Jump to content

Featured Replies

sorry, yes, 1/3 majority to kill it off completely

i reckon their goose is cooked

2 minutes ago, rpfc said:

If Geelong can function, Tassie can.

historicity counts

cats also may not have survived if they'd not been situated in a swinging seat at both state and federal level and had smart business people making sure they got every govt handout they get get their grubby little mitts on

 
25 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

Thanks very much, that's fantastic, and clear.

33 minutes ago, rpfc said:

If Geelong can function, Tassie can.

Geelong is funded by the Vic Govt in the form of a free stadium. It has a local population base bigger than Hobart and has an existing supporter base near equal to the whole of Tasmania's population.

The better comparisons are Saints, North and even ourselves.

Hopefully the clubs demand to see a full business case that encompasses various alternatives including folding one of GWS or GCS and replacing it with a team from Tasmania.

Placing KPI's on the continuation of the licence is a ploy. What Commission would throw them out after ten years when the odds are that four or five of the core clubs aren't meeting the same KPI's

 
1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

cats also may not have survived if they'd not been situated in a swinging seat at both state and federal level and had smart business people making sure they got every govt handout they get get their grubby little mitts on

prefer paws, eh what....

32 minutes ago, Jontee said:

prefer paws, eh what....

Maybe pause would be even better. 🙄


Yes who is going to fund a Tasmanian side, once the Honeymoon Period is over?

There is no real value in the broadcast deal having 10 games. Tasmania (and the NT) already watch the existing Broadcast. 
I would be opposing this proposal vehemently. 
It will cost a fortune 

 

5 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

19 teams seems an odd number to me.

The team with the bye each week can live stream a dinner party with 5 selected players (1 leader and 4 fringe) - with pre-selectrd topics to discuss/confront each other over. At the end of the dinner, one player will be voted off the seniors list. 

Edited by John Demonic

13 hours ago, John Demonic said:

The team with the bye each week can live stream a dinner party with 5 selected players (1 leader and 4 fringe) - with pre-selectrd topics to discuss/confront each other over. At the end of the dinner, one player will be voted off the seniors list. 

Or we could force the 2 drunkest ones to have a cage fight....

1 hour ago, demoniac said:

Politically I think it has to happen, and it has to be a standalone team.

Politically, maybe, but if the AFL are concerned regarding falling attendances, then have they considered just how many fans they may lose if their clubs has to stand aside for an unnecessary bye. 

Some teams will need to have a bye in rounds 1, or 2 or 3: others will get them in the last few weeks of a season.  Will they also continue with the mid season bye, and the pre-finals bye?    That will be just about enough for many wavering followers.

"AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has indicated Tasmania's bid for a 19th licence is contingent on the island state building a new stadium.   McLachlan confirmed the League would only consider issuing a new licence, rather than relocating an existing club to Tasmania.  The state government in March announced plans to develop a multi-purpose stadium at Hobart's waterfront, costing an estimated $750 million. new-stadium-needed-for-tasmania-licence

 

If the licence is contingent on a new stadium they won't see a team in Tassie for a long time, if ever.  On OTC recently Nick Riewoldt was asked about the stadium funding and he said something like:  "..well it will happen.  The AFL, Federal and State governments will have to put in.  AFL will need to make it happen like they do other initiatives".

In other words there isn't a plan for where the $750m will come from.  Can't see the AFL putting in too much of its coin for an "all purpose stadium" when it might be used once a fortnight for AFL games.

 

Update on the costings:

"The bid team has admitted that original costings of a proposed new stadium on the Hobart waterfront were loose... the ABC revealed last week that figure was a “ballpark” figure provided by a consultant, rather than a firm cost".

stadium-ultimatum-on-tasmanian-afl-team

From what I can tell the $150 promised by the Tas Gov't is for a training facility and contribution to running expenses over 10 years.

Edited by Lucifers Hero


Seeing this brought up a few places, but what exactly is wrong with the current stadiums down there? 

3 hours ago, roy11 said:

Seeing this brought up a few places, but what exactly is wrong with the current stadiums down there? 

No roof

Without one the product could be terrible. Remember Tassie have never had a night game

With a State funded clean stadium seating say 35k the Tassie team could stack up. It would mean big $$ every year from the State. This is effectively what NFL teams do.

Build me a stadium/new stadium or we move !!

Edited by Diamond_Jim

16 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

No roof

Without one the product could be terrible. Remember Tassie have never had a night game

With a State funded clean stadium seating say 35k the Tassie team could stack up. It would mean big $$ every year from the State. This is effectively what NFL teams do.

Build me a stadium/new stadium or we move !!

And that often ends in a painful  financial burden for the city.  But pardon my ignorance but er, what? No roof? Really?

Roof for the players or roof for the fans? 

The requirement a new team needs a fricken stadium shows how delusional the AFL is. The new team needs heart, passion, players and coaches committed, it needs branding, marketing, innovation, the franchise needs wins, culture, long term thinking.    The last thing it freaking needs is a roof on its stadium.  If thats really what the AFL thinks will make it a success, just stop wasting time and end the effort now.  For the record, I dont think numbers make much sense to have a team in Tassie but they didnt for GCS and they gave that a try so who knows 


  • Author
6 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

good grief...

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/tasmanian-afl-team-eddie-mcguire-says-north-melbourne-should-play-11-games-in-tassie/news-story/6dd17d1ae93fbc5153d6bdc1cd4552b8

under his plan north would play 11 games in melbourne, 11 games in tasmania...seems equitable and fair...

why can't caro reverse engineer his plan, and drown him?

 

 

18 teams should be the limit. How do you manage the bye with 19 teams? one poor sod of a team gets bye round 1 and then plays 18 rounds of footy. Given our 9 day break it’ll probably be us.

We have too many teams already in Melbourne so I think ultimately 2 need to relocate. 1 tonTassie and the other to Darwin in 5-7 years time. Should be Collingwood. 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 3 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Like
    • 192 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 496 replies