Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Parkysp said:
How was Weitering not in concussion protocol? He was staggering around the goal square after he copped that hit to the head.

How did Cripps not get sent off with the blood rule with blood pouring out his nose right in front of the umpire.

AFL really is a bush league at times with its (non) adherence to its own rules.
Click to expand...
The bolded was exactly what I was saying last night.
A Melbourne player only had to point it out in the last minute or so, and they’d be in the Preliminary.
 
TassieSaint said:
Not the forum to have this debate in full but that article was horrendously biased. No exploration of the feasibility (or lack thereof) of playing at Bellerive or York Park long term. I'm not convinced it will get built because of how political it's got but bloody oath it should be.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The pre determined agenda was oozing out of nearly every sentence.
 
sauce_head said:
Exactly. The pre determined agenda was oozing out of nearly every sentence.
Click to expand...
The article explained the situation as of now, that is, the only option in play according to the deal that has been signed and to which the state of Tasmania, through its government, is committed. My point is that without this deal being renegotiated in some way, the terms are far too onerous, and unacceptable to the general public, and any alternative government, to proceed. Unless something changes it simply won't happen for the many reasons detailed in the article.

The "pre determined agenda" are facts. Unpalatable, unwelcome and inescapable facts.

I'll restate my position. I have long wanted a Tasmanian team. Demetriou, he of the acutely publicly embarrassing corporate board ignorance at Crown, failed our state way back then. The current AFL executive has agreed that we can have a team but then have imposed terms on us that can't be met. That is another failure. Our contribution, as a state, to our game, has been treated with utter contempt.

Let's also face another fact. The chair of the AFL Board is Richard Goyder, also the chair of the Board at Qantas. How well is that going? Those people look at a specific set of numbers only while the fabric of the organisation compeletely crumbles, including the essential social license. It doesn't take long.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Circus said:
The article explained the situation as of now, that is, the only option in play according to the deal that has been signed and to which the state of Tasmania, through its government, is committed. My point is that without this deal being renegotiated in some way, the terms are far too onerous, and unacceptable to the general public, and any alternative government, to proceed. Unless something changes it simply won't happen for the many reasons detailed in the article.

The "pre determined agenda" are facts. Unpalatable, unwelcome and inescapable facts.

I'll restate my position. I have long wanted a Tasmanian team. Demetriou, he of the acutely publicly embarrassing corporate board ignorance at Crown, failed our state way back then. The current AFL executive has agreed that we can have a team but then have imposed terms on us that can't be met. That is another failure. Our contribution, as a state, to our game, has been treated with utter contempt.

Let's also face another fact. The chair of the AFL Board is Richard Goyder, also the chair of the Board at Qantas. How well is that going? Those people look at a specific set of numbers only while the fabric of the organisation compeletely crumbles, including the essential social license. It doesn't take long.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the way the economy is headed, it's going to be a hard sell. Gill has kicked the can down the road. It will have to be renegotiated to some degree. We'll see the appetite of governments and the AFL to get this up.
 
Circus said:
The article explained the situation as of now, that is, the only option in play according to the deal that has been signed and to which the state of Tasmania, through its government, is committed. My point is that without this deal being renegotiated in some way, the terms are far too onerous, and unacceptable to the general public, and any alternative government, to proceed. Unless something changes it simply won't happen for the many reasons detailed in the article.

The "pre determined agenda" are facts. Unpalatable, unwelcome and inescapable facts.

I'll restate my position. I have long wanted a Tasmanian team. Demetriou, he of the acutely publicly embarrassing corporate board ignorance at Crown, failed our state way back then. The current AFL executive has agreed that we can have a team but then have imposed terms on us that can't be met. That is another failure. Our contribution, as a state, to our game, has been treated with utter contempt.

Let's also face another fact. The chair of the AFL Board is Richard Goyder, also the chair of the Board at Qantas. How well is that going? Those people look at a specific set of numbers only while the fabric of the organisation compeletely crumbles, including the essential social license. It doesn't take long.
Click to expand...
How is it an inescapable fact when it's been funded and has both state and federal govt support? You're speaking like it's impossible when the business case has already been shown to stack up. The tide of public support is turning in favour of it. It is in no one's interest to have the team fall over.
 
gringo2011 said:
Yeah, the way the economy is headed, it's going to be a hard sell. Gill has kicked the can down the road. It will have to be renegotiated to some degree. We'll see the appetite of governments and the AFL to get this up.
Click to expand...

Tassie is still just too small population wise. Its not disrespect its reality.

500 000 for the state.
200 000 for Hobart
72000 for Launceston.

Half of Hobart can fit in the MCG.

It doesn't make more sense than having a Bendigo/Ballarat team, ( Bendigo/Ballarat being closer to a city of 5 million than Launceston is to Hobart ).
 
Dylan Alcott killed off the old Ch9 Footy Show along with Lame-o when they tried to revamp it.

86056423ded9ed4cb016a0f1ae8599f8


The Front Bar was already beating it in the ratings and after that revamp it became a blowout.
 
A couple of observations:

Can see why Hogan is thriving at the Giants. Toby Greene would be the type of captain to let loose but give blokes like Hogan a clip if they crossed the line.

Adam Kingsley has been transcending to his ultra ego Bane all football season. He’s there now.

Go Giants.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What a shame to hear about Ron Barassi passing away today
 
Dard Ball Get said:
All good points except the Trump stuff. Keep Daddy Donald’s name outta your mouth 😎
Click to expand...

TassieSaint said:
How is it an inescapable fact when it's been funded and has both state and federal govt support? You're speaking like it's impossible when the business case has already been shown to stack up. The tide of public support is turning in favour of it. It is in no one's interest to have the team fall over.
Click to expand...
Because its only partially funded - up to about $750M when it is likely to cost twice that. The Federal government support is not for an AFL stadium, it is to redevelop the Mac Point site, of which a stadium is only supposed to be a part of the deal. Like, it is supposed to have community housing, etc at Regatta Point.

The current state government is governing in minority. You know what that means don't you - hanging by a thread and some reluctant goodwill. Our next parliament will have 10 additional seats with the big question being will any party win sufficient seats to form a majority government. Seems very doubtful. In those circumstances who is going to spend precious dollars when we have so many other really urgent, serious underfunded problems.

The stadium hasn't been designed yet. It may not even fit there. Latest problem? Its on partially reclaimed land and water is less than 3 metres below the road. No one should be surprised about that either since its never been a secret when it was reclaimed by mid 1850s.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'd love a team and a stadium. The AFL could do it, easily, but they won't. We are not nearly important enough, can't add to the "market" or "commercial" growth, blah, blah, blah. They have insulted us by insisting we pay for something that we can't do at present. They know that. Our entire history has been brief periods of prosperity and long periods of stagnation. We are not prospering just now.
 
Even though I hated the Giants last week when they beat us I am back on their bandwagon now, hopefully they can knock off Port tonight.

I've been really impressed with what Kingsley has done with them, he has got them playing a great brand of footy that stands up in finals.

We didn't play that well but the Giants didn't allow us to play that well either, if they can play like they did last week they should beat Port.
 
Jeaus Wilks got panted by Toby Greene last week.
The highlights shown prior to tonight's game was telling. Never seen him so badly beaten.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Circus said:
Because its only partially funded - up to about $750M when it is likely to cost twice that. The Federal government support is not for an AFL stadium, it is to redevelop the Mac Point site, of which a stadium is only supposed to be a part of the deal. Like, it is supposed to have community housing, etc at Regatta Point.

The current state government is governing in minority. You know what that means don't you - hanging by a thread and some reluctant goodwill. Our next parliament will have 10 additional seats with the big question being will any party win sufficient seats to form a majority government. Seems very doubtful. In those circumstances who is going to spend precious dollars when we have so many other really urgent, serious underfunded problems.

The stadium hasn't been designed yet. It may not even fit there. Latest problem? Its on partially reclaimed land and water is less than 3 metres below the road. No one should be surprised about that either since its never been a secret when it was reclaimed by mid 1850s.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'd love a team and a stadium. The AFL could do it, easily, but they won't. We are not nearly important enough, can't add to the "market" or "commercial" growth, blah, blah, blah. They have insulted us by insisting we pay for something that we can't do at present. They know that. Our entire history has been brief periods of prosperity and long periods of stagnation. We are not prospering just now.
Click to expand...

There is also subsidy for the team, which is for 10 years. What happens after 10 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hayes4PM
  • Locked
Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion - Part II
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
667
Views
22K
George
George
sammm
Discussion 2024 General AFL Discussion
61 62 63 64 65
Replies
2K
Views
59K
Yawkey way
Yawkey way
George
Brownlow 2023 AFL Brownlow Medal
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
4K
Bill Crouse
Bill Crouse
no1saint66
Discussion 2023 Annual Report
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
sammm
sammm
A
Resource 2023 Saints highlights Video
Replies
15
Views
1K
gringo2011
gringo2011
S
Toast Saints Player, Appreciation Post, 1873-2023
Replies
2
Views
501
Saintscomemarchingin
S
stavro#4
List Mgmt. 2023 Trade Thread - Part IV
65 66 67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
77K
hangdog
hangdog

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top