I think you are missing some basic points I am & have made over time.
Firstly I dont particularly disagree with aspects of your economic assessment, but your view more reflects what happens in the high cost market in Melbourne than here. The cost of playing at the MCG & Etihad is very high & requires huge breakeven numbers re crowds & sponsors & other revenue sources before you make money to pay for your football costs.
Part of the value here are that they are low cost cleanskin stadiums. The economics are different here. Why do you think north Melbourne can make a profit out of a GWS game? Because it costs a lot less to play.
I know this is only part of the issue but it is a very relevant part.
I also disagree over government support. Most state governments put money into football & other sports & events for that matter. Whether it be to back the building of sports stadiums, to underwriting major sporting events. I fail to see the difference with the form of support. After all its about stimulating economic activity. I think you will find a few sponsors in the private area who have pulled the pin on sports clubs & events, moreso than government.
IMO the Victorian 'market' is over serviced. Evidenced by selling games & so much direct AFL support. I will leave it to the economists but I think a Tasmanian is acheivable, as shown in the Business case.
Anyway Most AFL decisions are Political decisions, not economic. GWS is definitely political. Throwing money at underacheiving old VFL teams is Political. I'll let others argue which political decision is best for football.
Firstly I dont particularly disagree with aspects of your economic assessment, but your view more reflects what happens in the high cost market in Melbourne than here. The cost of playing at the MCG & Etihad is very high & requires huge breakeven numbers re crowds & sponsors & other revenue sources before you make money to pay for your football costs.
Part of the value here are that they are low cost cleanskin stadiums. The economics are different here. Why do you think north Melbourne can make a profit out of a GWS game? Because it costs a lot less to play.
I know this is only part of the issue but it is a very relevant part.
I also disagree over government support. Most state governments put money into football & other sports & events for that matter. Whether it be to back the building of sports stadiums, to underwriting major sporting events. I fail to see the difference with the form of support. After all its about stimulating economic activity. I think you will find a few sponsors in the private area who have pulled the pin on sports clubs & events, moreso than government.
IMO the Victorian 'market' is over serviced. Evidenced by selling games & so much direct AFL support. I will leave it to the economists but I think a Tasmanian is acheivable, as shown in the Business case.
Anyway Most AFL decisions are Political decisions, not economic. GWS is definitely political. Throwing money at underacheiving old VFL teams is Political. I'll let others argue which political decision is best for football.