the next AFL club
- Thread starter scott_the_man
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Dec 18, 2005
- 21,659
- 14,391
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
Nah 2 Melbourne teams play in Tassie. That's not their own team at all.
brisbane13
Cancelled
- Nov 27, 2012
- 2,618
- 757
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #179
The bottom line is every one wants a team in tassie but can they survive.
Aside from the financial side of things, other things that need to be looked at are,
How many teams is a good number in the whole afl comp. I believe the the 18 team comp is a good number.
Where will the team in tassie be based? So much has been spoken of this north vs south divide will it effect the supporter base?. North and hawthorn don't exactly pull massive crowds there and the whole overall population isn't so big
Thanks, another good in depth analysis.
Crowds will be fine. I mean getting 20k in the current stadiums which cost SFA is better than making SFA with 30k at Etihad.
Raw crowd numbers, after all, are only secondary to the economics of a clubs overall operation. Raising $60million is only good if you dont have to spend most of it trying to raise the extra money in the first place! However, I believe getting the full range of AFL clubs playing here will fill the stadiums more often than not. Either stadium could be enlarged if warranted. Aurora probably has the most scope, but Boot Park has a large hill area that could be utilised for further development if need be. I dont like the hill anyway. Its hopeless to watch from when a decent crowd is in.
When it comes to it, what are the actual basic costs to run an AFL club anyway? The AFL give each club $10m-$12m that we know of. What are the costs of running an efficient football department? ( & administration costs as well?) Obviously the AFL dont feel that $20m is warranted. So is $40m the new $60m? How efficiently can a club be run? Remembering that the salary cap & draft are the biggest factor in recruiting & maintaining players.
Any possible north/south angst will not affect memberships because such a team will play in both stadiums. I think you will find that intrastate support will increase anyway. That factor would provide a good social outcome to the exercise. Cost/benefit analysis is not only economic, but social as well. Such factors would be important considerations for the AFL, Governments at all levels, & to the right sort of sponsors.
Even those supporters who cant or wont travel the extra mile north or south, for whatever reason, will watch in their area at Aurora or Boot park so will just see 5-6 matches. I believe however that many people will get into the habit of following the team to both stadiums as much as they can. After all it is after all only a game per month in either stadium.
Where the club is based is again a secondary issue to me, as compared to where it plays. Both Aurora & Boot park will end up having cricket in summer. Its a matter of the best city infrastructure & other facilities that would serve an AFL team. Hobart probably does have those but it wouldnt make any difference to me personally.
They could develop a social club in each city if they wanted to.
IMO Play footy & they will come, & its only an hours flight from Melbourne. Geez, even some Richmond supporters might come down
telsor
Hall of Famer
The Mercury has a similar article, and if you read the comments you quickly realise that the idea of massive, unified, support is a pipe dream. Only 21 comments, but not one would be described as unqualified support for the idea, with several strongly opposed.
http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/...a-team-effort/comments-fnj4f7h7-1226862240976
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
If you use the imbeciles that make comments on Newspaper sites as your guide, you are sillier than I thought.
In all fairness, most of the people that comment on news websites are trolls, and the rest are mentally challenged.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
telsor
Hall of Famer
As opposed to blindly ignoring anything that doesn't suit your argument?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Pot. Kettle. Black
Oh? And what have I ignored?
Nothing, just the bleeding obvious. You accuse others of doing just what you do. Ignoring what doesnt suit your own argument.
telsor
Hall of Famer
If it's so obvious, enlighten me.
Google it, simple as that.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I googled 'it'...There is a stephen king book/film and a bunch on information tehcnology. Not sure how any apply.
Have you been caught out making a silly statement you can't support again, but this time you're unable to weasel out with semantics?
The pot calling the kettle black is just a phrase or 'idiom' meant to convey the idea that you accuse others of doing what you do yourself when you discuss, or 'argue' a point.
If you still cant get it, then someone else will need to explain to you that you do exactly what you accuse others of doing when discussing points of proof of opinion on BF.
ie Try looking in a mirror!
telsor
Hall of Famer
Yes, you accused me of doing what I accused others of (in this case "blindly ignoring anything that doesn't suit your argument").
I'm asking you to justify that allegation, and as usual, when called upon for substance, you attack the person asking you to do so rather than backing up your statement with anything verifiable.
Alright Telsor, you keep saying that Tassie can't afford a team, I have responded numerous times with why I think they could with favourable stadium deals, govt support, high levels of community involvement, a 2 stadium approach, sponsorship etc. You have countered again and again with the fact you don't think Tassie could raise the funds that someone like North or the Bulldogs could. I have asked on several occassions where does North get all it's cash from (I use North because they don't have Pokies putting them further behind the eight ball) and no body seems to be able to adequately answer it. Is it all from sponsorship?? I find it hard to believe the 10th best supported club in Melbourne, with a poor stadium deal could some how be swimming sponsorship dollars but a Tasmanian team couldn't scratch together a decent sponsor? A Tasmanian team would have advantages that the smaller Vic teams just don't have. They will have blanket media in Tasmania. As I've said numerous times, there is no competition from anything else in Tassie, no soccer, rugby, netball, basketball let alone another football team. The will be Tassie's very own team in the sport that they love most. But no, no, lets be patronising and say thtey couldn't possibly do it. Seriously, I think they'd be a raging success.
You've missed the point, again
Look, I cant 'prove' anything about my footy discussions. Who can on here.
I guess I look at the situation & make my points with some knowledge of footy politics & economics (101 level at least!), both here & on the mainland.
I do know some people who have been engaged in local & AFL footy over the years & talk to them on occassion, that gives me some insites.
I dont just make blind assertions, I know it wont be straight forward, I've said many times that in a 12 or 14 0r 16 team AFL, that Tassie probably wouldnt get a look in, but since its an 18 team competition I find it plain wrong that we get to PAY for 2 FIFO clubs but get fobbed off when it comes to a team of our own. I believe the economics are affordable & the social benefits, invaluable for this place.
However you seem incapable of looking outside your Victorian bubble.
It AINT the VFL anymore.
telsor
Hall of Famer
No, I keep saying that whatever team Tassie could afford would be roughly equivilent, financially, to the weaker Vic teams (the ones that you guys want to get rid of).
I just keep wanting you guys to be consistant.
Do we drop teams that can't keep up financially (as you want for the weaker Vic clubs) in which case, Tas doesn't cut it, or do we allow teams to stay (enter) on sentiment, allowing both a (likely subsidised) Tas team and for the weaker Vic clubs to remain.
I keep explaining why a Tas team would be roughly equivilent (a pretty simple matter of population, economy and lack of growth along with the example of the first team in other football states) and get the rhetorical equivilent of 'yeah, nah' as a reply.
Yes, Tas will get sponsorship something like North....but you can't use that as an argument because you want to get rid of North!
You need to show how you will be significantly better than what you want to replace in order to justify such a move.
Or admit it's a matter of sentiment, and acknowledge the right of the weaker Vic clubs to continue in the comp on that basis.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Sorry, but where is this great point in
Pot. Kettle. Black
???
OK, you're whining about Victoria being horrible again. If that's your point, then go back to primary school and have your tanty there.
If you want to explain to me how part of the population of the most impoverished state will be able to provide a significant enough improvement on the economics of the poorest Vic clubs to justify replacing them in the competition, then feel free to. It would make a nice change.
Instead I expect "oh, we'll be different", "history is no guide" and "the magic money tree will appear from elsewhere and pump money in", which is pretty the basis of your arguments thus far.
Ask not what the AFL can do for you, and try and explain how having a Tas team would add to the AFL in anything but a sentimental way, because you can be pretty sure the AFL commision is looking at it from that perspective.
I dont have to 'prove' anything. These are points of discussion. One would hope that logical argument would be the prime consideration, not blind assumptions. You cant actually 'prove' much on here anyway. Its 'sound, rational, logical' discussion that I try to put.
All cases have strengths & weaknesses, I know that. I just see that its time for this place to be a meaningful part of the AFL.
For a Tassie team, Its all about what the AFL want to do. If they want to redo the business case then thats fine by me. If they dont then I think they are blinkered by the current structure. which is plainly unbalanced anyway. I see WA3 as being prime in that. 2 teams in a place that size is DUMB.
So I do believe that a current business case will support the economic & social value of having a Tasmanian AFL club.
Advantages a Tassie team would have over say North Melbourne if we assume as you yourself have stated that the sponsorship would be roughly the same.
Favourable Stadium deal(s)
Government backing
No competition for fans from other sports
Support from 2 population centres, ability to have gaming facilities in both.
I know it's a different world now, and money is important, but most of the great Australian Football Clubs, including yours, have very strong working class roots. Just because Tassie ain't as wealthy as the rest of the country, they will make up for it (in my opinion) in their passion for a State based football team, one they can finally call their own.
Favourable Stadium deal(s)
Government backing
No competition for fans from other sports
Support from 2 population centres, ability to have gaming facilities in both.
I know it's a different world now, and money is important, but most of the great Australian Football Clubs, including yours, have very strong working class roots. Just because Tassie ain't as wealthy as the rest of the country, they will make up for it (in my opinion) in their passion for a State based football team, one they can finally call their own.
Similar threads
