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

---

 

[eastfreo75]

Much like Hawthorn and North with Tasmania currently, the out-of-town mendicants won't want to lose their golden goose. Nor will the AFL bother buying the cow when they can get the milk so cheaply. If North are smart they'll avoid Canberra and build a support base in Albury instead where there's no real competition for eyeballs and they have historic support in the area from the days of zoning.

Tasmania government need to stop the deals.

Put more money in basketball and then the AFL will be offering a team.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

If Tasmania did enter, the Split would be 9 teams from Melbourne and 10 teams outside.

Geelong hate home playing games at the G and on certain issues would side with the non Victorian teams.

The power base of the Melbourne clubs would be broken.

Interesting that Geelong like the federal politics would decide power.

Bring in a Canberra team and the power game is totally over.

Yeah that’s why it’s a joke if it comes down to a vote from clubs weather they expand the comp or not we know how hawthorn and north would be voting anyway

 

[LordLucifer]

2. I think relocation should be the way for VIC clubs also cause there are just too many teams atm. The perfect number would be 6 metro teams + Geelong. So you would have Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond + one of Melbourne, North Melbourne, St. Kilda or Western Bulldogs.

I went with that same structure a few posts earlier :

- Tigers, Blues, Bombers, Pies, Hawks, Cats, Dogs (Dees, Kangas & Saints to be reviewed indepth)

 

[LordLucifer]

A third NSW team would be better from Newcastle, Central Coast or Woolongong.

A third QLD better from Sunshine Coast or Cains or Townville.

Did you read my other posts Eastie ??

I really can't see Darwin & Cairns being realistic options, the weather in Darwin would be one massive hurdle for a start.

There definitely needs to be some rationalisation (prefer to see some relocations instead of mergers) amongst the Melbourne based clubs plus some new entities created in the new growth areas of NSW & QLD.

(QLD 4) - Lions & Suns, Sunshine Coast Saints & second Brisbane based club (South Brisbane Satans)
(NSW 5) - Giants & Swans, Illawarra Lakers, Central Coast Bikers & third Sydney based club (North Sydney Kangaroos)
(ACT 1) - stand alone ACT club (Canberra Ministers)
(VIC 7) - Tigers, Blues, Bombers, Pies, Hawks, Cats, Dogs (Dees, Kangas & Saints to be reviewed indepth)
(SA 2) - Crows & Port
(WA 2) - Dockers & Eagles
(TAS 1) - Hobart Islanders

 

[Carringbush2010]

I get your point about fairness and the mighty dollar.

My point is growing the game should be the number one aim.

Indiviuals and groups like to keep their power base.

Correct, it seems that IS the number one aim from HQ, stumping up clubs in territory that had little or zero interest in AF is hardly a conspiracy against non vic is it. In fact that would be contradictory to any intentional bias by HQ toward vic clubs wouldn't it.

So let's put this conspiracy theory to bed once and for all that HQ is intentionally biased toward vic clubs.

Just because the landscape is the landscape dictated by market forces, that does not mean HQ do not have an intent to grow the game. I'm not arguing how well they're doing that but let's not pretend that their intent is some ulterior motive for vic.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well then we will just make our own competition up to rival them and then they can play with their shorten quarters and all that.

Then we can show which competition would be on top.

Something like this would be alright

Adelaide
Brisbane
Canberra
Fremantle
Gold Coast
Port Adelaide
Sydney
Tasmania
West Coast
Western Sydney

I think this league would self support no problem.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But us interstate clubs/supporters want it so who cares what they think

As they have the power right now we all do care.

I find this mind set odd, do you really view this as an everyone else v vic scenario?

The 'power' is not some sort of intent among the vic fan base to keep all others out like some sort of quasi collective. Sure there'll be outliers, but vic fans by and large just care about their club more than anything else.

There's just more market in vic than anywhere else, it's not an intent to hold 'power'

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I find this mind set odd, do you really view this as an everyone else v vic scenario?

The 'power' is not some sort of intent among the vic fan base to keep all others out like some sort of quasi collective. Sure there'll be outliers, but vic fans by and large just care about their club more than anything else.

There's just more market in vic than anywhere else, it's not an intent to hold 'power'

Haha nah I was only messing I don't think there is a scenario like that.

I would just love a competition that is truly national and I think the AFL is the closest out of all of the Football Codes in Australia.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Haha nah I was only messing I don't think there is a scenario like that.

I would just love a competition that is truly national and I think the AFL is the closest out of all of the Football Codes in Australia.

, you think that the AFL is spread more nationally than the A League or super rugby (internationally!).

Make no mistake, there are 10 teams in one state, more than half, of which is spread more evenly across the nation. That is NOT what you call a national competition, in reality this is an expanded VFL.

To have a truly national competition, you'd have to create brand new franchises all over the country and centralize it to alleviate that pesky thing called geography. How much public interest would brand new franchises take away from current clubs that at minimum have been around a minimum two decades? Not much, certainly not much if any from the vic market, they'd still be following their clubs.

 

[madmug]

If Tasmania did enter, the Split would be 9 teams from Melbourne and 10 teams outside.

Geelong hate home playing games at the G and on certain issues would side with the non Victorian teams.

The power base of the Melbourne clubs would be broken.

Interesting that Geelong like the federal politics would decide power.

Bring in a Canberra team and the power game is totally over.

I don't see it as the AFL HQ directly control GWS & GC. Have a big say in some others. If they start other clubs they will also take an interest in the new clubs to 'ensure' HQ policy is followed.

 

[robbieando]

Exactly, and that's what we are saying that when Tasmania and Canberra join the league it would be 50% voting on Victorian side & 50% voting on Interstate side.

The problem with this thinking is that a large chunk of the Northern States clubs are controlled by the AFL itself (Swans, Suns and Giants) and therefore would continue to vote in line with the AFL's wishes which would line them up with the Victorian sides and not the other Interstate clubs.

Adding more Interstate sides to the competition isn't going to magically make voting 50/50 as you seem to think it will. The status quo would remain because the AFL has kept their control of enough interstate clubs to counter this possibility.

 

[Colonial]

I don't see it as the AFL HQ directly control GWS & GC. Have a big say in some others. If they start other clubs they will also take an interest in the new clubs to 'ensure' HQ policy is followed.

Leon is still at the Giants so they don’t have as big a say as you might think.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Is this data available somewhere, or did you work it out?

AFL Tables then looked at the 2020 and 2021 fixtures.

AFL Tables - Western Bulldogs - Crowds

afltables.com

 

[Walshawk]

The problem with this thinking is that a large chunk of the Northern States clubs are controlled by the AFL itself (Swans, Suns and Giants) and therefore would continue to vote in line with the AFL's wishes which would line them up with the Victorian sides and not the other Interstate clubs.

Adding more Interstate sides to the competition isn't going to magically make voting 50/50 as you seem to think it will. The status quo would remain because the AFL has kept their control of enough interstate clubs to counter this possibility.

AFL Commission decisions need two thirds of teams to vote against for it to be overruled, so neither VIc clubs nor interstate can vote in a block to overturn a new club. Whether there are 8, 9, 10 or more non Vixc clubs is irrelevant to voting on issues.

 

[Bjo187]

Does this apply to relocating or merging clubs too as i heard teams can only merge or relocate if their own members vote for it. It doesn't really make sense if the afl run the competition that they can't decide who is in it.

 

[The_Wookie]

Does this apply to relocating or merging clubs too as i heard teams can only merge or relocate if their own members vote for it. It doesn't really make sense if the afl run the competition that they can't decide who is in it.

Club Powers

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

Beyond that, individual club members must vote to accept the agreement unless the clubs constitution says otherwise, or the league has deemed the club non viable.

 

[terrybull]

Well then we will just make our own competition up to rival them and then they can play with their shorten quarters and all that.

Then we can show which competition would be on top.

Something like this would be alright

Adelaide
Brisbane
Canberra
Darwin
Fremantle
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Port Adelaide
Sydney
Tasmania
West Coast
Western Sydney

add Port Melbourne, Williamstown and you be the first true National League.
ANFL

 

[Bjo187]

Club Powers

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

Beyond that, individual club members must vote to accept the agreement unless the clubs constitution says otherwise, or the league has deemed the club non viable.

A very strange rule, what clubs members would vote for merger or relocation? It basically means none of those things will ever happen. It should be the AFL give the directive and 50% of the clubs must approve it for it to go ahead and that's it.

 

[madmug]

A very strange rule, what clubs members would vote for merger or relocation? It basically means none of those things will ever happen. It should be the AFL give the directive and 50% of the clubs must approve it for it to go ahead and that's it.

Clearly no one.

I guess bankruptcy might make a difference if it were to occur.

The biggest risk at the moment would be an other wave of Covid. We're not out of the woods yet. 2021 is still a big risk as it'll be a fair while before the vaccine is rolled out to the extent that we're covered enough to halt any outbreaks in the community.

That apart its about sponsorship & TV rights money. All of which may yet be affected by the economy & any downturns as an after affect of the pandemic & other political/economic actions with China etc.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Club Powers

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

Beyond that, individual club members must vote to accept the agreement unless the clubs constitution says otherwise, or the league has deemed the club non viable.

I’m not sure this is accurate about members having to vote yes for a merger to go through as it wasn’t the case with Fitzroy or Brisbane it depends on each club and there constitution also if a club is in a financial position where an administrator gets appointed like in Fitzroys case then the decision gets taken out of there hands anyway!

 

[Bjo187]

I’m not sure this is accurate about members having to vote yes for a merger to go through as it wasn’t the case with Fitzroy or Brisbane it depends on each club and there constitution also if a club is in a financial position where an administrator gets appointed like in Fitzroys case then the decision gets taken out of there hands anyway!

But how can a clubs constitution override a directive from the governing body of the entire sport? That's the strange part for me. A club could effectively have no following, be a burden on the competition, but not be in debt due to a few wealthy backers and the governing body wouldn't be able to relocate or merge them even if they wanted to.

 

[Rob]

But how can a clubs constitution override a directive from the governing body of the entire sport? That's the strange part for me. A club could effectively have no following, be a burden on the competition, but not be in debt due to a few wealthy backers and the governing body wouldn't be able to relocate or merge them even if they wanted to.

I suspect the league has the power to revoke licenses, but if the club was solvent why would they?

 

[Carringbush2010]

But how can a clubs constitution override a directive from the governing body of the entire sport? That's the strange part for me. A club could effectively have no following, be a burden on the competition, but not be in debt due to a few wealthy backers and the governing body wouldn't be able to relocate or merge them even if they wanted to.

If a club has virtually zero following it wouldn't survive or exist in the first place and is unlikely to have wealthy backers. Remember the lowest fan base amount of any vic club is 200k+ right now. (morgan poll)

In part the reason HQ want the clubs to survive, they don't want to lose those fans. Folds / relocs / mergers is a sure fire way to do that.

In relation to the discussion the reason why the charter states (can't find link) that any proposal from its clubs and clubs members (us paid up fans) or itself or any party, is put to a vote is because the bulk of the clubs apart from gc and maybe gws are member owned.

NFL clubs for example are clubs that are not member owned (by and large) they're generally owned by individuals or wealthy consortium's. They wouldn't be owned and further operate if there was little public interest.

So in relation to the thread itself, a club that is solely Tasmanian will have at minimum that public interest. Certainly going by these boards.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

I suspect the league has the power to revoke licenses, but if the club was solvent why would they?

I’m not sure the afl do have that power they would have to have good reasons to revoke a license if a club was solvent otherwise they would end up in court like the south Sydney and the Nrl saga

 

[Rob]

I’m not sure the afl do have that power they would have to have good reasons to revoke a license if a club was solvent otherwise they would end up in court like the south Sydney and the Nrl saga

Maybe, but bear in mind South Sydney ultimately lost that case in the high court.