Seems pretty clear to me, he says he wants a strong, national competition, but at the same time thinks that 18 teams is enough. Having a team based in Tasmania and quite possibly the ACT, will ensure he gets his wish. With him commenting on "new" stadiums in Western Australia, Tasmania and I think he said ACT, it highlights that there is a strong possibility the the latter two states are being earmarked as potential homes for some our our current teams (on more of a permanent basis).

Clearly, if the poor performing sides (offield) don't lift their game in the next 1-5 years, the simple solution will be relocation of some of those teams. This has minimal impact on any future TV right deals given the number of games per week will remain the same.

To sat it won't work is plain ignorant, and it's even worse if you think we're safe.

  On 01/05/2014 at 03:36, billy2803 said:

Seems pretty clear to me, he says he wants a strong, national competition, but at the same time thinks that 18 teams is enough. Having a team based in Tasmania and quite possibly the ACT, will ensure he gets his wish. With him commenting on "new" stadiums in Western Australia, Tasmania and I think he said ACT, it highlights that there is a strong possibility the the latter two states are being earmarked as potential homes for some our our current teams (on more of a permanent basis).

Clearly, if the poor performing sides (offield) don't lift their game in the next 1-5 years, the simple solution will be relocation of some of those teams. This has minimal impact on any future TV right deals given the number of games per week will remain the same.

To sat it won't work is plain ignorant, and it's even worse if you think we're safe.

Putting Melbourne aside for the moment, I will be pretty sad if teams like North, Bulldogs & Saints end up being relocated. Of course I'd rather it was them than us but if we lose even more "heritage" clubs the game in Victoria will became even more of a corporatised comp. It may result in a better on-field standard but the feeling won't be the same. We already suffer through poor atmosphere at games having to play the franchises every other week and only play Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn & Geelong once a year for the most part, this will be made even worse if a couple more Vic clubs are relocated.

Best case scenario for us is the AFL continues to encourage North Melbourne in Tassie.

It is unlikely that medium term Hawthorn will move to Tassie. They are too powerful here in Melbourne, even if they may be the logical choice; they are strong and wealthy enough to survive the move, they have the most Tasmanian support.

It is unlikely that will happen, so I hope the AFL put a stop to Hawthorns tassie experiment and let North play 5 games there, seeing them up for the full time move.

We all hate the NT games but in some ways it may be smart: it is not realistic to host a team there full time. Establishing ourselves in Tassie (like North has been doing) may have opened the door to a move down there.

  On 01/05/2014 at 03:52, deanox said:

Best case scenario for us is the AFL continues to encourage North Melbourne in Tassie.

It is unlikely that medium term Hawthorn will move to Tassie. They are too powerful here in Melbourne, even if they may be the logical choice; they are strong and wealthy enough to survive the move, they have the most Tasmanian support.

It is unlikely that will happen, so I hope the AFL put a stop to Hawthorns tassie experiment and let North play 5 games there, seeing them up for the full time move.

We all hate the NT games but in some ways it may be smart: it is not realistic to host a team there full time. Establishing ourselves in Tassie (like North has been doing) may have opened the door to a move down there.

A possible way they could relocate North is to basically have them doing the opposite to what they are doing now - play 8 home games in Tasmania and 3 in Victoria. They would be required to change names, but will still give them a "connection" in Melbourne. Not only will the Melbourne-based supporters get to see their 3 "home" games, they will also get another 5 or so games played in Melbourne as "away" games.

  On 01/05/2014 at 03:36, billy2803 said:

Seems pretty clear to me, he says he wants a strong, national competition, but at the same time thinks that 18 teams is enough. Having a team based in Tasmania and quite possibly the ACT, will ensure he gets his wish. With him commenting on "new" stadiums in Western Australia, Tasmania and I think he said ACT, it highlights that there is a strong possibility the the latter two states are being earmarked as potential homes for some our our current teams (on more of a permanent basis).

Clearly, if the poor performing sides (offield) don't lift their game in the next 1-5 years, the simple solution will be relocation of some of those teams. This has minimal impact on any future TV right deals given the number of games per week will remain the same.

To sat it won't work is plain ignorant, and it's even worse if you think we're safe.

It isn't working. And until there is a market to be moved to - we are safe.

10 years of grace time before Tasmania even becomes a protagonist in this created drama of relocation.

You are jumping at the shadow of a kicked can...

(I really like that line. Like me or loathe me - it's a good line!)

It all depends on the structure of the next broadcasting deal....

  On 30/04/2014 at 10:54, Lamashtu said:

The obvious ace up our sleeve is that we are the MELBOURNE Demons, and I can't see any scenario where the AFL would have 18 teams without one named after the city where the game began.

We're also the oldest and founding club of the game. So I'd be a lot more nervous if I were a Saints, Bulldogs or Norf supporter. And who knows what'll happen to Essendon?

What's in a name?

  On 01/05/2014 at 04:32, rpfc said:

It isn't working. And until there is a market to be moved to - we are safe.

10 years of grace time before Tasmania even becomes a protagonist in this created drama of relocation.

You are jumping at the shadow of a kicked can...

(I really like that line. Like me or loathe me - it's a good line!)

To be honest RP, I find it ironic you think there are grey areas with our injury management decisions, yet you are so black on this topic, based on your insider trading.

As I said, saying that it won't work is plain ignorant. I appreciate you confirming my conclusion.

Also, I neither like nor loathe, but what I can tell you is that it is far from a "good" line.

  On 01/05/2014 at 04:02, billy2803 said:

A possible way they could relocate North is to basically have them doing the opposite to what they are doing now - play 8 home games in Tasmania and 3 in Victoria. They would be required to change names, but will still give them a "connection" in Melbourne. Not only will the Melbourne-based supporters get to see their 3 "home" games, they will also get another 5 or so games played in Melbourne as "away" games.

Once they have a majority of Tassie members they'll cease to have any Vic home games.

Disappointing result, I was hoping they would get someone external.

I reckon this was all sorted more than 6 months ago. Just waited foa appropriate moment to hand over.

Its the AFL after....smoke mirrors etc.

  On 01/05/2014 at 10:39, beelzebub said:

I reckon this was all sorted more than 6 months ago. Just waited foa appropriate moment to hand over.

Its the AFL after....smoke mirrors etc.

Just before the Essendrug findings come out??

It is possible

  On 01/05/2014 at 10:39, beelzebub said:

I reckon this was all sorted more than 6 months ago. Just waited foa appropriate moment to hand over.

Its the AFL after....smoke mirrors etc.

Bread and Circuses.

Though the bread is a cold pie .

Does seem a bit suss that Demetriou pulled the trigger right at the end of the Essendrug scandal. Sounds like that could reach a climax in June/July right as Demetriou's out of the picture,

  On 01/05/2014 at 06:15, billy2803 said:

To be honest RP, I find it ironic you think there are grey areas with our injury management decisions, yet you are so black on this topic, based on your insider trading.

As I said, saying that it won't work is plain ignorant. I appreciate you confirming my conclusion.

Also, I neither like nor loathe, but what I can tell you is that it is far from a "good" line.

...or alternatively the polar opposite?

  On 01/05/2014 at 11:39, Biffen said:

Bread and Circuses.

Though the bread is a cold pie .

Expensive cold pie

  On 01/05/2014 at 22:19, Machsy said:

...or alternatively the polar opposite?

Not at all. There will be relocation bullets flying around everywhere at City Hall, we need to make sure we are wearing our best armour.

If Gill is going to spend millions trying to save clubs like us, North, Dogs, he might as well spend it on relocating one of us to Tasmania where it gives him another state representing the sport at a national level.

PJ will only be able to get us breaking even for a short time if our onfield performance doesn't improve. That's where North are the ones in a very dangerous position - they will be pushing for a Top 6-8 position this year yet they are still struggling offield. That's a major concern for the AFL. At least when we are pushing for finals, our balance sheet doesn't look too bad.

he actually hinted that a real draw of 17 return games every year was right.

just not financially possible.and difficult to cut back on player payments to accommodate this.

  On 01/05/2014 at 06:15, billy2803 said:

To be honest RP, I find it ironic you think there are grey areas with our injury management decisions, yet you are so black on this topic, based on your insider trading.

As I said, saying that it won't work is plain ignorant. I appreciate you confirming my conclusion.

Also, I neither like nor loathe, but what I can tell you is that it is far from a "good" line.

You keep calling me ignorant, Billy - I think you are projecting.

The new CEO of the AFL has just said that he doesn't think there will be a team in Tassie inside the next ten years and that he doesn't necessarily see a 'Tasmanian' team playing games there:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-15/afl-backs-one-team-in-tas

The next option is a pseudo-relocation (which is what Hawthorn has done anyway) with one team playing games in both Hobart and Launceston. This would mean the consolidation of both the 4 games the Hawks play in Launceston and the 3 that NM wish to play, and will most likely be granted, from 2015 and 2016.

How he goes about doing this will be interesting - he says that the arrangements for both clubs will continue but that is dividing the state - so 2016 will be a good time to see what is can be done.

But 2016 will not see a new Tasmanian team, so he is looking at Haw or NM to play 3 games in both Launceston and Hobart? What club is going to agree with that? Will a club be forced? How would NM be forced to play more games there when they couldn't force them up to the Gold Coast 5 years ago?

I think 2016 will roll around and the status quo will remain.

Feel free to bump this if I am wrong.

I think this issue is dormant for a while...

  On 01/05/2014 at 10:34, Carlos Danger said:

Disappointing result, I was hoping they would get someone external.

Why? Did you have a particular candidate in mind?

As long as the AFL conducted a thorough process which resulted in McLachlan being the best candidate, I'm happy.

  On 01/05/2014 at 23:53, rpfc said:

You keep calling me ignorant, Billy - I think you are projecting.

The new CEO of the AFL has just said that he doesn't think there will be a team in Tassie inside the next ten years and that he doesn't necessarily see a 'Tasmanian' team playing games there:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-15/afl-backs-one-team-in-tas

The next option is a pseudo-relocation (which is what Hawthorn has done anyway) with one team playing games in both Hobart and Launceston. This would mean the consolidation of both the 4 games the Hawks play in Launceston and the 3 that NM wish to play, and will most likely be granted, from 2015 and 2016.

How he goes about doing this will be interesting - he says that the arrangements for both clubs will continue but that is dividing the state - so 2016 will be a good time to see what is can be done.

But 2016 will not see a new Tasmanian team, so he is looking at Haw or NM to play 3 games in both Launceston and Hobart? What club is going to agree with that? Will a club be forced? How would NM be forced to play more games there when they couldn't force them up to the Gold Coast 5 years ago?

I think 2016 will roll around and the status quo will remain.

Feel free to bump this if I am wrong.

I think this issue is dormant for a while...

This quote is the one that you are refusing to acknowledge;

"We have an ideal model which is a single team representing Tasmania. Who that is and what format that takes is a complex question," McLachlan told The Mercury.

Why would they want Hawthorn being the single team that plays 6-8 home games down there when their Melbourne home games attract decent crowds?

With the AFL now taking over the management of AFLT, it'll be a lot easier for Gill to dictate who does what in the apple isle.

2016 won't change? As I have been saying, 2016 is the perfect storm, this from Gill aswell;

"Everyone understands (the Hawks) have another two years on their contract to run and I feel very confident North Melbourne will renew their arrangement for at least another couple of years in Hobart and the appropriate time to review that will be post-2016."

What else finishes at the end of 2016? TV rights.

Interesting you post a link, but can you provide me the one that states he doesn't think there will be a Tasmanian team in the next 10 years.

  On 02/05/2014 at 01:34, billy2803 said:

This quote is the one that you are refusing to acknowledge;

"We have an ideal model which is a single team representing Tasmania. Who that is and what format that takes is a complex question," McLachlan told The Mercury.

Why would they want Hawthorn being the single team that plays 6-8 home games down there when their Melbourne home games attract decent crowds?

With the AFL now taking over the management of AFLT, it'll be a lot easier for Gill to dictate who does what in the apple isle.

2016 won't change? As I have been saying, 2016 is the perfect storm, this from Gill aswell;

"Everyone understands (the Hawks) have another two years on their contract to run and I feel very confident North Melbourne will renew their arrangement for at least another couple of years in Hobart and the appropriate time to review that will be post-2016."

What else finishes at the end of 2016? TV rights.

Interesting you post a link, but can you provide me the one that states he doesn't think there will be a Tasmanian team in the next 10 years.

I did acknowledge the 'single team' desire. But I don't think they envision Hawthorn there. I think they want to use the Tas Govt money as an equalisation measure for NM.

It would be a boon for NM to play 6 games there and get the money that has made Hawthorn a powerhouse.

As for the 'no Tassie team for 10 years' link: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-30/tassie-team-a-long-way-off

I think 2016 will bring some decisions but I think it will be the AFL trying to pressure the Tas govt and NM to play 6 games a season there in both Hobart and Launceston.

Time will tell.

Sounds very plausible ^^

  On 02/05/2014 at 02:27, rpfc said:

I did acknowledge the 'single team' desire. But I don't think they envision Hawthorn there. I think they want to use the Tas Govt money as an equalisation measure for NM.

It would be a boon for NM to play 6 games there and get the money that has made Hawthorn a powerhouse.

As for the 'no Tassie team for 10 years' link: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-30/tassie-team-a-long-way-off

I think 2016 will bring some decisions but I think it will be the AFL trying to pressure the Tas govt and NM to play 6 games a season there in both Hobart and Launceston.

Time will tell.

No mention of not relocating a current team, other than the possibility of a Victorian-based team playing more than half of their home games down there.

I do appreciate you finally realising that a new team based in Tasmania doesn't automatically mean that it will be a 19th team. Only taken about 12 months for that penny to drop.

I presume you haven't heard from your relative about anything going on down there?

  On 30/04/2014 at 02:11, iv said:

Gil might now be able to say, I apologise over that farce of a press conference on the Melbourne tanking affair, but Vlad put me up to it in an effort to save face. Now I am in the chair, I promise such a charade will never happen again.

On sen he said that our penalty was unjust as there was no rule there.

Get the transcript we should appeal