Caro article tomorrow

Remove this Banner Ad

B Tron said:
Sorry H2H, but Delina is not a string puller and his comment of "It doesn't make sense, from my perspective", seems good enough, but the reality is his perspective means **** all when push comes to shove. Just ask Eugene.

It's JB's mouth this comment needs to come from to sate my suspicions around this.
Click to expand...
Gillons words in that presser say one thing. We dont want 2 teams up here from 2016. Hawthorn snubbed us last time and we wont let it happen again.
Wed love to have 8 teams here means North we want you to play 8 games here.
The lovey dovey relationship between Gillon and JB doesnt fill me with any confidence about what the club will do come 2016.
3 max and thats it. I know JB is the reason we are here today but he and the AFL can go and get ****ed if they propose 8.
I regret not voting in favour of the 4 game barrier because JB was completely against it. If this is now the reason why than thats just poor *in form.
 
this is a worry as both vlad and gilligan have said in interviews that tassie is the next frontier for a new afl team, i dont trust them a bit and i dont see the hawks going down there. hopefully the two teams can stick together when any talks on new contracts come up. hmm explains a lot why eugene walked if the jb talk is true.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The article itself is without substance and just an opinion.

But as usual it appears there are far too many posters who apparently sleep with the light on and jump at shadows.

Nth aren't going anywhere, JB, Euge and now Dilena have stated that ad nauseum, despite potentially increasing games in the short term to gain much needed revenue which appears now not required.

Bloody hell, how many times does it have to be said....
 
Last edited:
THE AFL's preferred football model in Tasmania would involve one team playing in both Launceston and Hobart, League deputy chief executive Gillon McLachlan says.

For the past three years, the AFL has been represented in Tasmania by Hawthorn and North Melbourne.

The Hawks have played 'home' games at Launceston's Aurora Stadium since 2001 and remain contracted to play four games a year there until the end of 2016.

North is in the final season of a three-year deal to play two games a season at Hobart's Blundstone Arena, but Roos chief executive Carl Dilena told AFL.com.au last week the Roos expected to start talks on extending their stay in Hobart within the next two months.

McLachlan was in Tasmania on Tuesday as the AFL officially took over the management of the state's governing football body, AFL Tasmania, and outlined his vision for the Apple Isle to the local media.

"We have an ideal model which is a single team representing Tasmania. Who that is and what format that takes is a complex question," McLachlan told The Mercury.

"Everyone understands (the Hawks) have another two years on their contract to run and I feel very confident North Melbourne will renew their arrangement for at least another couple of years in Hobart and the appropriate time to review that will be post-2016.

"I would love to see more content down here.

"The success of the North Melbourne footy club over the past couple of years has shown the appetite in the south. It has been well entrenched in the north and I think we are working constructively with all parties to increase the level of content at a minimum."

Dilena has consistently said North is interested in increasing its commitment at Blundstone Arena to three games a season from 2015.

In response to McLachlan's comments on Tuesday night, the North CEO told NMFC.com.au three games a season was the maximum commitment the club was considering in Hobart.

"It's been an honour playing two games in Hobart for the past two years and we look forward to returning later this season to face St Kilda and Adelaide," Dilena said.

"We have been open about our discussions with the AFL and key stakeholders in Hobart about increasing our commitment from two games to three.

"We are not considering anything beyond a potential three-game model and with the current stadium deal at Etihad, we are only in a position to go from two games to three in 2015 and beyond."

McLachlan said he was yet to speak to Hawthorn, North or the Tasmanian Government about the future of AFL football in Tasmania beyond the end of the Hawks' contract in 2016.

Dilena has consistently said North is interested in increasing its commitment at Blundstone Arena to three games a season from 2015.
Click to expand...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-15/afl-backs-one-team-in-tas?utm_medium=RSS
 
I get that it's not just up to Carl. The part I found most interesting was when he said this one club idea was not raised in any of the discussions North has had with the AFL, as recently as last week, around our plans for Hobart games.

To get it off the ground, the AFL would need to be committed to it (questionable), Hawthorn and/or North would need to be ready to move out (and at a time that suited the plan), a club would need to be ready to move in (also at the right time) and the current sponsors who pay for the whole thing - government and private - would need to be keen.

It just doesn't feel like an idea that's been fully developed or thought through. Even though Gillon is the one who raised it, he can't make it happen without a lot of buyin from others - right now it feels further away from actually happening than, for example, Ballarat getting AFL-ready.
 
BowWow1978 said:
My two cents worth.

1: I've just purchased my airfares and tickets for our game VS Saints in Hobart in July. All tickets other than GA on the hill already sold out. Not a bad result 3 months before the match. Pretty sure Hobart will be keen to continue this little kick to their economy. Has anyone been to a game there? What's it like? Interested in some feedback as this will be my first Tassie game.
Click to expand...

Been to all tassie games bar 1 and the atmosphere is great. Bit like the arden day games with a sea of blue and white and a real home ground feel just smaller.
As much as i like tassie i would prefer we played games there that would normally be away games so we can keep our 11 home games. If the afl want the game to flourish in tassie then 11 away games out of tassie 5 for us and maybe 6 from haws would be an easy fix. Leaving our home games alone would satisfy a lot more supporters i would think. The best of both worlds as they say.
 
I dont like green eggs and ham.
And.
I dont like this thread.

I can handle 4 games a year in tassie. 4 for the hawks too. Seems logical to me.

Any less than 7 homes games in Melb and I'll be a very sad panda.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
KB and I think it was Ralphy were saying that it was a bunch of crap. Apparently Demeat's has said a NZ team is more likely than a Tasmanian team. The AFL would need to constantly prop the team up for it to remain competitive because of the small market. The potential growth is why they have gone for GWS rather than giving Tassie a team. If it were done for reasons other than cash Tassie would have had a team years ago. It makes more sense for them to have a Melbourne/Tas team and given that 8 games is too many to play away the current model is perfect.
They are paying lip service to the Tassie AFL fans.
 
Don't blame Caro, blame JB. He shouldn't have blocked the constitution changes that were proposed.
 
Hearts to hearts said:
It just doesn't feel like an idea that's been fully developed or thought through. Even though Gillon is the one who raised it, he can't make it happen without a lot of buyin from others - right now it feels further away from actually happening than, for example, Ballarat getting AFL-ready.
Click to expand...
Just on Gilligan, has he already been installed, or did I miss something? Sounding more and more like it's a fait accompli.

B Tron said:
Sorry H2H, but Delina is not a string puller and his comment of "It doesn't make sense, from my perspective", seems good enough, but the reality is his perspective means **** all when push comes to shove. Just ask Eugene.

It's JB's mouth this comment needs to come from to sate my suspicions around this.
Click to expand...
A distinction here is that Funky Carl was, and still is, on the Board. So, unless he's mouthing untruths on behalf of the Board, one would assume what he says is more representative of the Board.

In any case, for good (we're sweet talking Tassie whilst waiting for Ballarat) or ill (we're planning to move to Tassie but can't say so), I'd assume whatever he says represents the Board.

S3v3nty S3v3n said:
I can handle 4 games a year in tassie. 4 for the hawks too. Seems logical to me.
Click to expand...
I reckon 4 is the maximum per club and a random idea, if they don't want to encourage the divide, is to mix up where the Hawks and Roos play, for example, each play two in Hobart and Launceston.

The one state/one team motive might be neat, but there is nothing to suggest that two teams can't work. And, if they think eight games is what the state deserves and can bear, 2 x 4 games makes far more sense for any Victorian team. If Etihad scheduling can handle it, I reckon it would be good for the Dogs to get the opportunity to be one of those teams, with us.
 
Twinkletoes said:
That's my conclusion re. Gilligan's comments too.
Click to expand...

Why would they? What incentive do they have to string along the Tassie people? AFL wanted there to be one team there last time it came around and would have got their way had it not been for Kennett. JB had put 7 games offer on the table. JB fought to block constitutional change which would prevent the admin requiring a vote.

We will extend the current deal to 3 games for 2 extra years and the contract will expire to coincide with the end of the Hawthorn deal, Hawks will take their games to NZ and we will be the bunny going into the oven.

The major problem we have is JB doesn't see a large parcel of games to be relocation by stealth, he is delusional enough to think we can blossom playing most of our home games interstate. Tasmania want their own team, they wont be happy with just a parcel of games, as we weaken our supporter base here in Melbourne even further they will put pressure to formalise a relocation just like GC tried to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If we extend our contract for 3 games over the next 2 years do people think it will be lip service?
 
Tas said:
Why would they? What incentive do they have to string along the Tassie people?
Click to expand...

By "they" I presume you mean "he", as Gilligan was the one speaking and the one I was referring to. To ask me why he would, even if on behalf of the AFL luminaries, is impossible to answer. Because he's there and that's what they want to hear? I honestly don't know but, as outlined in posts in this thread, and as answered by Hawthorn and North CEOs, it's in the interest of both clubs to maintain the current arrangements, and of no interest to either party to head down the hypothetical path raised for each on the back of Gilligan's comment.
 
Shagga is all Class said:
JB and MB finish up end of 2016 and cannot run again after 3 terms.

One would assume they take a back seat and hand over the presidency to Scanlon or Buckley.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know when they finish up. Doesn't stop them setting it up in the meantime.
 
Caro is trolling the Hawks more then us . We are not in a position to need or want to be a tassie 8 game team so no need to get all defensive about it . Infact it's more about how the hawks would be positioned without the revenue it generates from Tassie. Infact they'd be operating at loss if they didn't have tassie .
Tassie works well with us and the hawks there , two good teams . We just need to play 4 games there.
Then Tassie gets 8 games


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Twinkletoes said:
By "they" I presume you mean "he", as Gilligan was the one speaking and the one I was referring to. To ask me why he would, even if on behalf of the AFL luminaries, is impossible to answer. Because he's there and that's what they want to hear? I honestly don't know but, as outlined in posts in this thread, and as answered by Hawthorn and North CEOs, it's in the interest of both clubs to maintain the current arrangements, and of no interest to either party to head down the hypothetical path raised for each on the back of Gilligan's comment.
Click to expand...

I think government money is going to dry up in terms of sponsorship of football clubs, I don't think Hawks would stick around if they weren't getting $15m from the Tasmanian government for a crappy logo, given Hawks never refer to themselves as the Tasmanian Hawks in the media you would have to question what value they actually get for that money.

The new government coming in also do not want TT-Line sponsoring us, which leaves a bit of a hole in the budget for future games.

Hawthorn isn't going to play 8 games there and I don't see them being there beyond 2016 as the government money dries up. Unless Dogs or Saints fall to pieces over the next two years then who would be in the AFL's sights as the bunny who are going to be locked in?

It doesn't really matter if we want to or not, if we are the target then it is a bad situation.
 
Why every Caro troll thread ends up in 100 posts is beyond me.

See Footy Ossified this week, she was seething Richmond were rubbish and she couldn't hang crap on NM, hence this garbage...
 
royals1922 said:
Why every Caro troll thread ends up in 100 posts is beyond me.

See Footy Ossified this week, she was seething Richmond were rubbish and she couldn't hang crap on NM, hence this garbage...
Click to expand...
Because we resorted to critiquing our admin.
 
LCynic said:
Because we resorted to critiquing our admin.
Click to expand...
I'm all for sensible discussion on a discrete thread but following one of Caro's infrequent JB trolls,....
 
royals1922 said:
I'm all for sensible discussion on a discrete thread but following one of Caro's infrequent JB trolls,....
Click to expand...
So Gilligan is in on it too, hey?

I think her article is fine as it discusses Tasmania in a broader context after comments from the supposed heir to the AFL throne indicating the potential for a quasi relocation of one club by 2017. That we are one of the clubs already there is not her design but a reality and as such we will be discussed as a potential suitor.

Given our president has in the last few years engaged the AFL in discussions around playing 7 games in Tasmania and he has overseen the amendment of the constitution to allow for this to occur without member input as long we maintain a Melbourne home base (whatever that may mean) a number of supporters are rightly concerned that there is more going on behind the scenes than we are aware of.

There is a story here, and Caro has a right to write it. It's now up to JB to come out and refute it. I know Funky Carl has, but I want to hear it from the horses mouth given his previous position on this.
 
Tas said:
Why would they? What incentive do they have to string along the Tassie people? AFL wanted there to be one team there last time it came around and would have got their way had it not been for Kennett. JB had put 7 games offer on the table. JB fought to block constitutional change which would prevent the admin requiring a vote.

We will extend the current deal to 3 games for 2 extra years and the contract will expire to coincide with the end of the Hawthorn deal, Hawks will take their games to NZ and we will be the bunny going into the oven.

The major problem we have is JB doesn't see a large parcel of games to be relocation by stealth, he is delusional enough to think we can blossom playing most of our home games interstate. Tasmania want their own team, they wont be happy with just a parcel of games, as we weaken our supporter base here in Melbourne even further they will put pressure to formalise a relocation just like GC tried to.
Click to expand...

With respect, plenty in this post is just plain wrong. You are reaching a number of conclusions that simply don't have merit.

The 7 game proposal was not long term, it was short term to help rid the club of debt. That didn't eventuate and now doesn't need to due to a variety of reasons, but wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing knowing the Etihad (shocking) deal.

Why people want to keep bashing JB when he has done an outstanding job I have no idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gokangas
Toast Age article on Sonja and Jen
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Mav
Mav
Engimal v3
HEY CARO
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
koshari
koshari

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top