Tasmanian Hawks

[BDA 23,048]

17 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

..that's the truth.  Post Covid, we have 12 teams on AFL support.  Port, St.Kilda, North, GC, GWS all up to their ears in debt.  There is not the slightest chance the AFL will bankroll another team. 

Tassie's biggest chance is GC.  They have no supporters and operate in an area where no-one cares about any sport.  Rugby and basketball have failed there, AFL will be the same.  Just have to wait until Gil has gone, so that everyone can see the folly of throwing millions in an area with no market.  At least GWS is in a decent population base....

The other possible option is for the Tassie government to fully subsidise the team, no support from AFL HQ. Put up or shut up. Even then I don’t think there’s an appetite amongst the rest of the league for an odd 19^th team.

I feel for them, they deserve a team and I understand why they’ve had enough of handing money over to the Hawks and North. Unfortunately their timing couldn’t be worse.

[Left Foot Snap 2,610]

6 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

The other possible option is for the Tassie government to fully subsidise the team, no support from AFL HQ. Put up or shut up. Even then I don’t think there’s an appetite amongst the rest of the league for an odd 19^th team.

I feel for them, they deserve a team and I understand why they’ve had enough of handing money over to the Hawks and North. Unfortunately their timing couldn’t be worse.

I think Tassie's timing is pretty good. The money they hand over probably means more at the moment as it will not be easily replaced, and it is not like they are demanding a team immediately, just an undertaking. If I were Tassie I would feel pretty sick of handing over good money as a future investment only be be constantly shunned in expansion plans because they are already a cash cow. Would love to see them pull the money and have the narrative change for a while. AFL will soon come crawling back to them for another deal.

[58er 6,872]

16 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

The other possible option is for the Tassie government to fully subsidise the team, no support from AFL HQ. Put up or shut up. Even then I don’t think there’s an appetite amongst the rest of the league for an odd 19^th team.

I feel for them, they deserve a team and I understand why they’ve had enough of handing money over to the Hawks and North. Unfortunately their timing couldn’t be worse.

Forgot Lions who are in double digit millions debt. Have been since late '2000'S really.

AFL are subsidising them each year also.

Has improved a bit now that they are in the top 4 Clubs!

[Biffen 12,949]

I like the sound of "The Christchurch Hawks".

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 11,064]

22 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

Right and that is why they still sell more home games then any other team in history, because there fine, I bet lots of those members are arm chair members, because their crowd numbers don't support those membership numbers.

 

23 hours ago, 58er said:

The 85,000 members that have signed up Consistently lately

I wounder how well that 85,000 would hold up if Hawthorn have a 10 - 15 years like we did from 2007 - 2017, because there current list management decision-making puts them on that kind of trajectory.

[BDA 23,048]

1 hour ago, Left Foot Snap said:

I think Tassie's timing is pretty good. The money they hand over probably means more at the moment as it will not be easily replaced, and it is not like they are demanding a team immediately, just an undertaking. If I were Tassie I would feel pretty sick of handing over good money as a future investment only be be constantly shunned in expansion plans because they are already a cash cow. Would love to see them pull the money and have the narrative change for a while. AFL will soon come crawling back to them for another deal.

You could be right LFS and if the Tassie government think the same I wouldn’t wait for an undertaking. Take the plunge now and go it alone. I wouldn’t want a re-branded Hawks or North and I’d let the Suns die on the Gold Coast. Create your own authentic Tassie team.

The AFL talks the talk about fairness and inclusivity. If the team is financially underwritten by the Tassie government then hard to conceive of a reason to exclude the Tasmanians.

[Diamond_Jim 12,773]

18 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

You could be right LFS and if the Tassie government think the same I wouldn’t wait for an undertaking. Take the plunge now and go it alone. I wouldn’t want a re-branded Hawks or North and I’d let the Suns die on the Gold Coast. Create your own authentic Tassie team.

The AFL talks the talk about fairness and inclusivity. If the team is financially underwritten by the Tassie government then hard to conceive of a reason to exclude the Tasmanians.

no one wants a 19th team and there certainly isn't room for 20.

[BDA 23,048]

10 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

no one wants a 19th team and there certainly isn't room for 20.

That’s true but the gold coast folly can’t continue much longer. Reminds me a little of the situation with Tokyo Olympic committee. Nobody wants to make the inevitable decision.

[daisycutter 30,021]

2 hours ago, Better days ahead said:

The other possible option is for the Tassie government to fully subsidise the team, no support from AFL HQ. Put up or shut up. Even then I don’t think there’s an appetite amongst the rest of the league for an odd 19^th team.

I feel for them, they deserve a team and I understand why they’ve had enough of handing money over to the Hawks and North. Unfortunately their timing couldn’t be worse.

tas gov has said the $8m they currently give dorks/norf would go to a new tassie side

[Sir Why You Little 37,458]

48 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

no one wants a 19th team and there certainly isn't room for 20.

I didn’t want 18,but that doesn’t stop The AFL

But i very much doubt there will be new teams for quite a while, after 2020 Covid 

[Diamond_Jim 12,773]

1 hour ago, Better days ahead said:

That’s true but the gold coast folly can’t continue much longer. Reminds me a little of the situation with Tokyo Olympic committee. Nobody wants to make the inevitable decision.

I'm with you but the business case for throwing money away is more easily made with GCS.

You need at least $40M to field an AFL team without subsidy. Tas government money provides $10m but given the low Tas population and the Launceston/Hobart split it would always need AFL money.

There's also the issue of weather plus at present it's a bit of a dumping ground in the sense that Hawks and Norf play the lesser teams down there.

The ideal for many would be for GCS to fold and Norf to merge.

A tasmanian team would be a wonderful thing but its forty years too late perhaps.

[dl4e 5,851]

7 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I think this is right. The Tas premier has said that their sports grants should go to Tassie-branded teams, be it basketball, netball, soccer, Aussie Rules, rather than to colonising teams from the mainland propping up their finances, which doesn't really do anything for Tassie sport except allow a few tragics to watch live AFL.

The Tas sport-loving public seem to tolerate the colonisers from the mainland, but  I can't see the greater Tassie community embracing a transplanted club unless it's totally rebranded as the Tassie Somethings, where "something" is not Hawks or Kangaroos, and doesn't come in brown/gold or blue/white.

Tassie jumping jacks.

[In Harmes Way 7,870]

If GCS folded and moved to Tassie, I feel it would be an oxymoron to have the Hobart Suns 

[Redleg 42,178]

I wonder if the AFL have put Jeff up to this to force North’s hand.

 

[Demonstone 23,587]

Perhaps they could send Carlton to Tasmania and make them play at Wynyard.

They would, of course, be known as the "Wynie Blues".

[Pates 9,697]

This stance from Tassie could end up with a mini-ultimatum for GC from the AFL, get competitive or be prepared to relocate to the coldest part of Australia. 

The thing I wonder about is whether the AFL genuinely feel they are making headway with the Suns at winning supporters. If they do think it’s building then it’s worse pursuing over Tassie, because as much as it doesn’t seem right that Tassie have been dudded there isn’t room for growth there. So the only advantage with Tassie (should they take the opinion the Suns AREN’T gaining support) would be you maintain the 18 teams for TV rights and you get a team that would (surely) be more popular and closely followed than the Suns. 

I think North relocating has been done and dusted, despite their ongoing precarious position. The loss of income will really hurt them though.

The Hawks will not relocate, but I will have a little smirk about the hole in their budget. Perhaps they’ll have to do games in Darwin (that would be sensational to watch). 

[BScotti 178]

If there is no standalone team from Tassie, which will need to be heavily govt and AFL funded (unlikely due to current covid situation), then the only option is a relocation.

Given it is about a national competition the only option is to relocate a victorian club (Gold Coast and GWS are going nowhere).  The only options really are North and Hawks, and it wont be Hawks due to their long term success.  

North blew a huge opportunity when they were offerred a riduclous amount of money, players and draft concessions to relocate to Gold Coast.  They could have had another premiership by now.

I can only see a North relocation as the only long term viable solution for North, the national comp and footy in Tassie.  The sooner everyone gets on the same bandwagon the better for all concerned.

[darkhorse72 1,943]

What the tassie government needs to do is create a register of who will become a member of a tassie club.  If they can get say at least 50k they would have a strong foundation for their push.  The more they get the better obviously.  

If they do get their own team, how many members will the hawks (and North?) lose as don't they have a lot that take out the membership for the tassie games.  

Good luck to them.

[Clintosaurus 7,953]

17 hours ago, Redleg said:

I wonder if the AFL have put Jeff up to this to force North’s hand.

 

He is generally pretty calculated, so it is possible.

[Willmoy1947 4,261]

If any AFL Team have prospective ambitions moving to Tassie in the next two/three years i can see real problems starting off with playing games there this season let alone into the future.

[Pates 9,697]

14 hours ago, willmoy said:

If any AFL Team have prospective ambitions moving to Tassie in the next two/three years i can see real problems starting off with playing games there this season let alone into the future.

Realistically 5 years is the soonest I could see it happening, it makes sense for Tassie to aim for sooner rather than later but with the way the world is it’s just not going to happen that quickly without the AFL being 100% behind it. 

 

14 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

What the tassie government needs to do is create a register of who will become a member of a tassie club.  If they can get say at least 50k they would have a strong foundation for their push.  The more they get the better obviously.  

If they do get their own team, how many members will the hawks (and North?) lose as don't they have a lot that take out the membership for the tassie games.  

Good luck to them.

Absolutely agree, if they can get people to register (even put a down payment towards a membership) and there’s enough people interested it might just force the AFL’s hand. 

[deanox 10,070]

21 hours ago, BScotti said:

If there is no standalone team from Tassie, which will need to be heavily govt and AFL funded (unlikely due to current covid situation), then the only option is a relocation.

Given it is about a national competition the only option is to relocate a victorian club (Gold Coast and GWS are going nowhere).  The only options really are North and Hawks, and it wont be Hawks due to their long term success.  

North blew a huge opportunity when they were offerred a riduclous amount of money, players and draft concessions to relocate to Gold Coast.  They could have had another premiership by now.

I can only see a North relocation as the only long term viable solution for North, the national comp and footy in Tassie.  The sooner everyone gets on the same bandwagon the better for all concerned.

I agree with this.

There is no way the AFL will pull the plug on GWS or GCS, they are long term investments that are effectively intended to be loss leaders for the sake of growing the game in multi sport states.

19 teams won't happen. 20 isnt likely either and only happens if they push out to "play each team once". But there isn't enough money to go around post covid.

North have 1 foot in Tassie. Their AFLW team does too (they are officially called the North Melbourne Tasmanian Kangaroos).

North are surviving but don't have great prospects of thriving in the future. It's hard to say it but it is probably the best option for them.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 11,064]

Looks like Jeff's made Don Scott angry again:

‘Insulting’: Scott slams Kennett over Hawthorn relocation remarks

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/insulting-scott-slams-kennett-over-hawthorn-relocation-remarks-20210214-p572by.html

 

Wounder if it will be Don ripping the Tasmania logo off the Hawks jumper this time, or perhaps Don ripping Kennett out of the president's position?

Just as an asides, I think Jeff is a good fit as Hawthorn president as he embodies the arrogance and crassness of so many of their supporters.  It's like they deserve each other.

[dpositive 1,838]

Tasmanian financiers should just announce that due to Covid uncertainties they will place all funding into a future fund to assist the emergence of a Tasmanian based AFL team.

It will be an indicator of the financial strength of current AFL teams.

[george_on_the_outer 7,875]

In 2017-8.... 61% of TOTAL Tasmanian income was from Federal government and GST sources( from other states essentially). 

With a population of just over 500,000, they have zero chance of supporting an AFL side from their own resources.  The couple of million they sling to North and Hawthorn represent about 10% of the cost of running an AFL side. 

The AFL will not support another club, especially to the tune of 90%, when there is no prospect of improved TV income.  More so in the current environment ( the effects of which will continue for some years)