Tasmania Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

[Chief]

---

GO TO PART 2 of this thread:

Tasmania - Tasmania Devils, welcome to the AFL. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5 (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5.1226653/ Was going to draft up a Summary but this is pretty good...

www.bigfooty.com

---

 

[JD-Roo]

I think you should look at how many times the AFL send Collingwood to play in Perth. Hardly ever is the answer.

The AFL send all the 'big' teams, including Collingwood, each year, without fail to GWS & GC to pump up the crowds. Simple.

Anyone negotiating the Tassie deal with the cheating AFL will need an ironclad contract which stipulates the number of times each year or two each specific club is rostered on to play here.

The AFL are simply untrustworthy. You have to show some rat cunning dealing with the boy's club if we're to get any sort of fairness or equity of home games, or anything else for that matter.

Fitzroy/Bears merger had an 'ironclad' contract for the number of games in Melbourne, along the lines you are suggesting.

I think it only took a season or two before that was watered down and got worse with each new fixture.

"The AFL are simply untrustworthy"

Agree.

 

[madmug]

Fitzroy/Bears merger had an 'ironclad' contract for the number of games in Melbourne, along the lines you are suggesting.

I think it only took a season or two before that was watered down and got worse with each new fixture.

"The AFL are simply untrustworthy"

Agree.

The issue there was one party (Fitzroy) didn't or couldn't pursue it legally.

An unencumbered Tasmania with members & a Government contract would be in a better position to 'insist' that any contract be honoured. Firstly by pointing out the contract quietly, then if need be, taking the cheating pricks to the cleaners, in court.

 

[weewilly]

The issue there was one party (Fitzroy) didn't or couldn't pursue it legally.

An unencumbered Tasmania with members & a Government contract would be in a better position to 'insist' that any contract be honoured. Firstly by pointing out the contract quietly, then if need be, taking the cheating pricks to the cleaners, in court.

I think a lot of people forget with the next $4.6 billion TV deal the TV companies virtually own the AFL and will dictate more of what the AFL clubs or commission do and that is why I think there will be a Tassie team soon enough followed by a twentieth team not long after and maybe two conferences of ten teams.

 

[Dirty Bird]

That's the thing though - they're not AFL standard. Pit them against every other regular AFL venue in the league and they fall well short. Even the worst of them - probably Metricon or Giants - are daylight ahead of Bellerive or York Park.

I can thoroughly understand the argument that $700m (or whatever it is) is unnecessarily extravagant, I would have thought a Metricon type venue with a bit more protection from the elements would have been acceptable. But you can't be in favour of an AFL team and not be in favour of a better stadium. The 2 positions are inconsistent.

Half of Bellrieve is actually better than Metricon imho, while the other half is worse.

And considering I like the elevated view you'd get in the stand, I'd be sitting in the part of Bellrieve that's better than Metricon.

 

[The_Wookie]

Anyone negotiating the Tassie deal with the cheating AFL will need an ironclad contract which stipulates the number of times each year or two each specific club is rostered on to play here.

lol the AFL isnt going to guarantee specific teams.

Tassie will cave to whatever terms the AFL sets at this point.

 

[fargothegreat]

Collingwood playing a preseason game in Launceston :O

 

[My_Username]

The issue there was one party (Fitzroy) didn't or couldn't pursue it legally.

An unencumbered Tasmania with members & a Government contract would be in a better position to 'insist' that any contract be honoured. Firstly by pointing out the contract quietly, then if need be, taking the cheating pricks to the cleaners, in court.

Not Fitzroy, the deal was with Brisbane.

and like most clubs, the Lions rely of the AFL's good graces...So when they started cutting the contract, the Lions were faced with the prospect of fighting it, but if they did, they may have 'just happened' to have their discretionary funding cut, or get a particularly unfavorable fixture, etc. So the QLD based board sold out their Melbourne fans/members by deciding it wasn't worth the fight. No direct relationship was ever official of course, but....

You can be pretty sure that the AFL has leverage over all clubs (some more than others of course), just as they will over a Tas club. I dare say the AFL wouldn't sign a fixturing agreement they didn't think they could wiggle out of if they really wanted/needed to unless the other party had something they REALLY wanted (e.g. the MCG). I doubt a Tas club/ground would have that much power.

 

[My_Username]

Half of Bellrieve is actually better than Metricon imho, while the other half is worse.

And considering I like the elevated view you'd get in the stand, I'd be sitting in the part of Bellrieve that's better than Metricon.

How good are the corporate boxes and catering facilities (especially for VIPs)?

The AFL doesn't care that much about the people in the outer, but they and their sponsors expect a certain level of comfort.

 

[peetoo]

Interesting looking at the fixed roof design the open side faces north so the turf gets the sunlight. Members stand on the south side

But traditionally in australia the members is in the north side so it’s cooler to watch cricket

Bellerive seem to have main stands on west side

 

[madmug]

lol the AFL isnt going to guarantee specific teams.

Tassie will cave to whatever terms the AFL sets at this point.

To spend this much money & cop a totally unbalanced fixture would kill the Government.

I think they'll want some contractual guarantees of fairness in rostering of teams.

For reasons of political survival, at least

 

[le dominateur]

Albo on C10 News a resounding yes to whether Tasmania should have a team in the AFL, seems the $240M will be a formality.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The_Wookie]

To spend this much money & cop a totally unbalanced fixture would kill the Government.

I think they'll want some contractual guarantees of fairness in rostering of teams.

For reasons of political survival, at least

The AFL cant guarantee the big teams play in Tasmania without everyone else demanding the same thing - and thats going to be practically impossible without extending the season way beyond where it is now.

 

[Prince Imperial]

The AFL cant guarantee the big teams play in Tasmania without everyone else demanding the same thing - and thats going to be practically impossible without extending the season way beyond where it is now.

Yep, the AFL loves scheduling the "Big 4" Victorian clubs against each other twice a year and commercially other clubs (most noticeably mine) cop a raw deal because of it with fewer home matches against them and more against interstate and the lower supported Melbourne clubs. To the Tasmanian supporters of these "big clubs" welcome to the reality of the AFL.

The Tasmanians can argue for greater variable or disequal funding from the AFL if it disadvantages them financially over the longer term.

Anyway, I have constantly read on this sub-forum over the years that the Tasmanian team will be very well supported and if that is true they shouldn't have much difficulties selling out or selling most of a 23k stadium (or a slightly bigger one in Launceston) without the need for a large number of away fans.

 

[Bjo187]

Albo on C10 News a resounding yes to whether Tasmania should have a team in the AFL, seems the $240M will be a formality.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

He has been saying this from the start though.

 

[madmug]

The AFL cant guarantee the big teams play in Tasmania without everyone else demanding the same thing - and thats going to be practically impossible without extending the season way beyond where it is now.

It doesn't seem to stop them playing GWS or GC.

Anyway its more the fact that they should play here a reasonable number of times.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

The AFL cant guarantee the big teams play in Tasmania without everyone else demanding the same thing - and thats going to be practically impossible without extending the season way beyond where it is now.

The afl can do whatever they like with the fixture like they always have as it sits now they guarantee certain clubs blockbuster games every season . it would actually make sense commercially to have the big Victorian teams play the games against Tasmania in Tasmania as they would not be drawing big crowds in Melbourne and I’m sure Collingwood Essendon Richmond would much rather play there away games in Tassie then having to travel to Perth or Brisbane

 

[Jazny]

He has been saying this from the start though.

Huge win is that he isn't answering that question like "Well... Tasmania does deserve its own team but there are other priorities that must come first like housing and blah blah".

 

[The_Wookie]

The afl can do whatever they like with the fixture like they always have as it sits now they guarantee certain clubs blockbuster games every season . it would actually make sense commercially to have the big Victorian teams play the games against Tasmania in Tasmania as they would not be drawing big crowds in Melbourne and I’m sure Collingwood Essendon Richmond would much rather play there away games in Tassie then having to travel to Perth or Brisbane

Commercial is key, but its not that simple either.

The AFL also has to honour ground contracts at the MCG and keep Docklands as profitable as possible. The big clubs arent going to travel any more than they already are - at least not without extending the season and adding additional rounds.

Then theres the issue of timeslots and ratings will Collingwood v Brisbane outrate a Collingwood v Tasmania - given Tasmania is also a small regional market, Id be expecting next to zero Seven produced games and Fox produced simulcasts locally for the most part, and the AFL wont have its big clubs in that much at all.

 

[Bjo187]

Huge win is that he isn't answering that question like "Well... Tasmania does deserve its own team but there are other priorities that must come first like housing and blah blah".

Anybody got a clip of this? Interested to hear.

 

[My_Username]

The afl can do whatever they like with the fixture like they always have as it sits now they guarantee certain clubs blockbuster games every season . it would actually make sense commercially to have the big Victorian teams play the games against Tasmania in Tasmania as they would not be drawing big crowds in Melbourne and I’m sure Collingwood Essendon Richmond would much rather play there away games in Tassie then having to travel to Perth or Brisbane

It's not about what the big clubs wants. It's about the $$$. (most especially $$$ for the AFL)

How will having 'big' games in Tas in front of 20-25K make more money (for the AFL) than having them in Melbourne? (where they own docklands, and not only have a big AFL members section at the MCG, but also get a payment from the ground revenue where big groudns mean a bigger payment).

 

[madmug]

It's not about what the big clubs wants. It's about the $$$. (most especially $$$ for the AFL)

How will having 'big' games in Tas in front of 20-25K make more money (for the AFL) than having them in Melbourne? (where they own docklands, and not only have a big AFL members section at the MCG, but also get a payment from the ground revenue where big groudns mean a bigger payment).

They can't just play at the MCG & Docklands.

Some effort to 'sometimes' play outside Melbourne would give the League at least some credibility with its name.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Yep, the AFL loves scheduling the "Big 4" Victorian clubs against each other twice a year and commercially other clubs (most noticeably mine) cop a raw deal because of it with fewer home matches against them and more against interstate and the lower supported Melbourne clubs.

If you're going to b*tch about something, you'd hope it was factually correct.

You do realise of the 6 big 4 matchups, only 2 are occuring in 2023? (Collingwood-Carlton and Collingwood-Essendon)

Heck, Port Adelaide and West Coast have more double ups vs the Big 4, each, than the big 4 have between each other, COMBINED.

 

[Prince Imperial]

If you're going to b*tch about something, you'd hope it was factually correct.

You do realise of the 6 big 4 matchups, only 2 are occuring in 2023? (Collingwood-Carlton and Collingwood-Essendon)

Heck, Port Adelaide and West Coast have more double ups vs the Big 4, each, than the big 4 have between each other, COMBINED.

I said that the AFL loves scheduling them against each other not that they do it without failure every year.

The evidence goes back to 1997 and can be viewed on AFL Tables. For example, it shows the very high number of home and away games that Essendon have played against Carlton and Richmond over that extensive period

AFL Tables - Essendon - Crowds

afltables.com

The only smaller number of home games figure in the data is for Collingwood home games vs Richmond and the Tigers being completely shite for most of that period might have had something to do with it. Even still for Richmond over that long period, their top 4 opponents as the home team have been Essendon, Carlton, Melbourne and Collingwood with their fewest being St Kilda, North Melbourne, Adelaide and Port.

AFL Tables - Richmond - Crowds

afltables.com

If 2023 represents a change in this fixturing bias then fine but I would want to see it over a longer period to come to that conclusion.

 

[peetoo]

It was that the big 4 played each other twice without fail but that’s harder to maintain now 8 of 18 teams are outside melbourne-

Although these teams playing each other once is not parity either. Five double ups for each team 5 from 17 means Collingwood for example plays one of the other three twice at least, sometimes two of the three.


Also for each matchup one game will often be a bumper size crowd, the second not so much

 

[TWLS]

It was that the big 4 played each other twice without fail but that’s harder to maintain now 8 of 18 teams are outside melbourne-

Although these teams playing each other once is not parity either. Five double ups for each team 5 from 17 means Collingwood for example plays one of the other three twice at least, sometimes two of the three.


Also for each matchup one game will often be a bumper size crowd, the second not so much

As someone who inhabits the outer AFL world I am wondering what minimum crowd size the ground in Tassie should be for the new club. Would 30,000 cover it. Also would the AFL Admin have a big say in that as part of the deal.