the biggest issue, as i see it, is that a 19th team offers little in terms of increasing the value of broadcast rights which is - along with wagering - the afl's biggest revenue line

ideally, need to have a 19th and 20th teams coming in within a year of each other

it means, of course, that drafts and the like will be compromised for YEARS, much as they were when gc17 and gw$ were brought in

Where are the 80+ AFL standard players going to come from?

Let us not forget Gold Coast, who are a year older than GW$ have finished no higher than 12th. 
Having a team out of Tassie is a great idea, but the competition cannot sustain it right now. 
North, St.kilda or GC should be moved down there. 
Reality is it should have already happened 

I reckon Gil/AFL exec wants North or Saints to go to Tassie.

Still call them NM or StK for a year or two, claim it's just playing home games there for $. Then it becomes permanent and the name changes. Tassie Kangas or Tassie Saints. A lot of detail and nuance to play out, but there's something in the air 

35 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

I reckon Gil/AFL exec wants North or Saints to go to Tassie.

i actually don't agree with this narrative - the general consensus is that forcing a club to move will now do more damage than good

also, what the afl will want more than anything is to appear to be equanimous in terms of tasmania getting a standalone team

the committee for the 19th license have also made it clear that that's their aim; not an existing side moving south

i still can't see how the $$s add up to make it financially beneficial for the afl

Surely Tasmanians won't seriously accept a reheated team from interstate. Not saying I want it to happen, but they could artificially boost Gold Coast's prospects by merging them with St Kilda or North, creating the space for a fresh team

 

On 8/13/2021 at 4:20 PM, The Lobster Effect said:

Captain Obvious. No club wants to relocate.

Let's wait and see how they handle the Crises at the moment and how quickly events change AFL May put pressure if finances return  to in the red shortly. 
Hope this  doesn't occur by the way.

Finances still don't stack up.  All well promising $50M in "start up costs" when that is all eaten up building a stadium.  Or "$100M" when it is spread over 10 years. 

When you need $50-70M p.a. to run an AFL club, the majority of the rest of it comes from the AFL.  Small wonder Sydney, Gold Coast and Collingwood oppose it, because they know who will be getting less from the AFL.  Probably other clubs know the same.

There is no broadcast advantage unless a 20th team is also created.  Will that result in an overall increase in revenue, or just forcing the money to be split among even more?  That will certainly spread the talent even more thinly and decrease the appeal of the game.

Gil is going to walk out the door before any decision is made, because it is all too hard.  Gold Coast should never have been pursued/created and errors would have to be admitted.  Best leave that to others in the future. 

Just now, george_on_the_outer said:

Gil is going to walk out the door before any decision is made, because it is all too hard.  Gold Coast should never have been pursued/created and errors would have to be admitted.  Best leave that to others in the future. 

that's not going to happen - all decisions will be made under gil's watch

as such, his replacement MUST come from inside the boys' club

nothing ever changes at afl house

On 3/13/2022 at 11:24 PM, whatwhat say what said:

i actually don't agree with this narrative - the general consensus is that forcing a club to move will now do more damage than good

also, what the afl will want more than anything is to appear to be equanimous in terms of tasmania getting a standalone team

the committee for the 19th license have also made it clear that that's their aim; not an existing side moving south

i still can't see how the $$s add up to make it financially beneficial for the afl

Honestly, were we not performing as we have been the last couple of years, it would be easy to just walk away from AFL the way it is being run.  And an odd number of teams with unfair bye scheduling would be the final straw 

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Finances still don't stack up.  All well promising $50M in "start up costs" when that is all eaten up building a stadium.  Or "$100M" when it is spread over 10 years. 

Agree it's smoke and mirrors

Going forward for example is it a rent free maintained clean stadium similar to Kardinia Park.

What happens when the State Govt funding expires in ten years

Who funds the travel costs of the visiting teams

At least it has a bit more meat than the NT (me too) puff piece

 

 

On 8/13/2021 at 12:42 PM, John Crow Batty said:

Tasmanian wam jammin salmon

Tasmanian pademelons 

Tasmanian tiger snakes

Tasmanian apple eaters

Tasmanian Devils

Any other suggestions? 

 

Tassie tatters they grow a lot of sous there.  

 

So many good names and marketing opportunities.  Call rhe ground the deep fryer.  Sponsered my mcains frozen chips and smith chips. Nickname the players masher, gnocchi, Kennebec etc. Call them the great unwashed. 

 

Go you potatoes 

59 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Clarkson pushing the Green Bay model of community ownership of a club. It is better than private ownership, I don’t understand why private is better. Private means desire for profits or being held for ransom if a person is bankrolling a team. It is awful. 

So this model would provide enormous up front finances and basically a ‘Tassie or dead’ model for the club - the ‘owners’ will never vote to leave. One of the reasons the NFL don’t like the Green Bay packers model - coz the owners over there (that the NFL work for) want to be able to vote teams out of markets and into new ones to maximise $$$.

 

If the Gold Coast Suns had a 10 year licence to prove themselves they'd be gone by now. 

18 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

to me, this tends to indicate that they know they're not getting full club support to come in

which means, in all likelihood, the notion of a tasmanian team is cooked

13 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

If the Gold Coast Suns had a 10 year licence to prove themselves they'd be gone by now. 

Depends what your metrics for success are.

4 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

to me, this tends to indicate that they know they're not getting full club support to come in

which means, in all likelihood, the notion of a tasmanian team is cooked

can you please expand on this?

Just now, Engorged Onion said:

can you please expand on this?

essentially, the afl commission is taking a recommendation from clubs as to whether or not tasmania should get a license - they need a minimum of a two-thirds majority of the clubs to support it - i.e. at least seven of the 18 clubs (i.e. one-third plus one) would be required to vote in favour of their entry

however, gilligan has already said that he wouldn't take it to the commission to be voted on unless there was mass consensus and support for the entry of a new team; last it was rumoured to be only tony cochrane at gc17 who was going to vote negative to it, but i would argue that if tassie are asking for a provisional license then they think they're cooked and they might not even get the seven being supportive to ratify it

3 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

they need a minimum of a two-thirds majority of the clubs to support it - i.e. at least seven of the 18 clubs (i.e. one-third plus one) would be required to vote in favour of their entry

Two thirds (12) or one third?

3 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

essentially, the afl commission is taking a recommendation from clubs as to whether or not tasmania should get a license - they need a minimum of a two-thirds majority of the clubs to support it - i.e. at least seven of the 18 clubs (i.e. one-third plus one) would be required to vote in favour of their entry

however, gilligan has already said that he wouldn't take it to the commission to be voted on unless there was mass consensus and support for the entry of a new team; last it was rumoured to be only tony cochrane at gc17 who was going to vote negative to it, but i would argue that if tassie are asking for a provisional license then they think they're cooked and they might not even get the seven being supportive to ratify it

think you mean 12  to be in favour ( = 2/3 )

or 7 against it to kill it off

Thanks dc, I think that's it.

On 5/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, george_on_the_outer said:

Finances still don't stack up.  All well promising $50M in "start up costs" when that is all eaten up building a stadium.  Or "$100M" when it is spread over 10 years. 

When you need $50-70M p.a. to run an AFL club, the majority of the rest of it comes from the AFL.  Small wonder Sydney, Gold Coast and Collingwood oppose it, because they know who will be getting less from the AFL.  Probably other clubs know the same.

There is no broadcast advantage unless a 20th team is also created.  Will that result in an overall increase in revenue, or just forcing the money to be split among even more?  That will certainly spread the talent even more thinly and decrease the appeal of the game.

Gil is going to walk out the door before any decision is made, because it is all too hard.  Gold Coast should never have been pursued/created and errors would have to be admitted.  Best leave that to others in the future. 

FFMMDD . . . fancy South Melbourne opposing it. This is the mob that has had, conservatively, the best part of a quarter of a billion dollars poured into them over 40 years. And sorry, how much did Melbourne get over the same period of time?

And as for Cochrane . . . the first syllable of his name says it all. 

If Geelong can function, Tassie can.