Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

It's coming

The AFL doesn't want it simply because they believe they have Tassie locked up without further cutting the pie.

The politics around delay will be fascinating.

10 teams in Melbourne ???

I love that they form a commission who comes back to report that they need:

1. 7-8 million per season in Government funding - which in fairness they currently get rorted for by Hawthorn and North.

2. I'm guessing at least 500 Million for a 30k stadium in the middle of Hobart because the recently renovated 20k stadium a short paddle away is suddenly inadequate. Even though they confirm games will be split so it's probably 7-8 games in Hobart per season.

Tassie should have a team but I'm against 19 teams, against merger/relocations and every year that the Suns and Giants exist for makes it very unlikely they get moved.

My advice - get Tassie back in the VFL and build a footy club with fans, volunteers, depth players, local heroes. Build something organic from the ground up rather than everything based around big chunks of cash.

 

While I'm in full support of a Tasmanian side, the AFL lost its chance years ago, when they were trying to force North to Queensland.

Sadly, for the Tasmanians, the economics still don't stack up.  $7-8M from the government?  Clubs currently get $1M per game for those games in Shanghai, NT, NZ etc.  So double that amount and you might be in the ball park..

Split between North and South?  As DeeSpencer has pointed out, spending big bucks on an oval that will be used only for 7-8 games ( if they are lucky) in Hobart means either the stadium won't be built or the games in Launceston won't happen. 

Still with an election in the next couple of years, there is plenty of opportunity for pork barrelling ( again, and from either side). 

A few semi random thoughts:

*  Perhaps Tassie should push for a AFLW team, build and establish a following from there.  Could take on it's own momentum and force the AFL's hand.  I don't think establishing a Tassie VFL side would be much use as it wouldn't attract anything like the same media attention and would be like conceding that a Tassie side would be perennially relegated to the minor league.

*  I don't think an AFL side would have any problems attracting and retaining tallent.

*  Taking the millions of dollars in sponsorship away from Hawthorn (and perhaps a few of their members/supporters too) would be almost as good as establishing a Tassie team in it's self.  This reason alone should be enough for at least 16 other clubs to support a Tassie team.


I think the AFL need to go BANG during an off season and just do it. Get the ground work done quiety before and then anounce a Tassie team. Too much public/media navel gazing for months or years on end will dilute the effectiveness of such a move. Can the AFL be trusted to do it properly? Unfortunately I think it means one Vic club will not exist in its current form. 

This is about re election and has no basis in reality!

The economics of this proposal make no sense...you can;'t split the home games or you won't make enough money on the gate half the time!

 

The government are expected to ship in 7-8M a year....wait until Tassie has another economic downturn and the opposing political party withdraws or reduces funding coming into election for essential services! 

Its a joke that people think the AFL would happily allow a new club into the league they know won't ever be viable whilst also adding to commercial value to TV rights deals as people in Tassie already watch the footy, so the question is how does this make the league better or add value? 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Dee Watcher said:

=

Its a joke that people think the AFL would happily allow a new club into the league they know won't ever be viable whilst also adding to commercial value to TV rights deals as people in Tassie already watch the footy, so the question is how does this make the league better or add value? 

 

 

 

Astonishing that people are falling for the won't be viable line. Seriously, when do you think GWS or GC will be viable in their own right?

A Tassie team (some say they'll be the Tassie Tigers, or Tassie Devils...but me, I say call them the Tassie Maps) is inevitable, and fully deserved. Tassie has supplied more champions than its relatively small population would suggest likely. The game is (used to be) loved down there, but the truth is, it is in trouble and a Tassie team would help restore its status If you don't believe it's in trouble consider that Burnie, one of the teams that ushered Russell Robertson into our ranks, no longer has a team. The suggestion that Tasmania will always support the game is ignorant of what is happening.

As for viable, viable is what the AFL decides is viable. They propped us up, they are propping up the expansion clubs and they have the capacity to prop up Tasmania while it develops its team. Incidentally, there are already climate change refugees already bolstering its population which is increasing, hence its economic capacity is rising also. 

Another reason for liking a genuine Tasmanian team is that it pulls some millions out of two of our competitors.

Car'n the Maps of Tasmania!!

 

 

Can happen ;

AFL Boss wants it?

A Tassie Team will not just be people living in Tasmania as members. There are thousands of Tasmanians living in other States

Like me I'll always be a Dees Member, but would also become a Tassie member

The Team will be exposed on the national front, and will attract National Sponsors, plus Tasmanian business

Over 45000 Tasmanians already indicated their financial support

GWS and Suns have been given zillions , + Draft concessions to succeed.

Tassie has produced more champions per capita than any other state. Ever heard of Hudson, Hart, Baldock, Robertson,  Stewart, Sutton Lawrence, Lynch, to name a very few and apologies to the many I've not mentioned? Even Nieta was born there.

6 million in Melbourne supporting 10 teams,  (600,000) per team, roughly the pop of Tasmania , plus those living interstate

It can happen, just need 'a coalition of the willing!'

It wont happen but North to play all their away games in Tasmania and all their home games in Melbourne would be a sensible solution. Base the team admin in Tasmania and transition the playing group over say five years.

We all know something like this is needed.


3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

 

Split between North and South?  As DeeSpencer has pointed out, spending big bucks on an oval that will be used only for 7-8 games ( if they are lucky) in Hobart means either the stadium won't be built or the games in Launceston won't happen. 

 

You mean like Kardinia Park where the cats play regularly to less than full crowds in a 35 ish thousand capacity stadium.

Geelong has sucked huge capital from govt into the stadium for elite users - despite the spin its for the community too, at the expense of more worthwhile projects in the city

45 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

It wont happen but North to play all their away games in Tasmania and all their home games in Melbourne would be a sensible solution. Base the team admin in Tasmania and transition the playing group over say five years.

We all know something like this is needed.

sensible? you must be kidding

Bespoke Guernsey design concept, complete with Sponsor

1749130386_BespokeTassieAFlGuernsey_001.jpeg.139a65272edc8682c0b6b6e966e59d68.jpeg

Yes, back to my day job (best keep it).

Edited by TRIGON

10 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Bespoke Guernsey design concept, complete with Sponsor

1749130386_BespokeTassieAFlGuernsey_001.jpeg.139a65272edc8682c0b6b6e966e59d68.jpeg

Yes, back to my day job (best keep it).

good start.......but need to get the maroon in too

Colours of Tasmania
Sporting colours
Bottle green PMS colour 342
Yellow PMS colour 114
Maroon PMS colour 194

Lived in Hobart for a few years. The divide between Launceston and Hobart is the sole reason it won't work. Tassie population is around 300,000. 10% of the population will need to sign up. Could a stadium at Ross, halfway between both cities with an updated rail to the stadium work? 

Green Bay only have a population of 100,000 and they have a rather successful NFL team. 

Tassie could also pull a Geelong and hide some talent from the draft.


The AFL can't afford to prop up another team particular one that add's no commercial value tot he league or its sponsors.

Based on the changing viewing habits of the Under 40's there is a very strong chance the next TV rights deal will be less than the previous one so the AFL taking on a 3rd afl run/owed club would be financial suicide particularly if the Tassie Government has a chance of heart and doesn't want to stump up the cash any longer.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dee Watcher said:

The AFL can't afford to prop up another team particular one that add's no commercial value tot he league or its sponsors.

Based on the changing viewing habits of the Under 40's there is a very strong chance the next TV rights deal will be less than the previous one so the AFL taking on a 3rd afl run/owed club would be financial suicide particularly if the Tassie Government has a chance of heart and doesn't want to stump up the cash any longer.

 

 

Forget about all the economics and set up a Tasmanian team now! Tasmania deserve it and if you don't want a team from Tassie, don't call yourself the "Australian " football league.

This is not a national competition now. Without a team from Tassie, it will never be.

 

1 hour ago, Dee Watcher said:

The AFL can't afford to prop up another team particular one that add's no commercial value tot he league or its sponsors.

Based on the changing viewing habits of the Under 40's there is a very strong chance the next TV rights deal will be less than the previous one so the AFL taking on a 3rd afl run/owed club would be financial suicide particularly if the Tassie Government has a chance of heart and doesn't want to stump up the cash any longer.

 

 

Who says they can't afford it? 

The AFL right now is one big get rich scheme for the executives of the league (and clubs) and for the players.

If everyone involved in the AFL industry took a 10% pay cut they'd all be perfectly fine.

The greatest threat to the game is over-commercialisation and not lack of funds. 

 That said, there's very little benefit to adding a 19th team that doesn't improve the leagues finances and 20 teams would spread the talent terribly thin, hence the best way to achieve a Tassie team is to build it from the ground up and demand inclusion on the back of people power.


Just can't see HQ actually ever giving it the go-ahead. Most of us here already support another team and would most likely not buy memberships for both.

I would go to a few Hobart games but would not go to Launceston - games there are always horrible. Not going to the Marsh game on March 6 as I have a Bucks in Hobart on the 7th.

6 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

A few semi random thoughts:

*  Perhaps Tassie should push for a AFLW team, build and establish a following from there.  Could take on it's own momentum and force the AFL's hand.  I don't think establishing a Tassie VFL side would be much use as it wouldn't attract anything like the same media attention and would be like conceding that a Tassie side would be perennially relegated to the minor league.

*  I don't think an AFL side would have any problems attracting and retaining tallent.

*  Taking the millions of dollars in sponsorship away from Hawthorn (and perhaps a few of their members/supporters too) would be almost as good as establishing a Tassie team in it's self.  This reason alone should be enough for at least 16 other clubs to support a Tassie team.

Logical and enticing.

2 hours ago, Youngwilliam said:

Lived in Hobart for a few years. The divide between Launceston and Hobart is the sole reason it won't work. Tassie population is around 300,000. 10% of the population will need to sign up. Could a stadium at Ross, halfway between both cities with an updated rail to the stadium work? 

Green Bay only have a population of 100,000 and they have a rather successful NFL team. 

Tassie could also pull a Geelong and hide some talent from the draft.

http://www.population.net.au/population-of-tasmania/  you must have lived here a couple of decades ago! :)

 

I know it goes against modern trends and the current AFL ethos, but I'd rather they subsidise a team in Tassie where people are footy mad (and deserve a team) than try to build a second team in states where no one gives a damn.

7 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

While I'm in full support of a Tasmanian side,

✔️

7 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Split between North and South?  As DeeSpencer has pointed out, spending big bucks on an oval that will be used only for 7-8 games ( if they are lucky) in Hobart means either the stadium won't be built or the games in Launceston won't happen. 

Launceston IMO is the wrong location, the past cheap-alternative, of one size fits all.  It doersn't work....  they do need two grounds imv,  one in either Burnie or Devonport.   I would go for Devonport,  so all can travel from across Tasmania, to get there.

Devonport & Hobart home grounds.

 

7 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Still with an election in the next couple of years, there is plenty of opportunity for pork barrelling ( again, and from either side). 

There is hope , and Tassy is a growing market,  with an influx of people moving there.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 528 replies