The Case for Tasmania

[The King!]

This is a similar opinion held by most Tasmanians. It would be fair to say that virtually all Tasmanians have a preferred AFL team, but if a home grown team were to come into the competition most would dump that team overnight. If though a team like North Melbourne were to relocate they would not garner the same level of support as they would not be seen to be a local team, but rather a foreign team only there because they can't survive anywhere else.

I think a lot if people woudnt switch and a lot would whinge if it were based in one end of the stae and not the other

 

[madmug]

I think a lot if people woudnt switch and a lot would whinge if it were based in one end of the stae and not the other

And that is partly why both York Park & Boot Park should be used, to maximise memberships & crowds from as wide a part of Tasmania as possible. The original business plan was based on the primacy of Aurora. I think that just limits the appeal of our own team. The same if it were only to play at Boot Park.
Using the two current grounds is a case of 'More is better''
I know its 'just' a two hour drive to & from. But are you going to do that every 2 weeks for 6 months a year? Year after year? No I doubt many would want to. Then add the cost of car & petrol etc.
Thats why I think having a game a month at YP & BP would lessen the time & travel burden & thus make it easier & cheaper overall for people to enjoy their own AFL team.

 

[Slax]

I think a lot if people woudnt switch and a lot would whinge if it were based in one end of the stae and not the other

The plan was always for a 7/4 or 6/5 split with finals at York Park.

 

[blaze036]

This is a similar opinion held by most Tasmanians. It would be fair to say that virtually all Tasmanians have a preferred AFL team, but if a home grown team were to come into the competition most would dump that team overnight. If though a team like North Melbourne were to relocate they would not garner the same level of support as they would not be seen to be a local team, but rather a foreign team only there because they can't survive anywhere else.

Weaken existing teams to put in a new team? Doesn't sound like a smart idea

 

[Slax]

Weaken existing teams to put in a new team? Doesn't sound like a smart idea

No, if you forced two Victorian teams that are no financially viable (ie North & Bulldogs) to merge then bring in a Tassie team you still require the exact same number of players as we do now.

 

[The King!]

So where do you base the playes with a split home ground

 

[madmug]

So where do you base the playes with a split home ground

I've mentioned before on BF that I believe it would best be based in Hobart. Simply because the other infrastructure needs are already here. Sharing facilities with the TCA should have cost savings. Also the medical facilities here such as Sports medicine & orthopaedic back up is far superior in the Capital. In the end it matters that they play in YP & BP just like GWS play in WS & ACT.

 

[cos789]

No, if you forced two Victorian teams to merge .

It's accepted now that mergers don't work.

No, if you forced two Victorian teams to merge .

Come off of it, the AFL couldn't even entice a $200 million relocation.

bring in a Tassie team you still require the exact same number of players as we do now.

Player numbers are hardly an issue.

two Victorian teams that are no financially viable .

All Victorian teams produce a huge turnover.
Did they shut down GM because they made a real loss?
No, they tried re-investing.

.

 

[The King!]

I've mentioned before on BF that I believe it would best be based in Hobart. Simply because the other infrastructure needs are already here. Sharing facilities with the TCA should have cost savings. Also the medical facilities here such as Sports medicine & orthopaedic back up is far superior in the Capital. In the end it matters that they play in YP & BP just like GWS play in WS & ACT.

I would base it in hobart too, but being her in the north i tell you people would sook

 

[blaze036]

No, if you forced two Victorian teams that are no financially viable (ie North & Bulldogs) to merge then bring in a Tassie team you still require the exact same number of players as we do now.

all victorian teams are financially viable long term. There was a time not so long ago when collingwood and hawthorn were in serious financial trouble.. now look at them.

 

[madmug]

I would base it in hobart too, but being her in the north i tell you people would sook

Some would, same as some would sook here in the south. I just based my thoughts on what would be best overall. I know one thing is they could use YP all year round where as they can only use BP for 6 months. But what AFL teams get to train totally on the ground they play on? Down here the North Hobart oval has a great surface & would be excellent for preseason training. Practise matches would best be played at YP.

 

[madmug]

all victorian teams are financially viable long term. There was a time not so long ago when collingwood and hawthorn were in serious financial trouble.. now look at them.

Have you seen all their accounts books? If they are all so viable, why sell games????

 

[Slax]

All Victorian teams produce a huge turnover.
Did they shut down GM because they made a real loss?
No, they tried re-investing.

If all Victorian Clubs produce huge turnovers explain to me why Melbourne, Western bulldogs and North and generating no more money that Port Adelaide? Excluding the new 2, the bottom 3 in Victoria generate half the turnover of the likes of Collingwood and Hawthorn.

the fact that the AFL is paying out over $4M each year to these clubs to try and help keep them competitive shows that they need to look at the situation differently.

It's accepted now that mergers don't work.

Why is it accept when there has only been one and Brisbane treated the ex-Fitzroy supporters like leppers from about 2005 and were wondeing why no-one was renewing their membership.

Supporters don't like the idea of a merger happening and that goes for all sports, but it doesn't mean that they can't work, the St George-Illawarra in the NRL seems to of gone quite well.

all victorian teams are financially viable long term. There was a time not so long ago when collingwood and hawthorn were in serious financial trouble.. now look at them.

You are kidding, both Hawthorn and Collingwood had particular issues that they needed to work through, both had massive grassroots support at the time, the same cannot be said for Noth, Bulldogs or Melbourne who have always struggled to attract members.

Collingwood had a cash problem because they had geared themselves too high with debt when tehy went on an asset buying spree under MacAllistar and his dream of Magpieland.
Hawthorn's finances mightn't of been great, but it had more to do with being poorly run with bad ground sharing arrangements, but they were always a lot better than what I've seen of North, Bulldogs or Melbourne.

 

[Roylion]

It's accepted now that mergers don't work.

Accepted by who?

Mergers can work if they are done properly.

I wouldn't use the Brisbane - Fitzroy merger as a prime example of the best way to conduct a merger. Over the 15 years, Brisbane has done a great many things right, but they've also made an awful lot of mistakes and in doing so have cost themselves a substantial Melbourne-based support base, similar to what the Swans have.

 

[madmug]

It's accepted now that mergers don't work.


All Victorian teams produce a huge turnover.
Did they shut down GM because they made a real loss?
No, they tried re-investing.

.

Turnover & sustainable costs are not mutually inclusive concepts.
ie if you spend more than you earn you will will go bust!!!!
Clearly some Victorian clubs are selling their prime asset (games) to survive in Melbourne.
Collingwood have gotten themselves out of debt because they are a massive club & finally got the right management.
Hawthorn certainly owe a lot to Tasmania for getting their finances right. Its now time for them to get their sticky fingers out of our state treasury.

Please dont use the car industry as an example. It wasnt 'reinvested' It was & still is HEAVILY subsidised in nearly every Western country. Gee! that sounds like 3 or 4 Victorian teams in the AFL

 

[madmug]

Accepted by who?

Mergers can work if they are done properly.

I wouldn't use the Brisbane - Fitzroy merger as a prime example of the best way to conduct a merger. Over the 15 years, Brisbane has done a great many things right, but they've also made an awful lot of mistakes and in doing so have cost themselves a substantial Melbourne-based support base, similar to what the Swans have.

I dont see too many good examples of successful mergers. StGeorge/Illawarra is mentioned but the North Sydney/Manly merger failed. I suppose their are a lot of country ones that succeed but no doubt many fail or one part of it just disappears.
Sydney Swans was a move & still has taken years to start to work properly.
Brisbane's merger has turned out to be an aggressive take over aided & abetted by the AFL. I suppose it might work in another 10-15years or so!

 

[blaze036]

Have you seen all their accounts books? If they are all so viable, why sell games????

as previously stated, they sell games to increase the $$ available to spend on their football apartments, as there is a trend between more money spent on football departments and sustainted success.

There's a difference between getting money to survive and getting money to thrive. With the amount of loss the AFL would endure if a team went under, the AFL wont allow any teams to die. Is there is ever a serious problem they could just cap footy deparment spending (in a worst case scenario). So yes they are very viable

 

[Roylion]

I dont see too many good examples of successful mergers. StGeorge/Illawarra is mentioned but the North Sydney/Manly merger failed. I suppose their are a lot of country ones that succeed but no doubt many fail or one part of it just disappears.

So in other words if the merger is as equal as possible in terms of identity and representation in the new club, then there is a greater chance it will be successful.

As I understand it the North Sydney/Manly merger failed because it was seen as unequal by one of the parties. The name Northern Eagles had little relevance to North Sydney with many people feeling the word Northern represented the Northern Beaches and not the word Norths or North used to describe North Sydney since 1908. The word Eagles reflected the Eagle or Sea Eagle of the Manly club and had nothing to do with the Bear mascot of the North Sydney club. The team colours were largely based on the old Manly colours. I also understand that the rights of the North Sydney members were over-ridden in securing the merger.

Make each original club's representation in the new club equal in the eyes of both fanbases and the merger could be successful.

So for example in the case of Melbourne based AFL clubs....

The North Western Melbourne Bulldogs - playing in red, blue and white vertical stripes, playing 10-11 home games out of Etihad Stadium and training at the Western Oval with their social club at Arden Street, could work very well. If this was coupled, with equal board representation, equal rights for each membership base and equal selection in the new club's inaugural playing list and coaching staff from the old clubs' playing lists and coaching staff, then it would work even better.

Does the above give you an idea of where I think the "Brisbane Lions" made mistakes in the implementation of their "merger"?

Sydney Swans was a move & still has taken years to start to work properly.

In terms of what?

Brisbane's merger has turned out to be an aggressive take over aided & abetted by the AFL. I suppose it might work in another 10-15years or so!

If it's not working now, why would it take another 10-15 years?

 

[cos789]

Mergers can work if they are done properly.

But you cannot quote any successful mergers.
There is no reality where mergers are "done properly".
The idea of joining two clubs to produce one club the size of sum of two constituents has been proven false by the many evident failures.

.

 

[Roylion]

But you cannot quote any successful mergers.

The Wests Tigers? Formed from the Balmain Tigers and the Western Suburbs Magpies.

They split the name (no Balmain, no Magpies), created a brand new jersey where the colours are a combination of the black and white of the Western Suburbs Magpies uniform and the black and orange from the Balmain Tigers uniform. The logo combines a Tiger with a traditional Wests 'V' in the background. There is also a Magpie (taken from the Western Suburbs Logo) on both sleeves of the Jersey, plus a Leichhardt version and a Campbelltown version to acknowledge the traditional supporter bases. They also split their home games, between Leichardt Oval (the home ground of Balmain), Campbelltown Stadium (the home ground of Western Suburbs) and the Sydney Football Stadium.

Each original club (the Balmain Tigers and the Western Suburbs Magpies) took a 50% share in the club . The club’s board would garner two members from each club with a chairman which rotated between foundation clubs each year. Because the playing roster was supplied mostly by Balmain, the chairman and chief executive officer was supplied by Western Suburbs to even the deal.

There is no reality where mergers are "done properly".

Many have been failures because of a variety of factors, many of them being a perception by one of the fanbases that they have an unequal share of the new club.

The idea of joining two clubs to produce one club the size of sum of two constituents has been proven false by the many evident failures.

See above.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The issue of Tasmania getting a proper team in the AFL has got SFA to do with me posting on BF. This is a site for discussion, so I thought.
If the business case developed by the State Government & having a major sponsor ready to go wasnt good enough for the AFL, a face book page is the way to go then?

This is part of the problem. The Tasmanian private sector couldn't even put up a business case and had to rely on the government to do it. Even the soccer administration magaed to put their own case, without the government doing it for them and without ongoing government support like the AFL bid requires (and relying on the flakiness of politics and non-commercial funding is a major weakness). There simply aren't the projects to be won and sales to be made in Tasmania to make spending massive dollars on corporate entertainment a viable option; even when there is the profit to be made from a deal where the work will be done in Tasmania the decision makers are normally interstate managers. Tasmania is an almost entirely regional and rural economy, with vitually no large corporations having anybody of importance in the state. (A large part of what killed the NBL Devils was that local management were not allowed to agree to sponsoship deals, took the deal to Melbourne or Sydney for approval and had it shot down. Since then the economy has become even more centralised, and Tasmania's importance fallen even further behind the mainand states. AFL deals would be much larger, though the main sponsors would get greater exposure as well, meaning the smae pattern is highly likely to repeat).
As for the major sponsor being "ready to go", I assume this is Mars. They did not even state they would put up the money until after the Mercury had reported that the Tasmanian government knew they would not get teams 17 or 18. In other words, Mars were prepared to put up the fnds only after they knew they would not need to put up the funds. Great marketing, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertising for the price of putting together a press release, but nothing whasoever to do with any real sponsorship being ready to go.
That said, a primary sponsor would not be the difficult part; getting enough corporate boxes sold at high enough rates, coterie memberships, etc, and (in the first couple of decades) getting enough people to abandon their current teams would be far greater problems.

Whether a split team could work or the infighting over which end of the island hosted Collingwood and Essendon next year would get too high for any cohesion to remain is another question. Certainly, if it was based solely in (or seen to favour) Hobart nobody north of Ross would support it, likewise if it was seen to favour the north as equal to the south nobody south of Oatlands would support it. And if it was truly equal, many would see it as favouring the other half.
25000 members may be possible, but most of these would be 5 or 6 game members never venutring to the other half of the state for a game. Splitting games ma be an advantage in terms of selling boxes, as smaller businesses with clients at one end of the state and not the other may want a box for five games but not eleven.

Most importantly of all, the AFL is trying to grow its presence and its revenue. There is very little scope for growth inTasmania. The AFL's philosophy is to grow, without losing its current markets. The risk of adding a new team which would make substantial losses in perpetuity without adding anything back in TV rights exists in Tasmania. GWS and GC are about adding to the TV rights, eventual (maybe decades away) club profits, and expanded profiles in key non-footy markets where the TV deal already covers. (An international club is highly unlikely as they would not add to the TV rights in areas where the rights are already sold to.)

And, for the time being, nobody could possibly let Wade and his cronies near anything of any value. They have taken Tasmanian football from sowmthing which was struggling to something which is almost irredemable and taking it furher downhill rapidly. There must not be a team until AFL Tas has had a thorough clean-out of what at times alsmot seems to be a culture of deliberate destruction among its senior ranks. I think it is just sheer incompetence, but can not write off the alternative explanation.

 

[cos789]

The Wests Tigers?

They're the closest to being a "success". Still not the sum of the two constituents.
Basically Balmain has dissappeared like Fitzroy.
But all other mergers have been a total failure.

.

 

[Roylion]

They're the closest to being a "success". Still not the sum of the two constituents.
Basically Balmain has dissappeared like Fitzroy.

Has it?

At lower divisions the club still exists in its own right and they seem to have significant representation and input into the West Tigers, as listed above.

But all other mergers have been a total failure.

Woodville-West Torrens seems to have been quite successful.

 

[madmug]

This is part of the problem. The Tasmanian private sector couldn't even put up a business case and had to rely on the government to do it. Even the soccer administration magaed to put their own case, without the government doing it for them and without ongoing government support like the AFL bid requires (and relying on the flakiness of politics and non-commercial funding is a major weakness). There simply aren't the projects to be won and sales to be made in Tasmania to make spending massive dollars on corporate entertainment a viable option; even when there is the profit to be made from a deal where the work will be done in Tasmania the decision makers are normally interstate managers. Tasmania is an almost entirely regional and rural economy, with vitually no large corporations having anybody of importance in the state. (A large part of what killed the NBL Devils was that local management were not allowed to agree to sponsoship deals, took the deal to Melbourne or Sydney for approval and had it shot down. Since then the economy has become even more centralised, and Tasmania's importance fallen even further behind the mainand states. AFL deals would be much larger, though the main sponsors would get greater exposure as well, meaning the smae pattern is highly likely to repeat).
As for the major sponsor being "ready to go", I assume this is Mars. They did not even state they would put up the money until after the Mercury had reported that the Tasmanian government knew they would not get teams 17 or 18. In other words, Mars were prepared to put up the fnds only after they knew they would not need to put up the funds. Great marketing, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertising for the price of putting together a press release, but nothing whasoever to do with any real sponsorship being ready to go.
That said, a primary sponsor would not be the difficult part; getting enough corporate boxes sold at high enough rates, coterie memberships, etc, and (in the first couple of decades) getting enough people to abandon their current teams would be far greater problems.

Whether a split team could work or the infighting over which end of the island hosted Collingwood and Essendon next year would get too high for any cohesion to remain is another question. Certainly, if it was based solely in (or seen to favour) Hobart nobody north of Ross would support it, likewise if it was seen to favour the north as equal to the south nobody south of Oatlands would support it. And if it was truly equal, many would see it as favouring the other half.
25000 members may be possible, but most of these would be 5 or 6 game members never venutring to the other half of the state for a game. Splitting games ma be an advantage in terms of selling boxes, as smaller businesses with clients at one end of the state and not the other may want a box for five games but not eleven.

Most importantly of all, the AFL is trying to grow its presence and its revenue. There is very little scope for growth inTasmania. The AFL's philosophy is to grow, without losing its current markets. The risk of adding a new team which would make substantial losses in perpetuity without adding anything back in TV rights exists in Tasmania. GWS and GC are about adding to the TV rights, eventual (maybe decades away) club profits, and expanded profiles in key non-footy markets where the TV deal already covers. (An international club is highly unlikely as they would not add to the TV rights in areas where the rights are already sold to.)

And, for the time being, nobody could possibly let Wade and his cronies near anything of any value. They have taken Tasmanian football from sowmthing which was struggling to something which is almost irredemable and taking it furher downhill rapidly. There must not be a team until AFL Tas has had a thorough clean-out of what at times alsmot seems to be a culture of deliberate destruction among its senior ranks. I think it is just sheer incompetence, but can not write off the alternative explanation.

It always looks so important when one writes a lot.
I agree with the end bit about AFL Tas, but like AFLNSW or Q, they would have nothing to do with running an AFL club.
So what if the State government commisioned the application to the AFL. It was done by an experienced private company.
If some kind of Government assistance/sponsorship is such a terrible thing, why do Hawthorn & the AFL put up with it? They seem happy to take our money!!.
Most of your 'article' is irrellevant. Hosting Essendon or Collingwood etc could be swapped each time, people may or may not travel, some would some wouldnt, so what?? I'm sure it would give people the choice based on time & finances, & thus optimise the opportunity to become a member & go to whatever games they were able to. Trying to 'centralise' games would fail.
Commenting on the demise of the Devils basketball but ignoring the many other clubs that went belly up (Geelong, Sydney & west, any number in Melbourne, Golg Coast) is a poor arguement. The NBL had/has structural weaknesses not limited to Geographic location.
Your North South stuff, Wrong. Using two quality venues alleviates much of that & will maximise the opportuity to follow the team
If this place is such a negative for exposure of the game, why do we have two clubs playing here already? We want our own club, not fly in sponges. The amount of money spent to support current clubs in Victoria must be of concern.
I'm sorry I dont agree with much of what you say. A National Game played on national TV attracts national/international based sponsors. That is not beyond a team based here.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It always looks so important when one writes a lot.
I agree with the end bit about AFL Tas, but like AFLNSW or Q, they would have nothing to do with running an AFL club.
So what if the State government commisioned the application to the AFL. It was done by an experienced private company.
If some kind of Government assistance/sponsorship is such a terrible thing, why do Hawthorn & the AFL put up with it? They seem happy to take our money!!.

It is unstable. Political realities may mean the funds get cut at any time. Being commercially viable means that is far less likely.

Most of your 'article' is irrellevant. Hosting Essendon or Collingwood etc could be swapped each time, people may or may not travel, some would some wouldnt, so what?? I'm sure it would give people the choice based on time & finances, & thus optimise the opportunity to become a member & go to whatever games they were able to. Trying to 'centralise' games would fail.

It cpuld be swapped, but you know as well as I do that pressure would be applied by each end of the state for one or the otjher to get a;l the big games. Even if that did not occur, the pressure and likely public nature of it, would itself potentially caiuse harm.

Commenting on the demise of the Devils basketball but ignoring the many other clubs that went belly up (Geelong, Sydney & west, any number in Melbourne, Golg Coast) is a poor arguement. The NBL had/has structural weaknesses not limited to Geographic location.

The NBL has, had its own issues, beyond of couse. But the issue of local outlets and offices not being able to access sponsorship funding from the boardrooms in Melbourne and Sydney is true. It is true that the NBL Devils were not the only team which folded, and much could be attrributed to the NBL itself. They were, however, the worst performing of those teams (and, yes, part of that was because they were Hobart based and could have beneifted from playing some games at the Silverdome and even on the north-west).

Your North South stuff, Wrong. Using two quality venues alleviates much of that & will maximise the opportuity to follow the team
If this place is such a negative for exposure of the game, why do we have two clubs playing here already? We want our own club, not fly in sponges. The amount of money spent to support current clubs in Victoria must be of concern.

A couple of clubs playing some games, milking government funds to do it, is a very different proposition to a full time team and attempting to secure all the funds.

I'm sorry I dont agree with much of what you say. A National Game played on national TV attracts national/international based sponsors. That is not beyond a team based here.

For the top tier of sponsors, yes. For the corporate boxes, for the secondary level sponsors that form such a large part of a club's base - no. A Tasmanian team is also highly unlikely to get much FTA time outside one mainland market at a time. Apart from against Essendon or Collingwood it will be a Fox exclusive game in Victoria, severely limiting the potential viewer numbers; and the Tasmanian market is worth very little to advertisers.
Even if the AFL was not focussed on spreading its wings into non-footy markets, I can't see a Tasmanian team surviving. Not even if the north-south schism never showed its ugly head. Not in a 20 team competition, and probably not in a 24 team competition.