1 hour ago, old dee said:

I have been complaining about this for years, just another team to draw players from the pool which gets lower by the day. So instead of having 5 teams that have no chance of playing finals mid year we will have 6 or 7. Add the player contracts which will see even more players trying to get out of the bottom half dozen teams. Essendrug is a view to the future for more teams.

I’m happy for Tassie to have a team as it rounds out the competition nicely but it MUST come at the expense of a Victorian based team. Yes we can argue that the Giants and Suns came in too quickly but there here now and here to stay. How anyone thinks this competition can sustain any more teams is beyond me. The AFLW was doomed as soon as the went to 18 teams after only a couple of years. There’s a lot wrong with our game at the moment and the clubs and those in the media seemingly sit there and just smile and wave as if everything is ok.

Why cant they just play in Hobart/Launceston for the first few years until they/AFL can build up the capital to build a new stadium?

Edited yesterday at 04:031 day by Jibroni

On 19/09/2025 at 08:47, Mouseymoo said:

For a 23k seat stadium that's over $78,000 per seat. They'd want to be heated recliners for that!

That is one way to measure construction costs. A few years back I cam across a site that looked at stadiums around the world using that measure. The most expensive per seat by a long way was Optus stadium in Perth. Building it at the same time as the mining infrastructure lead to the sweetest deal for all concerned. While hobart is different I would imagine that given run away construction costs post covid we'd be seeing a high cost build to say the least

3 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I’m happy for Tassie to have a team as it rounds out the competition nicely but it MUST come at the expense of a Victorian based team. Yes we can argue that the Giants and Suns came in too quickly but there here now and here to stay. How anyone thinks this competition can sustain any more teams is beyond me. The AFLW was doomed as soon as the went to 18 teams after only a couple of years. There’s a lot wrong with our game at the moment and the clubs and those in the media seemingly sit there and just smile and wave as if everything is ok.

Which Victorian based team?

Be careful what you wish for.

Edited yesterday at 06:541 day by Dr. Gonzo

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Which Victorian based team?

Be careful what you wish for.

North, Saints a close second but North. Nobody wants to lose their team but the game will be worse off after expansion. North are struggling now, how will they fair after Tassie comes in and probably takes McKercher (possibly wrong spelling) in the process?

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

North, Saints a close second but North. Nobody wants to lose their team but the game will be worse off after expansion. North are struggling now, how will they fair after Tassie comes in and probably takes McKercher (possibly wrong spelling) in the process?

Why are Melbourne exempt?

On 19/09/2025 at 21:15, Rossmillan said:

What a debacle.

600 mill for Adelaide oval, $1.6 billion for Optus stadium.

How the hell can this cost $1.8billion.

Why should taxpayers fund any stadium - should be users pay.

It’s morally wrong that Tassie doesn’t have a team. I hope basketball takes everything they can get down there, for fronting up and giving them a team.

It is the AFL, so it is not about morals 😀 Historically there were state-based leagues until 1990, although by the end of the 1980s there were 11 Victorian-based clubs in the VFL (out of the 12 from 1925 onwards), together with the Sydney Swans (ex-South Melbourne) and two "interstate" teams West Coast and the Brisbane Bears. The 1990s saw the invention of the AFL as the national league for Aussie rules, and the addition of the Adelaide Crows, the Fremantle Dockets and Port Power, and the demise of Fitzroy (swallowed by the Bears). So we end up with 10 clubs in Melbourne or nearby, 2 in Sydney, 2 in Perth, 2 in Adelaide and 2 in Queensland (and none in Tassie).

The point of this is that the history reads like lunatic playing with the map from the 1980s onwards, based on the (probably true) assumption tha the VFL was the highest-quality and best-followed of the state leagues, and hence "deserved" to be the basis of the national league. That history and some kind of economic overlay means that Tassie has missed out so far. You could also argue that "morally" there should have been a team from SA in the late-80s version of the VFL (alongside West Coast) instead of the Brisbane Bears, but the politics and economics didn't support it. The harsh reality is that Tasmania has less than half the population of Adelaide, let alone any of the other mainland cities 🤨

1 hour ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

It is the AFL, so it is not about morals 😀 Historically there were state-based leagues until 1990, although by the end of the 1980s there were 11 Victorian-based clubs in the VFL (out of the 12 from 1925 onwards), together with the Sydney Swans (ex-South Melbourne) and two "interstate" teams West Coast and the Brisbane Bears. The 1990s saw the invention of the AFL as the national league for Aussie rules, and the addition of the Adelaide Crows, the Fremantle Dockets and Port Power, and the demise of Fitzroy (swallowed by the Bears). So we end up with 10 clubs in Melbourne or nearby, 2 in Sydney, 2 in Perth, 2 in Adelaide and 2 in Queensland (and none in Tassie).

The point of this is that the history reads like lunatic playing with the map from the 1980s onwards, based on the (probably true) assumption tha the VFL was the highest-quality and best-followed of the state leagues, and hence "deserved" to be the basis of the national league. That history and some kind of economic overlay means that Tassie has missed out so far. You could also argue that "morally" there should have been a team from SA in the late-80s version of the VFL (alongside West Coast) instead of the Brisbane Bears, but the politics and economics didn't support it. The harsh reality is that Tasmania has less than half the population of Adelaide, let alone any of the other mainland cities 🤨

R&BB I like the idea of a Tassie team as a romantic symbol of pride for the island and as an economic stimulus. It would be far better than the tokenistic partnerships they have with Hawks and North that seem slightly exploitative.

Tassie is routinely an afterthought for the nation but it has great potential and would benefit from investment. There's so much space and resources there and it will become more valuable as a location with climate change impacting further North.

The island needs positive examples for their young people and ways to encourage them to stay there. Hopefully a team will grow the game and give employment avenues for their youth.

There will also be support from the diaspora of Tasmanians living in other states who might return to visit more regularly and spend money there too.

I think it's better to have more national teams and opportunities for young players rather than losing them to league, soccer or basketball.

The problem is not the number of teams, but it's the AFL allowing too great an influence to powerful wealthy clubs like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane etc with favourable fixtures, stadia and structural advantages; and ability to poach contracted talent and pay off the books.

If this continues the league will be really uncompetitive and boring. I'm happy for Tasmania to come in and get advantages but with the AFL I'm charge I'm worried that it's the lower performing 5 or 6 teams that will suffer playing there regularly in windy stadiums; losing funding, talent and picks to support them while the big clubs continue to roll on hoovering up cash, sponsorship, state funding and greedy contracted players.

So I support the team, but I worry about it's impact on lower clubs mostly and I believe the demand for a roof is causing the stadium to be prohibitively expensive. I also think playing at Marvel is horrible experience during daytime with the roof shut. As some other people mentioned here it could be an AFL ploy to set the bar for entry unattanably high so they won't be responsible for it not proceeding.

23 minutes ago, Hellfire Dub said:

R&BB I like the idea of a Tassie team as a romantic symbol of pride for the island and as an economic stimulus. It would be far better than the tokenistic partnerships they have with Hawks and North that seem slightly exploitative.

Tassie is routinely an afterthought for the nation but it has great potential and would benefit from investment. There's so much space and resources there and it will become more valuable as a location with climate change impacting further North.

The island needs positive examples for their young people and ways to encourage them to stay there. Hopefully a team will grow the game and give employment avenues for their youth.

There will also be support from the diaspora of Tasmanians living in other states who might return to visit more regularly and spend money there too.

I think it's better to have more national teams and opportunities for young players rather than losing them to league, soccer or basketball.

The problem is not the number of teams, but it's the AFL allowing too great an influence to powerful wealthy clubs like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane etc with favourable fixtures, stadia and structural advantages; and ability to poach contracted talent and pay off the books.

If this continues the league will be really uncompetitive and boring. I'm happy for Tasmania to come in and get advantages but with the AFL I'm charge I'm worried that it's the lower performing 5 or 6 teams that will suffer playing there regularly in windy stadiums; losing funding, talent and picks to support them while the big clubs continue to roll on hoovering up cash, sponsorship, state funding and greedy contracted players.

So I support the team, but I worry about it's impact on lower clubs mostly and I believe the demand for a roof is causing the stadium to be prohibitively expensive. I also think playing at Marvel is horrible experience during daytime with the roof shut. As some other people mentioned here it could be an AFL ploy to set the bar for entry unattainably high so they won't be responsible for it not proceeding.

Hmmm...

Has that ever been put to the AFL and has the AFL unequivocally denied it. Time for a bit of on-the-spot-putting!

Has the AFL ever given a statement of reasons for the roof?

On 20/09/2025 at 16:53, Dr. Gonzo said:

Which Victorian based team?

Be careful what you wish for.

22 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Why are Melbourne exempt?

North are in deep decline and would be an obvious relocation, Saints not far behind.

But Hawthorn, despite having AFL Tasmania on their logo have too much financial power, and a new training ground, to be pushed over Bass Strait. We could if course relieve them of the training facility as they head south 🤔🤔🤗🤗

And why are Melbourne exempt? Can’t have a national competition without a team with the name MELBOURNE

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

North are in deep decline and would be an obvious relocation, Saints not far behind.

But Hawthorn, despite having AFL Tasmania on their logo have too much financial power, and a new training ground, to be pushed over Bass Strait. We could if course relieve them of the training facility as they head south 🤔🤔🤗🤗

And why are Melbourne exempt? Can’t have a national competition without a team with the name MELBOURNE

We invented it 😉

Can one go extinct if they never existed? 🤔

How did Buck’s interview go? How’s this incredible process that makes us look shoddy playing out? Lots of candidates?

6 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

How did Buck’s interview go? How’s this incredible process that makes us look shoddy playing out? Lots of candidates?

Perhaps it was kicked into the long grass after we called his bluff. No immediate rush to sign him up now, particularly with their non-negotiable stadium in doubt.

One simple reality of this is. If the AFL wanted a team in tassie they’d be flexible on the stadium. It feels more and more like they don’t want the team but they don’t want the lack of team to be viewed as their fault. Just my conspiracy theory

1 hour ago, Ted Lasso said:

One simple reality of this is. If the AFL wanted a team in tassie they’d be flexible on the stadium. It feels more and more like they don’t want the team but they don’t want the lack of team to be viewed as their fault. Just my conspiracy theory

There's actually a 'Easter egg' in this.

Tassie could be up tomorrow...and yet one stumbling block in front of another.. my , my 🤔🤔

4 hours ago, Hellfire Dub said:

R&BB I like the idea of a Tassie team as a romantic symbol of pride for the island and as an economic stimulus. It would be far better than the tokenistic partnerships they have with Hawks and North that seem slightly exploitative.

Tassie is routinely an afterthought for the nation but it has great potential and would benefit from investment. There's so much space and resources there and it will become more valuable as a location with climate change impacting further North.

The island needs positive examples for their young people and ways to encourage them to stay there. Hopefully a team will grow the game and give employment avenues for their youth.

There will also be support from the diaspora of Tasmanians living in other states who might return to visit more regularly and spend money there too.

I think it's better to have more national teams and opportunities for young players rather than losing them to league, soccer or basketball.

The problem is not the number of teams, but it's the AFL allowing too great an influence to powerful wealthy clubs like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane etc with favourable fixtures, stadia and structural advantages; and ability to poach contracted talent and pay off the books.

If this continues the league will be really uncompetitive and boring. I'm happy for Tasmania to come in and get advantages but with the AFL I'm charge I'm worried that it's the lower performing 5 or 6 teams that will suffer playing there regularly in windy stadiums; losing funding, talent and picks to support them while the big clubs continue to roll on hoovering up cash, sponsorship, state funding and greedy contracted players.

So I support the team, but I worry about it's impact on lower clubs mostly and I believe the demand for a roof is causing the stadium to be prohibitively expensive. I also think playing at Marvel is horrible experience during daytime with the roof shut. As some other people mentioned here it could be an AFL ploy to set the bar for entry unattanably high so they won't be responsible for it not proceeding.

I hear your Hellfire Dub. The AFL can hardly argue against investment in a truly national competition after standing up Gold Coast and GWS for about 15 years. But unfortunately common sense and logic play a distant second to politics, perceptions and economics here. Your comments on the "two-tier" AFL, which are spot on, also unfortunatley reflect this -- the clubs with the biggest followings and/or big TV ratings call the shots. Tassie is a great place and I see the attaction of the Devils, but they are unlikely to compete with the big clubs off the field.

3 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

I hear your Hellfire Dub. The AFL can hardly argue against investment in a truly national competition after standing up Gold Coast and GWS for about 15 years. But unfortunately common sense and logic play a distant second to politics, perceptions and economics here. Your comments on the "two-tier" AFL, which are spot on, also unfortunatley reflect this -- the clubs with the biggest followings and/or big TV ratings call the shots. Tassie is a great place and I see the attaction of the Devils, but they are unlikely to compete with the big clubs off the field.

I know the population is about half that of Tassie, but to balance out the competition at 20 teams it would be great to have an NT or Top Half team.

They'd need big funding to keep them viable, but it could have exclusive academy access and a larger number of picks each year.

It would be great to encourage more indigenous talent into the league and it might be easier for some young players to be part of the league if they can be closer to their communities.

I'm sure the AFL will support this proposal and their only precondition on the team entering the league will be a modest $2bn 25,000 seater fully underground stadium. The stipulation is that it must be carved out of the ground in the same construction manner as coober pedy.

If the underground stadium becomes unachievable they can make a compromise and have an above ground level but fully sheltered stadium hollowed out from the inside of Uluru. Even if more than 70% of the local population support the team but not the outlandish stadium proposal that doesn't mean there's any reason to listen to the will of the people who are actually paying for it.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by Hellfire Dub