Tasmania Tasmanian AFL Team, could it happen?

[telsor]

Time to move on and get another hobby - they are not facts they are opinions

The ABS doesn't provide facts any more?

Are there really a million people in Tas, with a booming economy?

 

[telsor]

You havent been reading the same posts from him on repeat fir years

Essentially every argument us no matter how good it would be in tassie, melbourne teams (all 9 of them) are better

I've been responding to the same posts for years, and why should my argument change, it's the truth, and I can back it up. (if anything, as time goes by, it becomes even more true as Tasmania continues to fall further behind).

The worry is those who have their arguments defeated by facts, and keep repeating them.

 

[telsor]

A challenge for those who want to stop me on this topic.

Disprove me.

Seriously. If I'm so full of it, surely that should be an easy task...Right?

After all, one of the best things about facts is that they're either true or not, there isn't a lot of room for gray...So just show they're not true.

 

[madmug]

A challenge for those who want to stop me on this topic.

Disprove me.

Seriously. If I'm so full of it, surely that should be an easy task...Right?

After all, one of the best things about facts is that they're either true or not, there isn't a lot of room for gray...So just show they're not true.

Well whats enough population & gdp to support a team?
Whats the gdp of your favorite place, Wangaratta?

 

[Verdun]

More just that every time I come in here, I keep seeing the same lies...sorry, 'overly optimistic views'...backed up with absolutely nothing.

If by correcting them, using actual facts and figures, I seem like I'm Anti-Tas, it's a false view, but so be it.

As I've said for a long time, if people want to stop me, try using facts instead of regurgitating the same old unsubstantiated bullshit.

Reckon you should take some of your own advice

Your obsession is quite odd, if Tas has no chance of an AFL team ....why the hell do you bother, surely you must have better things to do? I am sure no one reading your posts actually thinks wow that bloke is clever, more wow this bloke has a hell of an obsession about something that has no impact on him.

You pull quotes from areas and ignore others that does not mean they are facts. Your ignorance and obsession is phenomenal

Seriously why bother, reckon you need to get a life.

The investment in teams from another state is not a positive long term investment for Tas - it is only for those clubs we are throwing money at

 

[DemonTim]

Reckon you should take some of your own advice

Your obsession is quite odd, if Tas has no chance of an AFL team ....why the hell do you bother, surely you must have better things to do? I am sure no one reading your posts actually thinks wow that bloke is clever, more wow this bloke has a hell of an obsession about something that has no impact on him.

You pull quotes from areas and ignore others that does not mean they are facts. Your ignorance and obsession is phenomenal

Seriously why bother, reckon you need to get a life.

The investment in teams from another state is not a positive long term investment for Tas - it is only for those clubs we are throwing money at

If anything it's just showing that people are sooking about the poster, rather than responding to his points. Telsor seems to be the only one on topic, the rest of the posts are just whinging about him.

 

[madmug]

If anything it's just showing that people are sooking about the poster, rather than responding to his points. Telsor seems to be the only one on topic, the rest of the posts are just whinging about him.

Talks about 'facts & figures'. What are they & how do they apply?

Comparing Tasmania to Wangaratta is hardly 'on topic'. Maybe you can interpret his points?

 

[DemonTim]

Talks about 'facts & figures'. What are they & how do they apply?

Comparing Tasmania to Wangaratta is hardly 'on topic'. Maybe you can interpret his points?

If you need a third party to explain how a discussion about Tasmania is related to a thread about Tasmania, it might be time to stop posting

The facts and figures have been pretty clear, and referenced. You disagree with them. How about show why they are wrong?

 

[madmug]

If you need a third party to explain how a discussion about Tasmania is related to a thread about Tasmania, it might be time to stop posting

The facts and figures have been pretty clear, and referenced. You disagree with them. How about show why they are wrong?

Tell me what actual facts & figures? Population & GRP have been mentioned, they are indicators.But What aspects of them are needed for one team?

What is needed to support a team? Apart from the political will of the AFL. Is it Memberships? Sponsors? Facilities?. Then what is the actual costs involved?
The salary cap is pretty well covered by the AFL. Then the other footy department costs. Facility costs, Administration costs.
AFL Criteria were applied to GWS & GC. What facts would indicate to anyone a Tasmanian team cannot reach a level that would support a club?

 

[DemonTim]

Tell me what actual facts & figures? Population & GRP have been mentioned, they are indicators.But What aspects of them are needed for one team?

What is needed to support a team? Apart from the political will of the AFL. Is it Memberships? Sponsors? Facilities?. Then what is the actual costs involved?
The salary cap is pretty well covered by the AFL. Then the other footy department costs. Facility costs, Administration costs.
AFL Criteria were applied to GWS & GC. What facts would indicate to anyone a Tasmanian team cannot reach a level that would support a club?

Why are you asking for things already provided?

As I said to you last time I posted, you're just overly emotional on this topic and refuse anyone who doesn't agree.

 

[madmug]

Why are you asking for things already provided?

As I said to you last time I posted, you're just overly emotional on this topic and refuse anyone who doesn't agree.

Emotional or not, you tell me what figures, facts & criteria get applied?

If their are none, then it is an 'emotional '& biased political decision.

I said based on the Victorian figures of nearly 10% of the population having a club membership would equate to some 50k for Tasmania. Is that a legitimate position? With games on TV surely that would stimulate sponsorship?

I ask what is the relationship of a state economy (GSP) of over $25 billion, to that of a national sports team operating out of it? I note the GRP of Geelong is well less than that, but the club is sound. The GRP for the GC is the same as Tasmania, but it has an AFL & an NRL club to support. The Victorian GSP supports 10 clubs, but they are now where near evenly supported as can be seen.

So how do those facts equate?

I certainly understand the economic needs of running a club. I just see the 'facts' being a very broad topic. I also see a confusion in how some people use 'facts'. Also how 'other' preconceived ideas are woven into some argument as 'fact' Parochialism was used as a negative factor by Fitzpatrick. That is at odds to what drives clubs. They use the tribal or parochial aspects of support to their benefit. Tasmanian state teams, like all others, use that. You will see the Hobart BBL team play in Launceston next year. It'll be supported as a Tasmanian team representing them in a national competition.

So I asked for what people thought about the criteria one would use. That would give some clarity to that aspect of the discussion.

Emotion itself can be a strong economic driver. That only seems to be allowed to support the established clubs position.

 

[telsor]

Well whats enough population & gdp to support a team?
Whats the gdp of your favorite place, Wangaratta?

How many teams in said competition?

What about a roughly even share of that? So if there are 18 teams, then roughly 1/18th of the 'total' market.



Wangaratta is irrelevant. As stated, it was a deliberately stupid example to show how flawed your argument was, because under YOUR ARGUMENT, it should have a team too.

 

[telsor]

Talks about 'facts & figures'. What are they & how do they apply?

I've shown what they are many times, including providing the sources.

How do they apply? Can you really not see how money and the size of the potential fanbase (both current and future) applies?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Emotional or not, you tell me what figures, facts & criteria get applied?

If their are none, then it is an 'emotional '& biased political decision.

I said based on the Victorian figures of nearly 10% of the population having a club membership would equate to some 50k for Tasmania. Is that a legitimate position? With games on TV surely that would stimulate sponsorship?

I ask what is the relationship of a state economy (GSP) of over $25 billion, to that of a national sports team operating out of it? I note the GRP of Geelong is well less than that, but the club is sound. The GRP for the GC is the same as Tasmania, but it has an AFL & an NRL club to support. The Victorian GSP supports 10 clubs, but they are now where near evenly supported as can be seen.

So how do those facts equate?

I certainly understand the economic needs of running a club. I just see the 'facts' being a very broad topic. I also see a confusion in how some people use 'facts'. Also how 'other' preconceived ideas are woven into some argument as 'fact' Parochialism was used as a negative factor by Fitzpatrick. That is at odds to what drives clubs. They use the tribal or parochial aspects of support to their benefit. Tasmanian state teams, like all others, use that. You will see the Hobart BBL team play in Launceston next year. It'll be supported as a Tasmanian team representing them in a national competition.

So I asked for what people thought about the criteria one would use. That would give some clarity to that aspect of the discussion.

Emotion itself can be a strong economic driver. That only seems to be allowed to support the established clubs position.

Geelong also has plenty of support from Melbourne - you know, a city of 4 million an hour away - that contribute to its size.
I can equally claim the people of Launceston will go to the BBL because it's the first live BBL game in their city and that they want to watch a game live in that competition, as much as you can equally claim that it's for Tasmanian parochialism.

I'd say the 10% would be lower for Tasmania. This is because Tasmanians have lower disposable income than those who live in Melbourne. It will also equate to lesser membership revenue, because a large equivalent of those who would by 11-game memberships in Melbourne would by a 5 or 6 game membership in Tasmania.

 

[telsor]

Emotional or not, you tell me what figures, facts & criteria get applied?

If their are none, then it is an 'emotional '& biased political decision.

Some places aren't big enough...You clearly recognise this yourself, because you want a Tas team, and not a Hobart team, as you understand that Hobart, by itself, is just too small to reach the mark.

I doubt very much there is an strict formula/criteria, but the core points would be if such a club could sustain itself, and if it would be a net positive for the league, and while not exact, the best ways to judge that would be on things like population and size of economy, both current and future..

I said based on the Victorian figures of nearly 10% of the population having a club membership would equate to some 50k for Tasmania. Is that a legitimate position? With games on TV surely that would stimulate sponsorship?

and what would be the $ return from those members? 50,000 members wont pay much if they can't attend games. Most would 'just' be 5 or 6 game members, which would doubtless be at cut prices (but still having associated admin costs).

Last year, 3665774 attended H&A games in Vic (figure gained by adding up MCG, Docklands & KP figures).
10% would be roughly 33K per game...Which is of course far over what could be achieved in Tas. Vic members also included a significant proportion who paid higher prices for premium seats...Seats that don't exist in Tas on anywhere near the same scale. (e.g. I used to be a '3121' member at Richmond, roughly 1000 people each paying over $1000 to get seats on level 2 wing of the great southern stand, with 3 rooms set aside for us for events before home matches as well as during breaks, meals, bars, etc. That's a million dollars in revenue a Tas club just couldn't access).

Suffice to say, Tasmania is unlikely to get 10% of the money Vic clubs get out of their members.

I ask what is the relationship of a state economy (GSP) of over $25 billion, to that of a national sports team operating out of it?

A sports team (or any commercial entity really) needs to extract money from somewhere, and the bigger the pool, the easier it is to extract...Simply put, it's easier to get $50 out of someone who gets $1000 a week than it is to get the same money from someone who gets $500/week. (and the same applies for businesses).

I note the GRP of Geelong is well less than that, but the club is sound. The GRP for the GC is the same as Tasmania, but it has an AFL & an NRL club to support. The Victorian GSP supports 10 clubs, but they are now where near evenly supported as can be seen.

What is GRP (I've never seen that before), and where are you getting those figures?? GC the same as Tasmania seems...unlikely. GC is also targeted at a much larger area than just that one municipality.

The Victorian GSP is roughly $373.6, and while it's not evenly spread, a small Vic club, of the type you keep wanting demoted would only need a roughly 1/15th share (6 or 7%) to be equivalent to the entirety of Tasmania. Surely if you think them not good enough, you'd require a higher level for a new club coming in, especially as they'd have to overcome significant costs while they startup and build.

Vic clubs also benefit from a degree of 'economy of scale', or to put it another way, North Melbourne gets money from Collingwood supporters going to their games a lot more than a Tas club would.

So how do those facts equate?

They don't equate exactly, because we can never identify them so closely, but we can make reasonable guesstimates. I think I covered this earlier.

I certainly understand the economic needs of running a club. I just see the 'facts' being a very broad topic. I also see a confusion in how some people use 'facts'. Also how 'other' preconceived ideas are woven into some argument as 'fact' Parochialism was used as a negative factor by Fitzpatrick. That is at odds to what drives clubs. They use the tribal or parochial aspects of support to their benefit. Tasmanian state teams, like all others, use that. You will see the Hobart BBL team play in Launceston next year. It'll be supported as a Tasmanian team representing them in a national competition.

So I asked for what people thought about the criteria one would use. That would give some clarity to that aspect of the discussion.

Emotion itself can be a strong economic driver. That only seems to be allowed to support the established clubs position.

I agree with this, for the most part. Parochialism is a good thing when it comes to sporting clubs, especially new ones as it provides a solid core of support quite rapidly. I will add the caveat that it only applies so long as it unifies them, and past experiences in Tas football (the first TSL for example) would make people understandably cautious about that. I have no idea how it can be 'proved' not to be a problem to the AFL's satisfaction, but if it could be it would certainly be a positive selling point for such a club.

 

[madmug]

I want a whole of Tas team because we are not a suburb. Its a contiguous area. People are within a reasonable commute of either current AFL ground. I note one post on BF suggest commute time out of the Adelaide oval can be 90-120 minutes. What are they in Melbourne? Boot park is 20 minutes from front door to seat for me, I do it for BBL a did with a couple of North games last season.. Its 2 hours to Uturn Park when I went. People do go & will increase with a real team to watch. As I Said emotion is a powerful economic tool.

AFL games in Vic average 33k, whats the cost of using Etihad or the MCG for those size crowds? With 33k average, clearly not all members go. The same would apply here. The ground sizes are easy to expand if the demand requires it.

Gross Domestic Product, Gross State Product, Gross Regional Product. They are the same thing but apply to different types of areas, national, State, Regional. Its available if you want to look them upon Mr Google.

I said the Vic clubs dont get equal benefits from their state economy. Thats why so many are on serious AFL life support.

Hawks & North have Tassie members watching games. About 15k I believe. I think you'll find a good number of Tassie expats interstate will become members or pay to see the odd Tassie game. I do know some now who are not current members but will if Tassie joins the AFL anytime this century. If its all about small clubs living off big clubs & the AFL, thats a poor business model for a national league.

Im not sure of your last point. The state league failed because of poor AFLTas operation. The north v south competition was actually a selling point! Rather than help with the higher costs of operation, they let it run down then made the VFL Devils, which they also mismanaged to the point it was cut & yet another state league was pulled together.

Anyway off to work.

 

[telsor]

I want a whole of Tas team because we are not a suburb. Its a contiguous area. People are within a reasonable commute of either current AFL ground. I note one post on BF suggest commute time out of the Adelaide oval can be 90-120 minutes. What are they in Melbourne? Boot park is 20 minutes from front door to seat for me, I do it for BBL a did with a couple of North games last season.. Its 2 hours to Uturn Park when I went. People do go & will increase with a real team to watch. As I Said emotion is a powerful economic tool.

and yet you keep talking about other places as just being the cities...Geelong, GC, etc...

You might move, but considering Tas is the oldest state, and older people are less likely to travel as far (or shift teams).

AFL games in Vic average 33k, whats the cost of using Etihad or the MCG for those size crowds? With 33k average, clearly not all members go. The same would apply here. The ground sizes are easy to expand if the demand requires it.

Also worth remembering that the AFL makes a lot of those grounds (at the expense of the clubs). Would a Tas team benefit the league in such a way?

Gross Domestic Product, Gross State Product, Gross Regional Product. They are the same thing but apply to different types of areas, national, State, Regional. Its available if you want to look them upon Mr Google.

Source?

I said the Vic clubs dont get equal benefits from their state economy. Thats why so many are on serious AFL life support.

Sure, not equal, but 6.5% of Vic = 100% of Tas (and a Tas team wouldn't get 100% as people who have supported teams all their life wont all change).

Hawks & North have Tassie members watching games. About 15k I believe. I think you'll find a good number of Tassie expats interstate will become members or pay to see the odd Tassie game. I do know some now who are not current members but will if Tassie joins the AFL anytime this century. If its all about small clubs living off big clubs & the AFL, thats a poor business model for a national league.

Im not sure of your last point. The state league failed because of poor AFLTas operation. The north v south competition was actually a selling point! Rather than help with the higher costs of operation, they let it run down then made the VFL Devils, which they also mismanaged to the point it was cut & yet another state league was pulled together.

Anyway off to work.

So Tas expats will all embrace a Tas team completely...It's not like people from any other state have moved around....and you know what, after a while, they or at least their kids) tend to switch teams. But no, Tasmanians are different, right?

and congrats on having a Job, must make you a rare thing in Tas.

 

[madmug]

and yet you keep talking about other places as just being the cities...Geelong, GC, etc...

You might move, but considering Tas is the oldest state, and older people are less likely to travel as far (or shift teams).



Also worth remembering that the AFL makes a lot of those grounds (at the expense of the clubs). Would a Tas team benefit the league in such a way?

Yhe grounds COST a lot to run. MCG & Etihad have a high break even cost, no matter who owns them.

Source?

From ABS to State Gument sites to regional & local council sites. Its not hard to find.

Sure, not equal, but 6.5% of Vic = 100% of Tas (and a Tas team wouldn't get 100% as people who have supported teams all their life wont all change).

Their are lots who may follow VFL teams but never been paid members. Many will buy a Tassie membership to watch live AFL. Thats obvious.



So Tas expats will all embrace a Tas team completely...It's not like people from any other state have moved around....and you know what, after a while, they or at least their kids) tend to switch teams. But no, Tasmanians are different, right?

Who said completely? Why write rubbish like this?

and congrats on having a Job, must make you a rare thing in Tas.

Again, cheap shots just reflect on you. You dont need to make a dick of yourself with petty insults. Its gutless really.

 

[Verdun]

and congrats on having a Job, must make you a rare thing in Tas.

You really are a nasty piece of work who comes out with guff like that; really need to get over your obsession.

http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_SAFOUR/LFR_UnemploymentRate

I am heading to work as well your continued posting of righteous opinion is just that opinion, if you want power show some humility.

 

[madmug]

and congrats on having a Job, must make you a rare thing in Tas.

You really are a nasty piece of work who comes out with guff like that; really need to get over your obsession.

http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_SAFOUR/LFR_UnemploymentRate

I am heading to work as well your continued posting of righteous opinion is just that opinion, if you want power show some humility.

Having robust debate is one thing, hateful & stupid vitriolic outbursts really reflects poorly on him. Why does he feel the need to lash out like this. Its only a discussion site!!!

We were led to believe that AF is the Australian game. Clearly some on here dont believe that. It belongs to one place. No one else matters unless some riches can accrue to AFL HQ.

Discussing 'facts' is only on the terms of one person. Analysis of 'facts' only applies outside of Victoria. The welfare mentality of many established AFL clubs is amazing.

This is proof the 'discussion' of a Tas team is largely political. The value of Tasmania seems to continue on from the VFL, rip Tasmania off & drain its football resources to death. Give Tasmanian football nothing. Deny the causes.

So given this sort of attitude, how can the AFL identify as the minder of the game, its ideals, its community. Or is it just a lazy corporate raider? Some people clearly like that, because it protects their turf, $%#@ everyone else.

How can some say they like AF. No they dont, they are wound up in their own brand of local tribalism & care not for anything else.

 

[DemonTim]

Having robust debate is one thing, hateful & stupid vitriolic outbursts really reflects poorly on him. Why does he feel the need to lash out like this. Its only a discussion site!!!

We were led to believe that AF is the Australian game. Clearly some on here dont believe that. It belongs to one place. No one else matters unless some riches can accrue to AFL HQ.

Discussing 'facts' is only on the terms of one person. Analysis of 'facts' only applies outside of Victoria. The welfare mentality of many established AFL clubs is amazing.

This is proof the 'discussion' of a Tas team is largely political. The value of Tasmania seems to continue on from the VFL, rip Tasmania off & drain its football resources to death. Give Tasmanian football nothing. Deny the causes.

So given this sort of attitude, how can the AFL identify as the minder of the game, its ideals, its community. Or is it just a lazy corporate raider? Some people clearly like that, because it protects their turf, $%#@ everyone else.

How can some say they like AF. No they dont, they are wound up in their own brand of local tribalism & care not for anything else.

Could your provide some evidence for this?

Could Frankston make the same claims as you, considering they lost their team? Or do these applications only apply to AFL and not AF as you claim. Should my league feel this when teams shut down?

Considering last time I joined this discussion both of you threw around personal insults, I wouldn't be throwing stones

 

[BringBackTorps]

Could your provide some evidence for this?

Could Frankston make the same claims as you, considering they lost their team? Or do these applications only apply to AFL and not AF as you claim. Should my league feel this when teams shut down?

Considering last time I joined this discussion both of you threw around personal insults, I wouldn't be throwing stones

The Frankston analogy is not relevant to this discussion of the desirability/viabilty of a Tasmanian AFL team. Nor would a NT team or a Nth. Qld AFL team, for the reasons hereunder. None of these areas has the historical VFL/AFL recruitment pedigree of Tasmania.

After GWS & GC become self sufficient (another 10 -15 years?), Tasmania should be added to the AFL ( As Demetriou & Mclachlan have stated, several times, Tas. will be the next AFL team).

Tasmania has a long history from 1960 until the 90's, of being an assembly line of many great VFL/AFL players (c.40, some of whom are all time champions). It "Punched above its weight" on per capita recruitment terms -probably because it has had relatively little foreign immigration (ie Tas. demographic suits AF).
Compare Tasmania -smaller pop. than West. Melb.- to how many VFL/AFL players have been recruited from the large population (c.40% + immigrant, or child of immigrant) of Melb.'s western suburbs/Western Jets TAC.
It is in the DIRECT interests of the AFL comp. to restore this proven Tas. assembly line (The AFL must recognise & rectify Tas. AF's disgraceful mismanagement -& Tas. will start providing c. 4 AFL drafted players pa).

I disagree with the argument that Tasmania (or NT or Nth. Qld.) deserves an AFL team simply because it is fair, as it is part of Australia. The essential argument revolves around what net benefits the new team brings to the AFL -and comparing these benefits to an alternative expansion in NSW or Qld. (where 52% of Aust.'s pop. lives, with more big sponsors, Head Offices, generates 60% of all advertising revenues).

 

[DemonTim]

The Frankston analogy is not relevant to this discussion of the desirability/viabilty of a Tasmanian AFL team. Nor would a NT team or a Nth. Qld AFL team, for the reasons hereunder. None of these areas has the historical VFL/AFL recruitment pedigree of Tasmania.

After GWS & GC become self sufficient (another 10 -15 years?), Tasmania should be added to the AFL ( As Demetriou & Mclachlan have stated, several times, Tas. will be the next AFL team).

Tasmania has a long history from 1960 until the 90's, of being an assembly line of many great VFL/AFL players (c.40, some of whom are all time champions). It "Punched above its weight" on per capita recruitment terms -probably because it has had relatively little foreign immigration (ie Tas. demographic suits AF).
Compare Tasmania -smaller pop. than West. Melb.- to how many VFL/AFL players have been recruited from the large population (c.40% + immigrant, or child of immigrant) of Melb.'s western suburbs/Western Jets TAC.
It is in the DIRECT interests of the AFL comp. to restore this proven Tas. assembly line (after they recognise & rectify Tas. AF's disgraceful mismanagement -& Tas. starts providing c. 4 AFL drafted players pa).

I disagree with the argument that Tasmania (or NT or Nth. Qld.) deserves an AFL team simply because it is fair, as it is part of Australia. The essential argument revolves around what net benefits the new team brings to the AFL -and comparing these benefits to an alternative expansion in NSW or Qld. (where 52% of Aust.'s pop. lives), with more big sponsors, head Offices, generates 60% of the advertising revenues).

Please read what I was responding to and my actual response. What you've said has no relevance. It was a discussion of the afl and their role in AF

 

[madmug]

Could your provide some evidence for this?

Could Frankston make the same claims as you, considering they lost their team? Or do these applications only apply to AFL and not AF as you claim. Should my league feel this when teams shut down?

Considering last time I joined this discussion both of you threw around personal insults, I wouldn't be throwing stones

The evidence? The behavior & history of the AFL shows what I have said. Give me the evidence of why some clubs live off the welfare handouts of the AFL yet Tasmania with its facilities, support & passion for the game is Fjkd over by the so called minders of the game.? If not a political decision, then what is it. Its certainly not economic.

Like Wangaratta, Frankston can make their own case. Its not part of this thread. Start another one about whatever aspects of AFL/AF actions or non actions if you so desire. The AFL run the VFL, they killed off the VFA. Ring them up & ask them why.
I hate to see the demise of any club in any part of the country, whether from self inflicted mismanagement or not. If its just a matter of going to a different league, its supporters, history & community links remain.

In the case of Tasmania the AFL run the TSL. They send the various FIFO clubs here. They determine how the 'pathway' thing is organised & actioned. They are responsible for the current rent seeking clubs who arrive, take & leave. The AFL allow their clubs to contribute SFA to Tasmanian AR. Tasmania, like in WA, SA & pretty well everywhere could not resist the massive social change I have previously mentioned. The AFL enabled AF to ride the professional wave of TV entertainment. A lot of AF clubs at lower levels have rellied on some AFL crumbs, on pokies & other fundraising activities to survive as attendances dived.

Geez I remember being told about the AFLTas warning club about relying on beer sales & the various gambling devices for income. Yet the AFL organisation never offered any business advice or help to generate the funds needed to run their clubs!!! Fancy giving lectures about gambling! What a joke!!

My interest in a Tasmanian AFL team is mainly to stop the drain of money & personnel out Tasmania. To regress the losses. To give our football a professional position which will filter coaching & coaches & players & hopefully some better management abilities to the lower leagues. To give our football a future & get back to the position of better contributing to AF in general, rather than the AFL allowing this drain & destruction to continue. The fact we have the desire & capacity to host our own team should have been acted on by the 'National' body a long time ago.

AFL. Is it the keeper of the game, or a survival suit for the VFL?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Give me the evidence of why some clubs live off the welfare handouts of the AFL yet Tasmania with its facilities, support & passion for the game

You can twist this point of view to support any given argument.

I could equally claim, that Tasmania will get more handouts than any other team by virtue of Tasmania contributing less than 2% of Australia's advertising revenue. You can say what you like about the other 18 clubs, but all being positioned in major TV markets, all contribute to the massive TV deal as Fox Footy and Channel 7 have greater penetration in every major city in Australia, with each major market having at least two teams. The 'handouts' largely constitute the differences in revenue gained through a unequal fixture (and the legacy of a unequal fixture, so whilst the Dogs might have multiple prime-time games this season, we've suffered in the ability to build our fanbase and potential for revenue growth through having less of these over the previous generation), but at the end of the day, the 18 clubs in collective contribute to the TV deal.

Tasmania, being considered a regional TV market and offering no value as a market whatsoever to Channel 7, could easily be constituted as a team that, through virtue of not adding to the TV deal, is a team that is living of welfare of the league whilst every single one of the other 18 clubs aren't.

Facilities, support and passion don't equate to the TV viewers having a high disposable income, and getting 20,000 members doesn't equate to the membership revenue that's half of Melbourne's/St Kilda's etc. because the majority of what would otherwise be 11-game members would be 5 or 6 game members. Support and passion of the doesn't equate to the purchasing of corporate boxes, the purchasing of medium-and-smaller level sponsorship deals (for example, to pick a club at random, Essendon has 25 individual 'corporate partners') and the large network of potential coterie group members (which constitute millions of dollars of revenue for the majority of the AFL clubs), because Hobart and Launceston simply doesn't have the same population of large businesses or upper-class or upper-middle-class individuals who will invest in the club in this same area.

I am supportive of an AFL team in Tasmania as the AFL is a non-profit organisation, the Tasmanian people are indeed passionate about football and an AFL team would be fantastic starting point for solving a lot of the issues of youth development of Tasmanian junior players in recent years. But the economic argument - that Tasmania can somehow stand on its feet from a generating revenue point of view, whereas the benchmark is understandably set higher than the lowest Victorian clubs due to legacy reasons, just simply isn't there, so I don't think you're helping the push for a Tasmanian AFL team by bringing the "welfare handouts" and the economic reasoning for one of the existing 18 other clubs into the equation.