Kangaroos Tasmanian Academy

[legend166]

Also, you need to have a look at what my original post was in reference to.


I was pointing out that it is not the case, which I proved with the list of players and the states they are from, you then interjected with your usual rubbish and misinformation

I said they're able, not that they do it.

 

[worthy]

I said they're able, not that they do it.

Teams in those three states (especially Victorian and WA teams) are able to take all their draftees from their home state and basically be no worse off from a talent perspective.

It's not accurate though, evidenced by 50% of our list being from outside Victoria, with some real quality amongst them, take the non vics out of our side and we aren't winning premierships.
Obviously I understand that a high percentage of players come from Victoria, and that the 25% less home state players that the Swans have (50% V 25%) presents a challenge, the academies are helping, and the more success they have, the more interest they will get. It's only the exclusive access to those players that presents an issue.
Great for Sydney, as it will give them a supply of elite talent for 2014 & 2015, with more likely after that.

 

[ManOfClay]

Might want to have a look at the Dogs and Saints membership figures, debt and losses in recent years compared to ours.

And what are we being sucked in by?

Didn't know where to post this but thought you might be interested mate.


http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2014-12-15/dogs-recrod-profit

The Western Bulldogs Football Club has reported a statutory profit for the 2014 financial year of $329k.
This result was underpinned by a significant increase in revenue of $3.5m or 10% growth on last financial year. Key drivers of Club revenue were an increase in membership to almost 32,000 members, increased support from our sponsors and a significant fundraising effort.

...

Club President Peter Gordon said that while 2014 presented a number of challenges, further foundation for growth had been established.
“The Club produced a sound financial result whilst continuing to invest in football and further reducing debt. I would like to thank our loyal members, sponsors and corporate partners for their ongoing support in 2014. We would particularly like to acknowledge Mission Foods who this year committed to the Club again in a deal that will make them the longest Major Partner in our Club’s history.”
“I would also like to pay tribute to our staff for their hard work and dedication in 2014. 2015 will bring its own set of challenges but also significant opportunity and we commit to doing all we can to continue to grow our revenue, control costs and invest in developing our football department.”
Notable achievements in 2014 for the Western Bulldogs included;
1.) The Club recorded its highest ever revenue.
2.) Club membership grew by 5%.
3.) Spending in the football department increased by $1.7m.
4.) The Footscray VFL team was successfully re-introduced into the Club’s operations.
5.) The Club has reached agreement-in-principle to play some future home games in Ballarat, hopefully from 2017 when the new Eureka Stadium is built.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Missed some:
Richmond - Nth Qld
GWS - Canberra

You could be on the money. Will a NZ Academy get the deal done for the Hawks?

Why do richmond need to play again in cairns to "prop up the poor clubs"?

We stopped doing that because we no longer need the money, and are now profitable without it

 

[RUNVS]

Why do richmond need to play again in cairns to "prop up the poor clubs"?

We stopped doing that because we no longer need the money, and are now profitable without it

and Richmond kept losing in Cairns as well

 

[Ned_Flanders]

and Richmond kept losing in Cairns as well

No argument there.

Just want to know how and why he thinks we need to be propped up by being forced to start playing games again interstate

 

[Demonheart]

Moving to Ballarat yourself?

It halfway between Melbourne and Geelong.

Not quite

 

[MickyG]

Why do richmond need to play again in cairns to "prop up the poor clubs"?

We stopped doing that because we no longer need the money, and are now profitable without it

My bad, Bulldogs playing a home game in Cairns this year! I thought Richmond had entered into a longer term deal to play a game there every year. Sorry.

 

[LT Smash]

Every AFL leader will have his own personal project targets.

I think Vlad seemed a little more on board with Norths own vision for itself.

In only a few months Gil has said a done a few things that suggests he may not be as friendly.

You have to appreciate that Gilligan was personally charged with the responsibility of overseeing the North Melbourne relocation to the Gold Coast back in 2007. When the Brayshaws and Ron Joseph blocked that move at board level, Gilligan failed his KPIs for the year and was most likely denied his Christmas bonus. Payback time?

 

[Matchu]

You have to appreciate that Gilligan was personally charged with the responsibility of overseeing the North Melbourne relocation to the Gold Coast back in 2007. When the Brayshaws and Ron Joseph blocked that move at board level, Gilligan failed his KPIs for the year and was most likely denied his Christmas bonus. Payback time?

Interesting theory and may have something to do with his approach to the situation.

Realistically how far away are we from seeing a Tasmanian team in the league? It'd be safe to assume it would need to be a relocated Melbourne-based club if it were to happen in the next 10 years given there isn't really another Australian city/state putting up its hand and the AFL don't want uneven teams. The Bellerive Oval upgrade just got completed which takes capacity to about 20k. If the Tasmanian Government knew a Tassie team was coming I'd guess they'd provide more funds to upgrade the stadium to an AFL standard capacity of 25-30k. The team would likely base itself in Hobart at Bellerive and play some games in Launceston each year but it would need to be a 6-5 split at the start to get every Tasmanian behind the team.

I can't help but think the blue coloured seats in the redeveloped western grandstand has something to do with North Melbourne...

 

[RUNVS]

Interesting theory and may have something to do with his approach to the situation.

Realistically how far away are we from seeing a Tasmanian team in the league? It'd be safe to assume it would need to be a relocated Melbourne-based club if it were to happen in the next 10 years given there isn't really another Australian city/state putting up its hand and the AFL don't want uneven teams. The Bellerive Oval upgrade just got completed which takes capacity to about 20k. If the Tasmanian Government knew a Tassie team was coming I'd guess they'd provide more funds to upgrade the stadium to an AFL standard capacity of 25-30k. The team would likely base itself in Hobart at Bellerive and play some games in Launceston each year but it would need to be a 6-5 split at the start to get every Tasmanian behind the team.

I can't help but think the blue coloured seats in the redeveloped western grandstand has something to do with North Melbourne...

Plus the advantage of a Melbourne based team relocating to Tasmania is that the AFL could organise it for the next 20 years that the Melbourne based side still plays a lot of games in Melbourne so the Melbourne based fans would not be missing out on much.

 

[telsor]

Interesting theory and may have something to do with his approach to the situation.

Realistically how far away are we from seeing a Tasmanian team in the league? It'd be safe to assume it would need to be a relocated Melbourne-based club if it were to happen in the next 10 years given there isn't really another Australian city/state putting up its hand and the AFL don't want uneven teams. The Bellerive Oval upgrade just got completed which takes capacity to about 20k. If the Tasmanian Government knew a Tassie team was coming I'd guess they'd provide more funds to upgrade the stadium to an AFL standard capacity of 25-30k. The team would likely base itself in Hobart at Bellerive and play some games in Launceston each year but it would need to be a 6-5 split at the start to get every Tasmanian behind the team.

I can't help but think the blue coloured seats in the redeveloped western grandstand has something to do with North Melbourne...

Why would a Melbourne club move to Tas?

Financially they'd be worse off.

 

[lenny&carl]

Okay. How many people from the Kimberley and Pilbara are in the AFL

Like we need the paycut.

 

[Dirty_11]

The official figure was 2.912m in interest bearing liabilities at the end of 2013 and we anticipate that another 1m or so has been repaid by the end of Oct 2014, the annual report hasn't been released yet so don't think there is anything official.



I don't think anyone who doesn't want to get relocated will get relocated.



JB said when he was initially elected that his short term model would be that we would likely have to sell a number of games with the Docklands arrangement, clubs have a few core revenue streams, primarily AFL distributions and match day revenue along with sponsorship, merchandise, etc. Clubs need to maximise their football operation revenue and one of the major ones, matchday is a bit of a dud root for us with the Docklands arrangement.

Our CEO this year said, "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."

The elephant in the room is that JB had offered a long-term 7 game co-location model when Hawthorn's deal expired after the AFL and the Tasmanian government asked us to bid against Hawthorn. A lot has changed in 3-4 years, there is now a league wide acceptance of equalisation, there will be luxury tax on excessive football department spending which should help to slow down the rate spending is increasing and the AFL is actively looking to buy-out Docklands early, rather than just talking about it.

JB has not made any commitment to not put forth another a 7+ game package up again, his last term expires the same year as the new Tasmanian deal will be agreed to so he will be around when a new deal is inked. However, he hasn't said that he would put a similar offer up again although he was against some supporters desire to alter the club's constitution that would require members to approve of moving more than 4 games, his concern being the logistics, however supporters feel he might still be open to a more significant arrangement.

Our only weakness or vulnerability would be JB himself. I think he had a strong platform when he came in 2007, however, I don't think he has moved with the times. He should have stepped down by now and handed the reins over to one of the executives on the board who have the business acumen. JB has been great for our club and he is extremely popular with the supporters but my personal fear is that his obsession with Tasmania has clouded his judgement.

I think Hobart has been great for us, but selling games fractures your supporter base. We sold 45,902 memberships in 2014 but our crowds in Melbourne were still quite poor, the club has to juggle the need to create a financially sustainable club during challenging economic times and making sure we position ourselves to take advantage of our growing support. Ultimately, you need a lot of supporters in one place, we need a greater concentration of support where we play our games and that means market development has to focus where you plan to be long-term.



Ballart was a good idea from our previous CEO in 2007, it looks like games wont be viable there until at least 2018, Docklands will be in AFL hands before 2018 so not sure how attractive it is. Ballart region is still heavily Geelong based in terms of support, it has a large area of space with a very low population density, we didn't generate a lot of support out of that relationship, the concept of playing there was attractive when there was 18 years left on the Docklands deal.

The Academy is nothing more than a bribe to move there. However, there are other significant factors, while our Hobart games are lucrative, we net $600k per game on a sub 20k stadium with no corporate box facilities to my knowledge, for it to return a decent amount it does require significant support from the local council and the government, without those inducements the games wouldn't really be viable and prior to extending the deal the council was at a 6-6 stalemate before the last vote to extend for 2 games.

With a public increasingly unhappy with the government funding football in Tasmania there are doubts the money is going to be there in terms of a significant deal to one club, it wouldn't matter if it was Hawthorn, North or someone else, they would need a substantial financial offer to justify moving a significant number of their games, it would have to be an offer that a club could not refuse and we could refuse $100m when our off-field position was significantly worse.

I am not sure the AFL could afford a carrot big enough to lure someone who wasn't on their knees, especially in this environment where the AFL is writing blank cheques to anyone in dire financial need, like Port was, like they have been basically running Melbourne of late and now are involved in supporting St Kilda.

Our only vulnerability is JB, if he can be reigned in by the members over the next couple of years we wont be in any threat. I can't see anyone moving 8 games to Tassie, it would be a death sentance wherever you are currently based.



AFL don't do us any favours at the best of times. We have had more than a decade of schedules far worse than what Collingwood and Carlton have been crying about this year, those clubs wouldn't survive on the crumbs we have had to survive on.

It is ultimately not a good policy to shoot the survivor type clubs. If you are going to spend a fortune in inducements to shift a club, you might as well spend it on a club that is going to require that fortune to keep alive.

Another issue with an 8 game model in Tassie and a Tasmanian Acadamy for that matter is player retention. As much as our players promote and talk up playing down there it wouldn't be a highlight of their fixture. The ability to stay destination club goes out the window.

 

[cammo78]

Why would a Melbourne club move to Tas?

Financially they'd be worse off.

Not with a $100m AFL payout, they wouldn't.

 

[Matchu]

Not with a $100m AFL payout, they wouldn't.

The Tasmanian offer will probably have to top the Gold Coast offer which was:

• Providing total investment of more than $100 million to establish a strong and successful AFL club on the Gold Coast.
• The elimination of all Kangaroos debt in 2008 ($4.5-$5million) with the AFL taking on responsibility for financial obligations from 2008 onwards.
• Capital contribution of $10m to be made in 2010 to establish an investment fund to generate revenue. This fund, with accumulated interest and retained cash reserves is projected to build a revenue generating net asset base in excess of $20m by 2014
• The relocation of the Kangaroos to Gold Coast in 2010 with gradual migration of all 11 home games by 2012.
• Securing the redevelopment of Carrara Stadium.
• A commitment by the AFL to secure additional business support from business partners on the Gold Coast.
• The retention of the North Melbourne legacy, including maintaining the Kangaroos name, jumper, core colours of blue and white, song, the Shinboner spirit and history, support for the redevelopment of the spiritual home at Arden St and continued support for the Kangaroos Grand Final breakfast.
• Guaranteed minimum of seven away games in Victoria from 2010-2019 and minimum of six thereafter.
• A minimum of six free to air live or near live games into Melbourne with best endeavours for seven and a minimum or two Thursday or Friday night matches.
• The development of a new Kangaroos-branded AFL membership product that provides rights to all Melbourne games with revenue going to the Kangaroos.
• AFL to investigate providing one annual marquee fixture for the Kangaroos.
• Additional TPP allowance of 10 per cent for 2010-2014, fully-funded by AFL, to ensure list retention ($4 million over 2010-2014).
• Extra $22 million of additional AFL funding from 2008-2014 to allow the Kangaroos the ability to increase football department and administration spend to the industry average and also allow the club to pay 100 per cent of TPP.
• Priority access to two uncontracted players at the end of the 2009 season and one uncontracted player at the end of the 2010 season.
• Prior to the 2008, 2009 and 2010 national draft, access to two players from Gold Coast/Northern Rivers clubs as well as the ability to pre-list up to three rookies from Gold Coast/Northern Rivers clubs.
• Exclusive access to list two players of scholarship age per year from the Gold Coast in addition to Sydney scholarship players.
• The establishment of new quality training and administration facilities on the Gold Coast and in Melbourne at the spiritual home of Arden St.
• Fully-funded relocation and re-establishment program for players, coaches and key staff and their families as well as the funding of a management team on the Gold Coast to manage the transition.
• Additional funding for marketing and game development programs targeted at the Gold Coast regions.

This time around they won't offer an official relocation package until they are already playing 7-8 games each season in Tasmania. You can see the plans were to have North playing 7 away games in Victoria for 10 years which would have resulted in 18 games in Gold Coast/Victoria and 4 interstate games.

 

[telsor]

Not with a $100m AFL payout, they wouldn't.

So rather than subsidise a club in Melbourne, we subsidise a club in Tassie by an even greater amount. How is that a good move?

On GC it made some sense as it was a growth market, Tas is a shrinking market that is already filled with supporters.

 

[Matchu]

So rather than subsidise a cluinb in Melbourne, we subsidise a club in Tassie by an even greater amount. How is that a good move?

On GC it made some sense as it was a growth market, Tas is a shrinking market that is already filled with supporters.

It's a reasonable argument but I think the counter argument would be that a Tasmanian team would make the league truly national. I don't necessarily agree with that because I think teams in Canberra, NT and north Queensland would complete the goal of a national comp but at this point Tassie would be the most ready of those four areas.

The Gold Coast definitely made sense as a market to expand into, mainly because of the growing market as you pointed out. It was the first time the VFL/AFL had expanded into a regional market (Geelong wasn't an expansion club) and predictions show the Gold Coast population will reach one million people in the next 20-25 years. A market of one million people is too big to ignore and you get in early so your brand grows as the city grows. By that point there will be nearly three million people in Brisbane but you are dealing with an entirely different market in Brisvegas.

Even though Brisbane will have triple the population of the Gold Coast, the share the AFL has in the market is considerably lower. Gill McLachlan has said in the past that the AFL believed they presently have a 40% share in the Gold Coast market (approx 240k) and my estimation for the share they have in Brisbane would be something like 20% (400k). The Broncos absolutely dominate the Brisbane market and anyone who lives there knows exactly what I'm talking about. The Reds are also quite popular and the Roar have a good following now also. So, the point is, sometimes population/growth alone isn't enough.

So what does this mean for Tasmania? Aussie rules is definitely the number one code in Tassie so let's just say they have an 80% share in the market and have a population of 550k in 2040 (probably being generous). That's about 440k people compared to 400k on the Gold Coast and 600k in Brisbane and that's presuming both GC and Brisbane stay at their current market percentage share which they almost definitely won't. So, how can Tasmania compete? Short answer - they can't. They just have to hope the AFL has an ambition to make the game truly national.

 

[telsor]

Even though Brisbane will have triple the population of the Gold Coast, the share the AFL has in the market is considerably lower. Gill McLachlan has said in the past that the AFL believed they presently have a 40% share in the Gold Coast market (approx 240k) and my estimation for the share they have in Brisbane would be something like 20% (400k). The Broncos absolutely dominate the Brisbane market and anyone who lives there knows exactly what I'm talking about. The Reds are also quite popular and the Roar have a good following now also. So, the point is, sometimes population/growth alone isn't enough.

GC was more about having a second team in the QLD market so there is a 'home' game every week, than GC itself.

So what does this mean for Tasmania? Aussie rules is definitely the number one code in Tassie so let's just say they have an 80% share in the market and have a population of 550k in 2040 (probably being generous). That's about 440k people compared to 400k on the Gold Coast and 600k in Brisbane and that's presuming both GC and Brisbane stay at their current market percentage share which they almost definitely won't. So, how can Tasmania compete? Short answer - they can't. They just have to hope the AFL has an ambition to make the game truly national.

You are being generous. Tas population is predicted to top out at ~530K and then decline.

The other two problems are that they have an aging population (and older people are less likely to switch clubs) and an economy that is moribund, so those people are worth less from a $$$ POV.

I don't understand how the game can't be 'national' without a team in every state...Do we also need NT/ACT teams? What about a team at Port Hedland and Alice springs because there are big holes on the map where they are.

Do US sports come from every state? Is the premier league (or cricket, or rugby) in the UK evenly spread through the counties?

 

[Matchu]

GC was more about having a second team in the QLD market so there is a 'home' game every week, than GC itself.

If that was the case then why bother with a Gold Coast team at all? Why not start a second team in Brisbane (quadruple the GC population) and have them share tenancy at the Gabba instead of spending millions on a brand new stadium on the Gold Coast? When the SUNS were established the Gold Coast had three other national sporting teams (Titans, United and Blaze) so the AFL knew they had competition going into the market. Two of those teams have since folded and the RL team has taken a serious back seat to where they used to be. Are these series of events complete coincidence? I doubt it.

The AFL had a plan to overtake the vulnerable market that was the Gold Coast and haven't put a foot wrong so far. This was not possible in Brisbane as the Broncos have a long and illustrious history that no amount of money can buy. To say the SUNS were solely established to give Queensland an AFL game each week is an uninformed statement.

You are being generous. Tas population is predicted to top out at ~530K and then decline.

The other two problems are that they have an aging population (and older people are less likely to switch clubs) and an economy that is moribund, so those people are worth less from a $$$ POV.

I don't understand how the game can't be 'national' without a team in every state...Do we also need NT/ACT teams? What about a team at Port Hedland and Alice springs because there are big holes on the map where they are.

Do US sports come from every state? Is the premier league (or cricket, or rugby) in the UK evenly spread through the counties?

Completely different situations. American Football and Soccer completely dominate every area of those countries where as Aussie rules is not the number one sport in two of the three biggest markets in Australia. The AFL/Aussie rules fans have a bit of an obsession about being the 'national game' and a product of that is having a truly national league.

 

[telsor]

To say the SUNS were solely established to give Queensland an AFL game each week is an uninformed statement.

It wasn't just for that, but it was a significant part of the decision.

Completely different situations. American Football and Soccer completely dominate every area of those countries where as Aussie rules is not the number one sport in two of the three biggest markets in Australia. The AFL/Aussie rules fans have a bit of an obsession about being the 'national game' and a product of that is having a truly national league.

So putting a team in Tas will help the games popularity in NSW/QLD?

AFL is the biggest/most popular game in the country. Having a charity team in Tas wont change that one iota.

 

[Matchu]

It wasn't just for that, but it was a significant part of the decision.



So putting a team in Tas will help the games popularity in NSW/QLD?

AFL is the biggest/most popular game in the country. Having a charity team in Tas wont change that one iota.

A Tasmanian team would further showcase the league as the only truly national sport. That's all I was saying.

 

[flaps]

Interesting theory and may have something to do with his approach to the situation.

Realistically how far away are we from seeing a Tasmanian team in the league? It'd be safe to assume it would need to be a relocated Melbourne-based club if it were to happen in the next 10 years given there isn't really another Australian city/state putting up its hand and the AFL don't want uneven teams. The Bellerive Oval upgrade just got completed which takes capacity to about 20k. If the Tasmanian Government knew a Tassie team was coming I'd guess they'd provide more funds to upgrade the stadium to an AFL standard capacity of 25-30k. The team would likely base itself in Hobart at Bellerive and play some games in Launceston each year but it would need to be a 6-5 split at the start to get every Tasmanian behind the team.

I can't help but think the blue coloured seats in the redeveloped western grandstand has something to do with North Melbourne...

Actually hasn't got anything to do with it as far as I'm aware. The designer said it symbolises the Derwent River as that used to be what you'd see from the hill on the opposite side looking out towards the Stuart Spencer Stand before that was knocked down by the new Western Stand.

 

[Matchu]

Actually hasn't got anything to do with it as far as I'm aware. The designer said it symbolises the Derwent River as that used to be what you'd see from the hill on the opposite side looking out towards the Stuart Spencer Stand before that was knocked down by the new Western Stand.

Happy coincidence

 

[The_Reaper]

A Tasmanian team would further showcase the league as the only truly national sport. That's all I was saying.

The only truly national sport is cricket