Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

I reckon the most viable solution is for Golf Coast to relocate to Tassie and to play home games between both stadiums with an investment focus on elite training facilities for AFL, AFLW, State and Junior competition's in both the North and South. Tasmanian's love their grassroot sports and a focus on integrating facilities from elite Juniors through to the National competition would be the most sustainable path.

I like the idea but the AFL don’t like admitting they got things wrong. The Dolphins have had more success in the first 8 weeks.

 

the sensible compromise is GCS to play 11 on GC and 11 in Hobart

Home ground advantage is not that big a thing compared to the permanent bye monstrosity that comes from a 19th team

My guess is Adelaide will get an extra team at the same time thus making the 20th team. With sensible scheduling AO can easily accommodate an extra team. Docklands and the MCG are shared by 9 teams

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the sensible compromise is GCS to play 11 on GC and 11 in Hobart

Home ground advantage is not that big a thing compared to the permanent bye monstrosity that comes from a 19th team

My guess is Adelaide will get an extra team at the same time thus making the 20th team. With sensible scheduling AO can easily accommodate an extra team. Docklands and the MCG are shared by 9 teams

tassy is never going to accept anything other than a genuine tassy based team

np sharing, no relocating

a 20th team solves the bye issue but trying to start two new teams at the same time would be so disruptive requiring 90 new players and massive concessions affecting existing teams. expect them to go 1 team at a time

 
28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

tassy is never going to accept anything other than a genuine tassy based team

np sharing, no relocating

a 20th team solves the bye issue but trying to start two new teams at the same time would be so disruptive requiring 90 new players and massive concessions affecting existing teams. expect them to go 1 team at a time

They will not be viable with a 23k seat stadium unless they are heavily subsidised by someone. Heard a rep from the Tasmanian body say they hoped for 50k members. (Not sure how that works unless they sell away memberships and the away clubs are prepared to deal)

The clubs complained that they never saw detailed business plans for GCS and GWS. Same thing happening again on the hope that the golden media pudding will fix all.

Shanghai anyone ??

5496C39E-21C4-4946-A35C-2C71373AE61C.jpeg.c6194d9f1f6d2b39e23e9f159d78d001.jpeg

Edited by McQueen


Another team robbing the existing teams,  numerous byes, talent pool lowered again. Harder again for us to get funding. Gee this is so exciting.

Edited by old dee

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

They will not be viable with a 23k seat stadium unless they are heavily subsidised by someone. Heard a rep from the Tasmanian body say they hoped for 50k members. (Not sure how that works unless they sell away memberships and the away clubs are prepared to deal)

The clubs complained that they never saw detailed business plans for GCS and GWS. Same thing happening again on the hope that the golden media pudding will fix all.

Shanghai anyone ??

from a sentimental pov i really like it and hope it's a success

from a practical and skeptical pov it looks like it could end up another giants, suns millstone for a number of reasons

Forget about the roof did I read they are paying 750M for a 25K stadium? I mean that’s a bit of rip off… why wouldn’t you build something of the size of Adelaide Oval or something akin to Optus oval? It won’t cater for future generations. 

 
17 minutes ago, McQueen said:

5496C39E-21C4-4946-A35C-2C71373AE61C.jpeg.c6194d9f1f6d2b39e23e9f159d78d001.jpeg

The Devils will be a real conundrum for:

  • father/son
  • parent/child
  • half-aunt / half-uncle / half-niece / half-nephew
  • double-first-cousin
  • half-first-cousin
Just now, Queanbeyan Demon said:

The Devils will be a real conundrum for:

  • father/son
  • parent/child
  • half-aunt / half-uncle / half-niece / half-nephew
  • double-first-cousin
  • half-first-cousin

……. And I think we should leave it there. 🤣🤣


1 minute ago, McQueen said:

……. And I think we should leave it there. 🤣🤣

Did my best to keep it tidy.

Wouldn't be surprised if list sizes get reduced to something like 34 senior, 4 rookie and 2 Cat B rookies. Might be the AFL's way of spreading out the talent pool.

25k seating

Who are these idiots

40k min...  50k better

There'll be other uses for that stadium.... to try and pull back some $$$

Must be the same mob that designed Docklands ( and got it wrong ) 

GO TASSIE! 

great news!

population of Tassie around the same as GC but much more footy mad folk down there. should be a success. 25k stadium sounds perfect

Thrilled that we might finally see a Tasmanian team after decades of unsuccessful bids and pleads and get it up and running.

Still, I'm unsure why a shiny new stadium is needed to seal the deal, especially reading that it's only going to have a capacity of 25k. Doesn't seem worth it to me. 

Why not use a fraction of the funding for the new stadium and use it to redevelop Bellerive Oval instead? 

Edited by Demon Jack


I’m happy for Tassie to have a team, but the competition is already spread thin for talent. GC was a massive mistake and should be relocated down to Tassie. 

7 minutes ago, Demon Jack said:

Thrilled that we might finally see a Tasmanian team after decades of unsuccessful bids and pleads and get it up and running.

Still, I'm unsure why a shiny new stadium is needed to seal the deal, especially reading that it's only going to have a capacity of 25k. Doesn't seem worth it to me. 

Why not use a fraction of the funding for the new stadium and use it to redevelop Bellerive Oval instead? 

It's the roof

Keeping it to 23k will allow for lower stands and thus a cheaper roof.

There is a site that compares stadium build costs on a cost per seat basis. Optus in Perth was number 1 by a mile with Wembley a distant second

I wonder if Hobart will challenge for number 1 (builders in Perth were paid incredible money as they were competing with the mining boom. The end result was good but it wasn't twice as good as Wembley etc)

I think the city with the next biggest Aussie population is actually London.

Plenty of ovals including the oval.

Expats have time and money.

Carlton norf replay.

8 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

It's the roof

Keeping it to 23k will allow for lower stands and thus a cheaper roof.

There is a site that compares stadium build costs on a cost per seat basis. Optus in Perth was number 1 by a mile with Wembley a distant second

I wonder if Hobart will challenge for number 1 (builders in Perth were paid incredible money as they were competing with the mining boom. The end result was good but it wasn't twice as good as Wembley etc)

Not necessarily true at all. 

The roof is the roof... Depending on orientation of tiers the ground need not have a larger footprint.  Depending upon the elev used for the playing field the stadium doesn't need to soar skywards.

23k seems a waste of time and money.

No future proofing there.

9 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

GC was a massive mistake and should be relocated down to Tassie. 

Carna Cold Coast!


Can we boost the talent pool over time enough to compensate? That's the question.

Otherwise extremely happy for Tassie to be inching closer. 

The Sicily comments are quite interesting to me. Admittedly I’m not 21, and am in the demographic that knows a little too much about ‘small batch’ anything, but isn’t Tassie incredibly popular now, and rents are insane?

Do we really think player retention will be an issue? Love to hear the local perspective.

3 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

The Sicily comments are quite interesting to me. Admittedly I’m not 21, and am in the demographic that knows a little too much about ‘small batch’ anything, but isn’t Tassie incredibly popular now, and rents are insane?

Do we really think player retention will be an issue? Love to hear the local perspective.

Not exactly what you were after, Heart, but we're just back from Tassie, and one 'local perspective' we got, that I'm not aware we hear anything about in the AFL/mainland-controlled agenda, is that the stadium site has serious Indigenous cultural significances. While current levels of 'modern' disturbance/development are (apparently) remediable, $3/4billions'-worth are not. Regardless of any range in views on that aspect from us the 'uninvested', this won't make for an easy development.

 

Tassie will be a disaster. Player retention will be impossible and there isn't enough homegrown talent in the Apple Isle.

GWS and GCS players get to live in Bondi or Surfers Paradise and they have enough issues.

14 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Tassie will be a disaster. Player retention will be impossible and there isn't enough homegrown talent in the Apple Isle.

GWS and GCS players get to live in Bondi or Surfers Paradise and they have enough issues.

I’d pick Tasmania over Surfers Paradise or Bondi every time. Actually both of those places would be very close to the bottom of the list of anywhere in Australia to live.


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

  • 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.

      • Thanks
    • 133 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.

      • Thanks
    • 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.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 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? 

      • Thanks
    • 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?

      • Thanks
    • 396 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies