Tasmania Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

[Chief]

---

GO TO PART 2 of this thread:

Tasmania - Tasmania Devils, welcome to the AFL. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5 (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5.1226653/ Was going to draft up a Summary but this is pretty good...

www.bigfooty.com

---

 

[Kwality]

I think it could definitely have an impact if gale got the top job I imagine we would have a lot better chance of getting a team with him then gill who is more or less a demitrio deciple who was dead against a Tasmanian team

Probably right, a new face/idea might cause the 'yes' people to think, not follow.

 

[telsor]

Stolen from Lore who posted this on the draft and trading board.

Tas is providing 3.5% of players from 2.1% of the population. Doesn't seem like a mass abandonment of AFL...

By ratio (player %/pop %) of Traditional states, that makes it better than some, worse than others.

Vic 2.04
SA 1.95
Tas 1.66
WA 1.427
NT 1.4

 

[telsor]

Never been done in the way suggested, nor should Tasmania be the first to do so.

The primary financial supporters of FIFO teams thus far are likely to disappear/downgrade their support for a native club (why pay for something they'd get for free anyway?), so a move like this would be an attempt to keep (force) them to remain invested if replacements can't be found.

That said, if the financials are as solid as some here suggest, then surely those targeted by this would sign off anyway...After all, they'd never be required to do anything....right?

 

[madmug]

Stolen from Lore who posted this on the draft and trading board.

Tas is providing 3.5% of players from 2.1% of the population. Doesn't seem like a mass abandonment of AFL...

By ratio (player %/pop %) of Traditional states, that makes it better than some, worse than others.

Vic 2.04
SA 1.95
Tas 1.66
WA 1.427
NT 1.4

View attachment 782937

Once again you only GAF about how much your AFL can take.

Local community footy is in strife. School footy was neglected for a long period.

Footy is a pyramid. the more you put in the base, the more players will get to the top. The AFL do invest in cherry picking the better kids for elite streams. That is short term IMO for the health of the game overall.

 

[madmug]

The primary financial supporters of FIFO teams thus far are likely to disappear/downgrade their support for a native club (why pay for something they'd get for free anyway?), so a move like this would be an attempt to keep (force) them to remain invested if replacements can't be found.

That said, if the financials are as solid as some here suggest, then surely those targeted by this would sign off anyway...After all, they'd never be required to do anything....right?

The financials will be looked at by the Task force. people will go to games & take memberships. Some 15k did for both FIFI clubs because it works out cheaper per game.

Simple really, for some.

 

[telsor]

The financials will be looked at by the Task force. people will go to games & take memberships. Some 15k did for both FIFI clubs because it works out cheaper per game.

Simple really, for some.

I repeat, if it's so solid, what's the issue with providing a guarantee?

 

[telsor]

Once again you only GAF about how much your AFL can take.

Local community footy is in strife. School footy was neglected for a long period.

Footy is a pyramid. the more you put in the base, the more players will get to the top. The AFL do invest in cherry picking the better kids for elite streams. That is short term IMO for the health of the game overall.

Yes, footy is a pyramid...but if you're correct and there is a lack of development pathways, that would mean that a smaller number would be reaching the top...which means the grass roots must be in excellent condition relative to the rest of the country.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Tas is providing 3.5% of players from 2.1% of the population. Doesn't seem like a mass abandonment of AFL

The issue of Tasmanian elite players being drafted in recent years to the AFL is not just about quantum (although in the last 5 years nos. have declined alarmingly).
It is also about the quality (ie the nos. of champions & stars) of Tasmanian draftees in the last 20 years. They have a "poorer" average quality cf the many Tasmanian champions & stars who were recruited from previous decades. This is reflected in the AFL Team Of The Century & AFL Hall Of Fame, where Tasmania is overrepresented- by its earlier pantheons of champions. Why have you ignored this issue?

Whilst Tasmania has c. 2.1% of the Aust. population, its residents are, also, primarily of Anglo-Celtic background- by far the background of a big majority of AFL draftees. Furthermore, Tasmania has (unlike Vic.) proportionately & in raw nos., very few residents of an Asian/Middle Eastern background (which have miniscule representation in the AFL).
Therefore, re the "AFL recruitment profile", Tasmania's population of c.540,000 equates to a FAR larger % than 2.1%.
Why have you ignored this?

Unlike Vic. & WA (& probably SA), where current AFL total attendances (on raw figures) are higher than the elite VFL & WAFL eras, there has been a big decline in Tasmanian crowds for its elite AF competition. Why?

Why are GR soccer & basketball nos. having strong growth in Tasmania?

Why are GR AF male competition nos. in decline in Tasmania? How can it be rectified?

 

[madmug]

Yes, footy is a pyramid...but if you're correct and there is a lack of development pathways, that would mean that a smaller number would be reaching the top...which means the grass roots must be in excellent condition relative to the rest of the country.

Depends on your point of view on 'pathway' I guess. I think you'll find a fair few of those were guys who left Tassie & played VFL/NEAFL to get noticed. Brown & Mihocek come quickly to mind.

Clearly the neglect of Tassie's own footy has caused those kids to fight a lot harder to get a look in by leaving the state. Vic kids are seen everyday of the week & have a multitude of opportunities via the u18 games at home & local VFL clubs.

WA has only 2 clubs so failing the draft they play WAFL. I doubt many would go to the VFL to get noticed.

The above WA thing is an observation. The Tassie circumstance is fairly true I'd suggest.

We had seen a reduction in junior ranks at club level. At the best level, State league, the loss of Burnie & Devonport was tragic for the kids on the coast. The lack of the paid AFLTas administrators to fix their problem was just pathetic. For them to say they were blind sided by it was a joke. Everyone at club level knew the problems they were having with 'pathway' structures & the travel issue.

Running a state league that has objectives of player development needs suitable funding. They basically ignored that need & effectively have left it up to kids & families to do it themselves.

Now they want to spend, even more money than a reasonably funded state league would require, on a full time u18 & then a VFL team again. Money spent on flights & accommodation should be spent here, on football clubs, now wasted on airlines & hotels.

Ignoring the issues of last time just shown how dumb & uncaring they are with the kids, their families & Tassie footy.

 

[Kwality]

I repeat, if it's so solid, what's the issue with providing a guarantee?

Who are you asking for a guarantee?

 

[The_Reaper]

The issue of Tasmanian elite players being drafted in recent years to the AFL is not just about quantum (although in the last 5 years nos. have declined alarmingly).
It is also about the quality (ie the nos. of champions & stars) of Tasmanian draftees in the last 20 years. They have a "poorer" average quality cf the many Tasmanian champions & stars who were recruited from previous decades. This is reflected in the AFL Team Of The Century & AFL Hall Of Fame, where Tasmania is overrepresented- by its earlier pantheons of champions. Why have you ignored this issue?

Whilst Tasmania has c. 2.1% of the Aust. population, its residents are, also, primarily of Anglo-Celtic background- by far the background of a big majority of AFL draftees. Furthermore, Tasmania has, proportionately & in raw nos., very few residents of an Asian/Middle Eastern background (which have miniscule representation in the AFL).
Therefore, re the "AFL recruitment profile", Tasmania's population of c.540,000 equates to a FAR larger % than 2.1%.
Why have you ignored this?

Unlike Vic. & WA (& probably SA), where current AFL total attendances (on raw figures) are higher than the elite VFL & WAFL eras, there has been a big decline in Tasmanian crowds for its elite AF competition. Why?

Why are GR soccer & basketball nos. having strong growth in Tasmania?

Why are GR AF male competition nos. in decline in Tasmania? How can it be rectified?

Currently WA and SA crowds are smaller than the elite WAFL & SANFL eras.
Soccer & basketball ball nos are having strong growth nation wide - for several decades.

This is due to the fact that globalisation exposes the younger generations to significantly more options than previous generations.

 

[Kwality]

Wasnt 40k across 4 games the WAFL pre Eagles?

 

[BringBackTorps]

Currently WA and SA crowds are smaller than the elite WAFL & SANFL eras.
Soccer & basketball ball nos are having strong growth nation wide - for several decades.

I was referring above to current Vic. & WA H & A AFL crowds- raw nos. only.
In Vic., total AFL H & A crowd raw nos. are higher than the VFL (ie pre- AFL era) crowds.
In WA, total AFL H & A crowd nos. are higher than pre-1987 (West Coast entry) WAFL crowds.

(Perth Stadium has given a significant rise in WA crowd nos. since 2018. There may have been parity in the WAFL total H & W crowds up to 1986, cf combined WC & Freo AFL crowds from the 1990's- 2017, end of Subiaco. What are your views? Detailed WAFL pre-1986 H & A crowd nos. are difficult to ascertain).

What are your views on SANFL (pre AFL entry) total H & A crowd nos., cf the Adelaide & Port Adelaide AFL H & A combined totals for:-
. Football Park AFL home grounds?
. Adelaide Oval AFL home grounds?
( Detailed SANFL, pre AFL, H & A crowd nos. are difficult to obtain)

As for per capita H & A crowds for the (pre-AFL) elite VFL, WAFL & SANFL, cf the AFL era, there has been a significant decline in elite crowd nos.
As an example, in 1970, Melb. had a population of c.2,300,000. In 1970, the average VFL H & A crowds were c. 131,000 pw (& the VFA also had c.25,000 pw)

 

[telsor]

As for per capita H & A crowds for the (pre-AFL) elite VFL, WAFL & SANFL, cf the AFL era, there has been a significant decline in elite crowd nos.
As an example, in 1970, Melb. had a population of c.2,300,000. In 1970, the average VFL H & A crowds were c. 131,000 pw (& the VFA also had c.25,000 pw)

Melb had 5.5 games/week then, with all away teams being other Vic teams.
Melb now has ~4 games/week, frequently against a non-Vic club.

Avg per game would have been ~24K by your figures, and is now close to double that (~42.5K), which would be roughly the same per capita.

Given the lower drawing power of many away teams, and the teams fans lost from that were killed off (sorry, relocated), games live on (usually pay) TV and the plethora of other options modern society provides (not just other sporting codes) that's pretty good.

 

[telsor]

Who are you asking for a guarantee?

Those who would benefit from the 'economic benefits' of having games there...AKA The current supporters of FIFO games (using that argument to justify their support)... Tas government & Hobart Council and related government controlled tourism bodies/services (arguably the hotels, etc. that currently support it would also be hit up, but being private entities, that'd be tougher).

 

[Kwality]

Those who would benefit from the 'economic benefits' of having games there...AKA The current supporters of FIFO games (using that argument to justify their support)... Tas government & Hobart Council and related government controlled tourism bodies/services (arguably the hotels, etc. that currently support it would also be hit up, but being private entities, that'd be tougher).

Pigs might fly, the taxpayer is already forking out, that money will simply passed from one pocket to another, not sent to Melbourne.

 

[telsor]

Pigs might fly, the taxpayer is already forking out, that money will simply passed from one pocket to another, not sent to Melbourne.

Hey, they want the club, stand to make $$$ from it, and if the economics are as good as their own inquiry is likely to show (because inquiries always seem to magically find what those funding it want it to show) then any guarantee would never be called on anyway, so it would cost them nothing.

Their call. Do they think the economics are solid or not?


BTW...the money wouldn't go to Melbourne...AFL moves money AWAY from Vic.

 

[madmug]

Hey, they want the club, stand to make $$$ from it, and if the economics are as good as their own inquiry is likely to show (because inquiries always seem to magically find what those funding it want it to show) then any guarantee would never be called on anyway, so it would cost them nothing.

Their call. Do they think the economics are solid or not?


BTW...the money wouldn't go to Melbourne...AFL moves money AWAY from Vic.

They've been more efficient at moving money, players, coaches away from Tasmania.

 

[NoobPie]

Hey, they want the club, stand to make $$$ from it, and if the economics are as good as their own inquiry is likely to show (because inquiries always seem to magically find what those funding it want it to show) then any guarantee would never be called on anyway, so it would cost them nothing.

Their call. Do they think the economics are solid or not?


BTW...the money wouldn't go to Melbourne...AFL moves money AWAY from Vic.

If the bid being developed doesn't involve a substantially proportion of the financial risk sitting with the Tasmanian government then it has little chance of happening

There are a lot of stupid, sentimental and gullible commentators wanting to conflate what the AFL has done in western sydney and the gold coast but that is of little value ultimately

The bottom line is that an AFL club in Tasmania is worth a lot more to the state of Tasmania than it is to the AFL

 

[telsor]

If the bid being developed doesn't involve a substantially proportion of the financial risk sitting with the Tasmanian government than it has little chance of happening

There are a lot of stupid, sentimental and gullible commentators wanting to conflate what the AFL has done in western sydney and the gold coast but that is of little value ultimately

The bottom line is that an AFL club in Tasmania is worth a lot more to the state of Tasmania than it is to the AFL

Exactly.

 

[telsor]

They've been more efficient at moving money, players, coaches away from Tasmania.

AFL comes to town, generates an economic benefit and takes a fraction of that away that doesn't even cover their full costs, and it's Tas that are the screwed over by that deal???

As for players and coaches, that's what happened with regional areas...the talent follows the money to the cities.

 

[madmug]

AFL comes to town, generates an economic benefit and takes a fraction of that away that doesn't even cover their full costs, and it's Tas that are the screwed over by that deal???

As for players and coaches, that's what happened with regional areas...the talent follows the money to the cities.

Did you read what I said?

Economic 'benefit' is a different point.

If it costs the clubs, why do they do it? Maybe because they get a guaranteed cheque for 'crap' games with little appeal in the over fed Vic market.??

Some say Tasmania has up to 90k AFL & perhaps including MCG members. I'd have thought more like 50K but that's what is said.

You claim money leaves Victoria. Don't you think their is HUGE Economic benefit TO Victoria for all those games?, flights into & expensive weekend accommodation in Melbourne from footy tourism?, Grand final guaranteed, Media rights flowing to HQ, all the employment in 10 clubs & at AFL HQ? Really?

Driving to Melbourne for country lads is a lot different, & a lot cheaper than having to pack your bags & fly out of a state. Not just for the players, but for friends & family.

 

[The_Wookie]

Did you read what I said?

Economic 'benefit' is a different point.

If it costs the clubs, why do they do it? Maybe because they get a guaranteed cheque for 'crap' games with little appeal in the over fed Vic market.??

its more that crowds the same size as what they get in Tasmania dont generate income in Melbourne due to venue costs, but whatevs.

 

[telsor]

Did you read what I said?

Economic 'benefit' is a different point.

If it costs the clubs, why do they do it? Maybe because they get a guaranteed cheque for 'crap' games with little appeal in the over fed Vic market.??

I never said the club didn't benefit.

But if Tas pays $5 for AFL games, and makes $10 from those games, then the AFL hardly ripping money taken off them.


Also, if the Vic market is overfed, it doesn't give much hope to a market that is 1/12th the size, and has 1/13th the economy.

 

[madmug]

I never said the club didn't benefit.

But if Tas pays $5 for AFL games, and makes $10 from those games, then the AFL hardly ripping money taken off them.


Also, if the Vic market is overfed, it doesn't give much hope to a market that is 1/12th the size, and has 1/13th the economy.

Well you keep coming up with the 'poor bugger me Victoria' attitude when they've gained by far the most benefit from nationalising a full professional Australian rule football league. Tasmania as a football state has lost the most.

1/12th or 1/13th. so tell me how strong are the 8th, 9th & 10 Vic clubs? We've had this argument before. The division of finance & membership or whatever, is NOT divided equally amongst the 10 Vic clubs. It never will be.

Having one team will focus the attention of the state, its businesses & government. Anyway the AFL task force will see what comes. If its no, then footy will die off.

Perth has 40% of the population of Melbourne but pro rata nowhere near the same representation of teams. That doesn't seem to worry you either.

Equity is not your strong point.