Tas wants one club to play 8 games

[telsor]

With a response like that, i'm guessing you either haven't read your club's financials, or you don't understand them.

Just to give you an idea of what I meant, your club has $16.5m in assets (gross). $13.7m of that is buildings on land that you don't own (so they can't be sold) and are generating no income. $1.2m is depreciating assets like gym equipment, desks and the like. $800k is prepaid expenses. There is very little other than that. Which is remarkable, as you have $1m in income that has been received but not earned. Where that it is god only knows, because there is zero cash. There is also nearly $6m in debt and other payables.

That is a very sick looking balance sheet. There may well be a worse one in the AFL, but gee that's nothing to be proud of.

Found (most of) it!

 

[madmug]

This thread should now be renamed. AFL wants one club to play 8 games in Tas.

Given that pronouncement, which club, why & how?, should be the questions asked.

And Given the wonky finances of so many clubs, who is most likely to be boned by the AFL?

 

[Goady138]

Now there seem to be moves afoot to get North Melbourne to play eight games each season from Tasmania. The idea is that this will make them a “Tasmanian” team. Meanwhile, Hawthorn will be encouraged to return to Victoria, the idea presumably being that this, after all, was the Hawks’ “home” all the time. And, all the time, what is being played with here is the affections of the people. What is being loosened are the ties that bind the game together.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/22...ll-landscape-not-as-simple-as-it-seems/?cs=12

 

[Kwality]

Now there seem to be moves afoot to get North Melbourne to play eight games each season from Tasmania. The idea is that this will make them a “Tasmanian” team. Meanwhile, Hawthorn will be encouraged to return to Victoria, the idea presumably being that this, after all, was the Hawks’ “home” all the time. And, all the time, what is being played with here is the affections of the people. What is being loosened are the ties that bind the game together.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/22...ll-landscape-not-as-simple-as-it-seems/?cs=12

Having lived through the introduction of the AFL club in Perth, this plan of a Melbourne club dumped on Tasmanians wont work, it will never be accepted as Tasmanian. Just an AFL plan to get more money out of the Taswegian taxpayer to stump up 'too many teams in Melbourne'.

 

[telsor]

Having lived through the introduction of the AFL club in Perth, this plan of a Melbourne club dumped on Tasmanians wont work, it will never be accepted as Tasmanian. Just an AFL plan to get more money out of the Taswegian taxpayer to stump up 'too many teams in Melbourne'.

And what do you base that assertion on?

The only relocated club seems to have been adopted by it's new town quite adequately (yes, it took time, but as GWS/GC show, the AFL is willing to be patient), or are you basing it on how FIFO teams (which are less engaged with the locals) like Hawthorn and North play to nearly full stadiums whenever they venture down there?

 

[Goady138]

Having lived through the introduction of the AFL club in Perth, this plan of a Melbourne club dumped on Tasmanians wont work, it will never be accepted as Tasmanian. Just an AFL plan to get more money out of the Taswegian taxpayer to stump up 'too many teams in Melbourne'.

As the article says, the landscape is not so simple.
And Tasmania sure as hell isn't Western Aus.

 

[Kwality]

And what do you base that assertion on?

The only relocated club seems to have been adopted by it's new town quite adequately (yes, it took time, but as GWS/GC show, the AFL is willing to be patient), or are you basing it on how FIFO teams (which are less engaged with the locals) like Hawthorn and North play to nearly full stadiums whenever they venture down there?

In Perth, the team I followed went premiers in 1986, its players were drafted into the Eagles (the max per club was 7), vic clubs took at least one, and 1987 saw most of the best WA based players no longer playing WAFL footy, others like Derek Kickett missed on the Eagles squad & went over to SA.
I went to the footy most weeks, work allowing, as did many of my mates, one of my workmates was a Taswegian, who went maybe every 2nd week,, and all of us had a bit of trouble working out who we barracked for, particularly when the Eagles came up against the VFL team we previously followed (on The Winners on ABC TV).

It took a couple of years for the Eagles to make its mark & it was rejected by many who know follow Freo, who took longer to be financially viable (ie bums on seats, sponsorship). Now they are the equal of the Eagles by any comparison, & it took time.

North had a big WA following courtesy of their WA recruiting yet if that club was relocated my conclusion of living thru it is, I'd be following Subi & Carlton. pattos@subi would still be sold out with games attracting more event goers & those on receiving end of freebies via corporate sponsors.

 

[Kwality]

As the article says, the landscape is not so simple.
And Tasmania sure as hell isn't Western Aus.

Both Victorians are'nt you ? Any experience or based on what you need to believe - why, because too many teams in Melbourne is too hard?
Tassie was a raping ground for AFL footy for decades & you want it to continue. Baldock, Howell, Percy Jones, Bull Richardson, Hudson, too many to mention but look at the Vic teams of the century, I'd guess they all include at least one Taswegian.

 

[Goady138]

Both Victorians are'nt you ? Any experience or based on what you need to believe - why, because too many teams in Melbourne is too hard?

Your on something buddy.
Not at all coherent

 

[telsor]

In Perth, the team I followed went premiers in 1986, its players were drafted into the Eagles (the max per club was 7), vic clubs took at least one, and 1987 saw most of the best WA based players no longer playing WAFL footy, others like Derek Kickett missed on the Eagles squad & went over to SA.
I went to the footy most weeks, work allowing, as did many of my mates, one of my workmates was a Taswegian, who went maybe every 2nd week,, and all of us had a bit of trouble working out who we barracked for, particularly when the Eagles came up against the VFL team we previously followed (on The Winners on ABC TV).

It took a couple of years for the Eagles to make its mark & it was rejected by many who know follow Freo, who took longer to be financially viable (ie bums on seats, sponsorship). Now they are the equal of the Eagles by any comparison, & it took time.

North had a big WA following courtesy of their WA recruiting yet if that club was relocated my conclusion of living thru it is, I'd be following Subi & Carlton. pattos@subi would still be sold out with games attracting more event goers & those on receiving end of freebies via corporate sponsors.

and why does that mean "a Melbourne club dumped on Tasmanians wont work, it will never be accepted as Tasmanian"?

 

[telsor]

Both Victorians are'nt you ? Any experience or based on what you need to believe - why, because too many teams in Melbourne is too hard?
Tassie was a raping ground for AFL footy for decades & you want it to continue. Baldock, Howell, Percy Jones, Bull Richardson, Hudson, too many to mention but look at the Vic teams of the century, I'd guess they all include at least one Taswegian.

So?

Yes, we treated their bunch of regional leagues pretty much the same as we did the country leagues in Vic (and as WA treated WA country leagues, etc). They were about the same size after all.

What's your point?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

The simple fact is if big footy were the basis on wether tassie will get a team the answer is tassie will never get a team wether its relocated or not.

At best they will treat this proposed "tassie" team as a second club and promise to buy memberships.

But if we look at every two team state and look at how the second team in the state performs or even people who follow teams that Are based interstate and what do we see?

Support for the Incumbent team to begin with as a show of "support" but the fact is that "Support" drops off quickly when the club starts to perform. We've seen it with freo, port, the Sun's and GWS. first year or two they get support then its GAGF the only people who continue to by memberships are those that love footy and want to see live footy. These people continue to by memberships wether they like the team or not (in fact for 3 years i sat next to a bombers supporter who hate's the swans more then he loves the bombers and Yet he bought a swans membership in 06-07-08 because it was his only chance to see footy in person until he moved back to melbourne.)

Why would it be any different in Tassie? the answer is, it's not. The tassie team will be a novelty according to most of the tassie posters. And these are the same people MOST LIKELY to answer AFL surveys. So with that being the case why would the AFL consider a Tassie team? If its going to be treated as a novelty second team why would the AFL bother considering it? If people aren't going to have it as a NUMBER 1 team why would the AFL bother?

Seriously read the Thread most tassie posters outright state I want a team in my state but I wont support it as my number one team. those who fein support of it as a "second" team are full of s**t. The moment the team starts kicking your own teams arse you will throw your membership in the bin and wont buy anymore and those that want to see footy will grit their teeth and buy one anyway.

and THIS is why tassie is being offered as a FIFO as much as tasmanian people want a team almost every tasmanian is happy to announce they will at best offer token support in the beginning.

 

[Kwality]

So?

Yes, we treated their bunch of regional leagues pretty much the same as we did the country leagues in Vic (and as WA treated WA country leagues, etc). They were about the same size after all.

What's your point?

I'll try again, my experience (& I've lived & gone to the footy in every mainland State) suggests it naive to believe forcing a Victorian team on Tasmania will never be accepted universally (or near as damn) by Tasmanians.
You seem to believe anything you want to be true is fact - have a look at reality, talk to those who have some experience, doesnt make it right, but sure beats an opinion that is self serving.

Note: dumped has been dumped, & you would not know dressed up so as not to offend. So precious, using political correctness to censor views that do not accord with your own.

 

[telsor]

I'll try again, my experience (& I've lived & gone to the footy in every mainland State) suggests it naive to believe forcing a Victorian team on Tasmania will never be accepted universally (or near as damn) by Tasmanians.
You seem to believe anything you want to be true is fact - have a look at reality, talk to those who have some experience, doesnt make it right, but sure beats an opinion that is self serving.

So, you use what you admit to be your opinion, state it as a fact, then berate me for doing that same thing?

Except, I don't use my opinion, I use facts...attendance figures at games in Tasmania showing that Vic teams ARE, in fact, accepted by many Tasmanians. Facts like how the only example we have of a transplanted team (Sydney) has largely worked. Facts like how Tasmanias population and economy are borderline for being big enough to support a team even if they get universal (or as near as damn) support, something that is highly unlikely because, as the Flannigan article linked to above points out, Tasmania isn't like other states...They've followed Victorian teams for generations and many would stick with them regardless of how a new team was created.

Note: dumped has been dumped, & you would not know dressed up so as not to offend. So precious, using political correctness to censor views that do not accord with your own.

Where have I tried to censor views with political correctness?

 

[Kwality]

So, you use what you admit to be your opinion, state it as a fact, then berate me for doing that same thing?

Except, I don't use my opinion, I use facts...attendance figures at games in Tasmania showing that Vic teams ARE, in fact, accepted by many Tasmanians. Facts like how the only example we have of a transplanted team (Sydney) has largely worked. Facts like how Tasmanias population and economy are borderline for being big enough to support a team even if they get universal (or as near as damn) support, something that is highly unlikely because, as the Flannigan article linked to above points out, Tasmania isn't like other states...They've followed Victorian teams for generations and many would stick with them regardless of how a new team was created.



Where have I tried to censor views with political correctness?

Too cute by half.

A Tassie team will attract more universal acceptance than a Vic team & despite WA fans generally following the VFL at the formation of the national game ... I'm saying its relevant. SA had a similar experience.

 

[sherb]

And what do you base that assertion on?

The only relocated club seems to have been adopted by it's new town quite adequately (yes, it took time, but as GWS/GC show, the AFL is willing to be patient), or are you basing it on how FIFO teams (which are less engaged with the locals) like Hawthorn and North play to nearly full stadiums whenever they venture down there?

Many, many Tasmanians already support an AFL club. I know heaps of them myself. Tigers, Blues, Saints, Doggies, Dons supporters etc.

If a Melbourne club is dumped down there full time, for the majority of Tasmanians it will be an opposition side to them. They won't readily support it.

In fact, relocate a Melbourne club there and for it to be completely successful it would have to be generational. Which for an existing footy market would be ludicrous.

Tell me, as a Richmond supporter, would you embrace (as an example) North Melbourne? Or Hawthorn? Or Melbourne? Doubt it.

I know you seem set on fervently advocating against a Tasmanian side for some reason, but just think about it for a minute.

 

[Shatterpoint]

Carlton should play 4 games there, sell some games for a few years.

 

[sherb]

So, you use what you admit to be your opinion, state it as a fact, then berate me for doing that same thing?

Except, I don't use my opinion, I use facts...attendance figures at games in Tasmania showing that Vic teams ARE, in fact, accepted by many Tasmanians. Facts like how the only example we have of a transplanted team (Sydney) has largely worked. Facts like how Tasmanias population and economy are borderline for being big enough to support a team even if they get universal (or as near as damn) support, something that is highly unlikely because, as the Flannigan article linked to above points out, Tasmania isn't like other states...They've followed Victorian teams for generations and many would stick with them regardless of how a new team was created.

Where have I tried to censor views with political correctness?

The bolded is not a fact, it's only Flanagan's opinion. So you don't use facts all the time after all.........

Put a home grown Tassie side there and the population is far more likely to support it than a dumped Victorian club. Why? Because it is not impinging on existing loyalties and rivalries.

The locals could easily follow a home grown Tasmanian side in conjunction with following their existing club.

 

[sherb]

Too cute by half.

A Tassie team will attract more universal acceptance than a Vic team & despite WA fans generally following the VFL at the formation of the national game ... I'm saying its relevant. SA had a similar experience.

A home grown Tassie team is the only way to go.

Forget teams playing there for money, forget a relocated Victorian side.

 

[telsor]

Many, many Tasmanians already support an AFL club. I know heaps of them myself. Tigers, Blues, Saints, Doggies, Dons supporters etc.

If a Melbourne club is dumped down there full time, for the majority of Tasmanians it will be an opposition side to them. They won't readily support it.

In fact, relocate a Melbourne club there and for it to be completely successful it would have to be generational. Which for an existing footy market would be ludicrous.

Tell me, as a Richmond supporter, would you embrace (as an example) North Melbourne? Or Hawthorn? Or Melbourne? Doubt it.

I know you seem set on fervently advocating against a Tasmanian side for some reason, but just think about it for a minute.

Actually, I'm in favor of a Tas team. I'm against what I feel to be the hypocritical assertion that a Vic team should make way in order to allow one in, because almost every argument for a Tas team is, in my view, as valid for keeping the 'weaker' Vic clubs (essentially, the economics of both are equally poor, but the sentiment is high and they would have similar levels of support).

Along the way I've just got into the habit of calling Kwality, madmug, et al on their, shall we say, 'unfounded assertions'.

 

[sherb]

Actually, I'm in favor of a Tas team. I'm against what I feel to be the hypocritical assertion that a Vic team should make way in order to allow one in, because almost every argument for a Tas team is, in my view, as valid for keeping the 'weaker' Vic clubs (essentially, the economics of both are equally poor, but the sentiment is high and they would have similar levels of support).

I am stridently against a Victorian club relocating there. As I am also against the current "arrangement".

I would not want a Victorian club to give way for a home grown Tasmanian side to happen though. It would have to be an additional side in the competition.

 

[telsor]

The bolded is not a fact, it's only Flanagan's opinion. So you don't use facts all the time after all.........

Fair point, but Flannigan is a reasonable source when it comes to Tasmanian football.

Put a home grown Tassie side there and the population is far more likely to support it than a dumped Victorian club. Why? Because it is not impinging on existing loyalties and rivalries.

The locals could easily follow a home grown Tasmanian side in conjunction with following their existing club.

I see your point, but really, I figure (yes, opinion, not fact) a transplanted side would get 50% of the support 'quickly', a new team maybe 70%, and in 20-30 years the numbers would rise and both would be pretty similar (made up numbers because obviously nobody would know for sure). In the meantime, the club gets a serious financial boost from those original clubs supporters that hang in and support them anyway, so would probably be in a better financial state as a result (in effect, they'd do the reverse of what Hawthorn/North do).

The other difference is a relocated team could be there in a few years, a new team would be at least 10 years away.

 

[telsor]

I am stridently against a Victorian club relocating there. As I am also against the current "arrangement".

I would not want a Victorian club to give way for a home grown Tasmanian side to happen though. It would have to be an additional side in the competition.

I'd rather it be a new team as well, but I'm open to other options.

 

[Kwality]

I am stridently against a Victorian club relocating there. As I am also against the current "arrangement".

I would not want a Victorian club to give way for a home grown Tasmanian side to happen though. It would have to be an additional side in the competition.

Another club, more players ... from where?

 

[The_Wookie]

Where have I tried to censor views with political correctness?

he has a problem with my moderation.