North Melbourne pushes for three games in Hobart

  Quote

The AFL has indicated it would support an eight-home game model in Tasmania split between Launceston and Hobart with the Hawks privately believing the league would prefer a weaker club to cement itself in Tasmania as an equalisation measure.

The push towards a Tasmanian AFL club has been moving at a snail's pace and one would hope that by the time it's reached the point where it's taken seriously, we might not be a "weaker" club.

On the other hand, we can see from the way the AFL has arranged the programme (i.e. first three home games against interstate clubs) there's an arguable case that they're trying to further weaken us by attrition so that we'll end up begging to be relocated to avoid going out of business.

Move 3 games out of melbourne for some $.

Thatll equalise that club.

Nfi

  On 16/04/2014 at 01:12, Whispering_Jack said:

The push towards a Tasmanian AFL club has been moving at a snail's pace and one would hope that by the time it's reached the point where it's taken seriously, we might not be a "weaker" club.

On the other hand, we can see from the way the AFL has arranged the programme (i.e. first three home games against interstate clubs) there's an arguable case that they're trying to further weaken us by attrition so that we'll end up begging to be relocated to avoid going out of business.

In this very complex and challenging area it would probably be most straightforward to relocate a club that's effectively already under AFL administration.

  On 16/04/2014 at 01:19, Fifty-5 said:

In this very complex and challenging area it would probably be most straightforward to relocate a club that's effectively already under AFL administration.

I expressed some concern about this a couple of weeks ago and was flippantly dismissed by RPFC who said

"The Tassie chestnut...groan."

and then followed up with

" I can be arrogant and dismissive and I apologise with my last one with regard to the proposed Tasmanian team.

You will have to excuse me on this issue - this is one rare subject with which I have inside knowledge on the status of their bid.

Having to hear about the closeness of this team to eventuate has done my head in on here for a few years now because I am related to the consultant used by the Tasmanian government to lobby the AFL for a team. It was effectively abandoned when the GWS decision was made, and then the earth was salted when they re-upped their deal with Hawthorn for 2012-2016 at $18.3m for the 5 years.

The Hawks saying goodbye to that money is one of the many obstacles that a revived Tassie bid will have to overcome.

And the government will have to make moves pretty soon if they want to revive it."

So I'm absolutely confident we can rest easy as RPFC has insider knowledge of this issue and has promised to chase it up and let us know if anything changes.

  On 16/04/2014 at 01:19, Fifty-5 said:

In this very complex and challenging area it would probably be most straightforward to relocate a club that's effectively already under AFL administration.

This is part of the reason i bought up the MCC connection a couple of weeks ago.

How strong the alignment is and what is stipulated both ways.

Has never been fully explained.

1. With the Tassie economy and population (and split between North and South) I can't see how a stand alone team down there makes sense

2. 18 teams, no way is a 19th team coming in for Tassie. 20 teams looks way too many as well. If a team does go full time down there it will be moved from a Vic team

3. Anyone watch Q+A and see incoming Tassie senator Jacqui Lambie, you really want to give the people who voted for her a footy team

4. What's wrong with Hawthorn 4 games in Launceston, North 4 games in Hobart?

We have to be a stronger club so we aren't even thought about in these discussions because otherwise yes people at times will think about either folding us or relocating us to Tasmania. However I don't see Tassie as a threat to us, more that if we continue down a path of self destruction they will pick up our ashes.

  On 16/04/2014 at 01:55, why you little said:

This is part of the reason i bought up the MCC connection a couple of weeks ago.

How strong the alignment is and what is stipulated both ways.

Has never been fully explained.

WYL, There is more information regarding the alignment available online:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/the-club/melbourne-cricket-club

http://www.mcc.org.au/Club%20Sport/Melbourne%20Football%20Club.aspx

If you need more info, You should contact the club or MCC directly.

The agreement does include the MCC having a say and assisting with admin and commercial opportunites for the club but not having a copy of the agreement with me can only go off what is publicly available.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:05, DemonWorshipper said:

WYL, There is more information regarding the alignment available online:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/the-club/melbourne-cricket-club

http://www.mcc.org.au/Club%20Sport/Melbourne%20Football%20Club.aspx

If you need more info, You should contact the club or MCC directly.

The agreement does include the MCC having a say and assisting with admin and commercial opportunites for the club but not having a copy of the agreement with me can only go off what is publicly available.

Thanks DW. I certainly want the MCC to be a strong ally in our corner.

It it ony going to get more costly and competitive to stay above the water in Victoria.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:08, why you little said:

Thanks DW. I certainly want the MCC to be a strong ally in our corner.

It it ony going to get more costly and competitive to stay above the water in Victoria.

With Stephen Gough the MCC CEO a strong Carlton man and Carlton looking to move from Eithad to the MCG I am a bit nervous. Coll, Haw, Rich, Carl and Melb at the MCG. I wonder who gets squeezed out.

55 home games. Minus 4 for Hawthorn in Tassie, minus 1-2 for Melbourne in NT hopefully short term, add in a few Geelong and Ess home games at the G. Still above the required games at the MCG, or more worryingly below the required games at Etihad.

Games like this Sunday against Gold Coast are a big test. On the back of a win we have to get a decent crowd. However being Easter Sunday doesn't help

  On 16/04/2014 at 01:51, Baghdad Bob said:

So I'm absolutely confident we can rest easy as RPFC has insider knowledge of this issue and has promised to chase it up and let us know if anything changes.

OK then thanks, that's a relief!

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:04, the master said:

3. Anyone watch Q+A and see incoming Tassie senator Jacqui Lambie, you really want to give the people who voted for her a footy team

I think the AFL should disband all the Victorian teams. You lot voted in that motoring enthusiast bogan.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:26, Nasher said:

I think the AFL should disband all the Victorian teams. You lot voted in that motoring enthusiast bogan.

Lost me Nasher?

If the AFL wasn't a business, then Tasmania would already have a side.

It is probably too late now, but rewind time, keep the game pure and give Tasmania a side

That would've been best for football.

But the AFL went in another direction, they sold the game down the drain.

Now the argument that Tasmania should have a side, really isn't even an argument.

Because under the current AFL business model structure, the market isn't large enough for Tasmania.

Yet the AFL are happy to send 2 sides down to thieve money off the natives, I guess at least Hawthorn put in time down there.

What do North do exactly? They knocked back the Gold Coast, they weren't welcome in Ballarat, so now the AFL gives them games in Tasmania.

No wonder people are flocking to other sports.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:26, Nasher said:

I think the AFL should disband all the Victorian teams. You lot voted in that motoring enthusiast bogan.

If we're going down that path then we'd better disband the whole competition! After all, it is a national competition.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:36, KingDingAling said:

If the AFL wasn't a business, then Tasmania would already have a side.

It is probably too late now, but rewind time, keep the game pure and give Tasmania a side

That would've been best for football.

But the AFL went in another direction, they sold the game down the drain.

Now the argument that Tasmania should have a side, really isn't even an argument.

Because under the current AFL business model structure, the market isn't large enough for Tasmania.

Yet the AFL are happy to send 2 sides down to thieve money off the natives, I guess at least Hawthorn put in time down there.

What do North do exactly? They knocked back the Gold Coast, they weren't welcome in Ballarat, so now the AFL gives them games in Tasmania.

No wonder people are flocking to other sports.

Oh please. Remember the AFL came from the VFL. It's funny you mention Ballarat. It's as large as Launceston and commercially not far from Hobart, both are big country towns.

Put it this way if Tasmania wasn't a separate state but was another part of South Australia or Victoria would anyone complain about two country towns each getting their own share of a clubs games?

The amount that North and Hawthorn have been paid for their games is excessive but it's also what the Tassie government/business decided to pay for the games. I don't think anyone forced them to. If they wish to pull the money from those clubs and attempt to state sponsor their own team then good luck to them. I'm sure the AFL is always receptive for bids for new teams but you have to able to show how you'd be expanding the game.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:36, Axis of Bob said:

If we're going down that path then we'd better disband the whole competition! After all, it is a national competition.

I think differently. Disband all Victorian teams with the exception of Melbourne and Carlton and let Tassie, Canberra and the NT have a team each. Then it would be a truly national competition and we would thrive ias the best team from the best football state.

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:26, Nasher said:

I think the AFL should disband all the Victorian teams. You lot voted in that motoring enthusiast bogan.

jacqui lambie says Hi nasher

  On 16/04/2014 at 02:50, the master said:

Oh please. Remember the AFL came from the VFL. It's funny you mention Ballarat. It's as large as Launceston and commercially not far from Hobart, both are big country towns.

Put it this way if Tasmania wasn't a separate state but was another part of South Australia or Victoria would anyone complain about two country towns each getting their own share of a clubs games?

The amount that North and Hawthorn have been paid for their games is excessive but it's also what the Tassie government/business decided to pay for the games. I don't think anyone forced them to. If they wish to pull the money from those clubs and attempt to state sponsor their own team then good luck to them. I'm sure the AFL is always receptive for bids for new teams but you have to able to show how you'd be expanding the game.

North Melbourne have no link in Tasmania... Hawthorn were the Tasmanian side.

North are only down there because they failed as a business model and Vlad had to bail them out - as he bails out all failed ventures.

Do I agree he should? No, I don't agree the AFL should be predominantly business either.

The AFL is nothing but a business now, it is reactive to everything, changing rules left, right and centre and calling it evolution, I call it reactive garbage.

Tasmania now won't have a side until they have an economy - I don't agree it should be this way either.

If the Tasmanian government are paying for games, then they do so in hope of one day having a side.

  On 16/04/2014 at 03:03, daisycutter said:

jacqui lambie says Hi nasher

Um. You saw the the post I quoted, right? Ricky Muir says hi right back.

  On 16/04/2014 at 03:10, Nasher said:

Um. You saw the the post I quoted, right? Ricky Muir says hi right back.

um...oops....i have now nasher......take it all back (red-faced)

It's a case for massively improving the second-tier competition.

I'm not Phil Clearly, but I do believe that there should be a lot more investment put into the state-level leagues.

I'm never sure exactly how to go about it, but obviously there are a lot of different issues in the existing structures in every state.

Present a well thought out plan, load it with resources so nobody wants to say no, and watch the talent pool and community connections of the game thrive.

With the number of entertaining, talented, and 'natural' footballers around who aren't getting a gig at AFL because they are not quite 'athletic' enough, a well-resources second tier would be a very interesting league.

RPFC - just interested to know if your relative has heard anything in recent days that would help us understand Gillon's sentiments?

Still an amazing coincidence that the TV rights expire end of 2016, as does Hawthorn's contract with the Tassie Government. And now the AFL are encouraging North to sign a short-term agreement to bring it in line with Hawthron's (and the TV rights) expiration date...

I very much doubt that we will be asked to play games in Tasmania, particularly as we are trying to foster the AFL in the Northern Territory.

As for the Blues wanting to play games at the G, they may be the Thursday night pioneers and make that spot their own. The ground can cope with the traffic, unless we have a really bad winter, but with global warming that's never going to happen again.

The only side that would be available to do the 8 games Tassie thing would be North.

While I don't claim to have any inside knowledge of what the AFL's landscape is in regards to AFL Tasmania, I'm not totally convinced that in the short to mid term we won't see a Tassie team.

With Gillon making noise about a team relocating, I think it's the best indication yet that it is something that is on the AFL's agenda. Presuming he takes over from Vlad, I have no doubt that Gillon will want to make some significant contribution (not sure if that's the right word!) to the game. With the expected success of Vlad's Gold Coast and GWS experiment, why wouldn't Gillon jump on board the exansion ferry and cross Bass Strait?

The question is then about the team/s to relocate. North is the clear favourite. Does that mean they just get shipped down there, given a new base, new facilities and a regular AFL supported income stream in the initial stages? Wouldn't be the first time they have tried to get them out of Victoria.

For the MFC, that would be the best result.

I do have concerns though, which I have raised here, only to be challenged by RP, with let's face it, nothing of any substance in his argument other than the "my family member told me such and such".

As we know, the AFL has continually said that we need a Melbourne Football Club in the competition. Personally, I would much prefer them to say Melbourne Demons. Am I jumping at shadows? Maybe. I am definintely reading between the lines when the omit the word "demons", time will tell if I had any reason for concern.

This leads me to my point - does the AFL see a Melbourne Kangaroos team on the horizon? How could they "relocate" North, yet merge them with us? Firstly, they will want to make sure that the Tasmanian team would still have a strong "North" flavour. So, would they, like what they did with Fitzroy, tell 8 of their best players that they will be the face of the new Tasmanian team, reward them financially for their move, give 2 years of "more" compromised drafts to assist with the development of the team?

So what with the remaining North players, and how does it effect us? We would then be required to pick 10-12 of the remaining North-listed players, which will require us to delist the same amount (ie receiving 10 "middle tier" players at the expense 10 "bottom tier" players = improving our list significantly). The Tasmanian team would then have free choice of the remaining North players that we didn't pick up, as well as the delisted players from our list, ensuring they have depth. It could be a case of allowing them a larger playing list, with the provision that they take 3 years to bring it back with standard league requirements.

By us losing the Demons out of our names, totally frees up the "Devils" nickname which would make sense for a Tasmanian team. Let's face it, we can't have the Demons and the Devils playing each other.

I can't help but feel that the end of 2016 will see something significant change within the AFL. I could be, and hope to Chirst that I'm wrong about the above (espeically the parts that relate to the MDFC). I'm concerned that Gillon will want to make an immediate impact if/when he takes over. The fact that we have an AFL appointed CEO, we are still a bottom side, our membership isn't great, our crowd numbers are terrible, and a coach that at best under current terms, is contracted with us until, wait for it...the end of the 2016 season.

There you go RPFC, go your hardest! Don't disappoint me please.