AFL want a mostly Tassie team while both Hawthorn and North want to be Melbourne clubs that play a few games down there for good $$
Tasmania AFL privately seething at Hawthorn and to a lesser extent North Melbourne
- Thread starter Suntory Boss Coffee
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Got that right & both clubs want to transfer games that don't draw a crowd in Melbourne - using the Taswegian taxpayer as a cash cow.
- Moderator
- #128
Tell you what Scott Wade could be a little more professional in his CEO Reports for AFL Tasmania.
Scott Wade is the CEO of the AFL's branch office in Tasmania. He does their bidding. If they weren't happy with him, he would get the boot. The fact that a huge majority of people here are very disappointed in his performance counts for SFA.
I think he takes a perverse pride in upsetting people here. He does what he likes. Stuffing things up doesnt get him the sack. So why should any of his reports to the AFL?
telsor
Hall of Famer
And the Taswegian taxpayer's representatives seem eager to give them that opportunity.
BTW, I think North V Richmond would have drawn a decent crowd if it was played in Melbourne.
wahawk
Norm Smith Medallist
so the Tas tax-payer is our cash cow, just as SGIO & Bankwest customers are yours
- Moderator
- #132
Its ok if they transfer them to Perth though right?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Well, in a way, WA is paying for Hawthorn...The breakup of GST has Tassie getting a big slice of the money WA loses.
Even for a Richmond supporter, thats just idiotic.
telsor
Hall of Famer
How so?
A significant part of the Tas government budget comes from their larger share of GST, without which they'd probably need to cut back on spending, and things like that sponsorship would be likely cuts.
So, & a significant amount of Victorian AFL clubs budgets comes from poker machine addicts. That doesnt seem to bothe you.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Just because your last flag was won when there were no significant sponsors...
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
A fair few hold both - use their reserved seat one for club home games and the AFL one to get reasonable seats at away games.
telsor
Hall of Famer
You complain plenty about clubs needing handouts....What about states that need handouts?
Should Tas be dropped from statehood?
After all, from your view, the past means nothing, and if Aus was setup now, they wouldn't be a full member on merit.
So what its politics not footy .... BF caters for politics & its not here.
AS well you know the current policy is its ok to play them anywhere BUT SA & WA. Supply & demand is not a difficult concept despite the AFL intransigence.
- Moderator
- #142
So theres no demand in Tasmania?
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'm sure they could play in SA & WA if there were smaller cities large enough, with adequate facilities (including airports that they can fly directly into) and willingness to pay.
Pity Bunbury doesn't have an adequate opener.
There would be 10 times as many footy fans in Bunbury as in Wellington
telsor
Hall of Famer
But madmug says Tas not having a team is all about politics.....
Footy politics maybe?
I give Gil (aka Dill) credit for admitting the AFL has made a blue here & even a blind man can see more teams is not a solution - Tassie needs to continue to agitate, I'm with the Mad Mugster !!
Firstly, you dont look from my view. I do that.
But since you asked so nicely & although I'm the wrong guy if your just trying another troll subject. I dont agree with state Guments. They are a throwback to colonisation. Modern transport & communication has made them out dated, outmoded & just another expensive layer of Gument. I believe in a national Gument, supported by a layer of strong regional Gument. ie A two tier system, not 3 tier. here.
So off to the political board for you.
Yes, footy politics. Politics applied to football. Politics, about power, control & distribution of resources. Clearly others struggle to understand that.
Our Tasmanian politicians & regional media have not helped the cause of a united front. The AFL themselves have failed the football public here. The AFL allowed the politicians to use football for their own ends. It has failed the game. It has failed what the AFL stand for & has failed the Tasmanian footy public & it has failed commercially. The State Gument sponsor footy in one part of the state & not in the biggest city!!! How much more political & divisive can you get.
Yes Gil has admitted we desrve a team, then made up an excuse thats supported not by the facts.
Before the light weights start up, I've said a heap of times that Tasmania would struggle to get a team if it were a 16 team or less competition. But at 18 teams Tasmania definitely should be part of the national scene & have its own club. We are a footy heartland. Its a wound in the AFL, they recognise that. They have admitted that. They are part of the problem. They need to be part of the solution.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Exchange "agree to play the majority of their home games" with "strong-armed by the AFL into playing the majority of their home games"
I'm with Saul Eslake on the financial case - sure the economy of Tas isnt huge but its not as if they need a sponsor from that economy. Melbournes primary sponsor (AHG) is Perth based as is iiNet (Hawks) now & after the current takeover will be Sydney based. The primary attraction is the national coverage. 500,000 population would get the membership with a small, sold out season ticket model which would attract premium $s in time.
I agree a relocated team will struggle if it is forced to carry lead in its saddle bags (see Norths various attempts to dud footy fans in Canberra, then Sydney & briefly on the Gold Coast - no one bought & any relocation will need to be genuine, run, managed, controlled in Tas.
But not more teams please !!
Similar threads
