

Except lose supporters in Victoria...??

I am expected to support and be a member of the Melbourne Kangaroos based in Tasmania am I?

Brilliant investment there billy...That is not how i hope the game grows.

[The Chazz 4,077]

It doesn't need to grow in Tassie.....IT IS ALREADY THERE.

What Gain is it for the AFL to merge BOTH Melbourne clubs & then send them send them to the Map of Tassie??

Except lose supporters in Victoria...??

I am expected to support and be a member of the Melbourne Kangaroos based in Tasmania am I?

Brilliant investment there billy...That is not how i hope the game grows.

WYL, I know I have probably bored you, but I'm not suggesting shipping the merged team to Tasmania FFS. I'm saying 2 Victorian teams could merge to create 1 Victorian team, this would make 17 teams. Then, create a new Tasmanian team to become the 18th team (nothing to do with the 2 merged teams). The Melbourne/North team would still be based in Melbourne, play its home games at the MCG.

As I have frequently said, I hope it doesn't happen. I'm not expecting it to happen, but I don't think it's the silly idea that some do.

Edited December 17, 2013 by billy2803

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

WYL, I know I have probably bored you, but I'm not suggesting shipping the merged team to Tasmania FFS. I'm saying 2 Victorian teams could merge to create 1 Victorian team, this would make 17 teams. Then, create a new Tasmanian team to become the 18th team (nothing to do with the 2 merged teams). The Melbourne/North team would still be based in Melbourne, play its home games at the MCG.

As I have frequently said, I hope it doesn't happen. I'm not expecting it to happen, but I don't think it's the silly idea that some do.

Well i think it is silly...so we are balanced.

Tasmsania does not have the infrastructure to fund a fully fledged AFL side.

2 clubs have already claimed space...The league are not going to fully bankroll another team in Tassie

The game already rates on TV down there...