The Case for Tasmania

[madmug]

IPads are slow, Bigfooty is big, and it's been a while...! OK...Bartlett...one might ask how his maths stack up...the AfL says one in thirty Aussies are AFL members, and he says he would deliver a figure that is basically one in twenty Tasmanians, which equates to a figure half of any of the best WA/SA sides, and from a supporter base that is smaller than any team from WA, Sa or Vic...never mind the state is split down the middle, as stated by Scott Wade, the most divisive figure Tasmanian football has ever produced who is currently the AFL Tas supremo...Bartlett was a Tasmanian premier looking for votes, let's not forget too...and at no stage on page one has the simple yet all-funding issue of tv rights in a regional tv area been addressed...this is the entire argument right there...

Still doesn't counter the obvious - the AFL has said no, they're standing there with their arms folded, and everyone including you is still pushing the argument they lost with. I'm thinking my "facts" aren't any worse than yours!

The arguement they 'lost' with was not economic. It was simply political.
Look after the old VFL clubs no matter how terminal they are, even let them sell games interstate because they cant cut it in the tight & tightening Victorian market. The call to limit spending on footy departments just shows the desparation of failing clubs.
The policy of Moving into the new areas, even though the GC has been the economic graveyard for so many professional sports franchises, is the second leg of their structural view of the AFL. Use of economic power to push into traditional RL territory.
The best option for Tasmania now is to wait until either GWS or GC are amalgamated with a failing old VFL team ( like Fitzroy & the Brisbane Bears). Its just a matter of when the A(Vic)FL get sick of spoon feeding them.
Unfortunately the economic arguement never was. It was never a level playing field for who would be in the national competition.

 

[Colonial]

The arguement they 'lost' with was not economic. It was simply political.
Look after the old VFL clubs no matter how terminal they are, even let them sell games interstate because they cant cut it in the tight & tightening Victorian market. The call to limit spending on footy departments just shows the desparation of failing clubs.
The policy of Moving into the new areas, even though the GC has been the economic graveyard for so many professional sports franchises, is the second leg of their structural view of the AFL. Use of economic power to push into traditional RL territory.
The best option for Tasmania now is to wait until either GWS or GC are amalgamated with a failing old VFL team ( like Fitzroy & the Brisbane Bears). Its just a matter of when the A(Vic)FL get sick of spoon feeding them.
Unfortunately the economic arguement never was. It was never a level playing field for who would be in the national competition.

Agreed, rightly or wrongly, the league is setting itself up for tv dollars and a blanket of coverage across the entire country. 2 clubs in each major region gives all areas 2 clubs to choose from and a future passionate rivalry. Unfortunetly for tassie they are in the same boat as the Bears in the NRL, they are passionate followers of the game, even without their own team, so the AFL will continue to take advantage of that. As for mergers? Well Ill accept a merger with the Tigers (Wests Tigers has a nice ring to it ) but i do love the name Giants.

 

[madmug]

Agreed, rightly or wrongly, the league is setting itself up for tv dollars and a blanket of coverage across the entire country. 2 clubs in each major region gives all areas 2 clubs to choose from and a future passionate rivalry. Unfortunetly for tassie they are in the same boat as the Bears in the NRL, they are passionate followers of the game, even without their own team, so the AFL will continue to take advantage of that. As for mergers? Well Ill accept a merger with the Tigers (Wests Tigers has a nice ring to it ) but i do love the name Giants.

I've said before that I think the move to GWS & GC are the right thing to do for a number of reasons already spelled out.
I can see amalgamations happening as the two clubs will struggle for support. For GWS its a massive cultural change to have AFL, for the GC their are other things to do, like the beach etc. Doing the same as the Fitzroy/Bears amalgamation makes sense for the AFL. Its not a good look to play in front of near empty stadiums.
For Tasmania to be treated this way by the A(Vic)FL is wrong. Personally I would like to see us play the same selfish politics & ditch the two rentaclubs. But I fear our polititians dont have the brains or the guts to do it.

 

[Colonial]

I've said before that I think the move to GWS & GC are the right thing to do for a number of reasons already spelled out.
I can see amalgamations happening as the two clubs will struggle for support. For GWS its a massive cultural change to have AFL, for the GC their are other things to do, like the beach etc. Doing the same as the Fitzroy/Bears amalgamation makes sense for the AFL. Its not a good look to play in front of near empty stadiums.
For Tasmania to be treated this way by the A(Vic)FL is wrong. Personally I would like to see us play the same selfish politics & ditch the two rentaclubs. But I fear our polititians dont have the brains or the guts to do it.

I agree with that. Paying these clubs to have games there gives the AFL an excuse not to give Tassie its own club.

 

[Hawker81]

I've said before that I think the move to GWS & GC are the right thing to do for a number of reasons already spelled out.
I can see amalgamations happening as the two clubs will struggle for support. For GWS its a massive cultural change to have AFL, for the GC their are other things to do, like the beach etc. Doing the same as the Fitzroy/Bears amalgamation makes sense for the AFL. Its not a good look to play in front of near empty stadiums.
For Tasmania to be treated this way by the A(Vic)FL is wrong. Personally I would like to see us play the same selfish politics & ditch the two rentaclubs. But I fear our polititians dont have the brains or the guts to do it.

The economic benefit that Tasmania gets for the Hawthorn deal is 5 times what Tasmania pays to the Hawks, so it has worked well for both parties.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/loc...ng-on-hawks-deal-on-solid-ground/2537905.aspx

 

[Papa G]

The economic benefit that Tasmania gets for the Hawthorn deal is 5 times what Tasmania pays to the Hawks, so it has worked well for both parties.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/loc...ng-on-hawks-deal-on-solid-ground/2537905.aspx

Where does this economic benefit come from? Victorian's visiting Tasmania? So lets just say there are 11 games in Tassie instead of 4 and let's just say that Victorian's who are not Hawthorn supporters will now have a reason to visit Tasmania, what do you think the economic benefits of that could be?

 

[madmug]

The economic benefit that Tasmania gets for the Hawthorn deal is 5 times what Tasmania pays to the Hawks, so it has worked well for both parties.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/loc...ng-on-hawks-deal-on-solid-ground/2537905.aspx

Thank you for explaining the economic 'trickle down' effect. Or was it the 'cargo cult'? One of them I'm sure!!
I'm also sure the benefit to the Hawks is also 5x what they would have made in Victoria with the same crap games, otherwise we wouldnt get them.
The question is whether Tasmania keeps putting up with the shyte treatment we get from the A(Vic)FL or we invest in our own future & dump the rentaclub deals. The economics of having our own team would far outway the loss of the two fly in, fly outs.
Short term pain, long term??

 

[Hawker81]

Where does this economic benefit come from? Victorian's visiting Tasmania? So lets just say there are 11 games in Tassie instead of 4 and let's just say that Victorian's who are not Hawthorn supporters will now have a reason to visit Tasmania, what do you think the economic benefits of that could be?

Apparently gold coast will create a $50 million benefit to their ecoonomy this year.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/07/13/431265_gold-coast-afl.html

Quickest way for Tassie to get a team would be to get the Roos to relocate there.

 

[jackson10]

So with the two byes to be introduced in a couple of years why does there have to be 18 or 20 teams? Can there be a new 19th Tasmanian team and have two byes throughout the year like what happened in 2011 with the new team Gold Coast but permanantly. Then if a club was to fold it would be back to 18 or a new team and its 20 and I see nothing wrong with 20 teams as long as they are all sustainable.

 

[Gibbke]

With all due respect Madmug, that's a naive view and Tassie-centric. If you were up here in Brisbane when the Saturday night matches were broadcast live no matter who was playing, not just the Lions, and then watched the chain of events with North Melbourne, Gold Coast, etc, it would be very clear to you that it most certainly is an economic position that the AFL has taken, and has little to do with politics. For the past few years, it's been all about Brisbane and then Sydney, to up the price of tv rights and use this to fund a significant chunk of everything else, mainly keeping established clubs afloat. Why would they need to politically bash a place that has no power over them in the first instance...? There's no conspiracy, no political machinations...it's straight business, without telling everyone that it's all about the bucks (apparently, people don't like that)...

The two new franchises were born specifically for tv, unlike the old VFL expansion sides who were born to pay hefty licence fees which temporarily propped up VFL clubs. The Bears merger gave the Bears a Melbourne presence and a merger payout, as well as improving a mascot and image they weren't happy with - they won't do this with the new sides...if they need to change, it will be coincidental, because they should have done a better job of market research to this point than Christopher Skase did way back in the 1980's...

Tassie isn't viewed as a football state by the AFL - we are simply a football playing area, a locality no different than Ballarat, Ovens & Murray, Albury-Wodonga, whoever, and they've structured their payments, support and drafting strategies accordingly...they are paying for the TSL, and funded the Devils, based upon the potential AFL draftees...that's all we are to them!

 

[madmug]

With all due respect Madmug, that's a naive view and Tassie-centric. If you were up here in Brisbane when the Saturday night matches were broadcast live no matter who was playing, not just the Lions, and then watched the chain of events with North Melbourne, Gold Coast, etc, it would be very clear to you that it most certainly is an economic position that the AFL has taken, and has little to do with politics. For the past few years, it's been all about Brisbane and then Sydney, to up the price of tv rights and use this to fund a significant chunk of everything else, mainly keeping established clubs afloat. Why would they need to politically bash a place that has no power over them in the first instance...? There's no conspiracy, no political machinations...it's straight business, without telling everyone that it's all about the bucks (apparently, people don't like that)...

The two new franchises were born specifically for tv, unlike the old VFL expansion sides who were born to pay hefty licence fees which temporarily propped up VFL clubs. The Bears merger gave the Bears a Melbourne presence and a merger payout, as well as improving a mascot and image they weren't happy with - they won't do this with the new sides...if they need to change, it will be coincidental, because they should have done a better job of market research to this point than Christopher Skase did way back in the 1980's...

Tassie isn't viewed as a football state by the AFL - we are simply a football playing area, a locality no different than Ballarat, Ovens & Murray, Albury-Wodonga, whoever, and they've structured their payments, support and drafting strategies accordingly...they are paying for the TSL, and funded the Devils, based upon the potential AFL draftees...that's all we are to them!

Naive, maybe. Certainly a more logical view IMO than a lot of other somewhat jaundiced views espoused by some on BF that I've seen. I dont doubt the move to the GWS & GC. However I dont see the GC (2nd go at it ) move as being in any kind of 'superior' position to having a Tassie team at all. I do argue that the real battle is the over represented Victorian market, NOT due to a proper economic view, just politics.
Tassie- Centric, certainly. And why not when one sees the continual Vic-centric view of the national league.
The 'economic' arguement is so skewed in favour of continually failing Melbourne suburban clubs who dont really offer much to a so called national competition.
Tassie is a small state yes, but it is 515k which is a bigger population than any of the other regions you mentioned. And having its own state government, would be more capable of supporting & using a professional team to benefit the state as a whole rather than supporting Victorian clubs. Its a pathetic situation having two rentaclubs. IMO its a poor look for the AFL. Some on BF point to Tassie as being divided. So what do they do? Put two clubs down here. How do you figure that? Deliberate sabotage?

 

[The_Wookie]

The 'economic' arguement is so skewed in favour of continually failing Melbourne suburban clubs who dont really offer much to a so called national competition.

This is a notion not typically supported by any evidence either, and typically espoused by those outside of Victoria.

 

[madmug]

This is a notion not typically supported by any evidence either, and typically espoused by those outside of Victoria.

Evidence? so Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs & Richmond all selling games interstate isnt a sign of economic stress in the Victorian market?
Clubs in Victoria wanting to curtail the footy dept spending or having equality of such spending with 'bigger' clubs isnt a sign of economic stress?
South Melbourne left Victoria.
Fitzroy got squeezed out.
Evidence? You are joking aren't you?
At least Tassie put in an application. I have never seen any of the above clubs having to show thier bona fides to be in a national competition.

 

[The_Wookie]

Evidence? so Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs & Richmond all selling games interstate isnt a sign of economic stress in the Victorian market?
Clubs in Victoria wanting to curtail the footy dept spending or having equality of such spending with 'bigger' clubs isnt a sign of economic stress?
South Melbourne left Victoria.
Fitzroy got squeezed out.
Evidence? You are joking aren't you?
At least Tassie put in an application. I have never seen any of the above clubs having to show thier bona fides to be in a national competition.

1. they didnt have to show bonafides. Its the SAME competition with a new badge. No matter how much people try to gloss over this, it doesnt change this central fact.
2. Fitzroy were actively campaigned against by fellow clubs and the AFL.
3. South Melbourne were a disorganised rabble in the last years in Victoria.

Theres a difference between economic mismanagement as has happened at several clubs, and the clubs being unsustainable.

 

[madmug]

1. they didnt have to show bonafides. Its the SAME competition with a new badge. No matter how much people try to gloss over this, it doesnt change this central fact.
2. Fitzroy were actively campaigned against by fellow clubs and the AFL.
3. South Melbourne were a disorganised rabble in the last years in Victoria.

Theres a difference between economic mismanagement as has happened at several clubs, and the clubs being unsustainable.

The same clubs seem to struggle in the financial battle, but thats only mismanagement?
I think the fact that the same clubs are always seen to struggle financially & sell games & have poor home crowds & grizzle is ample proof of the stress seen in the over supplied Victorian market. Just offering the denial doesnt answer that rather obvious fact.
Your other 3 points also just outline my point that they couldnt cut it in the changing environment, nor can some of the current clubs as I also pointed out.
Tassie are grilled & denied a fair go in the national competition IMO
I do find it strange how Tassie is part of the cricket world which like the AFL rellies heavily on tv ratings, but some see the same tv ratings as to why we are not in the AFL. I just cant see the logic in that?
For me & others It just gets back to the Vic centric attitude of AFL

 

[mattymac]

A Tasmanian club would mean the end of millions of Tasmanian taxpayer dollars propping up Hawthorn and North and presumably a fall in Hawthorn members of over 5000 or so (assuming 3000 or so stay with Hawks for whatever reason).

Why would Victorian Vlad say yes to something that would hurt both his old clubs?

 

[Kwality]

The economic benefit that Tasmania gets for the Hawthorn deal is 5 times what Tasmania pays to the Hawks, so it has worked well for both parties.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/loc...ng-on-hawks-deal-on-solid-ground/2537905.aspx

Imagine the benefit to Tas of having 11 home games ...

 

[Kwality]

1. they didnt have to show bonafides. Its the SAME competition with a new badge. No matter how much people try to gloss over this, it doesnt change this central fact.
2. Fitzroy were actively campaigned against by fellow clubs and the AFL.
3. South Melbourne were a disorganised rabble in the last years in Victoria.

Theres a difference between economic mismanagement as has happened at several clubs, and the clubs being unsustainable.

Is this a very clear admission of an inability to provide any level of bona fides by those who claim a divine right based on postcode?

If South were a rabble, how would you characterise Melbourne, give you a clue, a joke !!

When a club is on life support , when would you pull the plug !! 5 years, 10 years ...

 

[The_Wookie]

Is this a very clear admission of an inability to provide any level of bona fides by those who claim a divine right based on postcode?

FFS they didnt have a divine right. they already existed in the league before you malcontents joined up.

 

[madmug]

FFS they didnt have a divine right. they already existed in the league before you malcontents joined up.

Just making shrill comment about being in the same competition as before ( which I dont agree with) doesnt hide the fact of some clubs continued poor performances especially OFF the field with finances & membership incomes, selling games etc etc etc. It just shows the fact that their are too many clubs in Melbourne represented in the national competition.
How obvious can it be FCS?
Why has Tassie got two rentaclubs?

 

[The_Wookie]

Ill stop giving the same replies when you all stop with the "divine right" rubbish. The AFL is the VFL with a new name. The AFL says it is, and they ought to know. How people be so stubborn as to ignore that simple fact when its there in black and white for the world to see.

And Tassie has "rentaclubs" because the Government you guys elected keeps paying them. You could do something about that.

 

[madmug]

Ill stop giving the same replies when you all stop with the "divine right" rubbish. The AFL is the VFL with a new name. The AFL says it is, and they ought to know. How people be so stubborn as to ignore that simple fact when its there in black and white for the world to see.

And Tassie has "rentaclubs" because the Government you guys elected keeps paying them. You could do something about that.

The struggling Vic AFL clubs are their for all the world to see as well. Too many national level teams in one spot is the problem.
As for rentaclubs, I dont run the political system. The politicians have used football to engraciate themselves to the punters, starting in the northern electorate of Bass, around Launceston. Now Having two clubs here feeding off the state is a disgrace to the AFL for allowing it to happen IMO & many others to. Its a bad look. Money hungry Victorian clubs flying in & out.

 

[Slattery_20]

Um say what now? I wouldnt say they've wasted the money paid by the eagles and bears. By the time the Crows joined, the funds were not required for club salvation and would have been included in the general returns to clubs - including the Eagles I might add - but a lot of it would have been used to buy back the Swans and Bears licenses from private ownership. As for wasting the money, The AFL managed to turn a 30 million a year business in 1989, into a 400 million a year business in 2012. You're talking about a 1300% increase in available funds that shows no sign of slowing down. Business bozoism, my foot.

Before you start TV rights were 6 million - eagles, bears, swans and crows included - until 1993. Thats gone up only slightly to more than 200 million in 2012. Other league revenue was 24 million in 1989, that now sits at more than 160 million in 2011.

If you mean the Melbourne clubs, the AFL until recently didnt have an active role in expenditure until clubs required assistance from the AFL. The AFL has no right to control independent club finances either until such time as a club seeks AFL assistance. The AFL are the ultimate authority, but they do not own any club in Melbourne, nor do they have management rights over any Melbourne club.

All that aside, Tasmania has earnt the right to have its own team as far as Im concerned.

TBH I've stopped paying attention to Kwality completely.
Obvious intentions are obvious.
Whatever the AFL does, it's TO PROTECT THE VIC INTERESTS, HURRR....

madmug not far off it, either

These are the facts of the matter:
Vic is, still, the biggest market. By a fair margin, too.
Stopping the payments to "struggling Vic clubs", as it has been put, would mean, at various times, Collingwood, Hawthorn (mid 90s), Carlton (mid 00s), Geelong (late 90s), as well as Richmond/St Kilda/Bulldogs/Melbourne/North (various points) would've seriously struggled.
Not to mention other sides who've needed money - Brisbane (currently), Sydney (various points), Port (recently), and the two new startups.
All have needed, and been given, large wads of AFL cash, since the draft/TV money era began.

I'm not sure how well a competition, with 2 teams in WA, 1 in SA, and 1 in Victoria, would rate.
I suspect not very well.

 

[The_Reaper]

TBH I've stopped paying attention to Kwality completely.
Obvious intentions are obvious.
Whatever the AFL does, it's TO PROTECT THE VIC INTERESTS, HURRR....

madmug not far off it, either

These are the facts of the matter:
Vic is, still, the biggest market. By a fair margin, too.
Stopping the payments to "struggling Vic clubs", as it has been put, would mean, at various times, Collingwood, Hawthorn (mid 90s), Carlton (mid 00s), Geelong (late 90s), as well as Richmond/St Kilda/Bulldogs/Melbourne/North (various points) would've seriously struggled.
Not to mention other sides who've needed money - Brisbane (currently), Sydney (various points), Port (recently), and the two new startups.
All have needed, and been given, large wads of AFL cash, since the draft/TV money era began.

I'm not sure how well a competition, with 2 teams in WA, 1 in SA, and 1 in Victoria, would rate.
I suspect not very well.

Both West Coast and Fremantle have had to receive help from the WAFC before.

You'd have a one team competition.

 

[Slattery_20]

Both West Coast and Fremantle have had to receive help from the WAFC before.

You'd have a one team competition.

LOL.
Didn't know that, even worse. (Although the WA teams' financials are a whole other story)