21 minutes ago, rpfc said:

How do we benefit?

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

The least wealthy Melbourne based club will always be vulnerable. North existing as it is puts us less at risk. 

I heard Gill McLaughlin speak on this issue about six years ago . It will NEVER happen if he has a say in it ( unless he has done a 180 degree turn since ) .

4 hours ago, deanox said:

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.

Im not sure i follow.

Are you stating that the gold coast team has more support and followers than a tassie team would.

If thats what the stats say then i stand corrected.

I doubt they do. I think it is more of the case of the afl looking at future demographic shifts and i get that.

But its still a gamble and thus i think giving a state although small that turn up in good numbers to watch a vic club...the benefit of their own.

Edited August 14, 20213 yr by leave it to deever

4 hours ago, rpfc said:

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.

Agree but like the NRL we simply have too many teams in the one city.

The next TV rights deal is due in 2-3 years which could deliver a seismic shift between the have and have not clubs.

Around 3k apparently at today's Hawks v Dogs in Launceston according to ABC radio

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Agree but like the NRL we simply have too many teams in the one city.

The next TV rights deal is due in 2-3 years which could deliver a seismic shift between the have and have not clubs.

Around 3k apparently at today's Hawks v Dogs in Launceston according to ABC radio

GC like numbers…

Pandemic is the real mind killer here.

Crowds will be back next year.

Why did it take a full-blown report to come up with those three options? Aren’t they the only three options? 

I consider myself to be neutral about the AFL (not the umpiring or scheduling). I actually think they are doing the right thing here. 

We are arguably not even half way through the worst pandemic of the last 100 years. The AFL has just issued new AFLW licenses to the last 4 clubs. Coaches at clubs are screaming out for help, and are very concerned about their mental health. The AFL is trying to reschedule a season on a day by day basis, just to keep from continuing to lose well over a million dollars a day.

Im sorry Tasmania. You didn’t make a good argument 10 years ago, when the opportunity was really on the table. If you read the Carter report it states very clearly that this is a 100 year proposition for the state, and there are legitimate concerns about funding coming from political sources (which are fickle). It also states that there WILL be a team in Tasmanian. The timing might suck, but welcome to the world in the 2020’s. Risks are greater, and the appetite for them diminishes every day. You have to wait - because that’s logical at the moment. If it was my business I’d be waiting too. There’s too much at stake to mess around with now.

1 hour ago, Ethan Trembley said:

Why did it take a full-blown report to come up with those three options? Aren’t they the only three options? 

The way I see it is that it’s all about posturing for long term contributions, and clearly laying the cards out for the current clubs. 

Now that the options are on the table the AFL is about to ask the teams that come to them cap in hand after a financially disastrous 2021 if they’ll look at ‘options’ (moving to Tassie). They will all pretend to to do it, then say no, unless they can’t afford to.

Once that happens the AFL can clearly say ‘so I’m assuming you’ll vote for the Tassie team to come into the league, since you want our money but also to maintain your identity’. (AFL commission laws say they need 12 out of 18 to vote yes). Then Gil will call the Premier in Tassie and quietly ask him how much he wants to secure his political future. They’ll pony up more money, and Tassie gets a team from about 2027-28.

The only other thing that could bring this forward is Thursday night footy (now that everyone could have a bye) and the money that brings in. If the networks will pay much more for that then they could be in by 2025.

2 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Im not sure i follow.

Are you stating that the gold coast team has more support and followers than a tassie team would.

If thats what the stats say then i stand corrected.

I doubt they do. I think it is more of the case of the afl looking at future demographic shifts and i get that.

But its still a gamble and thus i think giving a state although small that turn up in good numbers to watch a vic club...the benefit of their own.

No, I expect you are right on saying that a Tassie team would get more members and more active support than GC, but that isn't what the big commercial battle is about.

GC might lose money in its own operations, but it has the potential to create more money than Tassie as part of the bigger picture.

For example, the gate takings are worth nothing compared to tv rights. Queensland is a bigger tv market than Tassie, so having a GC team is probably worth more in the tv rights deal.

Having two local clubs live on tv on Queensland each week also saturates that market and creates a tv product worth selling.

 

Because Tassie is already "football heartland" they already have maximum eyeballs on tv. Putting a team in Tassie doesn't widen their market exposure or create more revenue for the broadcasters. But GC might.

 

I also don't think you can underestimate the value the AFL place on blocking out the A-League and NRL. There is a finite pool of broadcast right money to be spent across all codes. Blocking or at least matching expansion of those leagues is a critical strategic action. Allowing tose competitors to get a foothold and grow now may mean their long term revenue may grow, making them hard to fight in decades time. Pyrrric victory perhaps, but victory all the same.

Edited August 14, 20213 yr by deanox

1 minute ago, deanox said:

No, I expect you are right on saying that a Tassie team would get more members and more active support than GC, but that isn't what the big commercial battle is about.

GC might lose money in its own operations, but it has the potential to create more money than Tassie as part of the bigger picture.

For example, the gate takings are worth nothing compared to tv rights. Queensland is a bigger tv market than Tassie, so having a GC team is probably worth more in the tv rights deal.

Having two local clubs live on tv on Queensland each week also saturates that market and creates a tv product worth selling.

 

Because Tassie is already "football heartland" they already have maximum eyeballs on tv. Putting a team in Tassie doesn't widen their market exposure or create more revenue for the broadcasters. But GC might.

Yep I think your on the money there deanox.

Tx for explaining it. It makes more cents.

But in all seriousness I think you are correct.

 

 

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Agree but like the NRL we simply have too many teams in the one city.

The next TV rights deal is due in 2-3 years which could deliver a seismic shift between the have and have not clubs.

Around 3k apparently at today's Hawks v Dogs in Launceston according to ABC radio

I have a mate in Brisvegas who says NRL is the national football code.

He goes ballistic when I list the 2 AFL teams in  4 States plus the Victorian teams with each State having Premiership Teams and listing the weekly attendance numbers,let alone Finals 

It's quite silly, a little sad and if AFL went to Tasmania I fear his head would explode. 

Just like Gils eyeballs looked like they might burst when he heard the Tassie Premiers funding threat.

35 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Yep I think your on the money there deanox.

Tx for explaining it. It makes more cents.

But in all seriousness I think you are correct.

 

 

It's sad because I think Tassie deserves better, and I think that the AFL place commercial benefits for the top couple of people (players, administrators) above their role as custodians of the game, and above looking after all the other people who make it happen (support staff who work really hard and get paid rubbish and less than market rate, as well as fringe players and 2nd tier comps.

One thing all this talk of a new franchise makes me think of is how important it is to not be in the wilderness during COVID/post COVID. There is a small chance a club that we don't expect, could fold or be merged or relocated due to the strange time we live in, and what it has meant for finances. 

I'd love it to be Hawthorn. 😉

Edited August 14, 20213 yr by A F

I had beers with a couple of Taswegians last night. One barracks for Hawthorn, the other the Saints. Both said they had barracked for the same club all their lives and wouldn’t swap to a new Tasmanian based club. I assume the Melbourne supporting Tasmanians on here feel the same. It would take a generation or more to get most on board. 

Edited August 14, 20213 yr by FarNorthernD

Looks like Gil is trying to set up the clubs as the bad boys if the Tasmania team is rejected.

.AFL boss Gillon McLachlan has made clear that it will be a strong majority of the clubs, and not the AFL’s “technical” rules or merely the AFL hierarchy, that will drive whether a Tasmanian team gains entry into the competition

The AFL chief executive did not nominate a specific number of clubs that needed to back the Tasmanian team - which would be decided in August - but he made plain that this required a comfortable majority of the 18 clubs, saying it needed “the support of our clubs” to happen, rather a strict reading of the league’s rules

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mclachlan-clubs-not-rules-will-decide-if-tasmania-gets-a-team-20220311-p5a40t.html

15 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Looks like Gil is trying to set up the clubs as the bad boys if the Tasmania team is rejected.

.AFL boss Gillon McLachlan has made clear that it will be a strong majority of the clubs, and not the AFL’s “technical” rules or merely the AFL hierarchy, that will drive whether a Tasmanian team gains entry into the competition

The AFL chief executive did not nominate a specific number of clubs that needed to back the Tasmanian team - which would be decided in August - but he made plain that this required a comfortable majority of the 18 clubs, saying it needed “the support of our clubs” to happen, rather a strict reading of the league’s rules

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mclachlan-clubs-not-rules-will-decide-if-tasmania-gets-a-team-20220311-p5a40t.html

It should always be a majority vote of the Clubs

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It should always be a majority vote of the Clubs

It wasn't for GWS and GCS

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

It wasn't for GWS and GCS

And it was handled very badly 

The CEO’s were told to give it all the green light 

Fox was ready to go

Gil is quoted as wanting a substantial majority.

Let's call the 2/3.In other words 12 clubs.

North and Hawks will be saying no (at least privately) unless the AFL underwrites what Tassie used to pay them.

That means you need 12 out of 16 and other than the feel good factor there is very little in it for any of the clubs.

Will be interesting

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

Gil is quoted as wanting a substantial majority.

Let's call the 2/3.In other words 12 clubs.

North and Hawks will be saying no (at least privately) unless the AFL underwrites what Tassie used to pay them.

That means you need 12 out of 16 and other than the feel good factor there is very little in it for any of the clubs.

Will be interesting

Needs a 13 majority 

Was a majority needed for letting GCS and GWS in? Port? Freo? 

4 hours ago, John Demonic said:

Was a majority needed for letting GCS and GWS in? Port? Freo? 

No

It was an AFL decision which could be vetoed by a 2/3 majority vote of the clubs

Tasmania is going to see it's population go up, and I see a Tasmanian team becoming Geelong like (strong gvt support and strong local factor). I used to think the state was too small but have changed opinion, Tassie is going to boom.

13 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Gil is quoted as wanting a substantial majority.

Let's call the 2/3.In other words 12 clubs.

North and Hawks will be saying no (at least privately) unless the AFL underwrites what Tassie used to pay them.

That means you need 12 out of 16 and other than the feel good factor there is very little in it for any of the clubs.

Will be interesting

I can just see Gil's sales pitch to the clubs now before the vote given he is so against it: - each club will be stripped of funding for x years, any Tassie player can break their contract and go home, each club will give two quality players selected and the Tassie team would get all the prime draft picks for the next 3 years. I'm sure all the clubs will jump on board.

I am interested to hear from people in other states about the participation levels of the different sports in schools at the moment.  When I went through high school in the late 90s, there were always 2-3 footy teams per year group, and you'd be lucky to scrounge enough kids to get a soccer team together.  This was in Tasmania's north west.  Now I have kids going through primary school and it seems to be the reverse.  There are multiple soccer teams, but aside from a small ad in the newsletter, plus a flyer sent home in the first week, you hear nothing about AFL in schools.

Also, I have friends who work in PE in local high schools here in Hobart and they say at lunchtime there are full games of soccer going on, heaps of kids playing basketball, and maybe a handful of kids playing markings up shoved over to the side of the oval as to not interfere with the soccer matches.  Local clubs are folding, this time of year it seems there is an SOS every other day from a club trying to get enough players to filed a team.  It seems AFL put very little effort in down here.  Whereas FFA and the NBL are going hard at at grassroots level.  It is rare to see a kid walking around with a footy under their arm, with a soccer ball or basketball far more likely.  In the 80s and 90s you would NEVER have seen a kid with a soccer ball.  Whether this is a sign of the AFL not putting any effort into grassroots footy down here, or perhaps a more multicultural society, I am not sure.

These observations are my own and anecdotal, but I would like to know if anyone else has noticed a shift in participation among the sports in schools.  From what I have noticed, Tassie won't be an AFL heartland forever if the treatment continues.  The question is, will Gil and co care if they lose some of the 500,000 down here, when he is going after the potential millions in SE Qld and Western Sydney?  Probably not.

And to address the dwindling crowd numbers at games down here, how many of you would go and watch North vs GWS?  Or North vs Freo? When Essendon had to play down here last year it sold out in under an hour.  Initially we were just stoked to be seeing some footy, but we were continually thrown the scraps of the round so they wouldn't lose out on revenue by hosting the bigger drawing clubs at such a small ground.  I can understand the decision from a financial perspective, but eventually people will stop turning up when the perception is we should just be happy to get a game, so stop your whinging and show up  Get what you get and don't get upset.  It seems the AFL just thinks they have us, so they are pouring everything into the expansion areas, treating Tasmania with apparent disdain.

While I'm not convinced a Tassie team will work, I am convinced that if the AFL don't pull their socks up down here, Tasmania will not be an AFL state forever.  But with such a small population, it wouldn't be considered the end of the world at AFL house.