Tasmanian AFL Team

[BDA 22,875]

There is enough money to go around in the AFL. Those inside the tent just don’t want to share the spoils with those on the outside. We could have a 19^th and 20^th team if we really wanted.

That said the Gold Coast is not and never will be viable. Move the Suns to Tassy and give the team a proper chance to survive. Solve 2 problems in one go

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

Edited August 13, 2021 by Stiff Arm
.

[Demon Disciple 12,272]

27 minutes ago, BDA said:

That said the Gold Coast is not and never will be viable. Move the Suns to Tassy and give the team a proper chance to survive. Solve 2 problems in one go

The AFL’s hubris prevents them from ever admitting that they seriously [censored] up naming GC as the 17/18th team.

Just by reassuring Cochroach that they are safe, it shows that they don’t care about grass-roots football, just $. But we’ve all known that for a long time. Unfortunately the AFL is now more business than sport, and the gap is only getting wider

[leave it to deever 17,517]

10 hours ago, Webber said:

That they haven’t been ‘given’ a team already is kind of shameful. They are an Australian Football heartland whose grass roots have been allowed to whither. That commercial motivations have been put ahead of the game’s legacy is, for mine, unacceptable, and the AFL as an organisation is responsible. If the state itself can’t bankroll a team, then this multi-billion dollar behemoth should, simply out of a duty to the game’s future down there. That they’ve done so with GWS and GCS sets the all too obvious precedent, as do financial splashes like the multi millions spent on upgrading GMHBA. We have no game without we protect its roots, and Tassie footy is currently dying, year by year. I couldn’t care less whether it’s a relocation, or about spurious Hobart-Launceston divisions. The whole state would go nutty for their own team, and of course games would be shared between Launceston and Hobart. The AFL needs to be the game’s true benefactor that we want it to be, and get it done. 

Its baffling gws ang gc were invented before a tassie team.

[Big Col 1,347]

1/ Merge Bne and the Suns.

• Bne get to take 8 players from GC but (both) lose all their draft picks next year to the new Tassie club, and then give up some picks to the new club for the next 2-4 years (maybe rd 1 one year and rd2 the next etc)
• Merged club plays 8 home games at the Gabba and 3 at Metricon

2/ Create new Tassie Club.

• They can select/trade up to 20 players from GC list.
• Get all the draft picks in their first year that would have gone to GC and Bne and draft picks after that for the next 2-4 years (see above)
• Priority drafting zone for Tasmanians (ie Academy) for 2-4 years
• 4 uncontracted players from existing AFL clubs (with compensation)
• PLay 4 home games at Hobart, 4 home games at Launceston and 3 home games at Gold Coast
• Play one away game in Hobart vs NM and one away game at Launceston vs Hawthorn per year.

Notes

• This doesn't dilute the talent as it keeps same number of teams. Nor does it penalise existing poor clubs due for a high draft pick but miss out because of a new club.
• 6 games / year are still played at Gold Coast, so the area and stadium is not being abandoned.
• Hawthorn and North Melbourne can keep laying games in Tassie but must play one home game in Tassie against Tassie. There are 14 games in Tassie for the year (8 home games for the 'Devils', plus 3 for Hawks and 3 for North)   [Alternatively, they could just make North play some home games up in GC].
• The new BNE/GCS merged team would be a beast

 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,877]

I just hope the Tassie govenment arn't bluffing and it costs Hawthorn their major sponsor.  That combined with all the internal divisions that Kennett and the treatment of Clarkson has caused, could really combine to set them back and consign them to the doldrums for a good period.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Tasmanian wam jammin salmon

Tasmanian pademelons 

Tasmanian tiger snakes

Tasmanian apple eaters

Tasmanian Devils

Any other suggestions? 

 

Yeah, stop taking whatever it is you’re taking. 😆

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,877]

47 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

Can you make a brown and gold version of this?

No hawk on it, I want to see something that Don Scott would want to rip apart!

Edited August 13, 2021 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[deanox 9,989]

12 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Its baffling gws ang gc were invented before a tassie team.

Nah not at all, Tassie is shored up. GC and GWS were/are contested regions (vs Rugby and Soccer), they needed a marketable presence as part of a 20-40 year battle.

Even if GC never succeeds in itself, it has succeeded by stopping soccer from taking a foothold. The A-League launched a GC team in 2009, which subsequently failed: did the Sun's starve it of media and oxygen? Possibly contributed. The GC Yitans were launched in 2007 in the NRL. The AFL needed to be there.

GWS had to come up in Australia's fastest growing population corridor. A Leagues Western Sydney Warriors were formed about the same time, so AFL needed to go head to head. NRLs West Tigers were there first in around 2000. 

 

In addition, theoretically these teams give "double" the local interest for media in these towns. A live local game every weekend. 2 games to broadcast in live on tv. 2 games to report on. To hold their slice of the media bubble, these 2nd teams were needed.

[leave it to deever 17,517]

4 minutes ago, deanox said:

Even if GC never succeeds in itself, it

Your kind of boosting my opinion.

And I don't support the theory other codes are doing it argument.

Afl is the biggest game in oz and we need to support areas that embrace it rather than pushing it on people that dont.

Edited August 13, 2021 by leave it to deever

[kev martin 10,409]

I understand the report was done by a Geelong faithful.

Don't let any Geelong or ex Geelong affiliates touch anything outside of their club. Far too much self interest from them.

Geelong won't ever relocate or even play in Tassie as the home game. The whinge from them would be unbearable.

Why have them adjudicate for the rest of the Vic teams and in particular Tassy.

Gee, there are no warm fuzzys from the AFL. Isn't it a non profit, community focused institution. That is a fail of a decision. Put the calculator and bottom line away.

Give Tas a team of their own. League would be better off, in terms of warm fuzziness and bringing joy to the communities. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by kev martin

[whatwhat say what 22,934]

jeff kennett loves to sell things off; surely he'll take a juicy offer it gutwein ponies up the cash

[Maldonboy38 6,406]

1. Tassie have an outstanding footy heritage, but being the only market the AFL have NOT poured cash into, there is as much groundwork to do there as there was in the Gold Coast. Junior footy there seems a total, weak mess. 

2. An existing AFL club is not going to move. The Roos are the closest but they have enough assets, capital and membership willpower that they will never move there permanently.

3. Many people would be surprised at how many Tassie businesses would get involved, and how many start up members they could sign up. 

4. North / South divide is a major issue, but only Hobart has the critical mass for a long term initiative. It might take 10 years, but they could bee Geelong-like in their sense of identity and parochialism.

I am all for it, would love it. I have lived there twice (many years ago)  and have family there. But I reckon it could be 2025 before we see it, with COVID, and no club willing to move. 

[Webber 10,538]

3 hours ago, kev martin said:

Gee, there are no warm fuzzys from the AFL. Isn't it a non profit, community focused institution

We wish, kev. It’s all about the money. 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,877]

Actually wondering if there is a catch 22 here for North and Hawthorn.

Forgetting about the Tassie govenments threats to cut off AFL from the state in the intermediate period, if Tassie were to actually get a team longer term, I'd presume they would no longer sponsor North and Hawthorn huge sums to play down there.  So where does that leave North's finacial viability in particular.  Not going to be easy to replace that sponsorship money, particularly within a diluted sponsorship pool from a 19th team.

Do North end up completing for the NT govs money to play there?  North talk the bravado about being financially sound going forward, but I do still wounder about that.

[Pates 9,660]

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Actually wondering if there is a catch 22 here for North and Hawthorn.

Forgetting about the Tassie govenments threats to cut off AFL from the state in the intermediate period, if Tassie were to actually get a team longer term, I'd presume they would no longer sponsor North and Hawthorn huge sums to play down there.  So where does that leave North's finacial viability in particular.  Not going to be easy to replace that sponsorship money, particularly within a diluted sponsorship pool from a 19th team.

Do North end up completing for the NT govs money to play there?  North talk the bravado about being financially sound going forward, but I do still wounder about that.

I have wondered about the downside to North/Hawks losing Tassie meaning there could be competition for our Alice Springs matches. I would hope that the groundwork we have done there would count for something but as they say money talks, BS walks. 

The disgust at GC/GWS getting a team doesn’t actually account for the fact there is infinitely more growth potential in those two markets compared with Tassie. Sydney and Brisbane took decades to stand on their own feet and that was with the grounding of South Melbourne and Fitzroy. The AFL view the money being poured in there as short-mid term pain for long term gain. 

Thinking about it now it’s funny but the best time that AFL could’ve pushed into Tassie would’ve been during the 90s (hate to say but I think we would’ve been a big target!). Now, without the allure of an extra game for TV rights the 19 teams would just be a drag on the competition. So they either wait until 20 teams is a possibility, or they get a team sent down there. Either way I can’t see it happening any time soon. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Pates

[bush demon 2,062]

21 hours ago, tiers said:

Posted this in an earlier thread on Tassie team. Dated 6 August before Carter.

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.

It should and probably will happen. Roos have no fanatical supporter base like the sainters who have a long history of misery to maintain.

Tread lightly the mighty Dees also have our share of misery.

[Fat Tony 5,262]

We don’t need any more teams. Even the most ardent football watcher would only watch 6 games per week. We have 18 teams by virtue of the competition going from the VFL to AFL. Not because it is the ideal number. There are 3 games per week which add little in revenue and are net losses. 

A new side would only be economical if it gets a massive government subsidy (which means it would be uneconomical). 

[Fat Tony 5,262]

The Demons benefit from not being the poorest club in Victoria. Those wanting North to move need to be careful what they wish for. 

[rpfc 28,768]

8 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The Demons benefit from not being the poorest club in Victoria. Those wanting North to move need to be careful what they wish for. 

How do we benefit?

If they left, there would be more space for members and sponsors.

[rpfc 28,768]

On GC - the same was said about Sydney and Brisbane decades ago.

We need to grow the game or it willl become the NRL - stagnated.

[deanox 9,989]

14 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Your kind of boosting my opinion.

And I don't support the theory other codes are doing it argument.

Afl is the biggest game in oz and we need to support areas that embrace it rather than pushing it on people that dont.

That's counter intuitive deev.

The areas that already support it already support it. They put their money in, they watch the games on TV, they play the game on Saturday. There is no return on investment in putting a team in Tas.

But teams in growth areas have massive potential pay offs. Double TV exposure in NSW and Brisbane is worth big money. Capturing the hearts and minds of the western Sydney migrant population could add millions of fans in a few decades.

 

Im not saying I agree with the approach, I'm saying it makes economic sense.

[george_on_the_outer 7,696]

1. Tassie cannot financially support a team on their own.  They need about $40 to $50M p.a. and currently their government is throwing in only $8M to the Hawks and North. Their population is smaller than some suburbs in Melbourne and Sydney.

2. Gold Coast get about $30M from the AFL to operate.  It is not an expansion market.  It is not a growth area like GWS.  People go there for the weather, and unless they are ex-Melbournites, locals aren't interested.  I would invite people to go to a Metricon game and see for themselves.  However, as an 18th team it is essential for TV.  It just doesn't need to be located there.

3. North have painted themselves into a corner.  Their fierce opposition to moving to the GC years ago has cemented that position.  However, they have nearly cleared their debt, despite a complete lack of serious income.  It WOULD be financially sensible and provide a bigger future for them in Tassie, but they won't do it.

4. St.Kilda are in serious trouble.  They are at least $10M in debt ( not a problem today with current interest rates), and receive the highest distribution from the AFL.  If the AFL were to reduce this lifeline, it wouldn't be long until they have to do something like a move to Tassie. 

5. For the AFL they hold the cards.  Cut the losses on GC and provide $20M to support a team in Tassie rather than $30M in GC. Or cut the lifeline to the Saints and let them wither, or make them an offer similar to what was made to North years ago when GC was touted.  Clear the debt...ongoing support of $20M p.a.....Southern Saints.....access to Tasmanian players exclusively. 

Finally, there are no Kangaroos ( the hopping variety) in Tasmania.

[Cassiew 1,903]

I’d say give Gold Coast and GWS a few more years. If they can’t get the members or crowds, maybe one of them should drop out in favour of Tassie.

I’m thinking GSW. They’ve had a few good years and even made the grand finals but hardly got any crowds (even before COVID.) Gold Coast have been atrocious, so at least they have an excuse.

[daisycutter 29,736]

13 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

1. Tassie cannot financially support a team on their own.  They need about $40 to $50M p.a. and currently their government is throwing in only $8M to the Hawks and North. Their population is smaller than some suburbs in Melbourne and Sydney.

2. Gold Coast get about $30M from the AFL to operate.  It is not an expansion market.  It is not a growth area like GWS.  People go there for the weather, and unless they are ex-Melbournites, locals aren't interested.  I would invite people to go to a Metricon game and see for themselves.  However, as an 18th team it is essential for TV.  It just doesn't need to be located there.

3. North have painted themselves into a corner.  Their fierce opposition to moving to the GC years ago has cemented that position.  However, they have nearly cleared their debt, despite a complete lack of serious income.  It WOULD be financially sensible and provide a bigger future for them in Tassie, but they won't do it.

4. St.Kilda are in serious trouble.  They are at least $10M in debt ( not a problem today with current interest rates), and receive the highest distribution from the AFL.  If the AFL were to reduce this lifeline, it wouldn't be long until they have to do something like a move to Tassie. 

5. For the AFL they hold the cards.  Cut the losses on GC and provide $20M to support a team in Tassie rather than $30M in GC. Or cut the lifeline to the Saints and let them wither, or make them an offer similar to what was made to North years ago when GC was touted.  Clear the debt...ongoing support of $20M p.a.....Southern Saints.....access to Tasmanian players exclusively. 

Finally, there are no Kangaroos ( the hopping variety) in Tasmania.

Quote

Tasmania has two species of wallaby - the Tasmanian pademelon and Bennetts wallaby - and one species of kangaroo, the Forester kangaroo. Occasionally, these species come into conflict with landowners.6 Nov 2014