Tasmanian Hawks

[Ouch! 2,276]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:10 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

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

Not true to say no one wants a 19th team, most of the interested parties in Tassie do. I don't have a problem with a 19th team, we have 3 reduced 'bye' rounds now through the course of the year, list sizes are being reduced which should in a limited way assist with the dilution of talent across having more teams, and having more teams in the competition takes us closer to an equitable fixture.

• current roster (not factoring in COVID)=  9 x 22 rounds = 198 (minus finals)
• equitable roster for 20 team comp = 10 x 19 rounds = 190 games (minus finals)

Its a comparable product to sell for the media, it also allows the AFL some more flexibility in scheduling, and probably is attractive to the AFLPA for the reduced number of games. There are plenty of positives when extending the number of clubs.

[Ouch! 2,276]

49 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

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)

 

Gah that GST argument has bugger all bearing on this... the views of the 'larger states' who resent how the feds split up the GST revenue over the 'COMMONWEALTH'. SA, ACT and NT all receive more from other states than they put into the GST pool and it's more a factor of population (baring WA and the mining revenue) SA has two clubs and a population of 1.6-1.7 million?  so what makes Tassie so completion unviable with 500k for one team? Over the last 2-3 years Tasmania was the best or second best performing state in the country, factoring in stats like unemployment, business and housing growth...

How many clubs currently are completely self sufficient from needing income from the AFL? Tas looking at adopting a module similar to Geelong is what has been suggested in Tasmania with regards to stadium size etc. Geelong has a population of approximately 200k doesn't it?  Hobart is about 250k. 

I still question what the 'improved' TV income from growing into GWS and the GC markets?  There are markets there, but has it translated into bigger TV audiences?  I suspect that some of the perceived growth is offset by a lack of interest in VIC, SA and WA when their respective teams are playing those teams in empty stadiums. Problem is, ... it's not a good product to watch! The AFL says they are playing the long game in those markets, but they need strong teams, GWS has had success but if they slide down there would be concern from the AFL, as they still bleed heavily with players wanting out. Both of those clubs are owned largely by the AFL underwriting it, and have tiny membership bases to support them.

I agree on the current environment argument that you have made, but Tas Gov isn't after an immediate inclusion, they are after a commitment that says that a license is available in 4-5 years. Not unreasonable as a request if the business case has been shown to be sound TBH, and COVID has actually forced the clubs to operate on a leaner more streamlined budget. I like seeing senior coaches actually doing training drills rather than going off to harvard to study in the pre season and leaving it to one of 10 or more development / assistant coaches.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Ouch!

[Diamond_Jim 12,718]

AFL trying to kick the can down the road but Tassie Premier not happy.

Is he bluffing ??

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-rejects-tasmanian-demand-premier-furious-20210219-p5745h.html

In a letter to the premier AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan said a review of the taskforce’s submission stalled last year as a result of COVID-19 and would not be completed until late 2021 or early 2022, with the AFL to appoint an independent consultant to lead the review.

[BDA 23,031]

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

AFL trying to kick the can down the road but Tassie Premier not happy.

Is he bluffing ??

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-rejects-tasmanian-demand-premier-furious-20210219-p5745h.html

In a letter to the premier AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan said a review of the taskforce’s submission stalled last year as a result of COVID-19 and would not be completed until late 2021 or early 2022, with the AFL to appoint an independent consultant to lead the review.

State premiers are enjoying the increased profile and power Covid has afforded them. Border closures are a winner politically and perhaps Gutwein thinks demanding respect and assurances from the AFL will be a vote getter as well. Sticking it to the arrogant mainlanders and all that.

Plus the whole arrangement was a means to an end for the Tasmanians and if that end isn’t forthcoming then why continue with the arrangement? There’s no love for North or the Hawks (pay no heed to what Jeff says) down there either so he won’t get much flack for ending the deal.

I reckon he’ll follow through because I don’t think he has a lot to lose. If Gil calls his bluff he gets no team, under the status quo he gets no team. But play hardball and the AFL might just give the assurance and agree to the timeline for a tassy team.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

In a letter to the premier AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan said a review of the taskforce’s submission stalled last year as a result of COVID-19 and would not be completed until late 2021 or early 2022, with the AFL to appoint an independent consultant to lead the review.

Translation: COVID has hit us in the guts money-wise. Don't stop the money. Keep spending money. You'll never get a Tassie team but I'll never say that out loud. For chrissake don't stop spending the money. We need the money!!

[old dee 24,028]

The. Tassie premier has an election coming in the next year  and he is using it to show he is strong and will stand up to the AFL.

He cannot now back down in front of his electors , he has won round one by the AFL’s non answer.

A game of brinkmanship has commenced and I don’t believe he will blink.

I think North and Hawthorn will be very light in sponsorship come 2022..

[Pates 9,686]

Looks like the AFL called Tassie’s bluff, I think they feel like as a league they can hunker down. Without this sponsorship/paying for games I think the Hawks will be ok but this will really hurt the Kangas.

[whatwhat say what 23,627]

1 hour ago, Pates said:

Looks like the AFL called Tassie’s bluff, I think they feel like as a league they can hunker down. Without this sponsorship/paying for games I think the Hawks will be ok but this will really hurt the Kangas.

i dunno

i tend to think the hawks need the sponsorship $$ from tassie more than the kangas so that they can fund their dingley venture

roos are better set up at arden st already

[Dr. Gonzo 24,457]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

Looks like the AFL called Tassie’s bluff, I think they feel like as a league they can hunker down. Without this sponsorship/paying for games I think the Hawks will be ok but this will really hurt the Kangas.

And AFL will eventually use it to force North south.

[Pates 9,686]

6 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i dunno

i tend to think the hawks need the sponsorship $$ from tassie more than the kangas so that they can fund their dingley venture

roos are better set up at arden st already

Not gonna lie I kinda have an evil smile about the fact it’s coinciding with them having a down period on the field. Would be plenty of schadenfreude if they were to suddenly have a few lean years both on and off the field.