The demons in the details?

[Sir Why You Little 36,737]

I was under the impression that PJ & Roos were bought in the club to improve it and make it strong and ultimately stable.

I want to see the Demons win the 13th......etc etc

Any other scenario can go and get f

[Ted Lasso 18,911]

I don't believe the AFL would invest the time and effort of getting PJ on board, financially bailing us out, helping get Roosy on board and so on if they were going to relocate us, i reckon North, the doggies and the Saints should be very nervous, i reckon one goes to Tassie

[rpfc 28,075]

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...

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".

[snipped wall of text]

Nothing of any substance?

It depends on how much people read into my 'word' - as an anonymous poster - that a relative of mine is the consultant to the Tasmanian Govt on, amongst other things, the relationship with the AFL and any push for an AFL team.

People can, and will, judge my posts for themselves.

I will try to get an update in the next few days for those concerned.

[Nasher 33,607]

I don't understand who would barrack for a Tasmanian team. I wouldn't. Most people I know are so entrenched in their support of their sides that they're not going to change teams. Even if they did, it's not really achieving anything in terms of growth of the game, it's just diluting the support for existing clubs.

The time for creating a Tassie team was in the mid 90s, before mass televisation had set in which solidified people's allegiences to the AFL teams. Prior to that, local footy had massive support; you only had to see the attendences to the TFL grand finals and State of Origin matches. I think that ship has well and truly sailed now.

Having Norf and Hawthorn play a stack of games down here every year is probably the best outcome.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I don't believe the AFL would invest the time and effort of getting PJ on board, financially bailing us out, helping get Roosy on board and so on if they were going to relocate us, i reckon North, the doggies and the Saints should be very nervous, i reckon one goes to Tassie

it won't be the Saints, they much too strong a following. upset that at you AFL peril. soccer waiting in the wings for any scraps.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I don't believe the AFL would invest the time and effort of getting PJ on board, financially bailing us out, helping get Roosy on board and so on if they were going to relocate us, i reckon North, the doggies and the Saints should be very nervous, i reckon one goes to Tassie

This is the reason why I'm keeping an eye on it, rather than dismissing it like most.

We were in debt, we had an incompetent CEO. If the AFL didn't step in, we would be further in debt each year, meaning the "bail out" package would continue to rise.

Cheapest solution - put in your own, competent CEO (with no direct links to the club), give him a clean slate to introduce new systems, put in one of the best coaches available to develop a team, and hope that they improve onfield, to assist the improvement offield.

Let's face it, PJ is holding his end of the bargain up. It's too early to make the call on Roos, but it's most importantly up to the players.

If we get to the end of 2016 and we haven't improved on field, it'll start damaging the work PJ has done off it. If that happens, given we are run by the AFL's men, we're screwed. I don't know why some are in denial about this.

That's why I made the call in a different thread about this week's game being one of our most important of the season. This is a great opportunity to show we are on the right track. We get smashed by the Suns, we're back to where we started. A growing % of the football world population will be watching us this week.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I don't understand who would barrack for a Tasmanian team. I wouldn't. Most people I know are so entrenched in their support of their sides that they're not going to change teams. Even if they did, it's not really achieving anything in terms of growth of the game, it's just diluting the support for existing clubs.

The time for creating a Tassie team was in the mid 90s, before mass televisation had set in which solidified people's allegiences to the AFL teams. Prior to that, local footy had massive support; you only had to see the attendences to the TFL grand finals and State of Origin matches. I think that ship has well and truly sailed now.

Having Norf and Hawthorn play a stack of games down here every year is probably the best outcome.

Of the population of Tasmania, how many are current AFL members? How many of the North and Hawthorn Tasie members are life supporters of the club, as opposed to signing up with the "local" teams?

We talk about the "growth of the game". South East Queensland had an AFL boom in the 2001-2004 period. There's a significant bust here now. Queenslanders are a strange bunch (you don't say!), like all sports fans they crave success, difference is, they are also spoilt for choice. If the Lions are up, so are their membership and crowd numbers. When they are down, the locals jump off them and go back to the Broncos - their true number 1 national sporting team.

Some facts - Lions memberships peaked at 30,941 in 2004, with average crowds at 33,619. By 2008 (no finals since 2004 runners up) they were 23,079 members/28,000 avg crowd. Last year they barely cracked 20,000 members. In 2008, the Broncos were averagin 33,000 crowd, which was up from 28,000 in 2004. Is it coincidence that the Lions avg crowd dropped by 5,000 in the exact same timeframe as the Broncos increased by 5,000?

The point of that? Has AFL grown in South East Queensland? It could be argued that it has gone backwards in the past decade, and given the AFL's special treatment of the Gold Coast, it's clear they too are craving success, as the reward for success in SEQ is clear.

So, would a Tasmanian team see the sport "grow" down there? So much would depend on what the AFL defines as "successful" growth. An increase in total AFL memberships would have to be considered growth. Would it see more participation at junior levels? There wouldn't be a drop off that's for sure. Would the AFL see growth in their bottom line when they are playing 10 home games down there with average crowds of 20k?

It's the question that the AFL would be asking themselves. Given they have no challenge from other sporting codes down there, do they leave it as is, or do they step in and have a total monopoly of the market?

The latter would see a far greater return on investment than what the Western Sydney and South East Queensland landscape looks like.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Nasher, as you asked "who would" barrack for a Tasmanian team, can I ask you "who wouldn't"?

[daisycutter 29,429]

billy, there would be zero growth or expansion with a tassy side

they are already on board footy die-hards

[Whispering_Jack 29,333]

The obvious team to fulfill the AFL's plans is North Melbourne which actually wants to play in Tassie.

[Ted Lasso 18,911]

perhaps another side merging with a struggling Brisbane Lions and creating another expansion club could be on the cards, it's not going to stop at 18

[DeeSpencer 24,908]

The obvious team to fulfill the AFL's plans is North Melbourne which actually wants to play in Tassie.

But how does it work? Based in Melb and play 3 home games in each Tassie city and only 5 Melbourne home games? Or based in Hobart and play 4 and 4 in Tassie and 3 in Melb? Or 5,5,1 or 7 and 4. Seems like a debacle waiting to happen. North successfully fended off the AFL moving them to the Gold Coast when they were in a worse spot than they are now. Plus the Gold Coast offer guaranteed them financial security pretty much as long as the AFL were strong.

[The Chazz 4,077]

billy, there would be zero growth or expansion with a tassy side

they are already on board footy die-hards

DC, what's your definition of "growth"?

How could a "new" team, that would be based in a state with no other national team in any other sporting code, not be considered growth?

[DeeSpencer 24,908]

Of the population of Tasmania, how many are current AFL members? How many of the North and Hawthorn Tasie members are life supporters of the club, as opposed to signing up with the "local" teams?

We talk about the "growth of the game". South East Queensland had an AFL boom in the 2001-2004 period. There's a significant bust here now. Queenslanders are a strange bunch (you don't say!), like all sports fans they crave success, difference is, they are also spoilt for choice. If the Lions are up, so are their membership and crowd numbers. When they are down, the locals jump off them and go back to the Broncos - their true number 1 national sporting team.

Some facts - Lions memberships peaked at 30,941 in 2004, with average crowds at 33,619. By 2008 (no finals since 2004 runners up) they were 23,079 members/28,000 avg crowd. Last year they barely cracked 20,000 members. In 2008, the Broncos were averagin 33,000 crowd, which was up from 28,000 in 2004. Is it coincidence that the Lions avg crowd dropped by 5,000 in the exact same timeframe as the Broncos increased by 5,000?

The point of that? Has AFL grown in South East Queensland? It could be argued that it has gone backwards in the past decade, and given the AFL's special treatment of the Gold Coast, it's clear they too are craving success, as the reward for success in SEQ is clear.

So, would a Tasmanian team see the sport "grow" down there? So much would depend on what the AFL defines as "successful" growth. An increase in total AFL memberships would have to be considered growth. Would it see more participation at junior levels? There wouldn't be a drop off that's for sure. Would the AFL see growth in their bottom line when they are playing 10 home games down there with average crowds of 20k?

It's the question that the AFL would be asking themselves. Given they have no challenge from other sporting codes down there, do they leave it as is, or do they step in and have a total monopoly of the market?

The latter would see a far greater return on investment than what the Western Sydney and South East Queensland landscape looks like.

Brisbane Population - over 2,000,000

Gold Coast Population - 590,000

And both are growing at steady rates

Hobart - 217,000

Launceston - 86,000

Neither are growing

Even if starting a new team and definitely if moving an existing team Tasmania is diversifying the AFL so you can cover a larger area. It's not expansion. You only need to look at the draft numbers to see kids from Tassie play footy (and get drafted). Queensland provides around the same amount of players and either equal or lesser talent despite probably 10 times the population. It might cost a hell of a lot more but Queensland and NSW are the frontiers for expansion.

If you want a quick return on investment by starting a new team then start a third WA team. Look at Freo, no flags, minimal finals and within 20 years they are a powerhouse club.

[DeeSpencer 24,908]

DC, what's your definition of "growth"?

How could a "new" team, that would be based in a state with no other national team in any other sporting code, not be considered growth?

So you start a new team.

Memberships - you might get 15k Tassie members, maybe enough to support the team, probably lose a few members for Vic clubs,

TV viewers - small increase in Tassie but most Tassie people watch footy already, not a huge change

Attendance - so you get 15k to each game, again enough to support the team but that's about it, You lose crowds in Vic because Melb v Tassie doesn't attract nearly as many as Melb v Hawthorn would. Each of Tassie 11 away games draw smaller crowds and interest

Junior participation - no huge change, Tassie kids play footy already

All up it's not really growing the game much at all.

Plus all the talent pool is further divided and there's another perennial small club even if it is financial due to a good stadium deal and government backed sponsorship

[daisycutter 29,429]

DC, what's your definition of "growth"?

How could a "new" team, that would be based in a state with no other national team in any other sporting code, not be considered growth?

back at you - how would moving a vic side to tassy be growth

you won't get more money (tassy is an economic basket case)

you won't get any more net members

you won't get any bigger game attendances

you won't convert any more punters to afl footy

you won't increase the tv market

no green field opportunities there billy

now, apart from all the above i personally would like to see a full-time genuine tassy team - just can't see it happening

[Nasher 33,607]

Nasher, as you asked "who would" barrack for a Tasmanian team, can I ask you "who wouldn't"?

Me, and just about everyone else I know would be a start.

[The Chazz 4,077]

back at you - how would moving a vic side to tassy be growth

you won't get more money (tassy is an economic basket case)

you won't get any more net members

you won't get any bigger game attendances

you won't convert any more punters to afl footy

you won't increase the tv market

no green field opportunities there billy

now, apart from all the above i personally would like to see a full-time genuine tassy team - just can't see it happening

Given the Tasmanian government spend a significant amount of money with both Hawthorn and North, I'm sure they would see the benefit in investing that money in to their own team. The ripple effect that a national team has on a state's economy is significant, especially for one like Tasmania.

I have no doubt you would see an increase in net memberships. As it is, local footy supporters are limited as far as teams they can go and see. It's great if you barrack for Hawthorn or North, but even then it's limited viewing. Knowing you can buy a membership and get to see 11 or so home games is a big attraction.

I would argue that Tasmania vs Collingwood would draw a more significant crowd than North vs Freo.

You won't convert more punters to AFL footy, but you will convert them to go to AFL footy.

Again, I would argue that a North game would have less TV ratings than a Tasmanian game.

I'm basing my views on very limited resources, and obviously the AFL would be well equipped to know if it would work down there. I am playing devils advocate, and I think it's genreally a good discussion. Where possible, I try and back up my opinion with facts or (what I consider) reasonable views, as opposed to "Tasmania's not growing so they can't have a team down there" type responses. I'm a firm believer that if the AFL want something, they will get it. I'm a bigger believer that, like all that have previously held the role, the new CEO will want to add their "personal touch" to the competition.

Will expansion be on their agenda? Who knows. But one thing is for sure, if we have a team in the AFL based in Tasmania, that IS expansion. How is it not? Going from no team there to one team there is, in a simple view, growing the competition. They might sacrifice one Victorian team to do it, but it's still growth.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Me, and just about everyone else I know would be a start.

Do you speak on behalf of the 500,000 other residents of Tasmania?

Don't think Geelong are too fussed that a large number of GCoG residents don't barrack for them.

[KingDingAling 3,750]

Brisbane Population - over 2,000,000

Gold Coast Population - 590,000

And both are growing at steady rates

Hobart - 217,000

Launceston - 86,000

Neither are growing

Even if starting a new team and definitely if moving an existing team Tasmania is diversifying the AFL so you can cover a larger area. It's not expansion. You only need to look at the draft numbers to see kids from Tassie play footy (and get drafted). Queensland provides around the same amount of players and either equal or lesser talent despite probably 10 times the population. It might cost a hell of a lot more but Queensland and NSW are the frontiers for expansion.

If you want a quick return on investment by starting a new team then start a third WA team. Look at Freo, no flags, minimal finals and within 20 years they are a powerhouse club.

I do agree with you, but I also believe that the AFL could easily introduce a Tasmanian side, they wouldn't lose that much on them.

A Tasmanian side would make the AFL a much better game.

The thing is, a Tasmanian side atm would fly in the face of everything the AFL represents - business.

I do think in the long term, Tasmania is a stable prospect, they harness the best land in the country.

As resources slow in the future and the focus shifts towards agriculture - which is only a matter of time - then Tasmania are well placed in the future market.

The AFL could very well introduce a country Vic Tasmanian team, but Gil would recognize that Vic already have too many sides.

[Nasher 33,607]

Do you speak on behalf of the 500,000 other residents of Tasmania?

Of course I do.

Don't think Geelong are too fussed that a large number of GCoG residents don't barrack for them.

That's because Geelong aren't trying to grow a team from scratch.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,480]

If we're going to be relocated, would we not be shipped to the NT, considering how much time and effort we've spent up there since 2010.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Bring-Back-Powell

[daisycutter 29,429]

Given the Tasmanian government spend a significant amount of money with both Hawthorn and North, I'm sure they would see the benefit in investing that money in to their own team. The ripple effect that a national team has on a state's economy is significant, especially for one like Tasmania.

I have no doubt you would see an increase in net memberships. As it is, local footy supporters are limited as far as teams they can go and see. It's great if you barrack for Hawthorn or North, but even then it's limited viewing. Knowing you can buy a membership and get to see 11 or so home games is a big attraction.

I would argue that Tasmania vs Collingwood would draw a more significant crowd than North vs Freo.

You won't convert more punters to AFL footy, but you will convert them to go to AFL footy.

Again, I would argue that a North game would have less TV ratings than a Tasmanian game.

I'm basing my views on very limited resources, and obviously the AFL would be well equipped to know if it would work down there. I am playing devils advocate, and I think it's genreally a good discussion. Where possible, I try and back up my opinion with facts or (what I consider) reasonable views, as opposed to "Tasmania's not growing so they can't have a team down there" type responses. I'm a firm believer that if the AFL want something, they will get it. I'm a bigger believer that, like all that have previously held the role, the new CEO will want to add their "personal touch" to the competition.

Will expansion be on their agenda? Who knows. But one thing is for sure, if we have a team in the AFL based in Tasmania, that IS expansion. How is it not? Going from no team there to one team there is, in a simple view, growing the competition. They might sacrifice one Victorian team to do it, but it's still growth.

have it your way billy

i'd like to see a tassy side but not for growth or expansion reasons

[CityDee 738]

This issue of having no tassie team could be solved by relocating Carlton down to Tassie. They have a big enough fan base to maintain membership and would probably play in melbourne most other weeks.

Edited April 17, 2014 by CityDee

[Akum 2,660]

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

Thank God. For a moment I thought you were talking about Jeremy Clarkson!