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?

The latest thing I heard was that Gillon was not the person they wanted to see in as CEO.

As for 'relocation' Billy - this is simply a consolidation of what we have now. Instead of two teams playing 6 games, it will be one team.

Whether or not NM will agree to it is another question.

But it is far more likely than moving a team down there permanently, or starting a new team there. Which, I was assuming, was your prediction/fear?

Or was I mistaken?

The latest thing I heard was that Gillon was not the person they wanted to see in as CEO.

As for 'relocation' Billy - this is simply a consolidation of what we have now. Instead of two teams playing 6 games, it will be one team.

Whether or not NM will agree to it is another question.

But it is far more likely than moving a team down there permanently, or starting a new team there. Which, I was assuming, was your prediction/fear?

Or was I mistaken?

My prediction is, and always has been, that there will be a Tasmanian team playing in the AFL at some stage in the future. I have come up with many different scenarios, which mostly revolved around a current club relocating. A number of the scenariors are quite complex, which ironically was the word that Gill mentioned in his interview.

The "fear" I have is that the MFC aren't immune to a potential relocation. We werr/are the first of the Victorian clubs that have had AFL people employed to get us right, so we need to make sure we do just that.

You think a team, who will play greater than 50% of their home games in a different state, won't end up being based down there? Wow.

The club in question won't have any say. The poor clubs are jumping up and down for equalisation, the big clubs don't want to give too much of their wealth away. If North try and knock back the AFL's package but in the next breath cry out for equalisation, I'm sure the big clubs would REALLY love that. Imagine Eddie if North knocked back a mulit million dollar deal to play 6 home games in Tassie, then went to the AFL asking for some of Collingwood's money as an equaliser.

I think I know who Gill will bow to.

You think a team, who will play greater than 50% of their home games in a different state, won't end up being based down there? Wow.

There is a rubicon between playing 6 games down there and being relocated down there entirely and you know it.

Hawthorn play 4 games down there but still manage to have 13 games in Melbourne with 11 of those at the G.

The scenario would be similar with NM - if they were to have 6 games in Tas.

The AFL would 'fixture' them to have 11 Melbourne games, 6 Tas games and 5 travel games.

That is not relocation, setting aside my tongue-in-cheek response surrounding Hawthorn's relocation...

As has been mentioned by plenty before, player retention is the biggest obstacle of all when considering a team in Tassie.

It's a lovely place to visit, but being a realist, how many kids of AFL-player-age want to be based in Tassie?

You think players don't want to stay in Adelaide, Brisbane or GWS?

Also, just thinking about the AFL taking early control over Etihad Stadium...

I think we might find ourselves (MFC) allocated a lot more home games there once that happens.

With minimal overheads, when a poor crowd is expected, I think the AFL would rather not make as much profit in gate takings, than actually lose money due to payments being owed to the MCC for an undersized crowd.

Might be good for us too, if the majority of takings are pure profit.

Except our supporters will have to trek out to the Etihad wasteland.

Also, just thinking about the AFL taking early control over Etihad Stadium...

I think we might find ourselves (MFC) allocated a lot more home games there once that happens.

With minimal overheads, when a poor crowd is expected, I think the AFL would rather not make as much profit in gate takings, than actually lose money due to payments being owed to the MCC for an undersized crowd.

Might be good for us too, if the majority of takings are pure profit.

Except our supporters will have to trek out to the Etihad wasteland.

We would want to be performing way better than the last seven years or that would be the end for me.

Why on Earth would go that land of crap most weeks to watch losing games, I would even struggle going there if we were winning.

Hmm that is crap I would go if were winning the majority.