Tasmanian Team

[Pates 9,537]

17 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Jeez the Hawks and North have a MASSIVE conflict of interest on this vote to the point it makes it farcical. GC and GWS as well because suddenly they won’t be the bouncing baby boys of the the AFL. 

[FritschyBusiness 1,455]

I don't know if there is enough of a pool of talent for a 19th team to be competitive. 

[Mickey 4,188]

23 hours ago, Pates said:

Jeez the Hawks and North have a MASSIVE conflict of interest on this vote to the point it makes it farcical. GC and GWS as well because suddenly they won’t be the bouncing baby boys of the the AFL. 

Tassie Govt should just not sponsor them. No money, whether we get a team or not. Then sign a sponsorship with a team that agrees to vote for a Tassie team

[tiers 2,783]

Given that the AFL already support GWS and GGS who operate in large markets, how can anyone realistically suggest that the AFL should also support a team in Tasmania that has a small population, divided major cities and no large corporate entities to sponsor a footy team.

It is a pipe dream (it's like Tasmania can now wear long pants without growing up) and should be shot down at once or the other 18 teams will be bled for years.

[FritschyBusiness 1,455]

2 hours ago, tiers said:

Given that the AFL already support GWS and GGS who operate in large markets, how can anyone realistically suggest that the AFL should also support a team in Tasmania that has a small population, divided major cities and no large corporate entities to sponsor a footy team.

It is a pipe dream (it's like Tasmania can now wear long pants without growing up) and should be shot down at once or the other 18 teams will be bled for years.

I agree, it is very difficult.
It's taken 10 seasons to get membership bases of  GC - 19,460 (pop 700k) and GWS - 30,185. (pop 400k)

Hobart has about half the population of Canberra so it would have to convert about 65% of their town into members to get even close to 30,000 members 

I think you'd have to have their homebase in Hobart and play 3 home games in Launceston.
Then you can sell 3 game memberships to Lonnies residents.  Kind of like how GWS play some games at Manuka Oval every year. 

The Tasmanian government would probably be the first and main sponsor.
They wouldn't continue supporting Hawthorn if they have their own team. 

[Binmans PA 26,301]

What are your thoughts @Nasher?

[Nasher 33,133]

5 minutes ago, A F said:

What are your thoughts @Nasher?

I think pragmatically the AFL argument makes sense; everyone who would follow footy here already does, we're an AFL state. Anyone who jumped aboard the new team would be abandoning their existing team. It just dilutes the pool for the existing clubs. For me personally, I already have a team. I wouldn't jump ship. I already have a team I barrack for and I'm in way too deep to change now. It's embedded in my DNA now. I know plenty of supporters of other clubs who feel the same.

I'm pretty meh about it. I don't really care one way or the other. I wouldn't go watch them play unless they were playing Melbourne, in which case I'd barrack against them. I think there's also a chance people will get all excited about it for a few years and then numbers will drop right off, especially if the team had a few lean years. I probably wouldn't bother with it if I were the AFL.

[Fat Tony 4,469]

I don't think Melbourne will gain any benefit from the inclusion of a Tasmanian team. The inequitable distribution of supporters across the league and the power of the AFLPA means that the rich clubs are in effect subsidising the existence of the poor clubs (including Melbourne). While the AFL and AFLPA are currently supportive of this model, the current leadership may change and we need to be aware of this.

Adding Tasmania would not increase revenue for the competition at all and would be a major cost. 

I get the romantic notion behind Tasmania entering the competition, but self interest means we should vote against a new side entering the competition IMO.

[Jaded No More 58,683]

28 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I think pragmatically the AFL argument makes sense; everyone who would follow footy here already does, we're an AFL state. Anyone who jumped aboard the new team would be abandoning their existing team. It just dilutes the pool for the existing clubs. For me personally, I already have a team. I wouldn't jump ship. I already have a team I barrack for and I'm in way too deep to change now. It's embedded in my DNA now. I know plenty of supporters of other clubs who feel the same.

I'm pretty meh about it. I don't really care one way or the other. I wouldn't go watch them play unless they were playing Melbourne, in which case I'd barrack against them. I think there's also a chance people will get all excited about it for a few years and then numbers will drop right off, especially if the team had a few lean years. I probably wouldn't bother with it if I were the AFL.

What about the younger generation.

Would your kids follow a new team? or would they follow Melbourne still?

What about kids of parents who don't have an affiliation to a club already? 

[Gawndy the Great 7,645]

No doubt this will be a largely an unpopular view, but in the interest of further nationalising the AFL, something has to give out of the Victorian heartland. We just have to many Victorian based clubs in the AFL. 

In the next 1-2 decades I would love to see a comp that fielded 3 teams in WA & SA ; 2 from QLD and NSW; 1 in Tassie; 1 in NT; 1 in ACT and the rest (5) in VIC. I am not delusional on the likelihood of this happening as it will require the relocation of several Victorian AFL licenses. Sadly this would mean Norf, WB, Saints & MFC at this stage would be the ones that would be most at risk (based on membership numbers alone) to relocate - that is just my opinion. 

I wouldn't mess with the number of team (18) in the comp, i think this is somewhat set in stone. The Suns issue can be resolved once they break the stalemate of success. All it will take is a few finals appearances and success - GWS has amassed 30K members and a lot of that is recently due to the GF appearance. Dont forget that the GC is the fastest growing city in Australia, so there is definitely no limit on commercial benefits available, which is why the AFL targeted the GC in the first place.  

I hope the first step is giving Tassie a team. I think Norf are in the driver's seat here. One poster suggested a fixturing option which would see a portion of away games based in Melbourne, that would give something to the local members - but no doubt the relocation will drive most of their supports away from AFL all together - albeit it will only be a temporary. 

[BDA 20,421]

6 hours ago, FritschyBusiness said:

I don't know if there is enough of a pool of talent for a 19th team to be competitive. 

There isn't enough talent for an 18th team as it is

[Diamond_Jim 11,941]

The League needs/wants the Tassie government money.

Next move is for Tassie to wedge the AFL.

Then the behind the scenes games play out.

Hawks will lose their easy money... that's a certainty

Where will North end up... financially does it matter as they will always be an AFL supported club just like GCS etc.

Left field... watch for NT and Tassie getting togehter to put on the big squeeze

[drdrake 3,047]

If the AFL want to expand any further they will need to head down an NFL divisional and conference system.  You play your teams in your Div twice and everyone else once, 23 games in a season.  The Victorian teams make up 1 conference the others sides another.  

Eastern

St Kilda/Hawthorn/Melbourne/Richmond/Collingwood

South

North/Bulldogs/Geelong/Carlton/Essendon

North

Bne/GC/Syd/GWS/Tassie

West

WCE/Freo/Adl/Port/NT

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2021 by drdrake

[tiers 2,783]

Tasmanians are already committed to existing clubs and the state is too small to host a new team.

One the other hand if a Melbourne based team can be convinced/cajoled/coaxed/compelled to move across Bass Strait in the hope of picking up an extra supporter base, then it might work. A joint Victorian and Tasmanian partnership playing home games in Hobart, Launceston and Melbourne. North stand out as the obvious first, last and only choice.

When considering whether or not Tassie can support a team on its own, there is a relationship between population (proxy for money) and the number of national tier 1 competition teams (AFL and NFL) that can be supported. It takes minimum of 500,000 population to support one tier 1 team and Tassie barely qualifies.

Tier 2 and 3 competitions such as NBL, A-league, netball, AFLW and the multitude of cricket formats are more appropriate. They should stick to the lower tiers.

[tiers 2,783]

18 teams can be made to work by adopting the following format. Each team plays every other team once (alternating home and away each year).

After 17 rounds the 18 teams are divided into 3 groups of 6 teams along the following lines: 1,4,7,10,13,16; 2,5,8,11,14,17: 3,6,9,12,15,18 to maintain relativities.

Each group then plays a round-robin 5 match series and the wins and percentages are added to the ladder after 17 rounds. Because the groups are similar in composition, no one team should get an advantage in the race for the finals.

Introduce a bye after 17 rounds for the the draw to be sorted out, another bye after 22 rounds for the annual awards such as Brownlow, MVP, rising start and coaches. A further bye before the grand final will give teams the best chance to be fit and rested. Total so far is 25 weeks. With a March start this should be doable.

The finals should also be enhanced with two groups namely 1,3,5,7 and 2,4,6,8. Each team plays a round robin over three weeks (4 games every week) to select the top side in each group based on wins and percentage in the final series. My preference would be for all games in week 3 to be played at the same time so the results cannot be gamed.

It's a major change but can be done and will provide much more interest and excitement.

 

[daisycutter 28,640]

11 minutes ago, tiers said:

18 teams can be made to work by adopting the following format. Each team plays every other team once (alternating home and away each year).

After 17 rounds the 18 teams are divided into 3 groups of 6 teams along the following lines: 1,4,7,10,13,16; 2,5,8,11,14,17: 3,6,9,12,15,18 to maintain relativities.

Each group then plays a round-robin 5 match series and the wins and percentages are added to the ladder after 17 rounds. Because the groups are similar in composition, no one team should get an advantage in the race for the finals.

Introduce a bye after 17 rounds for the the draw to be sorted out, another bye after 22 rounds for the annual awards such as Brownlow, MVP, rising start and coaches. A further bye before the grand final will give teams the best chance to be fit and rested. Total so far is 25 weeks. With a March start this should be doable.

The finals should also be enhanced with two groups namely 1,3,5,7 and 2,4,6,8. Each team plays a round robin over three weeks (4 games every week) to select the top side in each group based on wins and percentage in the final series. My preference would be for all games in week 3 to be played at the same time so the results cannot be gamed.

It's a major change but can be done and will provide much more interest and excitement.

 

not too bad

need to change the split into 3 groups rules. as it is group 1 > group 2 > group 3.  i.e. group 3 has easiest run in last 5 games.

 

[Supermercado 2,643]

2 hours ago, CYB said:

No doubt this will be a largely an unpopular view, but in the interest of further nationalising the AFL, something has to give out of the Victorian heartland. We just have to many Victorian based clubs in the AFL. 

And why do we need to further nationalise the AFL in the first place? Tasmania is a borderline case, Canberra would be even worse, any idea of an NT team is comical, and extra WA/SA sides would be an eyes-closed punt and hope for the best which might reach the level of revenue and support of the worst Victorian sides in a decade if they're lucky. What's the point?

[daisycutter 28,640]

1 minute ago, Supermercado said:

And why do we need to further nationalise the AFL in the first place? Tasmania is a borderline case, Canberra would be even worse, any idea of an NT team is comical, and extra WA/SA sides would be an eyes-closed punt and hope for the best which might reach the level of revenue and support of the worst Victorian sides in a decade if they're lucky. What's the point?

probably romanticism.......lol

[Gawndy the Great 7,645]

19 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

And why do we need to further nationalise the AFL in the first place? Tasmania is a borderline case, Canberra would be even worse, any idea of an NT team is comical, and extra WA/SA sides would be an eyes-closed punt and hope for the best which might reach the level of revenue and support of the worst Victorian sides in a decade if they're lucky. What's the point?

Disrupt or be disrupted. Just because this model works today doesn't mean it will be sustainable and the right model moving into the future. There are countless business examples how leading organisations no longer exist today because they think they were untouchable.

The AFL has been gifted the number 1 spot in the country, not by any other reason other than the incompetency of the other codes. I mean just look at all the issues the AFL faces today - poor umpiring, fixturing, Victoria bias, dwindling junior participation, concussion etc. Any half decent leadership in Australian Soccer would have wiped AFL and the other codes off the map. It is only a matter of time until it regroups and mounts another serious challenge - imagine if Australia were to host a World Cup in the next decade or so. 

If you cannot provide a pathway and community in the major cities , then other codes will and that will give them the springboard to launch into the other cities. 

As i said, i knew my position would be unpopular, but we need to further nationalise in the best interest of the game.

[daisycutter 28,640]

8 minutes ago, CYB said:

Disrupt or be disrupted. Just because this model works today doesn't mean it will be sustainable and the right model moving into the future. There are countless business examples how leading organisations no longer exist today because they think they were untouchable.

The AFL has been gifted the number 1 spot in the country, not by any other reason other than the incompetency of the other codes. I mean just look at all the issues the AFL faces today - poor umpiring, fixturing, Victoria bias, dwindling junior participation, concussion etc. Any half decent leadership in Australian Soccer would have wiped AFL and the other codes off the map. It is only a matter of time until it regroups and mounts another serious challenge - imagine if Australia were to host a World Cup in the next decade or so. 

If you cannot provide a pathway and community in the major cities , then other codes will and that will give them the springboard to launch into the other cities. 

As i said, i knew my position would be unpopular, but we need to further nationalise in the best interest of the game.

all very well and good...........but none of those other codes are a patch on aussie rules as a game and spectacle

[Longsufferingnomore 1,484]

Highly unlikely that there will be a new team in Tasmania for two reasons:

The AFL have told the Clubs that they will all lose $$$ from the AFL to finance a new Club and secondly the Broadcast deal is based on increased viewing in NSW and Queensland. As far as TV RIghts go, Tasmania are seen not to have the viewing numbers. You can imagine the Clubs reaction to possibly having their distributions decreased. However I think the real killer is the Broadcast deal.

So unless you can get around those two deterrents the only way I can see a Tasmanian team entering the AFL is if the Tasmanian Government is proposing to completely finance a new team or a current Melbourne team is to be relocated. Then there is the usual (and current) allowances made in drafting etc. Emotionally I would love to see a Tasmanian side join the AFL but the AFL has not got an ounce of emotion in their collective body.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,945]

3 hours ago, BDA said:

There isn't enough talent for an 18th team as it is

💯, plus a rotating bye round is ridiculous and no to conferences. 
 

Im failing to understand the constant need to mess with the greatest game the world has ever seen.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,945]

North can make the move south.

[Diamond_Jim 11,941]

2 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

North can make the move south.

Tassie don't want them

unfortunate but true...

sure you could move them down there but they would get little by way of immediate loyalty.

To give it a chance of working you would need to ensure that all the marquee Melbourne clubs are sent down there to play (yeah that will happen)  and the AFL would need to give them a heap of early draft picks plus the tasmanina zone (probably would happen

[Rab D Nesbitt 7,322]

I'm not against there being a side in Tasmania but every time I've been down there for a game the place has been a ghost town on the Sunday and you can't get a decent pub that opens before 4pm. Then again AFL footballers probably have different motivations.