Tasmania AFL failed Tasmania
- Thread starter bombersfan4000
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The_Terminator
Debutant
- Jul 31, 2015
- 116
- 123
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Townsville, population 190k is home to the NQ Cowboys for 20 years & average 16k home crowds. Newcastle supports the Knights with a population of 300k average 15k a game & they are coming last.
Surely Tasmania can support an AFL team with it's populationof 500k. Even averaging 15k in the early years would be a pass mark. Bulldogs only average 23k at home & they have a roof & pay Etihad's huge rent. How are they profitable?
Surely Tasmania can support an AFL team with it's populationof 500k. Even averaging 15k in the early years would be a pass mark. Bulldogs only average 23k at home & they have a roof & pay Etihad's huge rent. How are they profitable?
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
That you put profit in inverted commas answers your question. Surely the idea would be for a new club to make a real profit, without the need for the ""s.
As for 45Million....Probably not far off for a club that would get no assistance.
Richmond didn't even make $45 million last year.
The AFL can, and will.
Not sure that's an appropriate comparison given you need signficantly less cash to run an NRL club. In any case, isn't Newcastle constantly in deep financial s**t (and has a lot more people than 300k)?
They're not. They've been on AFL life support for well over a decade.
Tasmania will get a team in 2023.
Rack Watts
Here's MASON
The thing is, a 15k crown in the NRL is also comparable to a 27k crowd in AFL.
Tasmania could easily account for a team, the AFL know it too, just sad.
Nothing but excuses.
They constantly prop up other teams.
Why put a team in the GC, when people don't even go to the titans games? Ffs.
Why put a team in tasmania when you can get all the money from that captive audiance with your current sides?
Rack Watts
Here's MASON
Sometimes it isn't about business.
Sometimes it is about giving back.
Tasmania needs a team.
telsor
Hall of Famer
a) We probably will next year (and we're talking about the future after all)
b) Richmond isn't a 'rich' club, indeed, from memory we're in the lower half for revenue. Why would you bring in a new club that would be near the bottom (without substantial scope for improvement...While a Tas team would be getting relatively worse over time).
Long time to wait for a lame answer Telsor.
It's more to call out what an absolute bullshit arbitrary number this $45 million stated by Gilligan actually is. I mean if Richmond with their hundred years of building this league, 70,000 members and highest home crowds of any side in the comp aren't making $45 million, it really can't be the bench mark can it?
As a hypothetical, if they were starting up an 18 team national competition completely from scratch surely there would be a Tasmanian team?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Sorry I'm not just sitting here waiting to respond to your ill founded comments.
Richmond was 11th for revenue.
Considering adding a new team, in an area that wont grow the game, with a support base that will probably shrink over the long term (in both real and absolute terms), where do you think the bar should be set for revenue requirements?
Surely not being in the bottom 3rd isn't an unreasonable expectation.
There are many many of your fellow supporters claiming that Richmond are challenging Collingwood as the "biggest" club in the AFL. The "Big 4" crap your supporter base constantly bring up, more than any other in this fabled group, yet the mighty, massive Richmond, in the mightiest of mightiest Australian Rules stronghold, the "Sporting Capital" of the Milky Way, can't make $45 million, how can that be the baseline number? How? It's absolute bullshit.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Why?
Assuming they'd still have 4 in NSW/QLD, you have 14 clubs to divide between 10.7M people in the heartland states...That's roughly 750K/team
Vic - Pop 5.9M -7.9
WA - Pop 2.6M -3.5
SA - Pop 1.7M -2.3
Tas - Pop 0.5M -0.6
So Vic 8, WA 3, SA 2 with one a toss up between WA & Tas, Tas would be ahead slightly now, but WA is growing significantly faster, so do you pick for now or for 10+ years time?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Is there an argument in there, or are you just having a dig?
The argument is that the arbitrary $45 million Gilligan spouted (which he himself surely doesn't believe) is a load of s**t. I'm just using your great "Big 4" club to illustrate this point.
Watching Gil talking about Tasmania 'deserving' a club, then he went on in a roundabout way & sounded rather sheepish when he said $45million. I'm sure he new he was wrong. He was by saying the honest thing about a Tasmanian team & then made up some arbitrary figure as a reason for their not to be a team. He knew he was wrong.
Tasmania wont get a look in because they, the AFL, have at least 5-6 welfare dependent clubs & we know 18 teams is enough. The politics is they have to help them out year in ,year out, no matter how poorly run & incompetent they are, or become, or struggle in a tough market. Its a boys club. The AFL is a support vest for the VFL. Sad but true. If Tasmania was allowed in, the Hawthorn would go back to a middle & north would again scratching about for a life raft. Now we have StKilda knocking on the door again.
The argument about demographics is relevant but not an absolute. I've said Tasmania wouldnt get a look in if it were less than an 18 team comp. However, with Footy being part of a big focus of the tourist & event market, it makes it a very attractive investment for Tasmanian business & Gument. National/international sponsors would be a given.
Tasmania wont get a look in because they, the AFL, have at least 5-6 welfare dependent clubs & we know 18 teams is enough. The politics is they have to help them out year in ,year out, no matter how poorly run & incompetent they are, or become, or struggle in a tough market. Its a boys club. The AFL is a support vest for the VFL. Sad but true. If Tasmania was allowed in, the Hawthorn would go back to a middle & north would again scratching about for a life raft. Now we have StKilda knocking on the door again.
The argument about demographics is relevant but not an absolute. I've said Tasmania wouldnt get a look in if it were less than an 18 team comp. However, with Footy being part of a big focus of the tourist & event market, it makes it a very attractive investment for Tasmanian business & Gument. National/international sponsors would be a given.
tigerninja
Cancelled
- Apr 10, 2015
- 2,354
- 2,434
- AFL Club
- Richmond
We could bring in a Tasmanian team next year if they wanted to.
Greater Newcastle has a population larger than Tassie
Yes, & as stated, they have an NRL team, an A-league team, no suitable venue for an AFL team & SFA interest in the Victorian game.
So its a really perfect place for the AFL to throw $200million at. I'm sure the brains at the marketing department will get right onto it.
The_Terminator
Debutant
- Jul 31, 2015
- 116
- 123
- AFL Club
- Sydney
http://blog.id.com.au/2014/populati...st-australian-cities-and-towns-by-population/
This web page has Newcastle at just under 426k.
My point was Newcastle supported an NSWRL (ARL, NRL) club since 1988. At the time, if it's population was say 280k (willing to be corrected) but because it was a rugby league devoted town, it's average crowds were around 20k as it was the only show in town. Now Newcastle has an A League team in town, another an hour down the road (Central Coast Mariners), the Knights are averaging 15k crowds whilst on the bottom of the league. When they get better, so will the crowds. Tassie would be in a similar situation.
Question. Why is a rugby league team cheaper to run than AFL?
Plonking a team in a potential growth area like South East Queensland does not always work. A League Gold Coast. A number of Gold Coast rugby league teams. Bears on the Coast & the SQ Crushers have proven potential is a twin edged sword.
A proven market like Tassie should have been first.
Short answer, less players, smaller salary cap, less staff, cheaper stadiums.
Why the Gold Coast, growing the game & 2 teams in Qld for the derby/showdown effect.
You must be off your medication Bear, given you didnt mention the problems in Melbourne, i.e too many teams , too many games (supply outstrips demand) - after 100+ years teams cant survive with handouts, dressed any way you like it they are handouts - growing the game is more importasnt than propping up clubs that dont put bums on seats, dont rate, dont attract enough $s from memberships ($s not #s) ...
There should still be 16 teams, we dont produce enough talent for 18 - shame Fitz & the Commission dropped the ball then paid bonuses to the executive for what we have today Tas should have a team & the Suns & Giants are looking forward not backwards.
Similar threads
